Friday Night Open Thread

I am just getting back from long jail day and have not seen or listened to any news. Traffic was just abysmal everywhere.

This weekend it will be worse. Streets around me will closed Sunday while they move a museum to the neighborhood. They are even expecting crowds:

Public viewing areas will be located along the route on Broadway, 11th Avenue, 13th Avenue and Bannock Street.

I'm also following my own advice and not reading any more so called news about the election or email investigations.

On comments: If I find any name-calling or insults among commenters, those commenters are going into time out until after the election. Either be polite to each other, don't respond to each other, or get lost. I'm not going to wade through threads of insults.

Remember to vote. This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Bernie, Hillary and Pharell Williams in N.C. | Obama Commutes Another 92 Sentences >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Sending out early birthday wishes to my fellow (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by vml68 on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 11:33:44 PM EST
    MileHi on the 6th
    CaptHowdy on the 8th (and 9th ;-)!)
    KeysDan on the 12th, I believe.

    Happy Birthday!

    Happy Birthday to you, vml68. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by caseyOR on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 11:58:30 PM EST
    hope you and all the other TL scorpions have great birthdays.

    Thanks, Casey. (none / 0) (#18)
    by vml68 on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 11:10:56 AM EST
    I will be in Vegas for my b'day. My dad has been wanting to go there for a long time and I had promised to take him for his b'day but it did not work out. So, we are going there on my b'day instead.

    We will hopefully be celebrating the results of the election, too.


    Happy Birthday to all (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by ruffian on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 06:12:08 AM EST
    and to my sister in law today, though she would never read this site in a million years :-)

    Speaking of Captain Howdy (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by RickyJim on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 09:20:10 AM EST
    Where are you buddy?  I miss our arguments.

    Cap'n Howdy is hiding in plain sight (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Peter G on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 09:52:15 AM EST
    at an (almost) undisclosed location. He may be back after Election Day.

    Thank you! (none / 0) (#29)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 03:17:40 PM EST
    And a Happy Birthday to you as well!

    Going to be a tough one for me this year after recently being diagnosed with atrial fib in addition to the long list of health issues. I've about reached my liimit of what I can handle.

    Sure hope tRump doesn't get elected and I get left with no health care coverage.


    Happy Birthday, to all (none / 0) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 03:46:55 PM EST
    fellow Scorpios.  Yes, November 12 for me, vm168.

    I believe that James Comey (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 01:11:21 AM EST
    ...will be asked for his letter of resignation one minute after the inauguration.

    if i were Pres. Obama, I wouldn't wait (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by cpinva on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 01:22:39 AM EST
    that long, I'd announce I'd accepted his resignation about 30 seconds after the final count on Nov. 8th. why leave him in his position for another 2 months, so he can cause more damage between the 8th of Nov. and Jan. 20th, 2017, Presidential Inauguration Day? Drop-kick his butt out the door soonest. Then, to really ice it, select a hard-core liberal/progressive Democrat, to succeed him, and dare the Republicans in the Senate to refuse to approve the appointment.

    Ms. Merritt, with regards to traffic, it apparently was pretty bad all over the country on Friday. My daughter and some friends drove to Philly Friday afternoon, to attend a weekend Pokémon tournament/convention (don't ask), and it took them about twice as long as it should have to get there. Interstate/Turnpike traffic was heavy and accident ridden. You were not alone, for what comfort that may provide.


    The Director is appointed by (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 07:55:33 AM EST
    the President and confirmed by the Senate.

    I'm not sure that the Pres can fire him except by impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.  And yes, I've seen the pros/cons about that.

    But either way, if  Hillary was to do so that would be a sure way for her to destroy her presidency. There would be no way to stop the impeachment vote against her.

    Remember Nixon and the Saturday Night Massacre.

    Of course she has to first become Prez...


    There has been a lot of misinformation about this (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Peter G on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 10:09:42 AM EST
    The President does have the authority under Article II of the Constitution to discharge any Executive Branch appointee. (Not civil service; just appointees, who are higher-level.) The courts have allowed Congress to restrict that authority only to the extent of requiring "cause" in some cases (but not as to the FBI Director). Any further restriction would violate the separation of powers. The statutory ten-year term does not operate to provide the FBI director with employment security, but rather restricts the Director's ability to stay on forever (like Hoover) without affirmative action being taken to reappoint him or her after that period by the President (and Congressional confirmation). I believe it is also traditional for the FBI Director to tender his or her resignation to each new President, for the President to accept or reject.

    So I take it that (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 02:53:47 PM EST
    we've never had a case adjudicated re if the Pres can fire a FBI Director out of hand.

    I'm sure that's true (none / 0) (#27)
    by Peter G on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 03:11:24 PM EST
    and almost cannot conceive of how such a court case would arise in the real world. A fired FBI director sues the President for wrongful discharge?  I don't think so.

    And I never dreamed a year ago (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 08:13:50 AM EST
    that Trump could be even be nominated.

    Nixon's AG resigned rather than do what he was told.....fire Cox.  At that point Nixon lost it all.

    He lost because he lost the Repubs in Congress and the Repub base.

    Now Democrats are a loyal bunch, far more than Repubs, but sooner or later Hillary will go too far.

    Now we learn that Hillary had her housekeeper handle classified fax's....

    Is that enough to make people decide that her lack of judgement disqualifies her as president.


    So What Else is New? (none / 0) (#59)
    by RickyJim on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 08:51:24 AM EST
    Explain again, Jim, your algorithm for deciding whom is best to vote for.  I need not go into all the things that disqualify Trump for president.

    Glad to oblige (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 11:10:38 AM EST
    We have a two party system that gives us two candidates. Forget about the so-called Greens and Libertarians. They can't win.

    Trump is better than Hillary.

    Hillary is corrupt and hasn't displayed any particular talent in improving either domestic or foreign affairs.

    Trump is mean and nasty but appears competent.

    Hillary's corruptness is government based and we have lost all our previous means to correct them. See IRS and FBI and EPA.

    Would Trump be my first choice??

    No. But I have voted for him.


    Appears Competent??? (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by RickyJim on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 12:56:47 PM EST
    That is the main difference we have.  All the information out there (say from his ghostwriters and accountants) proves that Mr. T has a short attention span, reads nothing of substance and pretends to understand stuff he doesn't. His website and announced policies were put together by his campaign staff and there is no evidence he could defend what is there if questioned by a competent examiner.  For example, why should the defense budget go up if he advocates less US meddling in the rest of the world? And his announced contempt for science as shown, for example, by his defense of his junk food diet makes him, in my eyes, much less competent to be president than HRC.

    Well, we've had presidents who (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 03:31:56 PM EST
    according to various sources.....were the smartest men in the world.

    Yet we are in a whole bunch of wars, owe around $21 trillion, have an embedded lower class which is spawning crime, riots and demands for more welfare, a failed foreign policy, a health care crisis, an economy which, at best, is flat and an immigration policy which is basically open borders and bringing in Muslim immigrants that we can't vet for radicalism.

    Hillary is just an extension of Obama. She will change nothing.

    Don't you think that it's time for a change?

    And yes, I say "appears" because he has made a lot money in various ways, out smarted his political opponents and has a chance to win it all.

    The defense budget needs to go up because we need to modernize our equipment, get and retain specific people.

    What he advocates is that our "allies" pay more for their defense and to win against ISIS/radical islamism.

    And if being anti science is opposing MMGW then sign me up coach. I haven't heard that he is all in for a junk food diet... maybe someone should ask him to try some tofu. ;-)

    I don't care who writes his "positions" or "plans." Good executives set their goals and have their staffs implement what the executive approves.

    The Republican primaries proved that the "elite Repubs" and then the Super Delegate "elite Demos" care only about  retaining power.

    They don't give a damn about you or me or anyone outside their circle.

    If you enjoy cake, they are more than willing to let you eat it.


    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 01:05:52 PM EST



    Of COURSE you voted for him (none / 0) (#69)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 12:44:17 PM EST
    The rest of your post was just more typical, laughable garbage spewed by delusional Tea Partiers.

    Help me here (none / 0) (#83)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 04:55:47 PM EST
    Hillary is corrupt and hasn't displayed any particular talent in improving either domestic or foreign affairs.

    First, where is the evidence that Hillary is corrupt?  Apparently you are unaware that she has been investigated nonstop for 25 years, to the tune of millions of taxpayer dollars, and not a single iota, not a scintilla of evidence has surfaced that shows her to be corrupt.

    Yes, we know there have been ACCUSATIONS, akin to and from the same sources as the "birther" insanity, but we are not going to fall for the same trick dozens of times, are we?  Since you are a patriot, I know you agree with the Constitutional standard of innocent until proven guilty, but congress has gone beyond that standard.  They have proved her innocence every time they have investigated her.  That includes EIGHT acquittals on Benghazee! alone when the Constitution only requires one.

    Under the constitutional standard there is no more honest citizen of the United States than Hillary Clinton.  No criminal charge has ever been shown to be valid, and every investigation has exonerated her.

    My honesty equals, but does not exceed Hillary's.  I share with Hillary the fact that I have never been arrested or charged with a crime other than a traffic ticket.

    Second, what domestic or foreign affairs has she taken part in without influencing?  She was Secretary of State, has met personally with most of the world's leaders.  It's your claim, support it.

    As you know, Donald Trump is a failed businessman with no experience in either of these areas.  Why would anyone have confidence in an inexperienced, incompetent and not very smart individual to accomplish anything in these areas?  Hillary is so much smarter, more honest and more experienced that she seems like the obvious choice.


    Impeach away (none / 0) (#19)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 12:16:58 PM EST
    if  Hillary was to do so that would be a sure way for her to destroy her presidency. There would be no way to stop the impeachment vote against her.

    As you have already seen, the FBI director TRADITIONALLY presents his resignation to the incoming president, and it is traditionally not accepted.  But this time it will be.

    The jury in an impeachment is the Senate.  The GOP will not have a majority there.  Do the math.  An impeachment would destroy a GOP congress and usher in a democratic majority.

    Remember all the things Obama did that were going to destroy his presidency?  Mr. 57% approval?


    Well, we have seen what (2.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 02:50:53 PM EST
    Comey thinks of "tradition."

    And the election will tell us whether or not the Senate has a Demo majority or if the Repubs maintain their majority.

    I again caution against counting chickens.

    And I again note how the Demos flipped as soon as Comey didn't do what they wanted.


    The Democrats (and many sane Republicans) (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Peter G on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 03:17:38 PM EST
    did not only recently "flip" out at Comey's behavior. They also objected when he (properly) announced that no reasonable prosecutor would iniitate or pursue a criminal case against HRC based on the "private server" issue, but simultaneously (and inappropriately, contrary to all tradition and guidelines) undercut that announcement by gratuitously commenting in rather critical terms giving his opinion of her non-criminal conduct.

    2/3 vote required in Senate (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 07:02:13 PM EST
    for Removal.

    Republicans will not have 2/3 votes to remove Hillary.  


    FBI directors are selected and confirmed ... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 07:11:44 PM EST
    ... for 10-year terms. Unless he's fired, James Comey's term runs until 2023.

    Ten years is only the maximum (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 07:37:47 PM EST
    It's not the minimum term.

    So, what's your point, Donald (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Peter G on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 08:20:46 PM EST
    if you acknowledge the Director can be "fired" before his "term" expires? Are you disagreeing with anything I explained at #17 above?

    No, I'm not disagreeing at all. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 01:39:06 AM EST
    I was actually responding to Repack's statement about the FBI director voluntarily offering his resignation upon formal change of administrations, by noting that James Comey was nominated and confirmed in 2013 for a 10-year term. I just didn't realize that my answer would appear this far down the food chain.

    I agree fully with your statement that per the Constitution, the president has every right to remove the FBI director -- particularly for due cause, as would be the case here.

    Comey needs to go. Not only is what he did last week totally inexcusable, the wrong has been further compounded over the last nine days by the continuous sound of crickets chirping that's been coming from his office, while damaging leaks of willful misinformation about a non-existent investigation of the Clinton Foundation emanated from the FBI's New York office.

    This is how democracies are killed off in other countries. We should no further tolerate the deplorable conduct of Director Comey and his agents, than we should blithely accept similar 11th-hour malicious pronouncements from the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon about presidential nominees.

    President Obama ought to bounce that jackass out the front door of the Hoover Bldg. on his a$$, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch should also make a very public example of those agents who so wantonly abused their positions in an unethical effort to swing an election.



    And as an extra layer of icing ... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Nemi on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 08:31:42 AM EST
    ... a woman! :)

    I think he'll be resigning on his own (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ruffian on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 06:14:32 AM EST
    during the lame duck period. He'll have some better offer in pocket...or a red district congressional seat to run for in '18.

    Or maybe go back to work for (none / 0) (#8)
    by fishcamp on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 06:18:10 AM EST
    Ken Starr

    Poor old Ken Starr (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Peter G on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 03:27:37 PM EST
    has had his own problems lately, ironically also arising from the handling of an investigation of a sexual-misconduct scandal.

    I think he's gone (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 06:42:42 AM EST
    November 9th. And then something needs to be done about the FBI.

    Spent my day off yesterday watching the (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by ruffian on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 06:22:29 AM EST
    Cubs celebrations in Chicago on TV.  Wishing I had my 20-30 years ago energy to drive all night and join in with the 5 million!  The TV coverage on MLB channel was very good though, I thoroughly enjoyed the whole thing, as the A/C repairman was getting my house back to livable.

     Can't believe the whole week since last Saturday night when I was so sad.  And I still have to say 'The Cubs won the World Series' to myself multiple times an hour to believe it.  Top thing on my bucket list checked off - and I've never even gotten past that in making a bucket list, because, why bother, right?

    In the real world there are things like broken air conditioners and fascists running for president. Was nice to forget it for a couple of weeks.

    It was a pretty sweet WS. (none / 0) (#21)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 12:58:33 PM EST
    I thought of you, Ruffian, as Bryant threw that last out to Rizzo.

    With the huge grin on his face! (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by ruffian on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 01:11:30 PM EST
    That is the image that will stick in my head....glad it drove out the image of Davis hitting that home run in the 8th. Freakin' hell, I thought it was all over!

    That was some game seven.. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 01:43:00 PM EST
    maybe the best I've ever seen..

    It had everything: high drama, twists and turns, great hitting and great defense, firsts and lasts..

    Really, neither team deserved to lose.


    Jim, move on to another (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Nov 08, 2016 at 11:38:53 AM EST
    thread, you are blog-clogging this one. If you want to dominate the conversation, get your own blog.

    Rolling Stone found liable in false rape story (none / 0) (#1)
    by McBain on Fri Nov 04, 2016 at 10:05:33 PM EST
    This was the University of Virgina "Jackie" story. that turned out to be a lie.
    The 10-member jury concluded that the Rolling Stone reporter, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, was responsible for defamation, with actual malice, in the case brought by Nicole Eramo, a U-Va. administrator who oversaw sexual violence cases at the time of the article's publication.

    Hopefully lessons will be learned here.

    From the other problems list... (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 08:02:58 AM EST
    Got this from Facebook.

    Just got my October surprise... my health care premiums for John & I are being increased from $946/month to $1,552 a month & our total deductible now increased by $4000 to $13,100 a year before even receiving any benefits. This is why America is so angry. -- with John Stueckler.

    Hillary says she'll fix this.

    Short of single payer, I wonder how?

    Single payer (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 12:18:51 PM EST
    ...it is then!  We finally agree on a liberal program.

    We have agreed on a lot of (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 02:55:49 PM EST
    so-called liberal issues for a long time. Single payer among them.

    Trump: "She (Hillary) wants to go (none / 0) (#32)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 03:53:33 PM EST
    to a single-player plan, which would be a disaster."

    This is funny (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 01:26:20 PM EST
    The guy who is voting for Trump - who provides absolutely ZERO specifics about his plan to replace Obamacare, suddenly wants details about Hillary's plan to address the subsidy gap.

    But your link to the Republican chairperson of the Calvert County Republicans complaining about her premiums was funny.


    I don't believe this person is on the exchange (3.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 06:47:07 PM EST
    This is someone deliberating avoiding the exchange. That deductible isn't even possible on the exchange. If you are going to be Obama avoidant, the insurance companies are happy to gouge and abuse you.

    Why do all these crazy people blame Obama as well? They never ever blame the insurance company for anything.


    the high deductible (none / 0) (#38)
    by linea on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 07:44:54 PM EST
    is exactly the exchange.

    i found a 2016 calculator and entered random numbers - two adults (50 and 55) with an income of 125k yearly would pay about $14,000 a year (national average). what if she has a part time job and he works random months with uncertain income?

    people criticize obama rather than the insurance companies because it's a mandatory program called "obamacare" and it was created by obama. you didnt know that?


    Bahahahahaha....an income of 125,000 (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 08:04:49 PM EST
    A year and what plan?

    Who is struggling at $125,000?


    not everybody lives (none / 0) (#41)
    by linea on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 08:40:26 PM EST
    in the gun-totting south of america where it is creap to live. and many people dont have stable jobs.

    Yes, my son-in-law being one of them (3.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 09:03:12 PM EST
    #1. 125,000 a year is not unstable employment

    #2. Your premium is not based on what you made last year, it is based on your own assessment of your expected earnings for this year. And if that changes you notify healthcare.gov and changes are made accordingly. If you lose your job an immediate 60 day exemption kicks in if you need it.

    AND....you still haven't told me what plan this impoverished $125,000 a year couple purchased that has this $14,000 deductible.


    please read post below (none / 0) (#45)
    by linea on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 09:15:58 PM EST
    not 14000 deductoble, more than $1100 a month or about $14000 a year in premiums.

    ive never heard about a 60 day exemption. dont you apply for obamacare in november for the next year based on your current monthly oncome then you are stuck paying that for the entire year?


    Before you float bogus Obamacare stories about (3.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 10:35:41 PM EST
    You really ought to know how "Obamacare" works.

    this makes no sense (none / 0) (#47)
    by linea on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 09:24:50 PM EST
    125,000 a year is not unstable employment

    i make 45-usd hour as a contractor and i dont know if i'll be homeless and living in my car next year.


    Via the much maligned Obamacare, you would at the beginning of the Obamacare fiscal year purchase your plan through the exchange based on your projected earnings for the year...and what you made last year has nothing to do with what you project you are making this year. As soon as your projection isn't lining up with reality, notify healthcare.gov and your premiums will be adjusted.

    If you become unemployed you can immediately received a 60 day exemption whIle you are figuring our your new reality, job hunting, etc....


    Then you obviously (none / 0) (#88)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 07:01:42 PM EST
    have poor budgeting or spending habits.

    then you obviously (none / 0) (#89)
    by linea on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 07:08:27 PM EST
    do not live in an expensive urban city. you have no idea!

    It's affordable (none / 0) (#73)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 01:15:22 PM EST
    A $125k household in an expensive city could manage that premium. It's not fun, but it can be done. You can trust me on that. ;)

    i dont make 125k (none / 0) (#77)
    by linea on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 01:56:14 PM EST
    the subsidy ends at $47,520 for a single person.

    you have never lived in an expensive city if you think 50k-80k goes very far. i dont understand why other people on this forum arent supporting me on this.


    That doesn't make it affordable (none / 0) (#84)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 05:46:03 PM EST
    You just choose what to do without

    Of course I do (none / 0) (#104)
    by FreakyBeaky on Tue Nov 08, 2016 at 03:04:54 PM EST
    You do without things you want to afford things you need. It's adult life.

    i wasnt very clear (none / 0) (#42)
    by linea on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 08:56:13 PM EST
    $946/month to $1,552 a month & our total deductible now increased by $4000

    i was trying to say; the numbers given in the example seem typical. using a 2016 calculator, it seems a 50 & 55 year old couple with an income of $125k per year would pay about $1100 a month for a silver plan based on the national average. the example cites $946 a month with a 2017 increase to $1552.


    Total deductible does not equal (3.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 09:10:25 PM EST
    What you must pay before insurance begins to cover. It is the max you will pay in this instance before insurance covers everything.

    And at $125,000 a year, $1,000 a month premiums are not insufferable. They just aren't. Before ACA and we made half that we easily shelled out 12,000 a year out of pocket with no help anywhere just meeting our son's medical needs and we are forced to be a 1 income family.

    I shed not one phucking tear for these premium costs  at 125,000 a year. Not one, and especially not when before ACA insurance companies were killing children simply by denying them.

    Sorry....not one phuck is given here


    i dont make $125000 (none / 0) (#46)
    by linea on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 09:18:12 PM EST
    i was supporting the example previously posted when you criticized it as fabricated.  

    I still think it's fabricated (3.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 10:29:07 PM EST
    You have not presented the 125,000 a year couple from the exchanges with crippling premiums and a $14,000 deductible

    you need to read (none / 0) (#48)
    by linea on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 09:28:28 PM EST
    the ORIGINAL post rather than argue with ME!!

    health care premiums for John & I are being increased from $946/month to $1,552 a month & our total deductible now increased by $4000 to $13,100 a year before even receiving any benefits.

    Uhhh NO (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 10:30:23 PM EST
    THE ORIGINAL POST claims a $14,000 a year deductible

    you need to argue with Jim (none / 0) (#53)
    by linea on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 11:54:11 PM EST
    not me. i obviously am not an expert on obamacare.
    Jim authored the original post. not me.

    You injected YOURSELF into the (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 12:12:23 AM EST
    Discussion I was having with Jim. Now you can't back it up. Fine. But you placed yourself in this spot.

    We weren't having a discussion (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 08:24:19 AM EST
    And you can dis the FB info all you want.

    And aren't you and your children coverage by TriCare??


    Yeah Jim, we are (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 02:02:47 PM EST
    And that is exactly how I know so effing much about all this. I have a very handicapped child. Before the Iraq War Tricare Prime was in the process of being gutted by private insurers. Tricare Prime is underwritten by private insurers, you know that right? It isn't government administered like medicare.

    Before the war though I had to pay very large copays for all of my son's therapies. Tricare fought us for every piece of equipment too. He learned to walk at 2 yrs old on an old shitty wrong sized child walker loaned to us by his PT while I was fighting on the phone with Tricare. Most of the time they just wore you out and you paid for it yourself because you got tired of crying and feeling betrayed.

    The icing on the cake though was when they denied Josh the surgery he needed to save his god damned life Jim. My Shriner Uncle came from California to help me figure out how to get different funding for that. Tricare was denying all the most disabled...but all insurance companies were. Thanks to the deregulation Bush administration.

    We got it figured out how to cover Josh's surgery, and the day after that surgery as I sat outside ICU at Children's in Salt Lake City...a woman from the business office approached us and said Tricare (how did they even know we were there?...I suppose the hospital made a few calls even though they weren't paying the bill) had just phoned and said they were paying for the surgery.

    Everyone here acting like anyone is safe, was safe, should be safe...let me tell you something..none of us are SAFE. You get a program through, be prepared to fight for it because others are going to fight to gut it. Some contractor is going to try to find a way to screw you for a couple of good bonus years. That is the reality of our existence at this time.

    I am currently trying to help a family who is retiring right now. They too have a very disabled child.They are transitioning onto Tricare for life and guess what? Losing absolutely VITAL services. I know someone in DC who knows someone..but this will not stand. We will fight. We will get Tricare for Life changed for families with severely disabled children because there is no other option.

    I did stop having to pay for Josh's therapies though Jim. Know when that was? Stop Loss, everyone was getting out and Iraq was on fire. Suddenly, no more fighting to get what you needed. And all while we were at war, our kids could get what they needed. Now they are coming to cut us down again though. And it isn't the President coming for us, it is the Republican run House of Representatives coming to damage and hurt us. And it is frustrating when everyone points their finger at the President, because he isn't doing any of this gutting.


    MT, your problems with TriCare (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 04:02:29 PM EST
    and yes I've had some experience there myself, have nothing to do with Obamacare.

    So your defense is just a defense of it because it's Obamacare.

    And exactly how did the evileee Repubs manage to pass a budget that Good Guy Obama signed into law hurting you without even a whimper??

    Seems like he could have done something. You know, pick up that  phone he has and call a press conference exposing the Repubs and vetoing it with that pen he has. ;-)

    Single payer won't solve all the problems. You want tales of combat?? I have spent hours over such things as RX refills and denial of coverage...and that's just Medicare.

    BUT, it will be better than what many have. And it will cover everybody. No more Medicaid for some while others have nothing. No more insurance for businesses to muck around with.

    The question is how do we pay for it.

    I advocate a 17% federal sales tax that everyone pays. We can exclude unprepared food, utilities, old cars and other items that affect the less fortunate among us.

    Would you agree to that?


    That is how we will fight the insurance companies. Insanely enough, initially the ACA and the patients bill of rights did not include Tricare. Within days Tricare users began receiving denials for basic services again. Congress had to quickly pass legislation that added Tricare to the ACA and the bill of rights.

    And until Republicans allow the healthcare panel to be sat, they have blocked confirming any members from day 1, we lose our ability to end price gouging. That panel is what Republicans have terrified Americans with calling it "the death panel".

    You can't toy with me on any of this. i know the components better than you do.


    Obama had the Congress (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 07, 2016 at 03:41:08 PM EST
    Why didn't he have all these things done??

    And is the healthcare panel what I might call a death panel?


    i agree (none / 0) (#82)
    by linea on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 04:17:38 PM EST
    im good with VAT at 20% standard rate, and a reduced rate for certain items (5% or 10%), and a zero rate for items such as food.

    Not a VAT (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 06:05:53 PM EST
    a federal sales tax collected at the point of sale. People should know the tax they are paying and what it is for.

    are you sure? (none / 0) (#87)
    by linea on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 06:23:09 PM EST
    VAT is better.  businesses can receive a tax credit for the VAT they pay. it's better.  

    No thank you (none / 0) (#90)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 07:26:57 PM EST
    VAT, the tax that keeps on taxing

    not doing VAT is a worse problem (none / 0) (#91)
    by linea on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 07:38:45 PM EST
    who is a final consumer? i pay consumer tax on my Lucky Jeans (thank you) and my car and light bulbs and dog food (i dont actually have a dog, but if i did).  but a farmer doesnt pay tax on any of that because his farm is a business?  everything rich people buy will be a business purchase. that's why we need VAT.

    No thank you (none / 0) (#92)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 08:17:41 PM EST
    It will just drive up the cost of everything, and that definitely hurts those without the means to pay it.

    And hands out more money to the government, the most inefficient spending machine ever devised.


    A small business owner pays all the (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 07, 2016 at 03:32:35 PM EST
    same taxes as you do when he purchases what you do.

    The FB info is a fabrication (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 11:02:17 AM EST
    jim posted on this (none / 0) (#58)
    by linea on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 08:50:35 AM EST
    forum for open discussion. i did not interject myself in a private discussion.

    this morning listening to NPR they featured a woman in my same situation. she is healthy and cares for her health. for 2016 she paid her $200+ monthy premiums but for 2017 is faced with over 400 dollars a month in premiums and an outlandish^ deductible. essentially for protection against a catostrophic emergency. she voted for obama twice and supported obamacare and is distraught to be forced to go without medical insurance because the premiums are too high for people who do not get a subsidy.

    ^ exceeding proper or reasonable limits or standards


    you think (none / 0) (#60)
    by linea on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 09:59:11 AM EST
    i go without medical care to buy christian louboutin pumps? you think im posh?

    the explanations of obamacare are frustratingly obtuse^ with discussions of percentages of poverty levels but i believe i can explain this simply:  

    a healthy single woman who make over $47,520 a year and lives in an expensive city will GET NO SUBSIDY and she will not be able to afford obamacare.

    a single woman making 50K-80K and paying rent in Seattle or New York or Los Angelas cannot in any imaginable way afford a three or four hundred dollar monthly payment for medical insurance that is worthless except as catastrophic coverage because of the high deductible.

    ^ difficult to comprehend :  not clear or precise in thought or expression


    Nobody has the healthcare crisis under more (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 11:04:40 AM EST
    Control than California linea. You are just posting crap. You are pulling stuff right out of your butt and putting it up here as gospel.

    2nd try (none / 0) (#61)
    by linea on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 10:07:08 AM EST
    i could have written that more clearly:

    a healthy single woman who make over $47,520 a year will recieve NO SUBSIDY and she will not be able to afford obamacare if she pays rent in an expensive city.


    That is the head scratcher (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 10:46:10 AM EST
    Obamacare eliminated cheap catastrophic insurance, which was utilized by many as a safety net,

    But ObamaCare itself, for many with high deductibles, is catastrophic insurance, except it is not cheap


    Here's the problem (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 11:07:50 AM EST
    that you don't understand. The catastrophic insurance that used to be out there basically covered nothing. So the insurance companies loved it because people were sending insurance companies money who had to pay nothing out while footing the bill for all their own medical costs. The difference with Obamacare is that you don't have to foot the entire bill yourself for a doctor visit and lab work. You would hit the deductible with a hospital visit but the deductibles under Obama care the last time I checked were 5K for the highest. The catastrophic coverage that used to be started at 5K deductible. So it might be that wingnut welfare has been lying to you yet again.

    I see that you haven't checked in a while (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 12:45:46 PM EST
    Deductibles for individuals enrolled in the lowest-priced Obamacare health plans will average more than $6,000 in 2017, the first time that threshold has been cracked in the three years that Affordable Care Act marketplaces have been in business, a new analysis finds.

    Families enrolled in bronze plans will have average deductibles of $12,393, according to the study by the consumer insurance comparison site HealthPocket.

    CNBC News


    Once again....deep breath (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 01:29:50 PM EST
    This "deductible" is not something that has to met first on these policies before your insurance begins payment. Checkups and physicals are completely paid. This deductible means that in any year your out of pocket reaches that number, then insurance covers everything. No more copay

    MT read (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 07, 2016 at 05:24:41 PM EST
    and you will see that I covered that.

    Jim those are (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 08:43:00 PM EST
    averages first of all secondly it seems they are using maximum out of pocket costs instead of deductibles for their article. Deductibles are always in round numbers by 500 or 1000 and you would never get those numbers with deductibles.

    4th grade stuff, (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 07, 2016 at 05:32:20 PM EST
    Add 600 + 400 + 700 and you get 1700...now divide by 3 and you get 566.66

    Third grade stuff.


    Then if that is how (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 07, 2016 at 08:33:38 PM EST
    they are talking deductibles they are not being honest in the article. You have to put a range of like 1K to 5K for deductibles. You cannot average them but then again, most people don't understand insurance and the person that wrote the article probably doesnt understand insurance either.

    Of course that is how (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 08, 2016 at 08:08:50 AM EST
    people do "averages."

    It is called "math."

    How else do you show increases/deceases?

    Let me see....  "Mickey Mantle's batting experience was between 0 hits and 1 hit. This happened 5408 times during his base ball career."

    Averages are meant to show changes in a group of events. The information in the article is accurate and honest,


    That was the choice (none / 0) (#85)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 05:50:56 PM EST
    Of the individual to have. It was catastrophic health insurance, and very rarely used.

    But then, they had a choice. Today they must shell out 10k for premiums, then meet 6k deductable (on the low end) before insurance kicks in.

    These people would prefer to pay cash for their physicals once a year than fork over 10k in premiums and then pay a minimum of 6k before health coverage kicks in


    Here's the problem (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 08:44:47 PM EST
    though. It ran up the costs for the rest of us because of cost shifting. You mistakenly believe that it only affects that one person. It does not. Having a large population of underinsured individuals makes everybody else's insurance rise just as much as uninsured people make premiums rise.

    Does not work that way (none / 0) (#105)
    by FreakyBeaky on Tue Nov 08, 2016 at 03:13:35 PM EST
    Many basic services have no co-pay under the ACA and co-pays for others are different. You do not have to pay $6k out of pocket before you are covered.

    Now if you choose to have an accident and become severely injured, you will hit the 6k deductible in a hurry.


    Cheap catastrophic insurance did not insure (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 01:19:27 PM EST
    That's why it was cheap.

    Everone knows the first part is a problem (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 01:57:30 PM EST
    a healthy single woman who make over $47,520 a year will recieve NO SUBSIDY

    With a congressional majority of more-or-less goodwill towards the citizens it serves, this  would be EASILY fixable. The problem is ill will towards those deemed "other."

    In other words, if Canadian-style heath care were mostly whites-only like the New Deal mostly was, we'd probably have had it decades ago. (Today I don't think it would work - there are lots more non-white voters and a critical mass of whites who would side with them as a matter of principle, but I digress.) That's the gap between what people say in polls and surveys about single payer and the way they vote.

    As to the latter part, Covered California says a single person 30 years old earning $55k and living in a less outrageously expensive part of the San Francisco Bay area - in the East Bay, say - can choose from about two dozen plans ranging from abut $400 to $700 per month. Rents and mortgages here are crazy. That's the part that's going to kill you, not O-care premiums.

    Public transit is pretty good, so you could junk the car payment and insurance and rent a zipcar or something when you need a ride. Or cut back a couple of things for a few hundred a month. Or give up independent contracting for a job with health care benefits. Or move to Sacramento. It sucks, but it's reality. And it sucks a lot less than the pre-O-care reality. Until we get past this second or third Civil War we seem to be having, I'm afraid we're stuck.


    linea you have every right to (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 10:39:25 AM EST
    inject yourself into any thread if it is open or you are on topic.

    Trust me, Jeralyn is very good at enforcing the rules. I know. :-)

    Don't let any of the commentators run you off.


    The question of what is (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 06, 2016 at 10:30:23 AM EST
    "insufferable" depends. At $125000 a year before tax and three kids isn't all the money in the world.

    And around $26000 premiums and deductible is about 25% of after tax income.

    What the insurance pays is different from plan to plan. Many plans pay for doctor visits, outpatient tests/surgeries with only a modest co pay. However, these co pays, and the monthly premium may not count toward the deductible.

    You actually need to be a Philadelphia Lawyer to understand what is "is." Or else have the services of one.

    So what this boils down to is this....Keep your health needs modest and the $12,000 premium and some modest co pays covers. Have a more serious problems and you'll wind up paying around $26,000....Toss in loss of income due to being sick and you have one of, if not the #1, reason for bankruptcy.

    Which is silly. Isn't insurance suppose to cover big problems??

    The answer is that years ago the various companies got into a contest to see who could cover everything and the health care industry
    lost any control over what they could charge. At the same time drugs, procedures, and equipment/devices have improved because of the rewards. Longer lives means more needs. People who died of high blood pressure at 60 now die at 85 of cancer after a long, and expensive, battle.

    And now we have the insurance companies revolting and leaving and/or increasing prices to cover costs.

    The problem is that nobody wants to pay. Obamacare shifted most of the costs of some of the people to someone else.

    Many supporters of a single pay system support it because they think the "government" should pay for their healthcare. Many opponents oppose it because they think they're paying enough with their own taxes and health insurance costs.

    It is a "fairness" issue.

    Given that the government has no money, just a right to distribute ours to do things some of us want and others oppose then the problem should be apparent.


    oh my gawd! (none / 0) (#33)
    by linea on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 06:00:36 PM EST
    1552-usd a month? wow!

    this thing is simply unworkable for working people who dont get a subsidy. i will be forced to pay a huge fine this tax year.

    im so lucky for costco (lol) and the fact that my state allows pharmacists to dispense my "prescription" rather than being required to see a doctor every six months. but i really would prefer health coverage. this isnt working for me.


    Dr. John Sarno, NYU Med Center, American Genius (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dadler on Sat Nov 05, 2016 at 09:44:21 AM EST
    RIP, Janet Reno (1938-2016). (none / 0) (#96)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 07, 2016 at 11:19:05 AM EST
    The first woman to serve as U.S. Attorney General - and the longest-serving AG since the 1840s -- died at home in Miami-Dade Co., FL from complication's of Parkinson's disease, with which she was first diagnosed 21 years ago.

    Reno's nearly 8-year tenure at the Justice Dept. was bracketed by two politically explosive controversies, the federal siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, TX in 1993, during which over people were killed, and the emotional custody battle over then-6-year-old Elian Gonzales in 2000, whom Reno eventually ordered seized by federal marshals from the home of his great-uncle in Miami and returned to his father in Cuba over the fierce objections of southern Florida's Cuban exile community.

    Her earlier 15-year tenure as State's Attorney in Miami-Dade County was highlighted by her 1980 decision to prosecute five Miami police officers in the beating death of a black insurance executive following a traffic stop.

    Accusing those officers of tampering with the scene to make it look like an accident, she incurred the wrath and enmity of the state police union, and the defendants' subsequent acquittal by an all-white jury in Tampa (where the trial had been moved) sparked four days of rioting in Miami's predominantly black Liberty City community, during which 16 people died.

    Ms. Reno will be remembered as a fiercely independent and no-nonsense woman with uncompromising ethics, who had an equally strong sense of compassion for the less fortunate, which is a trait so often lacking in people who've held similar senior positions in law enforcement. She neither shied away from making tough decisions or facing controversial matters, nor shirked personal and professional responsibility when events sometimes went awry, as they did in Liberty City and Waco.