home

Saturday College Football OpenThread

The picks (2 units unless otherwise indicated) Oklahoma State +1½ over Texas Tech, Michigan State -5 (3 units) over Michigan, Navy +16 over Notre Dame, Iowa State +17 over Kansas State, Boise State -7 over Colorado State, Nebraska -6 over Northwestern, Ohio State -32 over Purdue, Auburn -7 (4 units) over Arkansas, Wisconsin -10 over Iowa, TCU -13 over West Virginia, Virginia Tech -5 over Boston College, Florida State -21 over Miami (Florida), Georgia Tech -10 over Pittsburgh, Nevada +21 over Fresno State.

Go Gators!

You can see this week's Amato and Armando Show here:

Open Thread.

< Friday Evening Open Thread | NFL Sunday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 175 (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Dadler on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:29:25 AM EST
    When your DDS breaks bad with the chairside manner. (link)

    Volume 174

    Volume 173

    And I caught this entertaining piece of football commentary on Olbermann last night (link), about a Tampa player who got in trouble with coaches for having the audacity to help an opposing player get up from the turf after a play. Pretty amusing stuff.

    Trick or Treat... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:02:04 AM EST
    Thursday Oct. 31/13
    (Reuters) - President Barack Obama has ordered the National Security Agency to stop eavesdropping on the headquarters of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank as part of a review of intelligence gathering activities, according to a U.S. official familiar with the matter.

    The order is the latest move by the White House to demonstrate that it is willing to curb at least some surveillance in the wake of leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden of programs that collect huge quantities of data on U.S. allies and adversaries, and American citizens.

    The NSA's surveillance of the Washington-based IMF and World Bank has not previously been disclosed.



    This is TIA on steriods (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by sj on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 03:55:53 AM EST
    Which was rejected in 2003. Well, at least the money men can feel more secure in their privacy. The world's citizens, not so much.

    I have more and more admiration and respect for Snowden with every revelation. He knew what he risking for the rest of his life and he followed his conscience.

    Parent

    This (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:30:02 AM EST
    almost makes you wanna send money to Mike Enzi...  The joy of watching a Cheney go down in flames (and hopefully double digits) would be the best.

    FSU -21 over Miami (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:20:03 AM EST
    Pegging Miami as ready for a return to reality, eh? I agree. The gap between the #3 ranking and #7 is a chasm here.

    And I can't stand The U personally (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:21:07 AM EST
    Phuck 'em, hope they lose by 42. Go 'Noles.

    Parent
    Reality Check (none / 0) (#6)
    by ragebot on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 09:07:53 AM EST
    Not just for the U, but several other teams as well.  ASU was a reality check for WSU on Thursday and USC was a reality check for OSU last night.  Even if  UO beats Stanford their SOS really takes a hit from this.  If UO runs the table their signature win will be over a two loss team at best.

    Parent
    Grabbing defeat (none / 0) (#4)
    by lentinel on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:57:38 AM EST
    from the jaws of victory.

    The debacle caused by the Republicans shutting down the government raised the hopes of many Democratic partisans that the Republicans would be swept out in the midterms.

    But, not to be outdone, the Democrats countered with a debacle of their own with the incredible mess incurred by the incompetent roll-out of ACA - thus raising the hopes of Republican partisans that they will retain control of the House.

    My guess: it is a draw and things will remain in the same vice-grip of stagnant sewage in which it has festered lo these many years.

    Yes the Republicans (none / 0) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 02:53:31 PM EST
    shutdown debacle initially diverted attention from the Democrats website mess.  But, afterword, the Republicans rebounded with the ample aid and assistance of the Democrats inept handling of the problem.  

    And,, then came the Republicans piling on-and moving on--  to the selected stories such as policy cancelations. They may even hold another repeal vote to mark their jubilation.

    However,, if the website super "glitches" can be quickly resolved, that toxic memory will be metabolized quicker than those of government shutdowns and threats to the full faith and credit--especially in view of the regularized re-inforcement graciously provided by the  Republicans.

    If (again that If), the website is quickly fixed, it may well be similar to the faltering out-of-the-gate response of the Obama Administration to the Deep Horizon blow.  After the hole was plugged, all was quickly filed in the recesses of the electoral memory bank.

    The Democrats, on this one, have the capability to do some face saving reconstructive plastic surgery:  the Republicans will still be ugly.

    Parent

    Both (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 06:43:32 AM EST
    are ugly, self-serving and incompetent, but one might be able to put a better mask on it thanks to surgical reconstruction. OK

    Why not.
    It worked for Joan Rivers.

    Parent

    Yes, but (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Zorba on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 02:49:30 PM EST
    not very well.  She looks plastic and fake.
    On second thought, that would pretty much describe the Democrats nowadays.  
    I guess they deserve a few points for at least trying to appear caring.  The Republicans make no pretense about caring for the health and well-being of average Americans.  (Well, unless you're a fetus.)

    Parent
    I guess (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 05:32:33 PM EST
    we have to settle for candidates "trying to appear caring".

    Real caring is out of the question, of course.

    I think the best trying to appear caring was "Ah feel yer pine" Clinton. He was very good.

    John Travolta, playing Clinton, was just as good.

    Thinking about it, I don't believe that Obama even tried to make people think he cared. They were somehow programmed to think he cared...so he could go about his business supporting Lieberman, saying he opposed gay marriage because of his religious beliefs and threatening Iran.

    I agree about Joan. She does look rather plastic.
    Speaking of plastic: Pelosi and Boehner. Now there's a pair of pips.


    Parent

    What is it about white male culture (none / 0) (#7)
    by jtaylorr on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 10:27:22 AM EST
    that turns so many of them into murderous mass shooters?
    White culture really needs to take responsibility for creating such thugs.

    LOL (none / 0) (#12)
    by Visteo1 on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 12:00:47 PM EST
    I for one do. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Visteo1 on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 12:06:52 PM EST
    I never pass up the opportunity to warn white folks about the evils of mass murder. I believe I am having a positive influence.

    Parent
    I dunno about "evil"... (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 06:47:55 AM EST
    Bush and Cheney did a lot of mass murder...
    And Barry says that to know Bush, who is as white as white can be, is to like him.

    Maybe it's only small mass murders - less than say, 150 people, that is bad.

    But when you talk hundreds of thousands...
    Now - that's entertainment!

    Parent

    And the Dalai Lama (none / 0) (#47)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 08:01:14 AM EST
    link

    also said he "loves George W. Bush "as a human being, not as a president" which is not very different from what the President said.

    Parent

    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 10:21:54 AM EST
    call me crazy, but I find Bush to be a thoroughly contemptible human being.

    Parent
    Tell me, (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 11:39:19 AM EST
    poli...

    Do you love GW too?

    In spite of his faults - his little devastations of luckless foreign countries and their inhabitants - his unfortunate habit of telling untruths to the body politic - his succoring of the rich and suckering of the poor - don't you just love him anyway?

    I know I do.

    He's, how did the wünderkind put it... oh yes...
    he's comfortable in his own skin.

    Now, you gotta love any mass murderer who's comfortable in his own skin. I don't like uncomfortable looking mass murderers. Mussolini just didn't look right. To hell with him.

    But Bush. Yeah.
    Right on with Dolly Lama and that infallible arbiter of nobility, Mr. Pennsylvania Ave.

    Parent

    The Dalai Lama (none / 0) (#61)
    by sj on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 01:47:40 PM EST
    and Jesus both believed in loving your enemies. They both hold/held to their spiritual teachings. I have discovered, however, that is quite possible to love an enemy [as a human being] while despising everything they do and stand for. Speaking at a personal level. I've also discovered that it is very hard to maintain that.

    Which is why I am no Dalai Lama or any other prophet.

    Parent

    I also watched the interview (2.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 04:46:29 PM EST
    The Dalai Lama did not talk about GWB in the context of "loving your enemies". If you do not know what you are talking about, it may be a good thing to stop talking (or typing)!.

    Parent
    According (1.00 / 1) (#67)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 05:35:03 PM EST
    to you, Pol, Mr. Lama loved Bush for himself alone.

    That, if true, makes Mr. Lama a true idiot.

    Parent

    Politalkix (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 07:23:08 PM EST
    Your habit of leaving 1 as a rating - without a comment or a reason is really infantile.

    It is like a kid throwing ink on someone and running away. Or thumbing your nose and saying nyah.

    If you disagree with content, can you not express what it is you disagree with? Can you not do that?

    Just leaving your droppings around is... nasty.

    Parent

    Nah (none / 0) (#77)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 08:44:13 PM EST
    In my opinion, your statement "That, if true, makes Mr. Lama a true idiot." is really stupid.
    It is so stupid that it does not merit a discussion.

    I would also like to know why are you calling the Dalai Lama, "Mr. Lama". Lama is not the last name of the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama is a position or title in the Tibetan Buddhist religious order. There are other positions like Panchen Lama, Karmapa Lama, etc. It is really weird on your part to refer to his Holiness, the Dalai Lama, as Mr Lama and the President as "Barry". Please do not complain if others refrain from engaging with you because of the nastiness of your tone or the ignorance that you are hell bent on displaying.  

    Parent

    About "nastiness" (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 01:33:06 PM EST
    After reading the remarks to which you refer--lentinel's remarks--I sat back and thought "Let well enough alone, Christine."  But after reading your remarks, Politalkix, I want to join in your comments.

    Here is why:  The ugliness of such continual cants should not always be ignored ... without pushback such as yours, politalkix, we allow ourselves to be eroded in a drip-by-drip fashion.  IMO, lentinel seems sincere and, more than at first blush, willing to have a bit of discussion.  But now ....

    Given the progress of this particular commentary, I will address lentinel here through your response:  lentinel, the emotional lash-outs of late are ugly; and, I believe, reflect a smoldering, over-the-top indefinable anger.  Sorry for my words, but sometimes it is important to respond.

    Parent

    Oy (none / 0) (#78)
    by sj on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 01:11:01 AM EST
    Pot meet kettle.
    Please do not complain if others refrain from engaging with you because of the nastiness of your tone or the ignorance that you are hell bent on displaying.  

    because
    In my opinion, your statement [whatever "nasty" statement is here] is really stupid.

    It is so stupid that it does not merit a discussion.

    Is pretty d@mn nasty. And I even agree with you about the Mr. Lama thing.


    Parent
    I really need to have that talk with you, (none / 0) (#51)
    by Visteo1 on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 10:08:29 AM EST
    lentinel.  You are an enabler with that rhetoric.

    I am making a difference.  There is not one mass murderer in my neighborhood.

    I think I could even change your mind about what is entertaining and what is evil. Yes, lentinel, killing even one person at a time is evil. Some whites still cling to that numbers thing.  You know...two wrongs make a right...thousands is entertainment.

    Parent

    I am (4.20 / 5) (#56)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 10:53:31 AM EST
    on your side.

    Eliminating mass murderers is a noble pursuit.
    I recommend making periodic mass murderer sweeps just to keep in shape.

    I prefer to eliminate them before they actually commit the mass murders. They are easily detectable because they usually have wear a wide-eyed stare and a peculiar half-smile.

    But that is small time stuff in the scheme of things, much as it is commendable.

    Big-time mass murder is the province of members of all races - thank god.

    But, I must say that so far, the prize is held by the Christian Nation of North America who dropped them bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki lo those decades ago. A simpler era, that.

    But, you must admit, that the big-time bomb droppers - including Mr. Drone and his mentors Mr. Bush and Mr. Lieberman, get a degree of moist-eyed reverence that is not usually accorded puny folks like Mr. Daumer.

    Parent

    Yes, I have to wonder how many lives were saved (none / 0) (#60)
    by Visteo1 on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 12:14:34 PM EST
    by using nukes over a ground invasion of Japan.  They were willing to fight until every Japanese citizen was dead.

    There do seem to be many parallels with Al-Queda.  I wonder how many lives we are saving using the latest of technologies.

    I guess the biggest difference is you need to kill all of Al-Queda. They do not surrender and only grow like an cancer if left to exist....sad but true.

    Parent

    Not... (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by sj on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 01:57:57 PM EST
    Yes, I have to wonder how many lives were saved (none / 0) (#60)
    by Visteo1 on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 11:14:34 AM MDT

    by using nukes over a ground invasion of Japan.  They were willing to fight until every Japanese citizen was dead.

    ...according to then General Eisenhower
    Eisenhower opposed the bomb for two reasons. "First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."


    Parent
    Not what? (none / 0) (#104)
    by Visteo1 on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 03:03:57 AM EST
    The evidence available does not support his "belief" of a surrender. Did Eisenhower say the intelligence reports were wrong?  Or was this a "belief" based on limited information?  If he went into any detail, I sure would like to see it.  I would put value to his careful and thorough assessment of the intelligence available to him.  

    The civilian casualties, alone, would have been greater from either an invasion or embargo, compared with the bombings.

    Japanese casualties would have been around 5 to 10 million

    Wiki

    Parent

    "Limited information"?!? (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 11:25:11 AM EST
    The evidence available does not support his "belief" of a surrender. Did Eisenhower say the intelligence reports were wrong?  Or was this a "belief" based on limited information?  If he went into any detail, I sure would like to see it.  I would put value to his careful and thorough assessment of the intelligence available to him.

    As the Supreme Allied Commander, Eisenhower was privy to all intelligence reports - and then some.  Moreover, he was not alone in his opinion that using nuclear weapons was unnecessary and counterproductive to the surrender of the Japanese.

    Adm. William D. Leahy - Chief of Staff to FDR and Truman - The "Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. ... The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan."

    Brig. General Bonnie Fellers - "Neither the atomic bombing nor the entry of the Soviet Union into the war forced Japan's unconditional surrender. She was defeated before either these events took place."

    General Douglass McArthur - MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

    United States Strategic Bombing Survey (authoritative 1946 report)concluded:

      The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the Lord Privy Seal, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the Navy Minister had decided as early as May of 1945 that the war should be ended even if it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms ...

    Not to mention the fact that Japanese were already trying to surrender on terms identical to those accepted after the bombing:

    This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

    1.  Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
    2.  Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
    3.  Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
    4.  Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
    5.  Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
    6.  Surrender of designated war criminals.


    Parent
    Let's stick with Eisenhower... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Visteo1 on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 01:03:08 PM EST
    As the Supreme Allied Commander, Eisenhower was privy to all intelligence reports - and then some.  Moreover, he was not alone in his opinion that using nuclear weapons was unnecessary and counterproductive to the surrender of the Japanese.

    You forgot to include Europe in Eisenhower's title, Yman.  He was not involved in the Pacific.

    Again, please provide evidence that Eisenhower even reviewed the intelligence reports...

    Please provide his careful analysis of how the reports were flawed.

    No...it's was just a gut feel he had, until you show me otherwise....

    Parent

    I don't need to prove anything ... (none / 0) (#132)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 05:31:07 PM EST
    ... least of all to you.  You're the one claiming that Eisenhower's opinion re: the lack of necessity for use of nuclear bombs is incorrect, based on: 1) a Wikipedia entry and 2) your "questions" regarding his opinion ("Did Eisenhower say the intelligence reports were wrong?  Or was this a "belief" based on limited information?").

    Yeah - Eisenhower's information was "limited" - as opposed to your opinion and a Wikipedia entry.

    Heh.

    BTW - Funny how you never addressed General Fellers, Admiral Leahy and General McArthur's similar conclusions that the bomb was unnecessary.

    Parent

    Neither can you prove it (none / 0) (#133)
    by Visteo1 on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:57:08 PM EST
    to anyone.  Only a dork would expand the topic to previouslly undiscussed details....to avoid the question.  

    Again, I value Eisenhower's opinion, but would like to know more.

    He was no dork, dork!!!

    Parent

    I must (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 05:51:35 PM EST
    say that I think your comment above is a bit nutty, Visteo1.

    You want to kill all Al-Queda.
    Alright. Go ahead and kill 'em.
    But your logic above says that you would condone incinerating every country and everybody in it in order to do it. Women, men, children, animals and vegetation.

    That's what we did in Hiroshima.
    We slaughtered 150,000 civilians.

    We were in such a hurry that we weren't even sure if the bomb would set off a chain reaction that would have incinerated the entire earth.

    I think you should read what sj wrote also about Eisenhower's comment on the reality of the state of the war.

    There were other ways to get the emperor to give in.

    We are not saving lives by killing civilians - and these "latest" of technologies do just that.
    Every day.

    And every day, they create new little Al Quedas who hate us. And others too - unaffiliated - like those monstrous freaks in Boston.

    So, it doesn't even work.

    Parent

    Lentinel, you have Al-Qaeda's (none / 0) (#105)
    by Visteo1 on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 03:24:19 AM EST
    logic confused with mine...

    Those blasts underlined a shift in tactics by suspected Islamist militants, who are increasingly targeting not only military checkpoints and marketplaces, but also cafes and recreational areas used by families and children.

    I agree that when civilians are killed, we risk creating knew enemies.  What do you suggest to eliminate Al-Qaeda?  

    Parent

    Ask yourself... (none / 0) (#65)
    by fishcamp on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 05:07:25 PM EST
    which president will be remembered most.  So far I think Harry S Truman is in 1st. place.

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 05:54:21 PM EST
    FDR will edge him out.

    Parent
    Well, let's see (none / 0) (#76)
    by sj on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 08:26:30 PM EST
    Truman - deaths in Nagasaki est. 75,000, Hiroshima est. 150,00

    FDR - New Deal - helped millions

    Truman might be remembered but not less than FDR and anyway being remembered for that is just Ted Bundy on a larger scale.  There is famous and then there is infamous.

    Parent

    Wait... (none / 0) (#93)
    by sj on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 02:50:34 PM EST
    I really need to have that talk with you, (none / 0) (#51)
    by Visteo1 on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 09:08:29 AM MDT

    lentinel.  ...

    I am making a difference.  There is not one mass murderer in my neighborhood.

    You were serious about that? I thought it was snark, yes/no?

    Parent
    The study of cultural influence (none / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 12:25:43 PM EST
    ie the stories we tell ourselves over-and-over
    again, doesnt get to become part of the "national discussion" anywhere near as much as the more market-friendly study of biochemical causality.

    A public discussion about the mythology of one man with a gun "setting things right" is one specific cultural influence a lot of people seem to want to skirt at all costs..

    One man..one man with a gun who don't need no gd "community"..
    A kind of moral entrepreneur.

    Parent

    I noticed (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 06:51:57 AM EST
    that a number of cop shows on television feature police officials - higher ups - being celebrated for their willingness to torture and intimidate suspects.

    Parent
    Cultural Privilege? (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 01:37:42 PM EST
    Here is a theory:

    White men from upper middle-class backgrounds expect to be both welcomed and heard wherever they go. When that sense of entitlement gets frustrated, as it can for a host of complex psychological reasons, it is those same hyper-privileged men who are the most likely to react with violent, rage-filled indignation.

    Why Most Mass Murderers are Privileged White Men

    Sounds plausible to me

    Parent

    Except (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 01:53:16 PM EST
    Have (none / 0) (#46)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 06:55:32 AM EST
    we forgotten those freaky brothers in Boston?

    Mass murder by white people: the atomic bomb, drones etc. Hi tech.
    Mass murder by others: maybe bio, chemical, explosive devices... comparatively lo-tech.

    The victims are just as dead.
    And the perpetrators are just as deadly.

    Parent

    I think there is to much emphasis placed (none / 0) (#53)
    by Visteo1 on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 10:36:32 AM EST
    on privilege.  Everyone knows crime is a function of race, creed, color, religion and national origin.  

    One thig you cannot overlook...You cannot discount clothing when it comes to crime.  Clothes make a man....or a woman.

    Parent

    Do (none / 0) (#57)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 11:10:09 AM EST
    you prefer that criminals are well dressed?

    I think it makes a difference.

    Good grooming is essential in every profession.

    Parent

    Lowering cost for health care (none / 0) (#9)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:41:53 AM EST
    I do not know anything about hospitals in India, but this article suggests that there may be ways in which American hospitals can save costs.
    link

    Note that the hospitals mentioned are all private hospitals. Doctors and hospitals are also responsible for high medical costs in the United States, it is not just the privatized health care system or health insurance companies that contribute to exploding costs.

    IMO, while looking for solutions, people should keep their minds open to everything, not just get fixated about a single way to do things based on their ideological biases (single payer, etc).

    That would be a good start (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:45:24 AM EST
    However, since many of the top hospitals are not going to accept many of the insurance policies brought about by Obamacare, then it's not as easy as the authors make it out to be.

    This has nothing to do with ideologicial biases, but facts.

    Parent

    You have scored a self-goal (none / 0) (#16)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 12:38:34 PM EST
    If top hospitals are not going to accept many insurance policies brought about by Obamacare, it only shows that many top hospitals and doctors are not willing to accept regulations and lower costs for their service. This only proves how unrealistic single payer or medicare for all demands are. Top hospitals and doctors would not accept it because they would not be willing to accept less income and more workload.

    It is my opinion that only 15-20% of doctors serve patients in altruistic fashion. The rest would prefer a more limited workload (which means seeing less patients) and just attending to well-heeled patients. The majority of physicians that I know, support Republicans. One of them even threw a rant about Democrats having an agenda to make doctors like him attend to "drug-addicts" in inner cities (according to him this is what "socialized medicine" would bring).

    The President of the USA cannot be a Stalin or Castro to force the majority of doctors to go against their strong preferences (and lobbying) on matters of health care.

     

    Parent

    Funny (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 12:58:08 PM EST
    Since he was perfectly happy to have those secret meetings with doctors, hosptials, and insurance companies to write the bill in the first place.

    Now you want to cry that "He has no power!"

    Parent

    No (1.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 02:11:31 PM EST
    The President used his power to create legislation which is going to help a lot of people (irrespective of what you think or stubbornly spout) who did not have access to health care.
    He does not have the power to send doctors to "re-education camps" to "serve the common good".


    Parent
    Wow - the Nazi reference (3.60 / 5) (#24)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 02:59:41 PM EST
    The President has a bully pulpit, and we were told that he is a fabulous speaker.  The President overreached, figured his charm would win everyone over and all would be rainbows and unicorns, and when it wasn't, then of course, it must be someone else's fault.

    And "stubbornly spout"?  LOL - you mean things like facts?  Sorry - I don't have time for "hope and change" anymore because things like reality are interfering.

    Parent

    No (1.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:31:05 PM EST
    Re-education camps are features of communist regimes, also.
    I have concluded from your posts that you would not recognize reality even if it bit you in your b*tt. I will therefore take your references regarding "reality" as a misplaced attempt at humor.

    Parent
    Ugh (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 07:25:20 PM EST
    y
    ou would not recognize reality even if it bit you in your b*tt.

    Really classy, Polly.

    Parent

    Bless your heart (3.67 / 3) (#30)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:36:36 PM EST
    Tsk Tsk (2.33 / 3) (#34)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 06:01:27 PM EST
    Miss Law and Order (Southern) is angry....

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by sj on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 03:57:47 AM EST
    Tsk Tsk (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:01:27 PM MDT

    Miss Law and Order (Southern) is angry....

    So, it seems is Miss Whitehouse Cheerleader.

    tsk tsk

    Parent

    The joke is on you (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 09:07:17 AM EST
    I'm not Southern.

    And I wouldn't waste my time and energy being angry with you - you really aren't that significant.

    There just wasn't any other response to the complete BS you've been spouting.

    I was heeding the adage about arguing with a fool.

    Parent

    The responsibility then (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 10:02:52 AM EST
    The responsibility then is to at least inform citizens that the reason for "less than expected" premiums is

    Because.....

    The provider networks....

    SUCK!!!!

    You would think as consumer advocates, the good Democrats would be outraged by this.  

    But instead, they're calling the talk about the lousy provider networks "Republican spin".

    It is not spin, it is fact.  And it is FACT that will HARM people, especially if people are not warned about the implications.

    The reality is when out of network providers are used even in the ER, which is theoretically covered as in-network via Obamacare, the costs are UNLIMITED because of balance billing.

    People need to be aware.

    But instead, the administration and it's propaganda wings of "Think Progress" and "Media Matters" are pretending it's just Republican spin.

    To say that the premiums are less while not stating that the reason why is the lousy networks is

    Yet
    Another

    Lie!

    And rest assured, it will bite the Democrats hard, just like the other lies have.  

    If you have to lie about a policy to promote it, it is BAD policy.

    Parent

    Thye'll just conclude that (none / 0) (#81)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 10:13:00 AM EST
    they need more and better lies, of course...

    Parent
    Given that the ACA's coverage ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 06:04:23 PM EST
    jbindc: "However, since many of the top hospitals are not going to accept many of the insurance policies brought about by Obamacare, then it's not as easy as the authors make it out to be."

    ... doesn't take effect for another eight weeks, aren't you essentially presenting someone else's speculation as an established fact? Anyway, there is an eminently practical solution to be found to this supposed impasse, so why all the handwringing?

    With the exception of those facilities operated directly by by the U.S. government and military, hospitals and other medical facilities such as community health centers fall under state jurisdiction, licensure and regulations, and aren't credentialed by the federal government to operate in a given state or region.

    (Doctors and other medical professionals in civilian practice are similarly licensed and credentialed by the respective states, and not by the feds.)

    Absent a national single-payer system, the respective states can and should do what the State of Maryland already does, and effectively mandate that specialty hospitals under their jurisdiction accept all insurance coverage.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 10:06:42 AM EST
    This is established truth.

    The health care industry has revived a variation on a widely derided product and proclaimed it a fresh, urgently needed innovation.

    The old idea was managed care during the 1990s, which involved restricting the number of physicians a patient could visit in order to give insurers greater bargaining power over provider and plan rates. The plans were ultimately abandoned; patients felt they had too few options and let their insurers know about it. But the general concept has been revived. Some insurers are simply narrowing networks and leaving it at that. Others are attempting to narrow networks and direct patients to the best physicians, generally by having their services cost less. The networks will proliferate due to the health care law's emphasis on cost savings and will be especially prevalent in Obamacare's exchanges, the insurance marketplaces that opened Oct. 1.

    Link

    These policies offer HMO level of access at best and quasi-Medicaid (35% doctor coverage on some plans in California) at worst.

    But now that they're mandated because of Obamacare, people aren't going to have a choice but to use them if they want a subsidy.

    The fallout from this is known.  In fact, the Democrats attempted to enact a "Patient's Bill of Rights" in response to the lousy care people received under narrow network plans.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 07:39:37 PM EST
    HMOs depend on the insurer. Generally speaking Kaiser Permanente is an HMO and frankly I got better care there and they had the best pediatrician my son ever saw and it wasn't just me. I had friends who said the same thing. Kaiser works because they own the hospitals and it's all inclusive. They continually get the highest satisfaction ratings here in GA way above BCBS, Aetna and Humana who alos have HMO networks but which can be pretty crappy with providers. A lot of the HMOs outside of Kaiser frankly depend on your family practice doctor and how he operates.

    But also there are people with preexisting conditions who could not even go to the doctor before Obamacare or people who couldn't go at all before Obamacare. So there are some people that are going to get help. So I'm not sure what the numbers are of people who are going to benefit versus people who are going to be mad. And then there's a lot of people like me who it really has no effect on. And frankly even before Obamacare there were crappy insurance policies and I know because I had them. The people who are going to have the hardest time with all this are the people who live in the rural areas in red states who aren't going to be able to get Medicaid and also who are going to be able to afford the policies. In southwest GA there is only one hospital and one insurance plan to choose from. In metro Atlanta there are tons of insurers vying for consumers.

    Parent

    Kaiser Permanente (Colorado) (none / 0) (#59)
    by christinep on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 11:55:14 AM EST
    has been quite good ... at least for the thirty+ years that KP has been my healthcare provider.

    When I was not yet in my teens, my Dad who was perceptive enough to know and proclaim--at least during dinner--in the 1950s that "Health care should be a right, not a privilege" was the first one who pointed out to me that that the argument about "not getting to choose your doctors" and the argument that "you would just be a number" was essentially a scam that protected those that already had <healthcare & money.>  In my early days, that "talking point" about "not getting to choose your doctors" would be just like socialism, etc. etc.  It was the most common scare technique of the time ... and, as I recently read, a technique patented in California by the Republican Party to sabotage the then-popular progressives in the state who were pushing reform.

    So, I tend to hear arguments about finding a new doctor with a mixed message.  We all face--from time to time--the need or imposition of finding a new physician for any number of reasons; just as we all find major changes effecting us in many ways because of other legislation, moves, changes in family or personal circumstances.  Sometimes it turns out much better than expected or somewhat better than it felt at the time of the change.  Sometimes, obviously, it doesn't.  Right now, I recognize my good fortune in not being confronted with a doctor adjustment (unlike last year when my very good doctor moved unexpectedly.) And, I hope that your search has a good conclusion as well.

    The phrase that keeps going through my head is the importance of seeking "the greatest good for the greatest number."  I like that concept and reality from a spiritual standpoint, a utilitarian view, and as a political persuasion. In that regard, there is a strong argument to be made that the ACA/Obamacare fulfills that measurement.  No matter how the charts and graphs are displayed, they all show more coverage and broader coverage for a vastly greater number of people than ever realized under our system that we have labored so much to improve.  The key is to keep improving it ....

    Parent

    Oh christine! (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 11:16:10 AM EST
    How wonderful it is to be you - to be able to have access to quality healthcare that you have been able to afford for the last 30 years (probably through your employer). to see sunshine and roses and know that this health "care" bill is the start to making all our dreams come true!

    Back in reality, people are angry.  Now, maybe people wouldn't be so angry if, instead of being lied to over the last three years, someone, a grown up, perhaps, had been honest and told them the truth about what was going to happen to their plans so that those people could start planning.  But alas, no, that did not happen.

    You speak of utilitarianism and what is "the greatest good for the greatest number,"  but all this really turned out to be was what was the greatest good for Barack Obama and those Democrats who got re-elected (and the insurance companies who helped write the law).  Again, all the while they were lying to us.

    Three years ago, a trusted Obama health care adviser warned the White House it was losing control of Obamacare. A memo obtained by CBS News said strong leadership was missing and the law's successful implementation was in jeopardy. The warnings were specific and dire -- and ignored.

    Michael Dwyer David Cutler, who worked on the Obama 2008 campaign and was a valued outside health care consultant wrote this blunt memo to top White House economic adviser Larry Summers in May 2010: "I do not believe the relevant members of the administration understand the president's vision or have the capability to carry it out."

    Cutler wrote no one was in charge who had any experience in complex business start-ups. He also worried basic regulations, technology and policy coordination would fail.

    "You need to have people who have understanding of the political process, people who understand how to work within an administration and people who understand how to start and build a business, and unfortunately, they just didn't get all of those people together," Cutler said.



    Parent
    Well yes, jbindc, I am fortunate... (none / 0) (#83)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 01:15:19 PM EST
    and, I'm very thankful for that.  I have also seen--close up--others who were nowhere near as fortunate as myself or even as you appear to be in many respects.  You see, jbindc, it may be that I push my position and beliefs in this area ... and, for that reason, I recognize the arguments that you make, the arguments that happen to correspond with a political position in many areas and on many occasions.  The difference: I own up to the effect my political and philosophical positions have on how I perceive current events ... oh, that you might do the same because complete transparency is ultimately helpful.

    As for last week's focus on the relatively small portion of the American public who will be hurt by the initial cost aspects of the ACA/Obamacare's minimum protective standards, this week brings a slight change of focus in reports today in the NYTimes front page and HuffPo lead, e.g., wherein both features discuss and repeat the complexity skipped over by those initial dire-sounding reports.

     As we have all come to discover since the touted stories of loss, we now find that there are many "winners" in terms of healthcare coverage and costs under the ACA.  The word "complex" is being used this week by the media to describe the projected cost effects among those approximately 3% of the public who have legitimate concerns about the effect on their personal plans.  Not to gainsay the significance of even 3 or 5 percent who may feel an initial negative impact, but I believe that one can understand as well the importance of covering millions more individuals who previously could not afford any coverage ... or the additional 14 to 16 percent of Americans who are projected to experience a very positive effect from the ACA.  Yes, considering the utilitarian and spiritual effects--the positive, uplifting realities--is essential too in viewing the ACA.

    Once again, I know that my life has been blessed ... and my attitude can only be one of thankfulness.  Thank you for reminding me too.

    Parent

    Ah yes, (3.00 / 2) (#84)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 01:23:49 PM EST
    That New York Times article (as Huff Po repeats the talking points). The one with many caveats.

    The difference: I own up to the effect my political and philosophical positions have on how I perceive current events ... oh, that you might do the same because complete transparency is ultimately helpful.

    I have no idea what this means, except that it means you are a cheerleader for whatever nonsense the administration spews, regardless if it's true or not.  I think you are trying to say that I am Republican - using it as a derogatory term.  You would be wrong.  I, unlike the cheerleaders, live in reality, and just because I may bring points of view that are contrary to the day's talking points that you rah-rah, that does not mean I am a Republican.  But of course, we all know, that it is just intellectual dishonesty and laziness on your part, and we cannot expect any more from you.

    Parent

    What I find so hilarious about christine's (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 02:50:25 PM EST
    comments sometimes is that she has no problem damning you for what she perceives as your conservative point of view (I guess providing info from the other end of the spectrum now means one shares those views), but can find sixteen ways - on a slow day - to justify the president's own conservative, authoritarian approach to a long list of issues.

    When the president does it, it's all about having to be incremental, or "this is how it's done," or "he really has no choice," or he's just gaming the poor benighted Republicans...I don't think there has been one instance of christine admitting that a presidential policy is right out of the conservative playbook, ever.

    And it's always served up with a side of  self-congratulatory/faux-humble word salad and dressed with an oily coating of if-only-everyone-could-be-as-wonderful-as-I-am.

    Methinks she needs to revisit the meaning of "disingenuous," and it would probably help if she had a mirror handy.

    Parent

    At least, Anne, (none / 0) (#95)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 03:58:26 PM EST
    you are open, straightforward, and direct about your position.  It is hard to ignore patterns.  Much as I disagree on some of your expressions, I find your ability to own your beliefs and positions genuine.  IMHO, jbindc and I also have patterns of writing (as do we all.)  While you might disagree with my usual adherence to the Democratic Party position, you do know what underlies then my stated positions on most political matters.  

    Whatever you may choose to think, I do not play games in stating my positions on political matters here.  Insofar as transparency goes, I believe you to be laudably transparent ... and, as for myself, there is the same transparency.


    Parent

    As has been said earlier, jbindc, (1.00 / 3) (#86)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 01:45:51 PM EST
    regarding a number of your views that correspond in most areas with Republicans or "independents" leaning conservative/Republican, if it looks and talks and walks like a duck, then.......

    Look, you referred to my position as "intellectual dishonesty."  With that I disagree.  But, to return the favor as well as to express what the pattern of your commentary suggests to me, the descriptor most fitting the type of deniability to which you adhere would be "disingenuous."  (Other than that, I admire your disciplined writing cum conservative talking points.)

    Parent

    The more the (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 09:55:11 PM EST
    downratings you get from this crowd, the more clear it is you hit a nerve.

    Parent
    Of the last 30 comments you rated, (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 10:19:28 PM EST
    you handed out fifteen 1's, mostly to sj and jbindc.  

    Guess their comments really struck a nerve or two, eh?

    Parent

    I am sui generis (none / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 10:23:52 PM EST
    More like sui generic (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 06:30:34 AM EST
    Don't like applying the same standard to yourself, huh?

    Parent
    I downrate for personal (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 09:44:33 AM EST
    invective.

    These guys downrate when they disagree....

    Parent

    That's not what your ratings history shows; (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 10:02:30 AM EST
    your liberal use of 1's and 2's to punish people you don't like and who don't agree with you is at odds with your "personal invective" standard.

    But, hey, at least there's something liberal about you, right?

    Parent

    I have rarely, if ever, (none / 0) (#116)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 10:07:26 AM EST
    downrated you, Anne....So that should put a lie to your theory.

    Parent
    I don't really care if you do, MKS, (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 10:45:32 AM EST
    but don't hide behind "personal invective" as your standard when it isn't present in many of the comments you downrate.

    Parent
    Oh, thank goodness... (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by sj on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 11:50:19 AM EST
    I downrate for personal (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 08:44:33 AM MDT

    invective.

    These guys downrate when they disagree....

    ...I'm not one "these guys" -- whoever they are -- since my rating policy is right here on this very thread. I mean I know you don't actually take the time to read comments, but it's there anyway.

    You typically get your ratings for reason #1 -- hostility, either out right, or passive/aggressive. Occasionally for #4 Poor logic.

    And sometimes, but rarer and rarer these days, you offer something to think about and get a 5.

    It occurs to me to wonder if your pre-existing condition comes with chronic pain. Physical pain, that it is. I mean here you kind of are a chronic pain, but that isn't what I meant.

    And anyway, your physical condition is none of my business. And it was just a passing thought. I guess I was looking for a good reason for you to be so terribly ... you.

    Parent

    This is one of the most (3.67 / 3) (#91)
    by sj on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 02:39:04 PM EST
    appalling accusations from you yet. Apparently in your world there are:

    1)Democrats -- who applaud the current White House; deem the President to be astute and wise. Or,
    2)Republicans -- who are allowed to criticize, but are really batsh!it crazy.

    Well, as a lapsed Dem, I find that to be insulting in the extreme. To me it shows lack of imagination and replaces critical thinking skills with cheerleading and tribalism.

    It was my choice to officially leave the Democratic party (because I am liberal and it is not), but most of my "colleagues" of my several years of work with the Party are still loyal Dems. A couple, like you, are wilfully blind, but most are able to understand that criticism does not equal GOP sympathies. Else, they would be calling themselves Republicans, and that, I assure you is definitely not the case.

    If there is any duck quacking/talking/looking it is with the cheerleaders where no amount of new information can be integrated if it doesn't make the party and party leaders look good.

    To this passive/aggressive bit of BS:

    ...the descriptor most fitting the type of deniability to which you adhere would be "disingenuous." (Other than that, I admire your disciplined writing cum conservative talking points.)
    I have to say that I don't admire your disciplined adherence to the Dem Party line. And apparently the current Dem Party line is pretty sleezy these days. Jeebus, talk about disingenuous.

    What a vicious, ugly, mean-spirited, and nasty comment you made. Made more in sorrow than in anger, no doubt.


    Parent

    She said that (none / 0) (#94)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 03:43:41 PM EST
    I was "dishonest" in the comment to which I replied that she was "disingenuous."

    Both comments must surely have been appalling then:)  

    Or, sj, cut the pretense.  If you want to respond based upon who said what, that is your right.  But, hey, it is a laugh to see the faux outrage that you exhibit toward those with whom you disagree.  Carry on.

    Parent

    wev (3.00 / 4) (#96)
    by sj on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 04:26:31 PM EST
    Carry on.

    Thanks, I'll do just that: justify your sleaziness all you want. You're still being sleazy.

    And I am never outraged at those who disagree. As long as it's honest disagreement.  Once more,for the memory challenged:

    I downrate for 4 things:

    1. Hostility - either outright or passive/aggressive. That's not just anger -- people are allowed to be angry. I mean hostility, as in antagonism, unfriendliness, enmity, malevolence, malice, unkindness, rancor, venom, hatred, loathing;
    2. Stubborn stupid
    3. Creating one's own facts to support or reinforce an opinion.
    4. Poor logic, blatant and recurring use of defined logical fallacies. This comment of yours is a classic use of Tu Quoque or, "You're another" fallacy. It's just one more way of being non-responsive. Here is the example of Tu Quoque:
    But, hey, it is a laugh to see the faux outrage that you exhibit toward those with whom you disagree.
    Which once again uses accusation instead of reason. Just keep throwing that monkey poop. Maybe someday it will stick to a wall somewhere. It may very well be your own walls to which it sticks, though.

    Parent
    And you, sj, use name-calling (none / 0) (#98)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 06:29:59 PM EST
    Show me (none / 0) (#125)
    by sj on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 04:49:26 PM EST
    And you, sj, use name-calling (none / 0) (#98)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 05:29:59 PM MDT

    Upon deep reflection, you might find a comment where I said something to the effect of "stop being a jacka$$". That implies a mode of behavior (transitory by its very nature). I can't think were I would have said "You jacka$$" which is name-calling.

    In your case, I said that you were "being sleazy" (transitory condition) as opposed to "you are sleazy" (inherent characteristic).

    And both of those are opposed to saying "Sleazebag!" which would be the name-calling. Can you see the difference? If you cannot, there really is no point in worrying about your interpretation. Ever.

    But, if you can see the difference, show me where I resorted to name-calling. If I went there I will apologize.

    I try to limit my observations to demonstrated behavior and/or characteristics.


    Parent

    Name-calling, however you slice it (none / 0) (#126)
    by christinep on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 10:40:47 PM EST
    is still name calling.  It is also known as personal invective.

    Parent
    Ah. (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by sj on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 01:00:12 AM EST
    So you don't know the difference.

    The English language is a wonderful thing, if not very beautiful. I try to "slice" it with precision so that I say exactly what I mean.

    I find it interesting that my observing and naming an aspect of poor behavior is "personal invective" to you. Well, I suppose the definition could be twisted that way, as it is putting a spotlight on that thing you do.

    Or try to do. Because you know very well there is power in words.

    But if you don't want to be called on it, then don't do it. We would both be happier.

    What is it you have said in the past? Ah, yes. If you can't take it then you shouldn't dish it out.

    As it happens, I can take it.

    Parent

    Finally (none / 0) (#129)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 09:00:09 AM EST
    'Good to know that you say that you "can take it."  Perhaps then, sj, you could act like it. :)

    Parent
    Finally what? (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by sj on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 02:50:56 PM EST
    What are you talking about? When I said "I can take it" I hope you didn't go to "I'll accept it meekly like a doormat".

    Because what I meant is "I'll take my lumps when I deserve it, but I won't bow my head and be meekly abused." That includes, btw the attempted bullying/abuse of others. I didn't stand for that in 2nd grade and I sure as heck won't now.

    If we're going to "Finally" I'll be interested to see when you are prepared to take any lumps at all. It's always someone else's "bad spin" with you. Or that they are a closet (or Out) Republican.

    Parent

    Heh (2.00 / 1) (#87)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 01:51:15 PM EST
    Maybe if you click your heels together three times, your delusion will come true.

    But just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it true.

    What color are the pom-pons today?

    Parent

    Obamcare is the status quo (none / 0) (#90)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 02:36:10 PM EST
    Progressives shouldn't be defending that

    Its fate will no longer be decided by politics but by practicality. If the administration gets the law to work for three years it will be impossible to uproot. If it is a continuous train wreck for years there will be no stopping efforts to change it. It all comes down it whether or not it eventually works, and PR spin will not change that. Years of messaging have not moved popular opinion about the law at all; the only thing that will is its real life impact.

    That means there is no reason for progressive to still be defending the Affordable Care Act. I at least understood why some progressives and liberals kept defending the law up until the 2012 election. At that time there was still the chance that Republicans could win and replace it with something worse, but that is no longer a real risk. The law is now the status quo. Progressives should not be wasting their time and destroying their legitimacy defend a clearly insufficient status quo.

    The Affordable Care Act's problems are almost all caused by things progressives should have hated about the law: private insurance exchanges, insufficient subsidies, the lack of a federal Medicaid program, not enough limits on price gouging, and the need to rely on expensive private contractors.

    But maybe FDL is just "right of center" too.....

    Parent

    Most will agree the true (none / 0) (#101)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 10:02:55 PM EST
    linchpin for the ACA is how many younger, healthier people sign up.  

    The more the ACA is unfairl trashed, the more likely not enough people will sign up.

    Parent

    Well, that's convenient (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 06:33:28 AM EST
    If it succeeds, it's despite the criticism.  If it fails, it's because of all those "unfair trashers".

    Heh.

    Parent

    jb is not very progressive (none / 0) (#100)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 09:56:48 PM EST
    MKS (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 09:48:42 AM EST
    Likes to spout things of which he knows nothing - my preferences, for example.

    Parent
    Obama speaking for Obama (5.00 / 5) (#114)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 10:01:23 AM EST
    "The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican," he told Noticias Univision 23 in a White House interview.

    MKS, who supports all of Obama's self defined Republican policies, wants to define who is or who isn't progressive? That was a joke, right?

    Parent

    He has said this in one... (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by sj on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 12:00:25 PM EST
    "The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican," he told Noticias Univision 23 in a White House interview.
    ...form or another from Day One. He has been dishonest (in my view) about many things, but never about this. I have always suspected that the only reason he is a Democrat at all is because that is the only way to get ahead in Chicago politics.

    I will add, though, that while I agree whole-heartedly with Obama's self-assessment, I also think that in the 70s he would have been considered a conservative Republican.

    Parent

    80s is when Obama's gold standard for (none / 0) (#123)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 12:13:34 PM EST
    a transformational president set the standard for economic policy. Since that is the subject of Obama's statement on his policies being viewed as Republicans policies, I think he got the 80s time frame right.

    Parent
    Oh, I agree with you ... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by sj on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 12:31:44 PM EST
    ... and Obama completely.

    The 70's observation was purely my own musings (which would make that an opinion and not a fact) in addition to. But can you imagine Obama creating the EPA or promoting the Clean Air Act? Or creating OSHA?

    ::shakes head::

    Can you believe Nixon was more progressive than Obama? Nixon?? That despicable man (who resigned, btw, at the urging of his own party's leadership). I'm still gobsmacked when I think about it.

    Mr. "Transformational President" Reagan started the downslide from just often wrong-headed (IMO) to batsh!t crazy (demonstrable).

    Parent

    Just what you say here (none / 0) (#113)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 10:00:14 AM EST
    Christine you have a gold plated, (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 04:30:36 PM EST
    taxpayers subsidized Federal Health Care plan that cost you less for family coverage than most people pay for individual coverage junk insurance.

    When politicians said that people should get the same great affordable health insurance that Congress gets they were referring to you and not what the average person is getting through the exchanges.

    I expect that Congress and the current and retired federal employees will continue to get great tax payer subsidized policies. The insurance industry has said numerous times that the lower cost policies on the exchange have a much more restricted provider network than their higher cost policies which I believe will the ones you will still enjoy.

    Parent

    "Fixated" - heh (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 11:46:46 AM EST
    IMO, while looking for solutions, people should keep their minds open to everything, not just get fixated about a single way to do things based on their ideological biases (single payer, etc).

    Or, rather than being "fixated" on single payer die to "their ideological biases", they choose to focus on it because it's the easiest, most efficient form of cost savings.

    No idea who these people are that are ruling out other solutions ...

    Parent

    There is a difference (none / 0) (#19)
    by ragebot on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 01:07:14 PM EST
    between health care and health care coverage.  One reason doctors/hospitals limit or avoid treating Medicare and Medicaid (and to some extent some privately insured) patients is because there are more patients than doctors to treat them.

    The nurse shortage is even worse than the doctor shortage.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that doctors are not an undifferentiated commodity.  It may not be realistic to think increasing the supply of doctors/nurses will result in more qualified doctors rather than less qualified doctors.

    There are no easy solutions to hard problems.

    Parent

    Too true. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 06:58:10 PM EST
    In our country's rural areas, access to quality primary health and dental care (never mind specialized care) is often problematic, even for those wealthy residents with Cadillac insurance plans. The issue here is a severe and chronic shortage of medical personnel and facilities.

    But those wealthy individuals can and do travel to major cities for their health care needs; the poorer rural residents, not so much.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Having (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 07:49:05 PM EST
    dealt with rural health here in GA in a small way I can tell you that this is the way the AMA wants it--less doctors equals more money for the fewer doctors. Some people were trying to get the legislature here in GA to lift some of the restrictions for writing prescriptions so that nurse practioners could go to the rural areas and open up shop. The doctors SCREAMED. So they don't want to go there because there's not enough money to be made but they don't want anybody else to go there either. So the shortage is really artificially created in a lot of cases. So much could be handled by PA's and nurse practitioners it's not funny. In fact when I go to the dermatologist I don't even bother with an MD. the PA can do most everything and does.

    Parent
    Law Enforcement Fail (none / 0) (#15)
    by ragebot on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 12:25:57 PM EST
    There is so much wrong with this, but the claim that eight pounds of pot is worth $US40,000 really bothers me.  Even with the silly tax Colorado is trying to put on pot sales it would not be worth that much.

    Pot Bust

    Meet the new president (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 12:41:44 PM EST
    It would be awful if they supported a corpo-fascistic republican, of course.

    Oh. Wait.

    Goldman Sachs Gives Hillary Clinton Almost Half A Million Dollars In Less Than A Week

    In speeches on October 24 and October 29, Goldman Sachs gave Clinton $200,000 a speech. Thursday's speech was a closed door meeting with Goldman and its clients. The prior Tuesday she spoke at a session hosted by Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein.

    From Goldman Sachs to the Carlyle group, business interests are lining up to give huge amounts of cash to the Clintons personally for such speeches.

    In the meantime, the two parties are moving to ensure that the same faces and choices will be given to voters despite overwhelming discontent over the two-party monopoly on power. With a system protecting incumbents and control of the two main parties, such public opposition remains largely immaterial and business interests are already putting money down on candidates like Clinton -- and the "style of honesty" that they crave.

    She'll clean up Wall Street and bust the fraudsters. They'll never see it comin'. Populist!

    That's (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 07:50:59 PM EST
    misleading when you say "gives". It didn't "give" her the money. It "paid" her the money for two speeches.

    Parent
    Yeah,,, (none / 0) (#79)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 08:34:19 AM EST
    just like how a john doesn't technically pay a prostitute for sex, they pay for time and the sex is free. lol

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 01:56:39 PM EST
    giving money sounds like it was a gift. It wasn't. I mean you can agree or disagree with what she did but you really can't say it was a "gift".

    Parent
    I disagree with what she did... (none / 0) (#89)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 04, 2013 at 02:22:28 PM EST
    Lets just call it a gift disguised as payment for speech-making services rendered.

    Parent
    And it also depends (none / 0) (#109)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 07:25:08 AM EST
    on what the meaning of "is" is.

    Parent
    That ship has sailed (4.33 / 3) (#25)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:00:39 PM EST
    Wall Street will never be cleaned up, nor will the fraudsters ever be busted.

    Parent
    Especially (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:05:48 PM EST
    not by her...

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:12:01 PM EST
    But I actually can't imagine by anybody at this point.

    Parent
    It would probably (3.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 03:15:23 PM EST
    take a revolution...

    Parent
    We can't expect anyone to stand up (none / 0) (#128)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 08:28:44 AM EST
    to the entrenched, powerful, insurance lobby and their Wall St confederates and friends in Washington.That ship has sailed. If you can't beat  'em join 'em.

    To think: all I would've had to have done was change that Clinton to Obama and I would've gotten a bunch of "fives".

    Parent

    I wonder (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 07:52:11 PM EST
    if the statue of limitations isn't gone by now on what they did.

    Parent
    The title to the It takes a Village sequel: (1.00 / 1) (#108)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 07:09:44 AM EST
    Just Another Pig at the (Village) Trough.

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 08:21:17 AM EST
    you are downright ugly. We all know by now that you think Hillary isn't "good enough" or "pure enough" to meet your "standards". Perhaps you should spend your time and energy worshiping at the altar of St. Ralph residing in HIS mansion in CT.

    Parent
    "The" " expression" (1.00 / 1) (#117)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 10:10:35 AM EST
    "is" "a" "paraphrse" of Arianna Huffington's book title Pigs at the Trough and quite applicable to the present case, imo.

    Parent
    The optics are horrendous.. (none / 0) (#118)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 10:27:48 AM EST
    and certainly does nothing for the credibility of what was formally thought to be the party of the common workingman.

    And btw, if you check back you'll find that what I said about "the system" is that it's presently rigged to only allow players like Obama and Clinton into the game.

    Parent

    Given that AP voters ... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 04:47:19 PM EST
    ... inexplicably dropped unbeaten Northern Illinois from No. 18 to No. 21 following last week's 59-20 romp over Central Michigan, it stands to reason that today's 63-19 slaughter of Massachusetts ought to be more than sufficient reason for them to drop the MAC-Daddies from the Top 25 rankings altogether.

    (Sigh!) One can be forgiven for wondering aloud whether AP pollsters nowadays watch any other games besides those in select BCS conferences.

    NIU QB Jordan Lynch is having a phenomenal year by any rational standard, but he is being roundly ignored by an ESPN-led sports media that's simply enthralled by Texas A&M's Johnny Manziel, who's repeatedly throwing the ball up for grabs into double and triple coverage, while the unheralded and underrated Aggie receiving corps gets little or no credit for working overtime to grab the receptions and make him look halfway decent.

    One of these days, karma is going to catch up to the self-promoting "Johnny Football"®, and his balloons will burst and the blinders will fall away from pundits' eyes, as he tosses six interceptions in a single game.

    Aloha.

    The problem with your theory is (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:14:18 PM EST
    Johnny Manziel can have 6 interceptions and still throw for 500 yards. The polls have always ignored the MAC - for example, Dan LeFevour of Central Michigan had a much more phenomenal college career than Tim Tebow, inlcuding the year Tebow won the Heisman (and when Florida never traveled outside the southeast to play a game). The QB on ANY team ALWAYS gets more credit than he deserves when things go well and more blame than he deserves when things go badly.

    And for the record, NIU beat EASTERN MICHIGAN 59-20 last week, not Central Michigan. And they went UP 2 places in both the AP and Coaches' polls.

    Sorry - both a MAC (Central Michigan) fan and a Texas A&M fan here.

    Parent

    And Jordan Lynch (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 05:26:46 PM EST
    Is currently ranked 43rd in passing yardage, whereas Johnny Manziel is currently ranked 5th. (And Manziel hasn't played as many quarters). Lynch is way ahead in rushing yardage, but Manziel isn't really a running quarterback.

    Lynch is having a good year, but it's not out-of-this-world.

    Parent

    Well, Hawaii's Colt Brennan broke ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 06:46:15 PM EST
    jbindc: "[F]or example, Dan LeFevour of Central Michigan had a much more phenomenal college career than Tim Tebow, inlcuding the year Tebow won the Heisman (and when Florida never traveled outside the southeast to play a game)."

    ... every major NCAA passing record in 2006, completing 73% of his passes for 5,549 yards and 58 TDs and a 186.0 QB rating. Further, he accomplished this not only in a WAC that included tough Boise State, Fresno State and Nevada teams, but also against the non-conference likes of Alabama, Purdue, Oregon State and Arizona State, in leading UH to a 11-3 record and a second-place conference finish.

    Brennan wasn't even considered as a finalist for the Heisman that year. Further, I think Heisman voters overcompensated for that oversight the following season, by including him as a 2007 finalist on the basis of two clearly spectacular season-ending games on national TV against Boise State and Washington, even though his overall season stats had fallen off significantly from the prior year. Dan LeFevour enjoyed a better overall season in 2007 than Brennan, too.

    The eventual Heisman Trophy winner is often the result of a good PR campaign. The University of Hawaii athletic department's marketing people were wholly unprepared to capitalize upon Brennan's breakout 2006 season, even though a lot of people already realized, based upon his performance the season prior, that he was indeed something special.

    Most smaller D-1 programs fall into the same category as Hawaii; quite often marketing for the entire athletic department is the purview of only one person. And sometimes, that department has to share marketing personnel with the rest of the university. They can't compete with their counterparts in Florida and other big schools, which can assign personnel to hype an individual sport and team.

    Thanks for the corrections. Aloha.

    Parent

    Let's not get excited (none / 0) (#40)
    by CoralGables on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 08:21:19 PM EST
    for beating 2 of the 4 worst teams in the country on consecutive weekends. Indeed it's possible the worst 4 teams in the country are all members of the MAC.

    Parent
    Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers, Oct.30 (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 06:15:24 PM EST
    Obamacare: The Biggest Insurance Scam in History
    Obamacare: The Insurance Scam

    A scam is a fraudulent operation designed to make money. A scam unfolds over time with a team of swindlers seeking to rob the victim without the victim ever knowing they have been scammed.

    In Confessions of a Confidence Man, Edward H. Smith lists the "six definite steps or stages of growth in every finely balanced and well-conceived confidence game." Let's go through these six steps and see how the process of selling the ACA to the public fits.
    [...snip...]

    6. The In-And-In

    The purpose of the final phase of the con is to make sure the victims do not realize they've been conned.

    Obama signed the ACA on March 23, 2010. Immediately the marketing began. The three words we heard the most to describe it were universal, affordable and guaranteed. Of course, the ACA is none of those. But members told us personally that if they told the truth, they wouldn't be re-elected.
    [...snip...]
    The public has been led to believe that the ACA has changed the behavior of health insurers. In this section we briefly explain some major areas of concern and why many of the promises of the ACA are false.



    This article (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 10:08:22 AM EST
    Is a really good summary of all of the awfulness of the travesty that is Obamacare.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#55)
    by Edger on Sun Nov 03, 2013 at 10:52:39 AM EST
    Along with this one...

    Parent
    Misdirected anger (none / 0) (#37)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 06:41:27 PM EST