90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Week In The News: Election 2013, Twitter IPO And Toronto’s Messy Mayor

Chris Christie and election night winners. Sebelius back in the hot seat. Twitter goes public. Toronto’s crack-smoking mayor. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie celebrates his election victory in Asbury Park, N.J., Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2013, after defeating Democratic challenger Barbara Buono. (AP)

Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie celebrates his election victory in Asbury Park, N.J., Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2013, after defeating Democratic challenger Barbara Buono. (AP)

A crack smoking mayor across the border this week, and early signals in the US on 2016 politics ahead.  Chris Christie wins big as a fighting GOP moderate.  The tea party man loses in Virginia.  New York elects a mayor who’s vowed to take on inequality.  Stay tuned.  In Washington, the president says he’s sorry for Americans who are losing health policies.  They’ll have better policies says the White House.  The Senate votes gay rights in the workplace.  Twitter has a big-time IPO.  New jobs numbers and the GDP, up pretty strong.  Up next On Point:  Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

– Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Alexander Burns, senior political reporter for Politico. (@ABurnsPolitico)

Kasie Hunt, reporter covering politics and Congress for NBC News. (@Kasie)

Jack Beatty, On Point news analyst.

From Tom’s Reading List

Politico: How Terry McAuliffe mapped his Virginia win — “Recognizing from the start that his path to victory was slim, McAuliffe’s campaign invested early and heavily in establishing powerful tactical advantages over Cuccinelli, including sophisticated modeling of the Virginia electorate, experimentally-vetted messaging and a vast turnout operation that sent more than 13,000 volunteers into the field in the last four days of the election.”

NBC News: Paul pledges ‘new approval process’ amid plagiarism charges — “Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul will create a ‘new approval process” for his speeches and written material after facing charges of plagiarism, a senior adviser said in a statement Tuesday. In a written statement, adviser Doug Stafford also suggested that some instances of possible plagiarism came from staffers, acknowledging that some information was not ‘clearly sourced or vetted properly.’”

New York Times: G.O.P. Weighs Limiting Clout of Right Wing — “While the discussion may appear arcane, it reflects a fierce struggle for power between the activist, often Tea Party-dominated wing of the Republican Party — whose members tend to be devoted to showing up and organizing at events like party conventions — and the more mainstream wing, which is frustrated by its inability to rein in the extremist elements and by the fact that its message is not resonating with more voters.”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Mike_Card

    So the lean, mean Christie is down to–what?–only 270-280 now?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Oh please….
      In response should we now be asking for Hillary’s weight?
      The correct response is:
      “What difference does it make”

      • Mike_Card

        Nope. Every hear of coronary disease associated with obesity? You think McCain didn’t lose votes because of his age and his forced choice of Palin as his stand-in?

        • John Cedar

          I would be interested to see you present an honest comparison assessment of the risk of early mortality for Christie, given his age weight and his publicly disclosed normal blood pressure/cholesterol levels and a parent that still survives.

          Then contrast that with the risk of early mortality for a black male, life long smoker, the age of Obama, who has admitted to using cocaine and other illegal recreational drugs and had both of his parents die young.

          • Mike_Card

            So you discount my assessment of a big, overweight person as a potentially risky choice for this country’s chief executive?

          • John Cedar

            Absolutely! Did I not make that clear enough for you?
            Why don’t you just go ahead and quantify that risk for me so I can see if I am finally wrong about something?

            What are the odds that a 51 year old fat white guy with normal blood pressure and normal cholesterol and a a living mother, will be dead in the next ten years?
            How does that compare with Obama’s risk group?

            Anecdotally, none of the people I know who dropped dead from heart disease or suffered debilitating strokes were significantly overweight. I guess there was the SNL guys but they were using that drug that Obama used so I don’t know if I would put much stock in those deaths. Although…that skinny church lady…we almost lost him. Fat people are going to live longer than we give them credit for and their hearts are not in much worse shape than average.

    • TFRX

      As long as he doesn’t pretend it’s a matter of Personal Responsibility and Determination and Leadership unlike all those “lazy obese poor folk” who can’t even think of Lap Band Surgery cos of the $$$.

      But I don’t think that disclaimer is gonna get around like the ChristieLove does.

      • Mike_Card

        To his credit, he has acknowledged the issue and taken steps. But he’s at an age where heart disease becomes imminent; is he going to offer up a doofus like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz as a VP? No way I’d go for either of those tix–and you can kiss Rubio goodbye, too.

  • HonestDebate1
    • Ray in VT

      Funny, there seems to be a pretty good summary of contributing factors listed beyond the first paragraph. Increased precipitation due to increased Antarctic temperatures are also a factor.

    • NewtonWhale

      Thanks for posting the link. Once I read the article, it was clear this is a localized result of overall global warming, as explained in the last paragraph:

      “…the seeming paradox of Antarctic ice increasing while Arctic ice is decreasing is really no paradox at all,” explains Climate Central’s Lemonick. “The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land, while the Antarctic is land surrounded by ocean.”

      You also got me curious enough to look for recent stories on global warming, and I found this:

      “97 percent of climate scientists agree about global warming and its man-made causes, now with 95 percent certainty, according to a report this month by the IPCC, the world’s most authoritative body of climate scientists.”

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-23/mystery-of-the-missing-global-warming.html

      The article also had the helpful chart below that shows the rise in global ocean heat content since 1970.

      • HonestDebate1

        Wow, this again? I’m not going to dissect it because it will embarrass you. I’ll give you a chance to dig a little deeper to identify who that 97% is and the whole that the 97% is based on. Hint: it’s not 97% of all climate scientist or even close…. and that’s before we define climate scientist. It’s 97% of a portion of a portion of wannabes.

        But the one thing that stood out to me that I have never heard anyone claim is that the IPCC is the world’s most authoritative body of climate scientists. That is an incredible claim.

        • Ray in VT

          I know? How can people make that claim? They don’t even talk to the fossil fuel funded groups or the creationists over at the petition project. They just turn to those noted no-nothings in the professional scientific organizations and the peer reviewed literature.

          I think that Glenn Beck’s favorite historian nails it: the Earth is warming because God is warming the planet as a punishment for legalized abortion.

          • HonestDebate1

            Tilt!

          • Ray in VT

            Dumb.

          • HonestDebate1

            Show some courage and stay focused. We’ve already beat this horse so you tell me if you can agree with what Mr. Whale wrote the way he wrote it.

            “97 percent of climate scientists agree about global warming and its man-made causes…”

            Is it true or not? Are no qualifications needed? They are yes or no questions but you won’t answer accordingly.

          • Ray in VT

            How am I losing focus? I think that I am pretty well focused on the long series of bogus nonsense that you have advanced to counter the work of the major scientific bodies and organizations.

            That’s what surveys show. They just don’t treat the signatories of some ridiculous online petition promoted by creationists as climate scientists.

          • HonestDebate1

            Unless your focus is to distract from my challenging Mr. Whale’s assertion then evoking the petition project, implying I endorsed it (never have), creationists, God and Beck, is losing focus.

            Focus would be answering the questions I knew you would not answer.

          • Ray in VT

            I answered your question, just as I have repeatedly provided definitions of the word lie that say nothing about intent. Not withstanding your willingness to ignore or “forget” such things.

          • Ray in VT

            That’s right. You didn’t endorse the petition project. You just presented it as being equally valid as a survey of members of a long standing and highly respected scientific body.

          • HonestDebate1

            Quit lying, you made that up. I NEVER SAID THAT. NEVER. Search away, you cannot make that case.

            Focus.

          • Ray in VT

            Sure, dude. Whatever. I’m not the one that has to lie about basic dictionary definitions to make my case. You toss out so much b.s. on here you can’t even keep it all straight.

          • HonestDebate1

            Basic?! I would think 10 or so primary definitions would be more basic that some phantom interpretation of a single secondary definition. This keeps you up at night doesn’t it? Your stuck. You can’t eve address why you think Obama didn’t lie because of the wacky notion of yours.

          • Ray in VT

            A single phantom definition? You’re pretty funny, but then again denying reality is pretty much what I expect from you. Also, I was not aware that the order in which definitions were listed in any way affected later definitions. I guess that my education is sorely lacking if my teachers didn’t cover that.

            Face it dude. You said that there is only a definition that is based upon intent. I proved otherwise. Believe whatever lie that you want, but the dictionary disagrees with you, so you lost. You’re wrong. You’re lying. My notions are based upon the dictionary. I’m sorry if the dictionary is too wacky for you. It seems pretty basic to me, but I guess that that is just what a decent education does.

          • HonestDebate1

            It’s phantom because you misunderstood it. And yes just one. One, only one and nothing else. Do you deny that? Do you deny I gave you many? Maybe you can say you already cited a few, that’s what you usually do. You can’t say Obama lied and you can’t say he didn’t because you can’t say why. That’s how O’Reilly claims Obama didn’t lie but your stuck. And yes first definitions are called primary definitions and different dictionaries sort them by different protocol. But I like the second one too (I gave you those too: To create a false or misleading impression. Maybe you should study the word “create”. There is an amazing consistency between dictionaries. I can’t find a single one that does not cite intent.

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/create

            Here’s one I never linked. Study up:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

          • Ray in VT

            Yes, I can and have cited several. They are pretty clear. You just fail to understand what they say based upon your “only” definition, which is a lie so blatant that anyone with an ounce of sense ought to be able to see it. It’s a shame that you appear not to be able to do that. It must be tough to struggle so mightily against reality and constantly fail.

            Whether or not the President was lying would depend upon a number of factors. Not everything in the world is black and white. There are plenty of shades of gray. It’s just too bad that you can only see that gray when a Republican’s lies must be defended at all costs.

            I’m familiar with the definition of create. I’m sure, though, that you have an extra special “only” definition that when you combine it with some of your only special definitions work, via some incredibly tortured logic, to bring into existence your non-reality based definitions which you seek to impose upon the world.

          • HonestDebate1

            There you go again lying in quotes. I said every not only. Wiki broke it down well. Crickets.

            So did Obama lie? If not why? You’re stuck, you can’t answer. You won’t. You could so put me in my place if you could. You can’t you can’t you can’t. You won’t you won’t you won’t. I will rub your nose in it and all you can do is dodge again and again and again.

          • Ray in VT

            “Yes, by any definition it impossible to lie without knowing you are lying.”

            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/08/05/obamacare

            The dictionaries disagree. You claim that intent is necessary, and it is not. That is a lie. Spin your lie however you want. It is still a lie.

            I could make a case either way. I choose to use the standard that you apply to Republicans, so, therefore, Obama can never lie.

            The only thing that you rub my nose in over and over are your lies and distortions. It stinks the same every time, no matter how many times I smell that same sh*t. I imagine that you can’t smell it because you have wallowed in it for so long.

          • HonestDebate1

            “ONLY”????!!!!

            Then Obama was lying even if he believed you could keep your plan? Or not?

            You’re stuck. You’re embarrassing yourself.

            “The dictionaries disagree”

            NAME ONE smarty pants. Just one dictionary. Name it. Cite it. You can’t you won’t you never have. Merriam, Oxford, wiki, cambridge, Webster, dictionary dot com all cite intent. ALL OF THEM. Cite one that doesn’t. YOU CAN’T YOU WON’T YOU NEVER HAVE! WHAT DICTIONARY DISAGREES??????

            You made the claim, back it up. You know I’m right so I must conclude you are lying.

          • Ray in VT

            Depending upon the definition that one uses, then that could be the case.

            I don’t see how citing the facts is embarrassing myself, but, then again, I don’t live in some belief-based reality that allows me to bend facts around my cherished beliefs so that even lies can be the truth.

            I have repeatedly cited them, but here’s the thing, even though I have cited definitions that do not say anything about intent, you just say that they imply it. There is no possible way to win the argument with you when you blatantly lie about even the basic wording of the definitions in the dictionary. It’s impossible. That’s probably why one shouldn’t argue with deluded fanatics, but I find it somewhat amusing, which is why I continue to do so. I feel that it gives me some insight into the workings of the minds of some who cannot deal with reality. It’s quite fascinating.

            Keep on lying to me, dude. It gives me a laugh.

          • HonestDebate1

            We have liberal commenters here like Jimino who say Obama lied about keeping your plan. We have others like Bruce who say he didn’t lie because he believed you could keep your plan. We have Bill Maher that said he lied and Bill O’Reilly who says he didn’t because he didn’t read the bill and didn’t know. Take a lesson, that’s honest debate.

            So did he lie? If not why? You’re stuck.

          • Ray in VT

            I’ll use your Bush standard. Of course he didn’t lie. The reason? Blind belief and the need to support my guy even if facts say otherwise (perhaps especially if they say otherwise). I am only “stuck” (whatever you mean by that) because I choose to say what I say in part because 1. in an arena where any and all lies must be told to defend people based upon partisan positions I feel no need to criticize a guy that I mostly like as long as others do the aforementioned things regarding his predecessor and 2. it seems to really raise your hackles, and your constant lies and distortions just sort of annoy me.

        • NewtonWhale

          So, you could refute the evidence, but you can’t be bothered.

          Very persuasive, counselor.

          Let me see…should I trust you and your entirely unsupported bloviating, or the guys who have been running our weather satellites for the last 55 years?

          This is what NASA says on its website:

          Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree

          Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

          American Association for the Advancement of Science

          “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” (2006)

          American Geophysical Union

          “The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system — including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons — are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.” (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007)

          American Meteorological Society

          “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.” (2012)

          Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

          “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”13

          “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”14

          *IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.

          U.S. Global Change Research Program

          “The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human ‘fingerprints’ also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice.” (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)

          International academies: Joint statement

          “Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001).” (2005, 11 international science academies)

          • HonestDebate1

            Can I? Yes. Can I be bothered? No, been there done that repeatedly.

            The 97% quote from Bloomberg cites no source.

            “97 percent of climate scientists agree about global warming and its man-made causes, now with 95 percent certainty, according to a report this month by the IPCC, the world’s most authoritative body of climate scientists.”

            But it comes from some lefty org. I’ve seen it but can’t be bothered to look it up. It is, as I recall, 97% of the 31% of the select group who answered the survey… and they define “climate science” to include basically anyone who has been rained on and wrote about it. Be skeptical, it’s healthy. Look it up.

          • NewtonWhale

            The NASA page I referenced above is here:

            http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

            Their assertion is footnoted with their sources as follows:

            “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1″

            References

            1

            W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

            P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

            N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

            You could have found that if you had any actual intellectual honesty.

          • HonestDebate1

            Yes, I’ve seen it a thousand times. Dig deeper. What I wrote s true.

          • NewtonWhale

            Lazy. Dishonest. Invincibly ignorant.

          • HonestDebate1

            I’m trying to be kind here, this report os old. This debate has been had. You have been hoodwinked and badly misled and it’s mainly because you did not dig into it as i did. I am not going back to find the methods but that is the key. I had to dig deep in the study to find them but I did. You really should not be throwing stones. It is a bogus study. It is not honest debate.

            Here is just one critique:

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

          • NewtonWhale

            The “critique” you refer to is by James Taylor of Forbes and the Heartland Institute. He is a lawyer with no climate science background who heads Heartland’s environmental Initiative.

            Heartland received $25,000 from the Charles Koch Foundation in 2011 and anticipated $200,000 in additional funding in 2012. Charles Koch is CEO and co-owner of Koch Industries, a corporation with major oil interests. Along with his brother David Koch, he has donated millions to groups that spread climate misinformation.

            Heartland also receives funding from some corporations with a financial interest in confusing the public on climate science. ExxonMobil contributed over $600,000 to Heartland between 1998 and 2006

            Taylor and Heartland have repeatedly lied and fabricated in order to deny climate change. Here is a summary of their dishonesty, with a specific refutation of their contentions regarding the 97% consensus.

            http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/09/17/two-tweets-and-lie-greenpeace-responds-heartland-institute

          • HonestDebate1

            If you want to go into Koch land then never mind. I’d just encourage you to look into the methods used to come up with the bogus number.

          • Don_B1

            NewtonWhale Ray in VT HonestDebate1

            A study of the published works of climate scientists shows that 97% of those working in the field believe that humans are the major contributor to the warming of the Earth, and that means surface temperature and ocean water. The robustness of that study is discussed here:

            A big study that showed the basis of scientists believing that humans are the biggest by far cause of global warming and why it is true and relevant that 97% of climate scientists working in the field believe that is discussed here:

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/how_97.html

            But [Dis]HonestDebate is here in this blog only to present the false arguments of the fossil fuel industry and hard right ideologues who feel government must not do anything to protect the citizens of the world from the excesses of the unfettered capitalist system.

            He will post any and all arguments that he thinks can detract from a serious discussion or any information that might help the average citizen understand the reality of how that system requires regulation to protect people from the negative economic externalities that will otherwise make a total catastrophe.

            Consider how the uncompensated negative externalities, the financial collapse due to speculative derivatives that the financial sector created, and then consider the physical devastation that the fossil fuel companies will create.

        • Don_B1

          HonestDebate1 Ray in VT NewtonWhale RWB

          [Mis]HonestDebate1, you have the wrong person in your sights when you claim to not want to embarrass NewtonWhale by dissecting his post.

          You would just embarrass yourself and I think you know it, which is why you won’t go there.

          But you really are a total embarrassment already.

          The reasons that increasing sea ice in the Antarctic Ocean is a whole different kettle of fish is has been explained before, and I have probably pointed it out to you in the past, but here again:

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/apples-oranges-arctic-antarctic.html

          All you can do is just make irrational and unscientific claims of opinion based on no science

          I am only sorry that I was not able to post this sooner after your self-embarrassing post. I doubt I will have that problem in the future.

          • HonestDebate1

            I know I know, AGW causes floods… and droughts; it makes ice melt… and grow; it causes snow. I understand this year’s very mild hurricane season means nothing even thought it was supposed to be devastating. I understand it doesn’t matter that there hasn’t been warming for decades, that’s what global warming is. It’s just like global cooling. It matters not that CO2 is at a 20 year low in America. It’s irrelevant that CO2 levels rise after temperature rises, it’s the feedback dontcha’ know. 97% of every climate scientist alive agree on this.

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      All you need to know about the so called environmental movement…

      FTA
      In this sense, today’s green progressives, notes historian Fred Siegel, are most akin to late 19th century Tory radicals such as William Wordsworth, William Morris and John Ruskin, who objected to the ecological devastation of modern capitalism, and sought to preserve the glories of the British countryside. In the process, they also opposed the “leveling” effects of a market economy that sometimes allowed the less-educated, less well-bred to supplant the old aristocracies with their supposedly more enlightened tastes.

      http://www.newgeography.com/content/004013-fixing-california-the-green-gentry-s-class-warfare

  • HonestDebate1

    The drunken stupor, crack smoking Mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford, has an approval rating of 43%. That’s higher that Obama’s.

  • John Cedar

    NYT’s exit poll shows that one in five blacks voted for an “R” for governor. That is a monumental achievement to leave only 80% of blacks voting party line Donkey.

  • Ray in VT

    ENDA passed the Senate 64-32, with 10 Republicans supporting the measure to protect more workers from workplace discrimination. Boehner seems to say that it won’t see the light of day in the House, as protecting workers from discrimination will hurt jobs and the economy. There goes the GOP again, really taking a stand for the rights of minorities.

    • HonestDebate1

      I’m glad we already fired the gay guy.

      • Ray in VT

        Yeah, now you don’t have to worry about the possibility of having to have a reason. You could have just fired him for being a poofter, just like the Founding Fathers would have wanted.

        • HonestDebate1

          It takes me a little over 3 hours to feed the horses working alone. That is a job that MUST happen twice a day, every day no matter what. Zero exceptions. Just missing filling a water bucket or not noticing the warning sign that a horse did not finish their food can result in a dead horse. Maybe a kid’s horse. It’s an important job. How much of that (and forgetting to turn out a horse or leaving one out all night that is supposed to come in) should be tolerated after a year on the job? How many times do I need to come home for lunch to discover the feed help didn’t show up (or call) and the horses were not fed, enraging boarders? Why does it happen week after week after a paycheck and 3 days off?

          The last thing I need is some bureaucrat telling me I am discriminating against a gay guy. Or you assuming the most shallow, baseless and hideous motivation on my part? I like to be able to fire people just the way the founding fathers wanted.

          • Ray in VT

            The Founding Fathers took a position regarding workplace discrimination? I am familiar with the stance of many Founding Fathers regarding under what circumstances one could be forced to labor, unpaid for life or be counted as a fraction of a person for census purposes. That stuff changed, as did the idea that blatant discrimination was something that could be tolerated in a free, open and democratic society. Perhaps you have an issue with the civil rights movement. Others in the TOP certainly seem to. Perhaps that is why minorities don’t go for those groups.

            As with other civil rights legislation, there is nothing that prevents you from firing a person if you have a reason. One just can’t do it because someone is black, a Jew, Hispanic, etc. It’s just that, for some reason, a lot of people still want to be able to discriminate against the LGBT community. One can even go out and rail against them as evil, sinful, mentally disturbed and so forth, and one can reach high levels in some circles. Such views might even be a plus in some groups.

          • HonestDebate1

            No, they took a position on freedom to discriminate how I spend my money.

          • Ray in VT

            So they were pro-discrimination? That’s why they supported measures protecting the rights of minorities. They also didn’t take a position against acid rain. Does that mean that they were pro acid rain? Did they support my freedom to have contaminated water due to midwest power plants?

          • HonestDebate1

            Discrimination is good, it’s essential.

          • Ray in VT

            Well, John Boehner does seem to think that being able to fire people for being gay is good for jobs. It is just a shame that we can’t have more discrimination. Damn those dirty libs and their civil rights laws.

          • HonestDebate1

            Distortion.

          • Ray in VT

            “The Speaker believes this legislation will increase frivolous
            litigation and cost American jobs, especially small business jobs,”

            Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/enda-legislation-john-boehner-99308.html#ixzz2k40tIKbY

            Discrimination protection is bad for jobs according to Boehner, ergo the liberty to discriminate is good for jobs. If we could have more employment discrimination, then we could have more jobs. Seems like a pretty straight line to me.

          • HonestDebate1

            I told you so. Thank you. I love it when we are told what people think in lieu of direct quotes.

          • Ray in VT

            Anti discrimination laws are bad for jobs, so is the opposite then not also true? If protecting the LGBT community from employment discrimination hurts jobs, then also does not protecting racial or religious minorities also hurt employment, and if not then why not?

          • J__o__h__n

            Why do the states that have anti gay discrimination laws have a better economy and more jobs. NY, CA, MA are doing much better than the usual laggards Mississippi and Alabama.

          • Ray in VT

            I hear that Mississippi and Alabama are in such bad shape because they’ve taken money from the blue states.

          • TFRX

            Uh-oh, looks like that “culture of dependency” exists, just not in the way commonly thought.

          • HonestDebate1

            Refusing to hire competent reliable people is not good for business. No successful business wants to operate that way because they won’t be successful long.

          • Ray in VT

            That’s not what non-discrimination laws are about, but, then again, if you think that the NAACP is somehow like the KKK, then it is clear to see how you would have the inability to see reality here as well.

          • HonestDebate1

            More distortion, the NAACP does not have a history of lynchings and violence. They are nothing like the KKK. I’ve never said they were. You have the nuance of a jackhammer.

            But I do have a question, what would we call a group that was the National Association of the Advancement of White People? It’s just a question.

          • Ray in VT

            Yet, you repeated the line that the NAACP is the Klan with a tan and puzzled over why the two aren’t viewed in the same light. More attempts to re-write your history regarding horrible statements?

          • HonestDebate1

            That wasn’t me, it was a black guy.

          • Ray in VT

            Blaming the brown guy again, huh? It’s not your fault? Way to take personal responsibility.

            And you repeated and agreed with it. You also advanced numbers that I track back to a white supremacist group. Is that also not on you, because all that you did was repeat it and stand by it?

          • HonestDebate1

            It was his comparison not mine. The numbers came from Thomas Sowell endorsing a book, if some nasty place repeated it then I wouldn’t know. I don’t go to those sites.

          • Ray in VT

            So, again, you just repeated it, therefore it’s not your fault? Where did Sowell get the numbers? I track it back to a white supremacist site, which I found while pursuing your claims about how crime-happy blacks are when it comes to going after whitey. So maybe you just get your white supremacist numbers second hand, so that probably isn’t your fault either. What book was Sowell reviewing and where did he get that number?

          • jefe68

            Nope, you wrote what you wrote.
            Stop playing the victim.

          • jefe68

            That has to be the quote of the day.
            This is what emerges out of the cesspit of intolerance.

          • HonestDebate1

            Don’t try to understand it, your head will explode. Jut stick to why you know, hate.

          • jefe68

            You just openly endorsed discrimination and even pushed it father by saying it’s essential. Seems to me that statement is full of hate.

            What you don’t get is people are no longer going to sit by and let bigots get away with discrimination. You don’t like it, to bad.

          • HonestDebate1

            I tell you what, try being an employer trying to fill a job and taking applications from crack heads, felons, people who have bad references, people who have glowing references, ivy leaguers and experts in the field to which you are involved with but don’t discriminate. It’s not essential.

          • Ray in VT

            That’s pretty different from up and firing some guy who comes out of the closet and you know it. Your attempts to deflect and alter the basic core of the legislation and its implications is just mind numbingly pathetic.

          • jefe68

            It’s how he rolls. No joke intended.

          • HonestDebate1

            How do I defend myself if I fire an incompetent gay guy and then he retaliates by suing me for anti-gay discrimination? The legislation allows that. I don’t expect you to understand, just hate.

          • Ray in VT

            Evidence. It seems pretty simple. Do you have a problem getting sued by black people claiming the same, or do you just not hire them, or if you hire them do you never fire them.

          • HonestDebate1

            Ah great, evidence in a lawsuit that bankrupts me as I vindicate myself. Good idea.

          • Ray in VT

            So just head that off at the pass by allowing employers to discriminate against workers based upon things like sexual orientation. Got it. Should we also get rid of the frivolous lawsuits filed by minorities looking to get back at whitey by getting rid of protections for racial minorities too?

          • HonestDebate1

            “Allowing employers” wow, that’s a scary paradigm.

            Yes, Hooters should not be forced to hire the gay guy, even if he has appropriate knockers and is a great waitress, purely based on his sexual orientation. It would be wrong to not hire the black chick if she was qualified based on skin color.

          • Ray in VT

            Got it. Bigotry must be defended. Discrimination must be upheld. Anti-gay discrimination today. Anti-gay discrimination tomorrow. Anti-gay discrimination forever. Good luck holding back the tide of history.

          • jefe68

            If you have half a brain you do what smart employers do. You document the things that brought on the dismissal.
            Or you could just make the job so unpleasant they quit.

          • HonestDebate1

            I don’t have time for games.

          • jefe68

            If they are felons, you don’t have to hire them. If they have bad references, why hire them?

            You don’t seem like the kind of guy who should be in business. It all seems so overwhelming for you.

            So why don’t you stop whining about it and just get on with it or sell the horses.

          • HonestDebate1

            It went right over your head. I don’t hire them, I discriminate. I knew you couldn’t understand.

          • jefe68

            Oh boy. You really think I did not get what you’re on about?

          • HonestDebate1

            You advocate not hiring them while at the same time speaking out against discrimination. You don’t get it.

          • jefe68

            Nope, sparky. I said if a person has bad references you could not hire them.
            If they are felons, well hire at your own risk. Oh I get it. You’re so regressive that you still think being gay is against the law.

            Well, well how regressively quaint.

          • HonestDebate1

            If I don’t discriminate against people with bad references or felons then I may hire them,

            Being gay is not against the law. Please don’t tell me what I think.

          • jefe68

            Man you have some warped views.
            If you don’t want to deal with the labor laws of your state you have the freedom not to hire anyone.

          • jefe68

            Nope. You have the freedom to do the work yourself.

          • fun bobby

            your state should have employment at will so you can fire someone without giving a reason

          • HonestDebate1

            Yes, but my problem is with BS laws that tell me my reason was because he’s gay and I’m a homophobe. I just need someone competent and reliable, I don’t care which of the 3 sexes they are.

          • Ray in VT

            How does the law do that? Does it make it illegal to fire gay people, just like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it illegal to fire black people.

          • HonestDebate1

            It makes me vulnerable to baseless accusations that are punishable. There is no analogy to the plight of blacks.

          • Ray in VT

            Anyone is subject to baseless accusations. Just look at the baseless allegations hurled at the President. I think that the discrimination faced by the LGBT is somewhat analogous. They are also struggling for their civil rights, and the opposition to those rights now, as back then, is coming from the conservative and states rats folks.

          • hennorama

            Ray in VT — once again, I’m happy that I’ve learned to not sip liquids while reading comments. Otherwise, I would have done a spit take due to your “states rats.”

            Well done, sir.

          • Ray in VT

            You’re welcome. It is one of the few times that I like to spell something phonetically:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-Fj478kozs

            about 35 seconds in.

          • HonestDebate1

            Why isn’t phonetic spelled phonetically?

          • Ray in VT

            Because English is strange.

          • jefe68

            To fool people like yourself.

          • hennorama

            Ray in VT — the closed captioning on that clip is hilarious. Pertinent example:

            Audio: “I don’t know about some other folks but I ain’t fightin’ for no darkies one way or the other. I’m fightin’ for my rats. Obviously that’s what we’re fightin’ for.”

            CC: “about some other folks are entitled are cute radio there about from Iran’s all this is not without fault.”

            Audio: “For your what?”

            CC: [none]

            Audio: “For our rats.”

            CC: “for breakfast”

            Thanks for sharing!

          • Ray in VT

            I love that movie.

          • hennorama

            Ray in VT — I enjoyed it as well, except for the truly terrible fake facial hair.

          • Ray in VT

            One would think that that sort of beautiful facial hair would be pretty impossible to maintain in the field.

          • lobstahbisque

            Four.

          • HonestDebate1

            Please do not explain.

          • jefe68

            You could of fooled me.
            Someone lend this guy a backhoe for the hole he’s digging.

          • fun bobby

            I thought there were 7 sexes of human

          • HonestDebate1

            I hope not.

          • fun bobby

            don’t worry heterosexual men over 65 are not needed for reproduction

          • jefe68

            What does being incompetent at a job have to do with ones sexual orientation?

            In the 18th century the US still had slavery, indentured servitude, child labor, and women were property. Which part of the 18th century labor condition are you found of?

          • HonestDebate1

            Absolutely nothing, that’s the point.

          • jefe68

            So I take it this comment is not about the 18th century.
            I like to be able to fire people just the way the founding fathers wanted.

          • HonestDebate1

            The Founding Fathers were not in favor of taking away the right to fire incompetent unreliable people.

          • jefe68

            Who said you should not fire incompetent people? The law is about discriminating against the LBGT community. Not incompetence.

          • J__o__h__n

            You find plenty of time to post here. I’m sure not oppressing homosexuals won’t cut into your schedule too much.

          • HonestDebate1

            I love homosexuals.

          • lobstahbisque

            But they don’t love you.

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s not what they tell me. I’m very lovable.

          • jefe68

            You have to be kidding.

            How you survived this long in life is a testament to other peoples good nature and sense of knowing when they are dealing with one so… ahem… challenged.

          • lobstahbisque

            You mean gays kill horses? I knew we cause hurricanes and global warming, bit this is serious!

          • HonestDebate1

            I don’t blame you for any of it.

        • fun bobby

          its irrelevant in MA to some degree anyways. we are an “at will” employment state, your employer can fire you for no reason at all. so as long as they don’t actually say you are fired because of the fact you are a protected class even if that’s why they fire you, you cant do much about it. I wonder what prompted this is there someone who got fired for being gay?

          • Ray in VT

            There are certainly instances of allegations, but this legislation has been kicking around for some time. It does, though, come at a time when DODT is gone, part of DOMA was struck down, and where 14 states allow same sex marriage with 2 more poised to in a short time.

          • fun bobby

            sounds like they are doing fine without it

          • fun bobby

            there are some recent cases of people being fired for being gay in MA?

          • Ray in VT

            One would hope not. It is against the law there.

          • fun bobby

            elsewhere?

          • Ray in VT

            There are allegations that some people are.

          • fun bobby

            that’s awful do you have any links? this seems like one of those non issues. Its like when gay people “come out” no one besides their mother, if she is in severe denial, is ever surprised. Do gay people still hide it?

          • Ray in VT

            I could provide links, but I’m fairly sure that you have access to Google, right? The stories are out there, so go ahead and look. I’m sure that some people are still in the closet, especially in communities where gays and lesbians are derided as sinful, wicked and evil. It must be a pretty terrible thing to have to deal with.

          • fun bobby

            where is that exactly? I don’t use google for obvious reasons but I looked on the bing and I came up with this..

            Gayest Cities in America, 2013

            St Louis
            Salem
            Colorado Springs
            Providence
            Oakland
            Minneapolis, St Paul
            Atlanta
            Madison
            Eugene
            Salt Lake City
            Seattle
            Washington DC
            Spokane
            Springfield
            Tacoma

            http://www.hellogayusa.com/gayest-cities-in-america-2013.html

          • Ray in VT

            Feel free, then, to search for cases of discrimination against gays on Bing if you like. There’s plenty of small towns and rural areas all across this land where gays and lesbians aren’t exactly held in the highest regard.

          • fun bobby

            where exactly?

          • Ray in VT

            Here and there. Do you have a problem using Bing? Does it return zero hits?

          • fun bobby

            perhaps you could suggest some notable recent cases I could look up

          • Ray in VT

            Why? I trust that you are able to do so on your own.

          • fun bobby

            I am sure if I could find someone online who says sasquatch exists. this seems like one of those made up problems like when the republicans debate the estate tax but can’t find any examples of people who have actually had to pay the thing.

          • HonestDebate1

            It may have something to do with the guy wanting a job at Hooters.

          • jefe68

            Unless you’re in a union.

          • fun bobby

            are you in a union?

        • lobstahbisque

          Beware. The FFs wore high heels, silk stockings, and wigs!

          • TFRX

            But they didn’t rouge their cheeks and apply fake beauty spots.

            I understand that was the deliniation back in the day.

          • jefe68

            It was common for men of wealth and aristocracy to also wear makeup.

            And what about all that fine silk cloth they wore.

            Great scene from Rob Roy, which has plenty of wigs and men in finery, check out the Tom Roth character.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeYoUJYqAQc

      • Ed75

        Very funny.

    • John Cedar

      Gays already earn more money on average than heterosexuals…the same excuse your side uses to legally discriminate against white males in employment practice.

      Women are the majority yet they are a protected class, so you need a different word other “protected minority”.

      Discrimination law = employer is guilty until proven innocent

      • Ray in VT

        Oh, the poor white male. Truly the most discriminated against group in America. Woe unto them. I remember when my best friend got fired when his bosses found out that he was a straight, white man. The poor guy was never the same after that.

        • fun bobby

          you mock but there are many vocations now where straight white men are rare and its not easy to be one in those professions.

          • Ray in VT

            Is that because straight white men have been systematically and purposefully forced out of the field? There certainly don’t seem to be many straight white men among the “job” class of sassy best friend in reality TV.

          • fun bobby

            yes.

          • Euphoriologist

            Sounds like straight white men should create a labor union to protect their rights. :P

          • fun bobby

            great idea. I think Al Bundy tried that

          • jefe68

            Such as?

          • lobstahbisque

            Straight organists and harpsichord players are an endangered breed. Oh wait….

          • hennorama

            lobstahbisque — I’m politely leaving the “Straight organists” straight line well enough alone.

          • TFRX

            Is it true that Teh Gays dominate the Professional Slide-whistle Guild as well?

          • HonestDebate1

            I just wrote a harpsichord piece for a film and I’ve got two Hammonds in my studio. We exist.

          • lobstahbisque

            God… A penis is an organ, a Hammond is not.

          • HonestDebate1

            You’ve got a lot to learn.

        • John Cedar

          Just because you supposedly have a best friend that is a heterosexual white male, does not mean that you are not a misandrist heterophobe.

          You may think it is funny that white males are not hired or promoted in the first place because other protected classes were given affirmative preference. It doesn’t really effect me.

          • Ray in VT

            You got it, bub. I really do hate them straight white guys. Oh yeah, look at how all the minorities have taken over all them top spots because companies were required to hire them instead of the more qualified straight white guys. It must be so hard to be a straight white guy in America. Poor bastards.

          • John Cedar

            You ought not refer to heterosexuals as “straight”, the implications are that you are homophobic.

            Quit defending the indefensible. Gays already earn more than heterosexuals. This legislation you are in favor of is a solution for a problem that does not exist and a burden for all employers who will be assumed guilty by agencies and advocates until proven innocent.

            It is not the more qualified white heterosexuals who are victims. They will always find a way. It is the equally qualified white heterosexuals who are victimized. Yours and Sotomayor’s assertion that it is okay to be a douche to whites because they are the majority and many have it so good, is an illiberal stance.

          • Ray in VT

            How is that homophobic? I think that you’ve got your head pretty far up your wazoo on this one. Keep on laying down that line about how people who are discriminated against don’t need legal protection or how that doing so somehow hurts businesses and straights. It’s a crock, but I’m sure that you can find a lot of dolts who will support it and oppose other civil rights legislation “on principle”, but they’re totally not biased, bigoted or racist. They just believe in discrimination in the workplace based upon liberty yadda yadda.

          • John Cedar

            Your sanctimony is only outweighed by your hypocrisy. You mock white heterosexual males when their civil rights are violated and justify your scorn because they got-it-so-good.

            At the beginning of this topic a commenter made a contemptuous remark about Cristie’s weight. Where was your chivalry for that case?

            Statistics show that gays earn more than the white heterosexual males you hate. While the fat people and their short or ugly coworkers are still the ones who are discriminated against the most in employment. But you can’t pat yourself on the back if you took up their cause because you would get no high-fives at your whiny and cheesy parties.

            I can tell you that as an employer I do not discriminate against gays just as 99.99% of employers do not. The one time I terminated an employee who was gay and he accused me of doing so because he was gay, it cost me a lot of time, money, productivity and aggravation. And that was for a baseless accusation. If he had been able to make even a small argument, I would have been forced to address it with even more resources. Stop and frisk is okay against employers but not against felons in your convoluted world.

          • Ray in VT

            How am I hypocritical? Where am I endorsing legalized, or otherwise, discrimination against anyone, unless, of course, protecting minorities from discrimination is discrimination against straight white men. Is discriminating against people based upon race, religion, national origin or sexual orientation/identity a “white right”? So if gays earn more than straights, then that is proof that straight are the real victims of discrimination? That is the sort of faulty logic/reasoning that would make my former professor in that area roll on the floor laughing. I’m wearing a yellow shirt today. It snowed this morning. Ergo my yellow shirt made it snow. Pathetic.

          • John Cedar

            “unless, of course, protecting minorities from discrimination is discrimination against straight white men.”

            I just KNEW you’d understand eventually.

            When Sotomayor threw out all those white test scores and violated their civil rights, it was in response to laws such as this one you are now advocating. Even though she was dead wrong she was still righter than you are because at least Blacks can statistically show they earn less than whites and are promoted less often.

            It is hard to tell just how naive you and your professor are but perhaps you might have seen a minority get extra chances before being terminated from a job or perhaps get limitless chances as I have seen. In your fantasy world of utopia it is not a problem because employers simply need to document before terminating and then they are Scot free. But in the real world where grownups live, employers are not that perfect and juries are not that perfect either. A new law protecting a new group would be a burden on employers and would tend to keep people in that protected group employed longer than they otherwise would be employees, robbing the position from all other legitimate people and robbing the company with the cost of proving compliance. Some day, if you employ someone, instead of simply musing about how others should do it, you might understand.

          • Ray in VT

            Oh, let me weep for the poor straight white men who are so burdened with having to not discriminate against people based upon race, religion or sexual orientation in my fantasy world. How truly put upon they are. What a dispirited, demoralized and dejected people they would be. Woe unto them.

            I’ve been living in the real world all of my life. I just don’t think that being a bigot is necessary to run a business. It’s sad that you think otherwise, but it doesn’t surprise me based upon many of the moronic statements that you have made.

          • John Cedar

            It snowed here today. Are you wearing a yellow shirt? Do you think you have the skin tone for that color?

            I’m not sure how you inferred that I think bigotry is a prerequisite for running a business. On the contrary, I think bigotry would hurt most business operations. Which is why it is a very infrequent problem that is not worthy of addressing with a new law and not worth the cost associated with a new law and not worth discriminating against all those not protected by a new law.

          • Euphoriologist

            Conservatives have always asserted that blaming others for one’s (alleged) problems was only for lazy and irresponsible people. Now it would seem blaming society and embracing a culture of victimology will be their new mantra going forward.

          • StilllHere

            Whining appears to work for the blighted left; in fact, it’s all they’ve got.

          • Ray in VT

            Like all of the whining and excuse-making that has been going on regarding the Cooch since he lost? The victim mentality seems pretty alive and well in the American right. Everyone is against them and out to get them. Just ask them.

          • jefe68

            The regressive right wing whining squad is out in force today. They act as if centuries of white male entitlement never existed.

          • HonestDebate1

            Is it about equal opportunity or payback?

          • Ray in VT

            Like them uppity minorities taking their revenge against whitey or something?

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s sick.

          • jefe68

            No, what’s sick is your insipid thinly disguised bigotry.

          • HonestDebate1

            I’m not the one condoning revenge. Read Ray above for an example where I condemned the sick revenge of Holder’s DOJ.

          • Ray in VT

            Holder’s revenge? Is that like Obama’s revenge? More brown people hating on whitey?

          • HonestDebate1

            Holder works for the vengeful Obama. Why are you so obsessed with race? Did I mention race?

          • jefe68

            Look, up in the sky, it’s a bird, it’s a plane, why no, it’s Vengeful Obama!

            He’s out to squash the nihilist tea party menace lead by the maniacal Canadian (is there such a thing?) Ted Cruz.

            Able to quell right wing diatribes with a single glare…

            He stands for truth (well almost) justice, and the American way.

            Tune in next week when Vengeful Obama takes on Turtle Man (Mitch McConnell) and the gang of NO…

          • HonestDebate1

            No, he’s just nasty as hell.

          • jefe68

            So you think that President Obama is nasty as hell. Nice, just one mote adolescent tinged rant.

          • HonestDebate1

            Yes I do.

          • HonestDebate1

            It’s clear.

          • Ray in VT

            Like getting revenge on whitey for not prosecuting blacks? Your comment history is pretty littered with that sort of bigoted nonsense.

          • Ray in VT

            Yup. It is, and I like to point that out when you say garbage along that line. Obama’s revenge and not prosecuting minorities and all that jazz.

          • jefe68

            Pity the poor white guy. What’s he going to do? His entitled world has been striped away decade by decade by people not like him wanting to be treated as equals.
            First it was the African Americans, then it was women wanting the right to vote, (the ERA has not been ratified by 14 states, most of in the South) now it’s the LGBT folks wanting to be treated as equals.

            What’s a white man to do?

          • jefe68

            Go away troll boy.

          • lobstahbisque

            Gee, some of my best friends are breeders. As long as they don’t ram it down my throat I’m OK with it, even though incontinent breeding is ruining the planet. As long as they don’t flaunt it, what they do in their bedrooms is their business.

          • TFRX

            (+1 simply for your cheek of using the word “breeder”, especially if you are hetero.)

          • HonestDebate1

            Comment awaiting moderation. It must have been the word “flami^g” which I remembered incorrectly.

            http://onpoint.wbur.org/search?q=lobstah+faggot+scorned&sa.x=0&sa.y=0

        • jefe68

          Wow. This guys some piece of work.
          I bet he’s a riot at parties.

    • William

      Why do gays need more protection from discrimination than non-gays? Are they trying to just enrich trial lawyers?

      • Ray in VT

        That’s right. I forgot. Protecting minorities from discrimination gives them special rights. Thanks for the reminder.

        • William

          Well…sorry but like we saw with the people that lost their medical insurance, a new minority, that’s tough luck.

          • Ray in VT

            Yup, it’s just tough luck to get fired because you’re gay. That’s just the price that they have to pay for the “liberty” of bigots, because when we extend rights and protections to minorities we take them away from whites.

        • hennorama

          Ray in VT — that reminds one that, when asked on election night about the close Presidential election, with results not yet completely known, “How do you think it got this tight?” Fox’s Bill O’Reilly answered:

          “Because it’s a changing country, the demographics are changing, it’s not a traditional America anymore. And there are 50% of the voting public who want STUFF. They want THINGS, and who is going to give them things – President Obama. He knows it and he ran on it. And whereby 20 years ago President Obama would have been roundly defeated by an Establishment candidate like Mitt Romney.

          (At this point Mr. O’Reilly sniffles and waves his hand. It’s unclear if he was about to cry, or if he had a head cold. A head cold seems more likely, but his voice cracked, too).

          O’Reilly went on, saying

          “The White Establishment is now the minority. And the voters, many of them, feel the economic system is stacked against them and they WANT STUFF. You’re gonna see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama, overwhelming black vote for President Obama, and women will probably break President Obama’s way. People feel that they are entitled to THINGS, and which candidate between the two is going to give them things?”

          See:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nj9e3JLGkA

          Poor, poor Bill.

      • J__o__h__n

        How would this be more protection?

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Did they name the bill?

        Trial Lawyer Employment Act of 2013.

        or

        Shakedown Industry Creation Act — Part N

        I don’t know much about the bill and I am against discrimination but supporters of these measures rarely recognize or acknowledge the pitfalls.

      • TFRX

        Keep JAQing it, straight white suburbanite.

        You really can’t imagine something when it doesn’t happen to you, can you?

        Try at least putting up the fig leaf of “some of my best friends are gay”.

        • William

          If you like your medical insurance you can keep it.

          • TFRX

            Keep JAQing it, chump.

  • NewtonWhale

    “Alexander Burns, senior poetical reporter for Politico.”

    Great poetical reporter. Must run in the family.
    His brother Bob wrote this one:

    “O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
    To see oursels as others see us!
    It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
    An’ foolish notion.”

    http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/267773-o-wad-some-power-the-giftie-gie-us-to-see

  • Ed75

    President Obama’s apology ran: “I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me,” That’s like saying ‘I’m sorry your car hit that tree’, after I ran you off the road. It is his plan, the good and the bad.

    It was nice to see the sibillant Sibelius squirm, the pro-abortion excommunicated Catholic, maybe she will repent.

    The Vatican is getting ready for a synod on the family. The year of faith is drawing to a close. The Vatican reminded Catholics of a 1992 direction not to attend events with the visionaries from Medjugorge, but it’s just because the Vatican hasn’t finished its investigation of Mary’s apparitions there. Don’t worry, it will be approved, it’s wonderful.

    A very good interview with a Jewish investigator Barrie Schwortz of the Shroud of Turin aired this week, can be seen at:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIUDaMatODM

    • NewtonWhale

      Pope Francis must be driving you crazy:

      Pope Francis has warned that the Catholic Church’s moral structure might “fall like a house of cards” if it doesn’t balance its divisive rules about abortion, gays and contraception with the greater need to make it a merciful, more welcoming place for all.

      “The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules,” he lamented. “The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you. And the ministers of the church must be ministers of mercy above all.”

      The admonition is likely to have sharp reverberations in the United States, where some bishops have already publicly voiced dismay that Francis hasn’t hammered home church teaching on abortion, contraception and homosexuality — areas of the culture wars where U.S. bishops often put themselves on the front lines.

      http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57603671/pope-francis-catholic-church-must-focus-beyond-small-minded-rules/

      • hennorama

        NewtonWhale — those crafty cardinals made a great choice in electing Pope Francis, a.k.a. “The Turnaround Artist.”

        Pope Francis is already an enormous success, as he has people around the globe talking about his words, actions, and his religion in a POSITIVE way, which is a far cry from recent history.

        Personally, I’ve paid more attention to Pope Francis’ actions and words than to all of the prior Popes in my lifetime, combined.

        By FAR.

        Pope Francis seems to be the epitome of a “holy man” — a true believer who is humble, kind, loving, and not interested in the trappings of high office.

        A man of both the Church AND the people, in other words.

      • Ed75

        No, I really like Pope Francis, he’s terrific. His statement is very sensible, asking for a balance. The teachings don’t change, but the reason to give up evil behavior is first because God is good, that’s the message to share, and that repentance and conversion is available to everyone.
        A few Catholic congress people in Illinois (I think, Indiana?) voted for same sex marriage and cited Pope Francis – but they didn’t cite his whole quote, or understand it. But they would have voted for it anyway, they were just looking for an excuse.

    • HonestDebate1

      I am not typically all that moved by actions of the Pope. That may be my deficiency. But this literally moved me to tears… and I’m a burly manly man.

      http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/pope3.jpg

      • Ed75

        Reminds us of Pope John.

    • J__o__h__n

      Shroud of Turin? Really?

      Was she actually excommunicated? I thought they only did that to truly evil people like nuns who think they can be priests.

      • NewtonWhale

        No, Ms. Secretary Sebelius has not been excommunicated. She was “admoished” by Archbishop Joseph Naumann, the archbishop of Kansas City, not to take communion. Not only is that not excommunication, it is not even a ban, merely a suggestion.

        If the Catholic church started excommunicating politicians for their political positions, there would be a firestorm. For starters, they would have to excommunicate every Catholic that supports the death penalty, including 4 members of the Supreme Court.

        • TFRX

          Now NewtonWhale, you know it only happens to Dems.

      • Ed75

        Yes, there was a priest in Australia recently who was excommunicated because he wouldn’t stop preaching that women should be priests, if I remember correctly, among other things.

  • fun bobby

    good artists borrow, great artists steal

  • John Cedar

    I didn’t follow Virgina’s election at all really, but from catching a few snippets here and there, it is clear that the election was decided by the MSN misrepresenting Cuccinelli’s stance on a sodomy law, combined with a libertarian candidate stealing a significant number of Cuccinelli’s voters away. Laughable that Politico would have us believe a Bobby Fischer inspired campaign won the election for McAuliffe. .

    • Ray in VT

      How did the evil Lamestream Media misrepresent Cuccinelli’s stance on the sodomy law?

      • keltcrusader

        by sharing it with everyone

        • Ray in VT

          How dare they!

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB
    • jefe68

      The man’s a bigot. Period.

      • HonestDebate1

        You can keep your plan, period.

        • Ray in VT

          Tilt!

          • HonestDebate1

            Period.

          • Ray in VT

            What was that about staying on focus and topic?

          • HonestDebate1

            Yes, it is essential to honest debate when trying to rebut someone. Some people just admit defeat by pin balling off to something else.

          • Ray in VT

            And some people, such as yourself, just lie about the definition of words and then declare victory. I am merely seeking to provide context and history regarding your comments on a particular issue. The best way to not have incredibly ridiculous comments thrown back into one’s face is probably to not make them. Fact checking oneself before one posts something also helps. Are you yet able to acknowledge that saying that the price tag for the ACA has tripled from that $940 number is not correct, or are you going to defend that distortion to the last?

          • HonestDebate1

            If you made a reply on the other thread where I addressed it, then I have not read it. As I recall, I replied to someone who asked me to back up my claim that the problems with Obamacare went beyond the website. I did. I listed 8 or 10. One of those was that the original cost (that you had no idea about) tripled. I still don’t know what you acknowledge, maybe you like doubled better and think that negates the long lists of problems i cited. Maybe obamacare is exactly as it was old and with zero negative impact. What’s an extra 900 billion? But no, I explained and gave sources for the $2.6 trillion figure. Did you address the fact that the first estimate included 2 years before implementation? Did you acknowledge the implementation costs not included in the estimate? You ignored it and gave me some Democrat party line while you implied Jeff Sessions everybody else was lying.

            No, the $2.6 trillion price tag is accurate but it is a little less than triple. So I’ll admit that. Sorry for the confusion.

          • Ray in VT

            You told me that the 2.6 was from the CBO, which it was not. Surely if those numbers are accurate and valid, then the CBO would back them up. I’ll take their numbers of Boehner and Co., who cooked up the 2.6 trillion figure.

            I acknowledged where those figures came from and what they covered, noting that they were apples and oranges, and therefor to say that they were the same was wrong. You stick by Sessions? Okay. So the CBO is lying, as are the Democrats. You write off Democratic criticisms as “party line”, yet you advance the GOP party line by using their number. The fact is that they are not comparable, but if you want to continue to present them as such, then go ahead by all means. Being wrong about something certainly hasn’t stopped you from repeatedly claiming something previously, so I expect that you will continue to do so in the future.

          • HonestDebate1

            It is from the CBO. The report said $1.76 trillion but it did not include implementation cost which the CBO also calculated. Boehner had nothing to do with it. The CBO didn’t lie, they cite the number they are given the data to calculate.

            “Adding up all the different spending provisions in the health care law, however, (including closing the Medicare ‘donut hole,’ implementation costs, and other spending) total gross spending over the FY 2010–19 period is about $1.4 trillion,based on CBO estimates

            http://news.yahoo.com/estimated-cost-obamacare-now-2-6-trillion-nearly-042311293.html

            “Since then, the price tag has continued to climb. Total spending under the Affordable Care Act will reach $2.6 trillion over its first full decade, according to a Senate Budget Committee analysis, which was based on Congressional Budget Office estimates and growth rates.

            http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/11/analysis-obamacare-to-cost-2-6-trillion-over-first-full-decade/#ixzz2k5QsPPqM

            http://live.wsj.com/video/opinion-obamacare-26-trillion-price-tag/F08B85BD-D9EE-43E3-BD12-38694016714E.html#!F08B85BD-D9EE-43E3-BD12-38694016714E

            Yes, Democrats have lied repeatedly about Obamcare. It’s a matter of record. I’m not afraid so say it and show it. that’s honest debate. If you think Sessions is lying have the guts to say it and show why. Honest debate is not rockery science.

            Here’s the thing, I happily say the price merely doubled, will you? I’d apologize even if I’m right but you are clinging to a thread you think disproves my multi-example point that Obamacare is a lie fraught with peril. You won’t go near that,

          • Ray in VT

            I am happy to compare apples to apples, which your disgustingly, painfully, blatantly dishonest presentation of the numbers do not. You say that honest debate is not rocket science, but whatever it is seems to be far beyond your capabilities. You can read, right? You can see that the numbers cited for your supposed doubling or tripling are coming not from the CBO’s estimates that are looking at the same things, right? Or are you incapable of that?

        • jefe68

          What plan would that be?

    • MrNutso

      The Virginia election was nothing more than choosing between two bad candidates. Current Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling would have been a shoo for both the Rep. primary and the general. No prominent Democrat planned to run. However, the Tea Party forced a convention for the nomination instead of a primary and picked Cuccinelli. By that time McAuliffe was the Democrat running and the rest is history.

    • TFRX

      You really didn’t follow it at all.

  • JONBOSTON

    Tom Asbrook and Jack Beatty:
    Topic for roundtable discussion:
    After Tuesday night’s near calamity for Democrats in Virginia, 16 Democrat Senators , all of whom are either up for re-election in 2014 or will be retiring from the Senate, met with Obama to discuss their concerns over Obamacare. But what really motivated them? Was it concern over Obamacare’s impact on the public, especially those that have been hurt by Obamacare? Or, as I suspect was it concern over their re-election prospects? For just once, it would be nice to hear some discussion about the state of the Democrat Party. For the past 5 years , Democrats in Washington have stood in lock step with Obama , never questioning his policies and leadership. And never questioning the wisdom of the ACA. Now , only when it was in their own self-interest were these 16 Democrats willing to voice support for Republican calls ( or dare I say Ted Cruz and Tea Party ) to delay the individual mandate. Is this leadership? I think not and it’s why so many , myself included, are disgusted with all Washington politicians.

    • TFRX

      Near calamity?

      McAuliffe was almost a nobody as a candidate. As a lefty, I’m fascinated with the ret-conning in the media and the right of Terry McAuliffe (nobody’s answer to anything with a (D) after their name), became some sort of Don Draper charisma-laden juggernaut in hindsight, in order to make that victory into some sort of a loss.

      Why don’t you just trot out the tired Tea Party cry of “We Won Too”?

      • HonestDebate1

        Nobody? Do you remember Bill Clinton?

        • TFRX

          Your selective ignorance is noted.

          Yes, candidate.

          I’m missing the part where anyone, be they a Democrat or a Chuck Toddian Beltway Inbred Savvy Insider, said This McAuliffe is freakin’ dynamic! The Dems are throwing away their future if they don’t get him elected into a springboard office to the Presidency”.

    • hennorama

      JONBOSTON — it’s the DemocratIC Party, and the so-called “Tea Party” is not a national political party, nor is it separate from the Republican Party.

      And if you’re “disgusted with all Washington politicians,” then party distinctions shouldn’t matter to you at all, right?

      • JONBOSTON

        I’m disgusted with any politician that puts party ahead of country. And I believe it’s more a problem with Washington Democrats. Look what happened to Sen Joe Lieberman. Or Sen. Evan Bayh. All good and decent principled politicians who no longer were mainstream Democratic politicians. Instead we get someone like the new NYC mayor who in another era would be labeled at best a Socialist. It’s too bad we don’t have term limits for federal offices–it would eliminate the need for much of the fundraising, corruption, and reduce somewhat the influence of special interest groups.
        PS–I think this is at least the second time you’ve corrected my use of the word “democrat” or “democratic”. You are this board’s unofficial grammatatician ( did I say/spell it right?)

        • hennorama

          JONBOSTON — thank you for your response.

          I understand your views and agree in part.

          As to Democrat Party vs. Democratic Party: 1. Democratic Party is the party’s official name, and 2. the use of “Democrat Party” has become a petty epithet, and we already have more than enough acrimony in politics without adding to it with inaccurate noun-as-adjective expressions.

          In the same way, it would be silly and petty to refer to the “Republic Party,” rather than the Republican Party, as Rep. Anthony Weiner did repeatedly on the House floor, in early 2007.

          See:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsqprEihjXg

          Rather than being a grammatician/grammaticist/grammarian, I’m interested in accuracy, and decorum would be a nice bonus.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            I am amused by the fact that some Democrats resent being referred to as Democrats.

            By the way, in the interest of accuracy, while the Tea Party Movement is not a national political party, it is very much separate from the Republican Party. Perhaps it is because we oppose some Democrats that distinction is lost on you.

          • hennorama

            RWB — thank you for your response.

            The point of “Democrat Party” vs. Democratic Party is one of accuracy and decorum. In the same way, one would expect the term “teabagger” to be viewed as inaccurate and indecorous. I certainly wouldn’t use such a term.

            Please point to any elected officials in the Federal government who ran under TPM auspices and who are NOT in the Republican Party.

            Are any of members of the Tea Party Caucus in the House or the Senate NOT Republicans?

            While I understand the distinction you are trying to make, this distinction is not apparent to the general public, and as such, is a major problem for both Republicans and members of the TPM. With each successive electoral failure, the worst aspects of both groups are being conflated with the other.

            The true grassroots groups of the TPM that consider themselves separate from the Republican Party are becoming less and less electorally important. Without organization and money, getting beyond a minority will ultimately prove impossible.

            And becoming a third national party will have the same result — electoral defeat, for both the TPM and the Republican Party.

            Thanks again for your response.

          • HonestDebate1

            Decorum? How do you refer to Rush? Or Thomas Sowell?

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            I am curious as to why you equate “Democrat” with “teabagger” ? The differences are plain to even the most casual reader. If it was “Deathacrats” or “Demorats” et al. It is apparent which is an insulting corruption of a name and which is not.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Thank you RWB. I was thinking the same thing (eg, dumbocrats).

          • hennorama

            RWB — the favor of your reply is appreciated. Thank you.

            Please note that I did not “equate ‘Democrat’ with ‘teabagger.’ Rather, I compared the use of the term “Democrat Party” and the use of the term “teabagger,” and view them to each be both inaccurate and indecorous.

            As stated to another member of the forum, we already have more than enough acrimony in politics without adding to it with inaccurate expressions.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            I do not wish to add to the acrimony we both seek to avoid, but The National Party uses the website: https://my.democrats.org
            Are they allowed to use that word and the rest of us are not?

          • hennorama

            RWB — Democrats are members of the Democratic Party. No one is objecting to the use of the word Democrat alone, but rather the inaccurate term “Democrat Party.”

            To enhance your understanding, see:

            http://www.democrats.org/about/democratic_national_committee

          • HonestDebate1

            “I do not wish to add to the acrimony we both seek to avoid”

            I respect that and have been there with Hennon. I tried hard but IMHO Hennorama is disingenuous in her claim to want to avoid acrimony. She’ll carelessly cut you and laugh while your bleeding (h/t Billy Joel). After a year or so I gave up. I respect your intention, good luck.

          • HonestDebate1

            It seems to me the Republican party has Republicans and the democrat party has democrats. I don’t really care, I just like watching them have hissies.

          • TFRX

            Really cutesy ignorance. Some of my best friends are “Jew lawyers”.

            I’ll check with them about how using a noun (like Democrat) as an adjective plays.

          • HonestDebate1

            I don’t really care, I just like watching them have hissies. Thanks.

      • HonestDebate1

        “…and the so-called “Tea Party” is not a national political party, nor is it separate from the Republican Party.”

        That doesn’t square.

  • alsordi

    No surprise on Twitter, the Federal Reserve (private bank) is creating money and pumping it to their pals on Wall Street. These rallies are on steroids, it doesn’t take much to pump them up.

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      The Blue Model requires them

      FTA
      The cycle of dependence on Wall Street usually follows a pattern. Public employee union leaders demand generous benefits as the price of their political support; politicians promise things like higher future pay and early retirement. Wary of public backlash, however, these officials don’t advocate cutting services or raising taxes to cover the shiny new pay packages they have established. The discrepancy between benefits promised and funds available becomes unbridgeable. Desperate to keep from falling too far behind, pension funds turn to the risky side of Wall Street, which gets rich off the panic. All too often, the Wall Street solution to blue model imperatives leaves taxpayers and pensioners stranded.

      http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/10/25/the-blue-model-needs-wall-street-to-survive/

  • Ray in VT

    The new employment report is interesting, although I’d personally rather wait and see for another month or so in order to see whether or not any of these numbers have been affected due to the shutdown. Nonfarm private sector jobs were up by 204,000, with the August and September numbers revised up by 60,000 total. Third quarter GDP was also up from the second quarter.

    • HonestDebate1

      In October the labor force participation rate fell to the lowest its been in over 35 years.

      http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

      • Ray in VT

        Way to concentrate on the bad and ignore the good. But the sky must continue to fall. The end is near after all.

        • HonestDebate1

          It beats putting up numbers that paint only half the picture and ignore the bad…. the very bad…. the 35 year bad.

          • Ray in VT

            More people have jobs. Jobs have increased at a faster rate than those entering the workforce, and we have an aging population. It ain’t the end of the world.

          • HonestDebate1

            Figure out how many have part time jobs instead of full time jobs that are counted the same. Then figure out how many are taking huge pay cuts or working dead end jobs out of desperation, Then consider population growth.

            http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/how-many-jobs-are-needed-keep-population-growth

            The percentage of people working is at a 35 year low. You’re putting lipstick on a pig.

          • Ray in VT

            I forgot. Everything is so bad, and it’s just been getting worse ever since Obama came into office. Everything is his fault.

      • Euphoriologist

        Exactly. This is why we desperately need Congress to stop destroying jobs with their threats and antics and start creating more of them. Without the Fed’s emergency stimulative measures, even more people would be out of work. It’s already a low-level disaster for millions of Americans as it is.

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    Personally, I seldom think about Hiss…

    FTA:
    The Tea Party is a huge intellectual problem for blue model liberals. It sprang up out of nowhere, it lacks a formal leadership structure, and despite many obituaries in the MSM, it remains a significant force in the Republican Party and in American politics as a whole. It is everything Occupy Wall Street hoped to become, and the MSM did everything possible to make OWS flourish. It was hailed as a movement of historic impact, the start of a global trend, one of those epochal developments after which nothing will ever be the same—and it guttered out ignominiously.

    http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/11/02/is-the-tea-party-really-all-about-alger-hiss/

  • NewtonWhale

    CBS smears Obama administration over Benghazi, now says “nevermind”:

    Lara Logan Apologizes For Botched ’60 Minutes’ Benghazi Report, Says Show Will Issue Correction

    In a humiliating retreat from a piece she had staunchly defended, “60 Minutes” correspondent Lara Logan admitted on Friday morning that she and the news magazine had made a “mistake” in their reporting of a controversial story about the Benghazi attacks. She apologized to viewers and said “60 Minutes” will issue a correction about the reliability of one of her key sources, security contractor Dylan Davies, on its next program.

    “We were wrong to put him on air,” she said, adding, “We will apologize to our viewers and we will correct the record on our broadcast on Sunday night.”

    It emerged on Thursday that Davies, who gave Logan a hair-raising, detailed account of his actions during the 2012 attack, had previously told the FBI that he hadn’t even gone to the site where it took place. This was the second occasion where Davies had been recorded as saying that he wasn’t at the scene of the crime. He had already admitted to doing so once, but CBS and Logan had firmly backed him, saying that he had lied to his employer to protect himself.

    Lying to the FBI, however, is a different matter, and “60 Minutes” pulled the report and said it was “reviewing” the new information to determine whether it had been misled.

    That review led to Logan’s apology on Friday morning.

    “The most important thing to every person at ’60 Minutes’ is the truth, and today the truth is that we made a mistake,” she said, calling it a very “disappointing” situation.

    Logan said that the emergence of the FBI was “the moment for us when we realized that we no longer had confidence in our source.” She said that the show had taken the vetting of Davies “very seriously,” but that he had “misled” everyone.

    “CBS This Morning” host Norah O’Donnell asked Logan, “Why would you stand by this report after Dylan Davies admitted lying to his own employer?” Logan said that Davies had always portrayed that lie as part of a patriotic, selfless desire to help his fellow security workers, even though he was not supposed to be at the compound.

    CBS has been heavily criticized for its handling of the controversy.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/08/lara-logan-apologizes-60-minutes-benghazi-correction_n_4239046.html

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Just like the ‘flawed’ Bush Texas Air National Guard story they had to retract?

      • Ray in VT

        It’s just too bad that the guy behind the supposed font issues admitted that that bit was bunk.

      • NewtonWhale

        The allegations were true.

        Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate, Typist Says

        The secretary for the squadron commander purported to be the author of now-disputed memorandums questioning President Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard said Tuesday that she never typed the documents and believed that they are fakes.

        But she also said they accurately reflect the thoughts of the commander, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, and other memorandums she typed for him about Mr. Bush. “The information in them is correct,” the woman, Marian Carr Knox, now 86, said in an interview at her home here.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/politics/campaign/15guard.html

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Man, how can they take advantage of an Alzheimer’s patient like that. Shame on the NYTimes. Terrible.

    • OnPointComments

      If “60 Minutes” says it’s sorry it put the viewers in this situation based on assurances they got from the report, will that make everything okay?

    • William

      Not the first time CBS lied. Remember how Dan Rather lied and attacked President Bush.

  • http://www.CayerComputing.com/ Melissa A. Cayer

    I read and heard that the Food and Drug Administration made shortening illegal. How will this effect the Pie industry?

    • StilllHere

      Bureaucrats will be coming to your house and monitoring your pie baking this holiday season. Hide the Crisco!

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      You’re kidding? No more Crisco?

    • jefe68

      I make my own pies. With butter. And you can buy, as they can as well, shorting that is not a trans-fat.

    • hennorama

      On a related note — End of an era in St. Louis — Twinkie molds auctioned off:

      “Pieces of St. Louis baking history are up on the auction block Tuesday.

      “The pans that were used to make Hostess favorites like Twinkies, Zingers, Ding Dongs and Wonder Bread are up for sale – but you can’t buy just one, you have to buy a set.

      “That means you have to buy 1,000 Twinkie molds or 2,400 cupcake pans.”

      See:
      http://www.ksdk.com/story/money/2013/11/05/hostess-auction-st-louis/3440741/

  • StilllHere

    October’s employment numbers confirm what we already knew, the shutdown had no impact whatsoever. So, when it happens again early next year as Obama refuses to negotiate, just remember you’ve got nothing to fear and ignore Obama’s lies.

  • AC
    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      I’m a big fan of self driving cars. I think this technology will help a lot of people that today have trouble getting around. It is with out a doubt that robots are better drivers.

      http://www.technologyreview.com/news/520746/data-shows-googles-robot-cars-are-smoother-safer-drivers-than-you-or-i/

      • AC

        i know, being old for us is going to be a breeze…

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        No question it will be the way of the future.
        However, think about the Toyota ‘stuck’ sudden accelerator controversy. I suspect every self driving car will require a ‘black box’ just to protect against liability law suits.

        • AC

          i read an article recently that said insurance companies are finally getting in on this to work out liability issues. they said insurance costs may go down because the system will be better. i have to be honest, that one made me suspicious – insurance companies lowering their prices? ha!

  • Coastghost

    What exactly is Obama “apologizing” for? He’s apologizing that 5% of the American electorate is losing health insurance coverage that HE PROMISED no one would lose? Why doesn’t he simply apologize for LYING?

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      For getting caught. That is all any politician apologizes for.

      • OnPointComments

        He’s not at all sorry that he lied, but he’s very very sorry that he got caught lying.

      • HonestDebate1

        Not all, I remember watching this live after the Newt witch hunt. He confessed and begged forgiveness before he was caught.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC1wK3XZJyU

    • AC

      to be honest, i think he thinks about himself in historic terms, i really do. it’s the element of humility he wants to capitalize on, so all the attacks on him look vicious by comparison…maybe you’re falling for it?

      • Coastghost

        Barack Obama, Humble US President: I certainly don’t fall for that.

  • Fredlinskip

    Considering some of Cucinelli’s extremist views, Va. election doesn’t necessarily bode well for Dems in next year’s midterms.

    If not for voter disgust over GOP manufactured shutdown/default crisis,
    AND resulting distraction provided from ACA “rollout“, it seems apparent that Virginia Governor would now be Republican.

    Dems need hope Sebelius gets act together SOON.

    • William

      The Democratic party continues to endorse extremist left wing radicals like De Blasio. What happened to the moderates in the Democratic party?

      • J__o__h__n

        One is president. Hillary isn’t being hidden.

      • jefe68

        It’s one city, calm down.

      • TFRX

        Gawd, you’re pathetic when you’re stretching.

        • jefe68

          The right wingers are really on the rag today.

        • William

          Certainly, it’s nice to live in denial, but when you call that guy a moderate we all should be worried.

          • Ray in VT

            Where are the moderate Republicans? The Chafee and Jeffords types? Didn’t the nuts run them out of town during the past decade?

      • jimino

        DeBlasio’s main target is the outsize influence of ridiculously rich Wall Streeters who pay less in taxes than the typical working stiff. Doesn’t that make him a Tea Party guy? Or does he have to attack Social Security, Medicare and food stamps to meet their criteria?

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      Won’t happen. Not before December.
      More Democrats now are supporting a delay in the personal mandate. I oppose giving it to them. They had a chance during the shut down. That window has closed. The Dems own it.

    • MrNutso

      The Virginia election was about choosing the lesser of two bad candidates. Current Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling would have cruised to victory in the Rep. primary and general if he had a chance to run.

      • Fredlinskip

        Don’t think Dems can afford to sit around and hope GOP continue to “shoot themselves in their own foot”.
        Dem strategy could use an upgrade before midterms.

        • MrNutso

          You should run your best candidate every time, because you never know what can happen.

  • William

    If Scott Walker decides to run Christie is last year’s Christmas present.

    • Bigtruck

      that’s funny, nonsense but funny. Walker is a divider and will not make it out of the beer and cheese state, no matter what HE decides.

      • William

        Certainly, we will have to have a massive police force in place to beat down the leftist radicals like we saw in WI. Scott Walker will win the GOP base and that scares the heck out of the Liberals and the RINO’s.

        • Bigtruck

          Your right William nothing scares decent people more than ignorance doing the bidding of the Koch brothers. The American people already fought and died against industry for living wages and human rights. That’s our history, you can read about it in books. Lets try not to repeat it. Our children deserve better.

          • StilllHere

            Oh no, not the Koch brothers! Democrat boogeymen.

          • Bigtruck

            Should be your Bogeymen as well.

          • William

            You Liberals bow before the wizards of Wall Street and the icons of the high tech world while they walk away with billionss. The CEO of Google laughs about not paying taxes but that’s ok because he is a big Liberal. You are consumed with worrying about the Koch brothers while the very rich Liberals laugh all the way to the bank. The old Stalin phrase for you guys “useful idiots” fits very well.

          • Bigtruck

            Read the history or repeat it

          • HonestDebate1

            Somebody in the White House needs to read up on Keynesian economics.

          • Ray in VT

            I’m sure that the Kochs feel the same way about all of the dopes in tri-corner hats that they’ve been able to motivate into supporting their interests.

          • jefe68

            You seem confused, disoriented and posting mindless memes.
            Take a few aspirin an have a rest.

        • AC

          what are RINOs?

          • hennorama

            Rich
            Idiots
            (Not
            Ours)

            More commonly:

            Republicans
            In
            Name
            Only

          • MrNutso

            Previously know as just Republicans.

          • HonestDebate1

            Decorum dude decorum. Accuracy would be nice too.

          • TFRX

            Republican in Name Only.

            After the right-ward lurching the GOP has been on for the last third of a century, their still-wingnut “base” considers anyone primariable because they’re not wingnut enough.

            To talk to some Tea Party sorts, Mitch McConnell is a RINO.

          • William

            The Democrats elect a Communist as the Mayor of NYC and we should worry about the Republicans?

          • TFRX

            Keep JAQing it, bub.

          • anamaria23

            So, putting a lid on stop and frisk is communism, but stopping and frisking minorities is not?

          • jefe68

            Regressive
            Inane
            Nihilist
            Obructionist

          • TFRX

            See Clay Bennett for the non-anagram definition:

          • J__o__h__n

            That’s great.

          • hennorama

            Ouch.

          • HonestDebate1

            If the implication is that any Republican (maybe you meant Tea Partier) who calls another Republican a RINO is a racist, and I think that was your intent, then it’s sick, shallow and pathetic. It never ends with you guys. I am going to have to seriously reconsider my position that libs are just nasty and don’t realize their positions hold blacks in low regard. I realize how uninterested y’all are in the truth but is the race card the best you can do? It’s truly sick.

            I am talking to you and those who liked this embarrassing display:

            Ray
            Hennorama
            Jefe
            J_o_h_n
            cowardly guest (I suppose the coward has at least a little shame)

            I am sincerely relieved that AC (the one who asked the question) didn’t click the button.

          • J__o__h__n

            I thought that flag was a symbol of Southern heritage and pride not racism. At least that is what they claim.

            The moderates in the Republican party have been forced out by the more extreme elements whose agenda comes from the Southern wing of that party.

          • HonestDebate1

            I consider pundits like the Davids Brooks and Frum or politicians like Arlen Spector and Lincoln Chaffee RINOs.

        • jefe68

          Must be so soothing to be living in a fantasy world. However, the reality is the majority of Americans will not vote for a tea party extremist in a presidential election. But I do hope he gets nominated, or better yet Rand Paul.

          • William

            Obama is an extremist and got elected. You need to put aside your leftist dreams and realize that people don’t want to go down the failed path of Liberalism. Obama had to lie to get his Obama-care put in place. That is what Liberalism is all about, lie after lie, and failure after failure.

          • Ray in VT

            Yet decade after decade people choose it over conservatism.

          • jefe68

            If you think President Obama is an extremist then that’s your problem.
            He’s a lot of things, extremist is not one of them.

          • HonestDebate1

            Name another President that passed a law as sweeping and transformative as Obamacare on a party line vote. He’s extreme.

  • AC

    Chris Christie seems interesting….what are some pos and negs about him?

    • TFRX

      He’s a bully.

      Not just “strong”, “steadfast”, “insistent”.

    • MrNutso

      Pro: He’s a University of Delaware graduate. Go Hen’s.

      Con: He’s a moderate Republican enabler.

      • hennorama

        MrNutso — thanks for the tip o’ the hat. ;-)

        • MrNutso

          Class of ’83. You?

          • TFRX

            Tangent: I like how Elena Delle Donne didn’t have to be a “Lady Hen” for four years, like so many women who are Lady Knights or Lady Bulls (to name two from a looong list) playing college hoops.

          • MrNutso

            Agreed.

          • hennorama

            MrNutso — No. “Go Hen’s” + [hennorama] = tip o’ the hat.

          • MrNutso

            Got it.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Mass exodus of the wealthy from NYC?

    Look at France.

    • jefe68

      If they want to go, let them. However, somehow I doubt this will happen.
      The Bill deBlasio had 73% of the vote. That’s not a landslide, that’s a wake.

  • Coastghost

    Let’s assume for a moment that Christie maintains national momentum and helps displace Tea Partiers from Republican ranks: does anyone think Tea Party ire simply dissolves into the atmosphere? Further marginalized, they’re apt to become even MORE radicalized, MORE insistent, MORE disaffected.

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      LOL You always bring a smile to my face.

    • Euphoriologist

      I completely agree with Coastghost’s prediction here. Frightening times are ahead for all of us. It will get worse before it gets better.

    • StilllHere

      Really, where are they going to go? It’s like the lib whiners, their only option is to change from within. The middle 60% aren’t going anywhere.

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    How much will you pay for Health Insurance? 3-1/2 times as much like this guy?

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/former-msnbc-hosts-health-plan-cancelled-new-plan-costs-3-5-times-more/

    • OnPointComments

      It is a fantasy for anyone to think that all of the uninsured will be insured, that the “10 essential benefits” will be added to all health insurance policies, and that insurers will be required to cover pre-existing conditions, and that premiums will not skyrocket.

  • iccheap

    These hearings contain too much political grandstanding. Nothing like sounding like a “tough guy” fighting for the common man. If you buy their feigned indignation I have some land to sell.

  • toc1234

    Dem rats starting to jump off the sinking Obama ship… and wait til Dec 1st when the website is still a piece of ____.. they’ll be tripping over each other to run away from a radioactive lameduck Obama…

    • lobstahbisque

      Ah, to be a Teflon president!

  • toc1234

    yeah, they’ll get more Jack… 80 y/o will have maternity and newborn care…

    • AC

      that’s will be nice, to know your children and grandchildren are going to be ok…

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Reform of the individual market, Jack?

    At a cost of $2.6T. 30 million still uninsured.

    There were better ways, certainly.

  • Coastghost

    And, Jack Beatty, you and your media cohorts, pleased to let Obama work his magic in DC in 2009ff. without criticism, without second-guessing, without asking questions, with approval and endorsement, did NOTHING yourselves to alert the American public to the fraud being perpetrated.

  • J__o__h__n

    Religious exemptions from laws should only extend to religious institutions. The special rights the religious are claiming to justify discrimination against gays and women are ridiculous.

  • OnpointListener

    Please discuss the decision of the 5th Circuit denying an emergency stay of the Texas abortion laws and Scalia’s refusal to impose a stay. We are witnessing an extreme attack on the privacy rights of women and on women health. This is what happens when you pack courts with hacks and ideologues as judges.

  • OnPointComments

    Maybe Boehner should schedule a vote on ENDA after Harry Reid schedules a vote on the “Keep Your Health Plan Act.”

  • atakemoto

    Politicians misbehaving seems to be the name of the game. Whether they are doing it with drugs, sex, insider trading, or any other behavior unbecoming to an elected official, I am not surprised by any sleazy shenanigans in which they are involved.

  • MrNutso

    Rather than Rob Ford, how about discussing Senate Republican’s BS claims that the President is packing the DC circuit by nominating judges for vacancies.

    • TFRX

      Now MrNutso, if Chuck Todd isn’t talking about it, how important can it be?

    • TFRX

      I got a better one: If those folks in the DC circuit want judicial representation, They can always move,

  • William

    Will the gay law create or force hiring quotas to keep the EEOC at bay?

  • AlanThinks

    Microwave popcorn – buy plain popcorn, place it in a heavy paper bag, put it in the microwave on popcorn setting, put some healthy oil like Olive on it. Save money and eat a better snack.

    • TFRX

      EVOO or the less virgin stuff? Cos high heat does a number of the flavor of EVOO. (I usually don’t geek out about food in a thread like this.)

    • hennorama

      AlanThinks — you can also get excellent results, without any oil, by using the

      “Presto PowerPop popper. It easily fits in a microwave oven with a cavity size not less than 6.5″ H x 10″ W. It comes with ExclusivePowerBase and PowerCup concentrators to pop almost every kernel, leaving none scorched or unpopped. The Presto popcorn popper makes 3 quarts of crispy popcorn in just minutes. You can also add oil or salt for more flavor. Dishwasher-safe to make cleaning easy.”

      It’s available in stores and online.

      (Not a paid endorsement)

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        I prefer hot air popcorn, although I some times make hot oil popcorn with additional flavorings. (Herbs, garlic depends on the movie.)

        • hennorama

          RWB — like hot air poppers, the product in my post works very well, and really does make “crispy popcorn in just minutes.”

          Exactly 2 minutes in my microwave.

          In my view, the key ingredient, after the popcorn of course, is popcorn salt. And butter. And hot sauce, on occasion.

          Obviously, good old American popcorn is a widely enjoyed snack.

          And, importantly, something we can agree on.

          Enjoy.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            It is a place to start.
            So on classic films:
            “Casablanca” or “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”

          • hennorama

            RWB — Good films, indeed, and interesting that you enjoyed two films with plots involving gambling and an escort. ;-)

            I’ve been re-watching Akira Kurosawa’s classics of late, and noted a quote from a minor character in ‘Sanjuro’:

            “The best sword is kept in its sheath.”

            See:
            http://kurosawainreview.blogspot.com/2009/08/sanjuro-1962.html

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            I have not seen that film but I greatly enjoyed Yojimbo. Now I have to come up with a ginger or wasabi popcorn.

          • hennorama

            RWB — TY again for your response.

            The film ‘Sanjuro’ is the sequel of ‘Yojimbo,’ as described in the link in my post. Due to the massive success of ‘Yojimbo,’ Kurosawa rewrote the script, and rushed it into production. If you like ‘Yojimbo,’ you’ll likely enjoy ‘Sanjuro.’

            Also, both ginger and wasabi are available in powder form, making them easy to sprinkle on your popcorn.

            Alternatively, a bit of soy sauce works too.

  • Coastghost

    What would “the patch” consist of that would amend the (Un)Affordable Care Tax Act to permit ALL Americans to keep whatever health insurance policies they had as of 30 Sep? If ACTA is “simply” imposing quality control standards on the health insurance industry, what did Federal regulatory policy consist of prior to the 2008 election? I mean: if the Feds have been so toothless or weak-jawed, or both, what faith can anyone have in Federal oversight of the health insurance market?
    And if Obama is in full-blown apology mode now, why is HE not out in front leading and cajoling Congress to implement this corrective?

    • MrNutso

      Health insurance is regulated by states, not the federal government. That’s why insurers can’t sell policy’s across state lines. Each state sets the minimum required coverages,

  • M S

    If my employer knew what I was up to, he would discriminate against me in all sorts of ways…let’s just keep adding to the list.

    • StilllHere

      Examples please.

  • MrNutso

    It’s amazing that a company can be valued so high and make so much capital and they don’t even make anything. Their entire model is based on forcing advertising on users.

    • TFRX

      To quote from the first season of “Heroes” (back when it was good), “We’ll put this video on YouTube and make a million bucks!”

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    CNN aired Pandora’s Promise last night. PP is a documentary on the nuclear energy industry from the view of ex-anti-nuclear activists and environmentalists concerned with CO2 emissions. They dispel many of the myths used to kill the US nuclear developments in the ’70s and ’80s. I thought the film was well done and it is an interesting that it comes from environmentalists.

    The panel hosted by Anderson Cooper after the film was also interesting. They had the films director and Dr. Jim Hansen supporting the film and nuclear and another environmental activist whose position was “nuclear is OK but we shouldn’t build any”. Instead we can solve all problems with efficiency and wind and solar. Purely an emotional response to the scale of the problem. She looked quite silly.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/opinion/pandora-nuclear-stone-ifr-response/

    • hennorama

      WftC — I caught a bit of that last evening, and found the bit about background radiation, especially near Chernobyl, very interesting. The film is definitely going into my streaming video service queue.

      To find out more, including other showings of the film, see:

      http://pandoraspromise.com/#/news

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        It was interesting the during the prototype testing in the ’90s of the IFR they tested the Fukushima failure scenario (ie, cut the power) and the reactor shut down safely without intervention. The IFR reduces waste by 90%. John Kerry didn’t fair too well in the film though since he spearheaded killing the IFR.

        • hennorama

          WftC — I only caught snippets of the film, and your comments make it even more clear that the film is worth a look.

          Thanks for sharing.

          • HonestDebate1

            Of topic:

            I’m just curious given the way you parse things, do you think President Obama apologized to people for losing their plans?

  • ajhodge

    If people want to eat trans fats and treat themselves to a heart attack, fine by me. As long as they have their own health insurance and don’t make the rest o us pay for the cost associated with their self-inflicted heart attack.

    • J__o__h__n

      The problem is that the manufacturers use it as it is cheap and extends the shelf life. And food labels can claim to have none of it if it has less than a certain amount per serving.

      • TFRX

        There is quite the disconnect between that “fine by me” personal responsiblity schtick and the fantasy of the informed decision which everyone in Galt’s Gulch seems to be able to make

  • AC

    i’m more concerned about regulations around imported foods. especially for pets. what the heck is going on there? it seems there is a recall every other month on dog food! i don’t mind cooking for my dog, but it’s easier to buy ‘treats’…

  • MrNutso

    I don’t know what other Americans are buying, but crackers and snacks I find sitting in the cupboard for months are usually inedible.

    • jefe68

      Except for Twinkies.

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        I love twinkies.

  • Coastghost

    What exactly explains NPR’s current mania with the mayor of Toronto, Ontario? Was NPR this sensitive and concerned with the performance of Marion Barry?

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Toronto is the 4th largest city in North America. It’s news.

      • TFRX

        Where does Mexico City figure into this number?

        • northeaster17

          Mexico is in Central America…I think.

          • TFRX

            Not according to many things, such as CONCACAF and NAFTA.

        • hennorama

          TFRX – Mexico City is the most populous city in North America, followed by NYC, Los Angeles, Toronto, and Chicago.

          Toronto surpassed Chicago this year, according to Statistics Canada and the U.S. Census Bureau. As reported on nationalpost.com:

          “The latest data from Statistics Canada and the U.S. Census Bureau show Toronto’s population at an estimated 2,791,140, narrowly edging out Chicago, which sits at an estimated 2,707,120. The top three spots go to Mexico City, New York and Los Angeles.”

          See:
          http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/06/toronto-overtakes-chicago-as-fourth-largest-city-in-north-america/

          • TFRX

            Strictly city numbers are great, but at what point are we dealing with megaplexes? The FCC calls them “markets”.

            (You know, you don’t have to answer this one–let someone else do the work for a change.)

          • hennorama

            TFRX — thanks for the time off.

            BTW — I’ve been to all five cities. I wouldn’t want to live in any of them, but they are all fun to visit, and are nice at different times of year.

            For example, I’d go to Mexico City in March, before the heat and rain get most prevalent, and while it’s still nicely warm, with just enough rain to keep the pollution in reasonable check.

            Each of the three northern cities have interesting neighborhoods, varied cuisine, cultural attractions, architecture, and different types of cosmopolitan-ness.

            And of course, LA is LA, and is near the ocean, mountains, farmland, and the desert. And Vegas is an hour way by air, if you like that sort of thing.

            There’s rarely a dull moment in all five, in my experience.

          • TFRX

            All five?

            Mexico City is on my list of to-dos, once I pick a Mexican soccer team to root for.

            I went from LAX to an office park (with a day at Universal Studios), so I wouldn’t count that as “being in LA”.

          • hennorama

            TFRX — yep, all five. I’ve traveled a great deal, and still am on the road to somewhere else virtually every month.

            My first experience flying into LAX was both eye-opening and lung-constricting, as it was during a smog inversion, and we descended through the layer.

            Thankfully these smog events are largely in the past in LA.

            Unfortunately, inversions are still common in Mexico City. Believe it or not, the problem is so severe, there’s even a new hospital building with an exterior that “eats” smog.

            See:
            http://news.discovery.com/tech/mexico-city-building-exterior-eats-smog-120726.htm

            Good luck landing on one Mexican team to follow. As I recall, Mexico City itself has two or three pro teams, each with their own stadium. Cruz Azul comes to mind, but I don’t really follow soccer much in non-World Cup years. I do really like the atmosphere at Seattle Sounders games, though. That place flippin’ ROCKS during matches, and the fans, and the fan experience, are amazing.

      • Coastghost

        I still don’t find municipal governance of Toronto a compelling story for most Americans: while the bulk of Canada’s population resides within a hundred miles of the US/Canada border, most Americans are not so closely tuned to Canadian city governance to much care what escapades the mayor of Toronto participates in. (If the mayor were sending municipal contracts exclusively to American firms, or if he was withholding business from Americans, I’d see the newsworthiness for the broad American audience: but NPR has featured the buzzing buzz about the latest video updates with every top-of-the-hour newscast for almost two weeks now.)

  • JaneseM

    We need to make the big picture connection between actions like the FDA is taking on trans fats and our nation’s outsized health care costs. Ultimately our food system privatizes gains (large corporations make lots of $$ substituting cheaper lab-created ingredients for real food) and socializing the losses ( we all pay more for health care bcs we have such an unhealthy diets, either through insurance premiums we pay or Medicare expenses for an aging population allowed to consume products like trans fat). Consumers will still have plenty of choices, good and bad. Dont worry! Twinkies will still be around, maybe wih ingredients you can even pronounce.

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    FTA:
    The Republicans took most of the blame for the shutdown, yet a growing number see the GOP as “better able to manage the government.” In December 2012, the Democratic Party held a 45%-36% advantage over the GOP as the party Americans viewed as better able to manage the government. By Oct. 15—in the midst of the shutdown and debt crisis—the Democratic lead on this measure disappeared: 42% said the Republican Party is better able to manage the federal government, compared with 39% who named the Democrats.

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303763804579181512436325236?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

  • TFRX

    They want to be his friend, get a nickname*, get invited to his barbeques**, have him as a source.

    *Shrub
    **McCain

    Look up “tire swinging” and McCain for what was the nadir of mainstream press fealty.

  • Ray in VT

    In what I saw as a strange, trivial and incomprehensible (to me) story this week, a Kentucky high school runner refused to run, thereby failing to qualify for States, in a race because she was issued the bib number 666.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      She asked for new number; they refused. They later claimed she would have been issued a new number IF she told them she had a religious objection.

      • jefe68

        I guess the Devil is in the details.

      • Ray in VT

        I just can’t comprehend having some sort of an objection to a number that would cause me to even want to alter it. It’s just ink on paper.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Last I checked many high rises SKIP the 13th floor. Same kind of deal.

          • Ray in VT

            I have no use for superstitions like that.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            A little tolerance maybe?
            Different folks; different strokes.

          • Ray in VT

            People have the right to believe in any sort of mumbo jumbo that they like. I just don’t have to understand or live by it.

          • Labropotes

            Suppose the mumbo jumbo they believe is that being inactive, overweight and ignorant are less harmful to their health than having no health insurance?

          • Ray in VT

            Kind of different from someone not stepping on cracks for fear of breaking their mothers backs.

          • J__o__h__n

            That’s the Republican alternative to Obamacare – The Religious Freedom to Prevent Spinal Fractures to Mothers Act.

          • Ray in VT

            That’s pretty funny.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Hmmm.

            Like tolerance of the hijab in venues where head wear is prohibited?

          • Ray in VT

            There’s plenty of religious allowances. Officials say that she didn’t frame it as a religious issue. If she did present it as such and they denied her, then that would be one issue. However, if she just said that she wanted another number, and did not mention religion, then that is another. I still cannot understand how a number printed on a piece of paper can inspire such fear or revulsion.

          • HonestDebate1

            I agree with you and find it odd that many atheist talk about Mother Nature or Karma. Karmic results are considered as gospel to heathens. Go figure.

        • Labropotes

          Than you’ll like this joke: What is the square root of sixty-nine?

          A: Eight something.

          • Ray in VT

            The joke about Bill and Ted’s favorite number escaped me for many years.

          • HonestDebate1

            Theirs was 68 and I owe you 1.

      • J__o__h__n

        Couldn’t she have just worn it upside down? Unless she didn’t want Herman Cain to see it and take it as an invitation to get friendly with her.

        • HonestDebate1

          That was almost funny until the perv angle.

    • StilllHere

      I’d just flip it over.

      • Ray in VT

        Seems like a pretty reasonable solution. I ran for 3 years, and I don’t even think that I looked to see what the number was. I just pinned it on the front of my jersey.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Believe it or not that would probably be a disqualifier. They are pretty sticky with the rules.

      • Labropotes

        From the patron saint of comedians and the barbeque, St Lorenzo, “Turn me over, Ceasar, this side is done.”

    • Labropotes

      Turns out that Satan used to run under 616, his original number according to our earliest source.

      http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/beast616.htm.

      • Ray in VT

        Yeah, I saw that when I was looking into it yesterday. You mean that the Bible, or any other ancient text, could have some stuff lost in the translation and the intervening centuries? I am shocked. Shocked!

    • J__o__h__n

      There is a solution to prevent that from happening to anyone again. Honor Satan by retiring his number. That should be good for some silly protests!

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    FTA:
    Poverty is an astonishingly common experience here in the world’s richest country. As I wrote this morning, almost 40 percent of American adults experience it for at least a year by age 60.

    But you know who poverty is especially common among? Young adults.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/yep-being-a-young-american-adult-is-a-financial-nightmare/281214/

    • hennorama

      RWB — the most comprehensive paragraph in the linked article is the last one, which indicates that this is not in any way a new phenomenon:

      “Mind you, these numbers aren’t just a snapshot of today’s economy, which has been notoriously dreadful for Millennials. Rather, they’re drawn from an analysis of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics data collected between 1968 and 2009. So in a sense, they’re a longterm assessment poverty through the American lifecycle. What they tell us, then, is that twenty and early thirty-somethings have lived financially wobbly lives in the U.S. for a very long time. Every generation has its horror stories about being young and poor.”

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        Excellent, the fact that young Americans live financially wobbly lives is something we agree on. Now please explain how transferring wealth from that group of Americans to any other group makes sense? That is the basic principle of the ACA. That is why we read so much about the need for young people to sign up, with the not so sneer about them not paying their fair share.

        • hennorama

          RWB – Thank you for your response.

          I would not make the sweeping generalization that “young Americans live financially wobbly lives,” and therefore do not agree with that part of your premise, which was derived from the author’s words. As the author stated in the article to which you linked, “…young adults [are] so poverty prone …[p]artly because, by definition, they tend to lack work experience and earn less than later in life….as a group, [they]‘re also prone to getting fired and laid off.”

          This applies to some young adults, but not all of them.

          Now as to your question, your premise is also a bit out of line. You posit that there is a transfer of wealth FROM this group due to the PPACA, yet do not recognize that, due to their relatively low income, young adults who purchase their own health insurance are likely to receive significant premium subsidies, allowing them to pay little or nothing for health insurance coverage.

          In addition, your question fails to address the issue of uninsured young adults who were free riders on the prior system, who, when unable to pay for medical care after receiving it, pushed the cost not only onto providers, but also onto paying customers and insurers through increased fees for service and resultant higher premiums, and also onto taxpayers.

          Thanks again for your response.

          • HonestDebate1

            Now they can free ride until they are 26, that’ll help.

          • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

            hennorama – Thank you for your response.

            I apologize for miss characterizing your earlier comment. But as you quoted the paragraph that made the generalization it seemed that you were endorsing that opinion. It is of course true that no generalization can be true of any group of individuals as large as the group of 20-30 year-olds in the USA. Even you fall victim to that in your reply. (More on that later in this comment)

            You argue that there is no transfer of wealth from young adults because the ACA includes subsidies for them that allow them to pay little or nothing for plans offered in the program. That has nothing to do with the point I was making.

            The basic function of insurance is to balance between the extremely fortunate, in this case those that enjoy a long life of good health without medical intervention, and those that unfortunately require massive medical interventions. Because of the actuarial need to pay for the services provided to older people the premiums of plans for young people are inflated. If they pay the whole sum from their wages it is an obvious direct transfer of wealth. If the state pays some or all of the premiums that will leave the state with less funds to pay for services that the younger person wants or needs. If the state boroughs the funds then the interest compounds the problem.

            In your comment you veered off into some sort of condemnation of free riders that has nothing to do with anything I had asked. It seems to me that you are basing an argument on facts not in evidence composed only of hypothetical supposition to rebut a point I never made.

            But maybe I miss understood that as well. Are you trying to claim that younger Americans should be required to work for the benefit of other Americans? Are you equating the ACA to a war time draft? Is this part of a “moral equivalence of war argument that I have missed? It reeks of something much fouler to me, if I may be so candid.

            So let me end by asking you what style of healthcare system do you believe would be best for us to have here in America and why?

            Thanks again for your response. It is always nice to communicate with someone as talented and passionate as you are in the defense of your ideals.

          • hennorama

            RWB – TYFYR, and backatcha.

            My initial point was that any financial struggles that young adults (the author restricted the discussion and statistics to those between the ages of 25 and 34, and not 20 to 30, BTW) may go through are neither new nor surprising. My quoting the author was so that others might not misunderstand YOUR post, and get the impression that this was some sort of new phenomenon. Not everyone will take the time to read the linked article, as I’m sure you understand.

            I have not “argue[d] that there is no transfer of wealth from young adults,” but rather that various portions of your premises are invalid. The premises in your post are:

            -young Americans live financially wobbly lives
            -transferring wealth from young Americans occurs under the PPACA
            -transferring wealth from young Americans is the basic principle of the PPACA

            Your latest post describes health insurance as simply age-related, whereas it is actually benefit utilization-related. You also fail to recognize that premiums are already constructed to spread premium costs over a range of age groups, and that those in higher age ranges benefit from this ALREADY.

            In other words, both of the phenomena that you have issues with are not new, and both existed prior to the PPACA.

            As to your questions, in sequence:

            No.
            No.
            No.

            The German health care and health insurance system is intriguing. Here’s a post from last year (August 6, 2012). All info was accurate as of that date:

            “Germany’s health care [system] is actually multi-payer. Employers pay a little over half the cost for accident, long-term care, and health insurance, as a % of salary. This works out to a bit under 10% of wages for most workers. Employees pay most of the rest, and government subsidizes lower paid workers’ premiums. These premiums are paid into private non-profit “sickness funds.” Each member of each “sickness fund” pays the same rate of premiums.

            “Higher paid workers and a few others can opt out of the “sickness funds” and instead pay for private insurance. About 15% choose private insurance, which usually has greater benefits.

            “Importantly, the sickness funds are non-profit entities. They are mandated to provide a minimum range of coverage, and can’t refuse membership or discriminate based on age or other factors.

            “Health providers are paid set amounts, on a fee-for-service basis. The fees are vary by state.

            “Same-day health care appointments are common, and wait times are low to non-existent.

            “Germany spends a bit under 11% of GDP and a bit over $3600/person/year on health care. The US spends about 18% of GDP and a bit over $6400/person/year. German life expectancy and health outcomes exceed those in the US.

  • Coastghost

    HHS Maximum Leader Sebelius is freshly advocating taking all substance abuse cases out of the hands of the police and the judiciary in order to make drug fiends’ “necessary care” the province of–the mental health care industry. What a novel approach to increasing the care and capability of the therapeutic state! (Randle P. McMurphy can hardly wait to lodge his endorsement.)

    • anamaria23

      Prisons are the greatest receivers of the drug addicted and mentally ill. They are not equipped to handle either.
      60 Minutes did a segment on this recently. The wardens are overwhelmed and requesting strongly that these be placed in treatment facilities.
      Drug addiction is ultimately a disease of the brain.
      Cutting research funds at NIH is a step in the wrong direction. Gene therapy etc may lead to better treatment, if not cures for some afflicted. We are not all blessed with an optimal genetic profile. New psych drugs have lifted up the mentally ill from the undeveloped treatment of generations ago..

      • Coastghost

        Quoting the late Dr Szasz: “A hundred years ago, a person could legally purchase–in the free market–all the pure and safe opium he wanted. Today (c. 1990), he can illegally purchase–on the black market and for a large sum–a negligible amount of impure and unsafe opiate. This is where the anticapitalist mentality combined with the therapeutic ethic have brought us.”
        Dr Szasz was likely better informed than either of us.

        • anamaria23

          I doubt that those whose families have been destroyed by the ravages of alcoholism or drug addiction would agree with you, no matter what Dr. Szasz says about “perennial human appetites”
          Actually, I do not what you are talking about in the context of the mentally ill or drug addicted.

      • hennorama

        anamaria23 — do you think that the provisions of the PPACA, making “mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment” part of the list of “Essential health benefits” will do much to help with these issues?

        One more question — given the high incidence of mental health issues involved in mass shootings, will greater insurance coverage of mental health services do anything to reduce the number and frequency of these horrific events?

        I for one, fervently hope so.

        • Coastghost

          hen: do you really want the American Psychiatric Association to take on the National Rifle Association? (If so, I can see a ready market for turning copies of the DSM-V into shooting range targets.)
          It’s a bit late to regard lawful gun owners as mental-disease-patients-in-waiting. (Physician, heal thyself, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.)

          • hennorama

            Coastghost — thank you for your response.

            No, I don’t want any further conflict on this issue, and I certainly don’t “regard lawful gun owners as mental-disease-patients-in-waiting.”

            I was merely seeking a more informed answer to my questions, and expressing a hope for some, however marginal, improvement to the issues surrounding mental health problems, as well as drug and alcohol use and abuse, in conjunction with firearms.

            If parents and adults have such coverage as a matter of course, it may allow for greater diagnosis and treatment, and one hopes, some reduction in the incidence of mass shooting events, and perhaps even suicides involving firearms.

            Thanks again for your response.

          • Coastghost

            Then I have a couple of questions for you: what is “behavioral health”? and what does/would “behavioral health treatment” consist of?

          • hennorama

            Coastghost — thank you for your response, and your questions.

            I am neither a health care professional nor an expert on this topic. However, even a layperson such as myself can use healthcare.gov to find out some answers:

            “Mental and behavioral health services are essential health benefits

            “Health insurance plans available in the Marketplace must cover 10 categories of essential health benefits. One of these categories is mental health and substance abuse services. (Substance abuse is also known as substance use disorder.)

            “These services include behavioral health treatment, such as psychotherapy and counseling. They also include mental and behavioral health inpatient services and substance use disorder treatment.

            “Your specific behavioral health benefits will depend on the state you live in and the particular health plan you choose. You’ll see a full list of what each plan covers when you compare plans in the Health Insurance Marketplace.”

            Hope that helps.

            See:
            https://www.healthcare.gov/do-marketplace-insurance-plans-cover-mental-health-and-substance-abuse-services/

          • Coastghost

            No, that doesn’t help, sounds like psychobabble on acid; but then, I see your source . . .
            I’m no philosopher, but “behavioral health” sounds like intellectual miscegenation: whereas psychiatrists formerly would be content to project “mental illness” into crania they could not examine or observe from the inside, now they want to proffer therapies for behaviors, for somatic actions and deeds which admit to at least some theoretical measure of objective assessment: what, we need Obamacare to keep people from tripping in crosswalks (behavior: walking)? psychiatrists need to be invoked to teach us the virtues of thorough mastication (behavior: chewing)? sound or correct procedures for preparing food is to come under the purview of creepy Obamacare? (behavior: cooking)
            “Substance use disorder”: sounds like more odious pseudo-scientific psychobabble. Who makes the referral, who makes the diagnosis? Sounds like a clear attempt to assign police powers to therapists and counselors.
            Rather than access the ratty ACTA website, I’ll quote Dr Szasz again profitably: “Neurology is the medical specialty devoted to the study, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases of the nervous system. Psychiatry is the medical specialty devoted to the study, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases of the mind. If mental diseases are brain diseases, then psychiatry would be a part of neurology. And if scientific and judicial authorities would recognize this to be true, medical schools would teach neurology, but not psychiatry; courts would recognize neurology, but not psychiatry; and the government and insurance companies would pay for the treatment of neurological illnesses, but not for the treatment of mental illness.”

          • hennorama

            Coastghost – thank you again for your thoughtful response.

            I respect and understand your point of view, and thank you for expressing it in such a polite and cogent manner. Thank you as well for bring the interesting and challenging views of the late Dr. Thomas Szasz to my attention.

            One presumes your ability to further research the topics of mental health and substance abuse, and recommends engagement with someone more expert in these matters.

            Thank you again for your response.

          • brettearle

            Henn….

            What do we do about the entire matter of Forced Treatment–which is likely to gain more traction, throughout the country, if these dastardly acts continue?

            And, also….do you mind, very much–when I am motivated to do so–to return to some of your earlier responses, to my comments–in order to receive clarification from you, about some of your references?….

            Thanks again for reading the Hoops column…..

            I am primarily–however and alas–a literary satirist, of the fiction vérité…

            And, so, therefore: Respect my Authorité!….

          • hennorama

            brettearle – TYFYR.

            I do not know the answer to your first question. Forced treatment is obviously more problematic with adults. I have no qualifications to comment in depth, and therefore defer to those with greater knowledge and experience in these areas.

            As to your second question – Oui, avec plaisir, Herr Furz Mann.

            As to Hoops – one notices that Boston trails Utah, Denver and Sacramento in the Winless For Wiggins competition. Sorry to see that? ;-)

            Thanks again for your response.

          • brettearle

            herr FURZ mann?

            What IS this?

            No, seriously folks…

            I am sure that you did not think that I was trying to pin you down as an authority on the matter of Forced Treatment (Lord, knows we don’t always put you up on that high of a pedestal).

            But rather my implicit point was that we are yet confronting another one of those “sacrifice one’s freedom for security” issues that is fast inundating our political and cultural consciousness:

            There could come a time, in the dire future, when I might begin to, “write my work” in my head, only–rather than ever on paper.

            Problem is, there could eventually be a computer chip, in there, to surreptitiously purloin the manuscript…

            “From the hollows of Hades, this is Alex Jones reporting to you, live, from Brettearle’s kopf. Somebody please help!”

          • hennorama

            brettearle – inner workings, revealed: Respect my Authorité → Cartman → rhymes with → translates to → the subject comment.

            As to Forced Treatment and my response to you — I was preoccupied with/mulling over other comments and research on the issues surrounding mental health, substance abuse, firearms, the PPACA, etc., and realized how truly out of my depth I was. Humility therefore seemed to be the correct response.

            The calculus surrounding societal good vs. individual freedom are indeed ubiquitously encountered of late. Various circumstances confirm that we are only truly free inside our heads.

            Forced Treatment involves the old Locke vs. Spock conundrum, with Locke’s view that “every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself,” and Spock’s view that ‘‘logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.”

            Despite Spock’s dying declaration, this is conundrum is yet unresolved.

            Further, one notes the wisdom and irony of Proust:

            “All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last.”

        • anamaria23

          Truly, I do not know. In each case of mass shootings there were signs of disturbed behavior beforehand. Mentally ill do not regard themselves as such. Families or friends may have greater resources available to help them deal. Longer hospitalizations and increased access may help. Screening for depression in medical exams may help. Compliance with taking meds is a big issue. Perhaps new long acting drugs may help if researched.
          The psych hospitals were emptied out in the 80′s and people left to the streets and now end up in prison.
          If police dealing with disturbed individuals can refer them for treatment rather than jail, it may help. I would like to hear more input from psychiatrists.
          Drug addicted, including ETOH, may not have any access to treatment as of now.
          We have to try.

          • hennorama

            anamaria23 — thank you very much for your thoughtful response.

            Indeed, the issue of someone suffering mental health issues seldom possessing the insight that they are ill, and that such denial of illness is itself part of their illness, is a significant problem to overcome, especially among adults. They view themselves as being perfectly fine and in no need of help or treatment, and only rarely seek it out.

            The PPACA provisions may help over time, and as you say, we have to try.

            Thank you again.

          • anamaria23

            A psychiatrist interviewed on PBS news tonight seemed encouraged, even excited about the new provisions.

    • lobstahbisque

      Yeah!
      Why choose a solution that’s both more effective and cheaper? Because that would interfere with a punitive and sadistic ideology, that’s why. Just wait till the next crop of criminals arises out of a state of malnutrition, neglect, and poverty, while the real criminals,ie, owners of the country go white collar free.

      • Coastghost

        You think coercive or mandatory psychiatric “treatment” or “therapy” is less punitive, less sadistic than jails and prisons? Do tell. (Hint and clue: they’re both statist approaches to limiting exercise of human freedom.)
        What makes you think drug use has to be proscribed by the state? (Hint and clue: the XVIIIth Amendment that the temperance ladies gave us had to be repealed by the XXIst.)
        And why do you seem to accept the notion that we need the state to protect us from ourselves when it comes to self-medication or self-intoxication? Damn the overweening state.

        • lobstahbisque

          Why do you insist on throwing dust in people’s eyes instead responding in a way that creates a dialogue. Now you are free to say that when liberals have nothing to say, they resort to ad hominem attacks. It’s the goddam wardens who are asking for help. That’s a hint, now get a clue.

          • Coastghost

            Your turn for a dose of Szasz: “Institutional psychiatry offers solutions to problems of housing by camouflaging them as problems of health: it defines some of the homeless as ‘mentally ill’, confines them in institutions called ‘hospitals’, and justifies forcible incarceration and decarceration as ‘medical treatment’.”
            And: “the term ‘deinstitutionalization’ . . . conceals the fact that it stands for a confused and confusing mixture of forcibly relocating persons housed in mental hospitals into other tax-supported domiciles under mental health auspices, and forcibly evicting persons housed in mental hospitals with the expectation that they will live on the streets”.

          • lobstahbisque

            Unfortunately, that dose of Szasz medicine has expired. Throw it away. Plus the writing is obscure. Was it badly translated from the original Early Hungarian?

  • lobstahbisque

    Comments can’t be blank.

    • Bruce94

      The image you’ve provided contains the two faces of the GOP that have helped turn our Ship of State into a Ship of Fools. Well done!

  • lobstahbisque

    i know it’s not a fair question, but does ANYBODY think Christie is losing weight? I know he has a kind of Jersey working class charisma, but he certainly isn’t presidential.

    • hennorama

      lobstahbisque — if Gov. Christie is truly concerned about his rotundity as an electoral issue, he has plenty of time to change.

      As far as the Presidency is concerned, Americans haven’t elected anyone as hefty as Gov. Christie in over a hundred years, so a potential candidate must keep that in mind.

      • HonestDebate1

        And before 2008 we hadn’t elected a half black President in well over 2 centuries. Weight is about as relevant as race in determining a good President. Zip, zero, nada.

        • lobstahbisque

          Then there is the matter of presidential hair, or at least of the nominee’s verdant locks. Since Jack Kennedy, the ideal here has been an “I’m not worried about male pattern baldness” look, which inspires confidence in their executive abilities. Neither Walker nor Cruz will get anywhere with their incipient wrap arounds, though the Castro brothers could run tag team with that half on half off again retro cioffures. McCain’s lack of hair was nicely compensated for by Palin’s luxuriant curls…. and so on. Kerry, Romney, etc. Too cute and self conscious by far was Edwards hair, while Carter’s Baptist-inspired wig-like dome of blond fluff was telling…..

          • hennorama

            lobstahbisque — one supposes this would disqualify Senator Rand “I’m not a plagiarizer” Paul, and his “hair.”

            BTW — the following is an actual tweet:

            [Rand Pauls Toupee] ‏@RandPaulsToupee 6 Nov

            “Rand Paul’s books are as real as I am. I dont see the problem. #ToupeeForQuotes #ToupeeForPlaigerism #ronpaul #randpaul #AynRandWasBald”

            https://twitter.com/RandPaulsToupee

            The things one finds along the way …

          • lobstahbisque

            ….”And I’m also a client”, he can brightly exclaim, not even realizing that is a plagiarism…

      • brettearle
        • hennorama

          brettearle — I’m a little familiar with Ms. Littlefield Sundby, as I have previously read about her illness and her struggle/victory.

          Two points come to mind immediately:

          She is a very lucky person, having survived against very long odds, for a very long time (she was diagnosed in March 2007). No doubt this is due to a combination of her tenacity and strength, her willingness and desire to be very involved in her care, her partnership with her spouse, and the care provided by her physicians. She is certainly to be congratulated, and is deserving of empathy.

          She is also very lucky that the PPACA exists. Without the PPACA, had Ms. Littlefield Sundby been dropped by her insurer when they left California, she would have great difficulty obtaining ANY coverage whatsoever, other than perhaps through a high-risk/pre-existing condition pool.
          ==========

          Ms. Littlefield Sundby’s insurer, United Healthcare (UHC), informed her in January 2013 that they were pulling out of the California individual health insurance market entirely. Whether UHC did so solely because of Obamacare, or whether it’s just using Obamacare as a convenient excuse for their decision to leave, is an unanswered question.

          Some clues are available, however.

          The rules of the PPACA are the same in all states. UHC has decided to continue participating in the individual health insurance market in 12 states, so it’s difficult to conclude that their decision to exit CA was due to Obamacare rules alone. Prior to their decision to drop out of the CA market, UHC had only a tiny sliver of the market – about 8,000 individual policyholders, out of a market of about 2 million (about 4 percent). Such a small market share is difficult to administer profitably. Remember, under the PPACA, insurers are effectively limited to using 20 percent of premiums for administrative costs and profit, so markets with relatively high admin costs mean lower profits.

          UHC is also taking a conservative stance toward those who will be newly insured due to the PPACA. They believe that these individuals have a pent-up/deferred demand for health care services, and therefore will be more expensive, due to higher care utilization rates. Insurers call health care costs “losses,” and use the term “medical loss ratio” (MLR) when they talk about the percent of premiums spent on health care. UHC effectively believes that the first year of the individual PPACA coverage provisions will lead to higher MLRs in some markets, and decided to not participate in said markets.

          The message from UHC, in effect, is “We don’t want to cover high-cost policyholders,” such as Ms. Littlefield Sundby, for example.

          There are also some peculiarities in the CA marketplace that gives other competitors tax advantages that UHC does not enjoy. However, it seems clear that UHC wanted out of the less-profitable CA individual market, regardless of any other factor.

          No details about her existing plan are given, making it difficult to make any cost judgment. However, the implication is that coverage though the CA exchange has comparable premiums. We also don’t know the history of premium increases under UHC, making it impossible to judge whether the premiums outside the exchange are significantly greater than they might have been under her existing UHC policy.

          Now we get to the other issue that is involved – that she has to choose, as she wrote, “between Stanford and UCSD,” and to pay similar premiums; or to purchase health insurance coverage outside of the exchanges, and pay higher premiums, but keep her doctors.

          Certainly this is a difficult choice, but such choices were not uncommon for individuals whose insurers dropped their coverage prior to enactment of the PPACA.

          Overall, Ms. Littlefield Sundby both benefits from, and is potentially negatively impacted by, the PPACA. Either way, she will be able to obtain health insurance coverage, and this fact alone is likely the most important one.

          Without the PPACA, she would likely not be able to obtain affordable coverage AT ALL. Imagine what would happen to her without health insurance. As a point of reference, the article indicates that UHC paid $1.2 million under the terms of her policy.

          I’m glad that she has options, cannot be denied coverage, and wish her well.

          Sources:
          http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-30/unitedhealth-spurs-obama-exchanges-as-rules-stall-profit.html
          http://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-11-2012/fighting-cancer-edie-sundby.html
          http://insuremekevin.com/2013/07/02/united-health-care-leaving-california-is-no-loss/
          http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-horror-story-20131105,0,6361694.story#axzz2kBe9Ftbc
          http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/04/2881581/wall-street-journal-horror-story-cancer-patient-losing-doctors-wrong/

          • brettearle

            Thanks a great deal for this.

            I have my work cut out for me, here…..

          • HonestDebate1

            Yes you do.

            I wrote: “I would reply differently if I thought you were defending Obama at all cost like many here do… as they accuse me of the same thing you just did. I think it’s shallow as hell but I know enough by now to understand that is not the case with you despite appearances.”

            You have just replied to a perfect example of what I wrote. Obamacare caused this and you are being told that is an open question, that the insurance company is the devil and that she is lucky Obamacare will cover the pre-existing condition she would still have been covered for if not for Obamacare. It’s bizarre.

            I think you need to look inside and not be distracted by the verbiage and links about evil business wanting a profit. This is not about that. It is about a lie. It is about an awful bill that was sold on that lie and the dire consequences that come with it.

          • hennorama

            brettearle — YW, NP.

          • brettearle

            Just a few quick things as I delve deeper:

            Not that this analogous at all, but it comes to mind….

            When NBA teams go over salary cap, as you know, they pay a luxury tax (don’t get me started; I hate Ainge’s guts for the loss of Posey, TA, Perk, and RA…talk about raping a team….Grousbeck (shall we say GrousEbeck?) is worse at this point, because he lets Ainge get away with it….).

            Despite free market enterprise, there has to be a penalty paid–by a Health Provider–for opting out of a territory, simply because less profits are to be made, had they stayed….especially during a grievous transition period that is overhauling a humongous and nationally entrenched system.

            And, if no such violation is legally acknowledged, then there should have been in place–anyway, it seems to me– a planned emergency transition for critically ill patients that would not intrude upon their care.

            However, if you go to my comments, a few pages above (which you may have already done), you will see that I raise questions that support the possibility of quality care for Ms. Sunby in ACA.

            That’s for openers…. and unless I am forced to draw to an inside straight, you’ll hear from me again.

            Thanks again for that stuff…..exquisite…

            [Maybe you think I'm too free with praise, but I try not to be...]

            Does YW mean, “Your Witness”, counselor?

          • hennorama

            brettearle – [Insert usual opening pleasantries here]

            Your kind words are appreciated.

            Translating: YW. NP = You’re Welcome. No Problem. Alternatively, Yeah, Whatever. No Point. Or, Yo, Wassup. Nice Post. (stopping now)

            In my view, all one needs to know about UHC’s decision is that, after competing in the CA individual market for years, they had fewer than 8,000 customers, less than one-half of one percent of the market.

            The penalty that an insurer incurs after exiting the California market is an exclusion from that market for a number of years. It has been reported by the LA Times and others that this exclusion is for five years. The Wall Street Journal has indicated that it is three years. Unfortunately, an original authority on the matter has proven to be elusive.

            See:
            http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/19/business/la-fi-aetna-health-insurance-20130619
            http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2013/7/2/unitedhealth-to-withdraw-from-states-individual-insurance-market

            (As an aside, please note that UHC and other insurers are not “Health [Care] Provider[s].” It is a source of personal frustration that the terms “health care” and “health insurance” have seemingly become interchangeable.)

            Your idea of some sort of transition provision is not unreasonable, but it’s not like Ms. Littlefield Sundby lacks choices that will allow her to keep her current healthcare providers, in both California and Texas. The WSJ piece she wrote indicated that she has found multiple policies outside the exchange that cover her current providers, albeit at increased premium costs. It’s also worth repeating that we don’t know what the history of premium increases were under UHC, or how much her premium would have increased had UHC stayed in the California individual health insurance market, making comparisons impossible.

            And, as you correctly point out, it’s not impossible that Ms. Littlefield Sundby could receive comparable care with other providers.

            [Insert usual closing pleasantries here]

          • HonestDebate1

            You should be ashamed of yourself.

        • hennorama

          brettearle — please note that the correct percentage for UHC’s share of the CA individual market is 0.4 percent.

    • Coastghost

      You might as well ask whether Hillary is getting taller. Or younger.

      • lobstahbisque

        It’s not just the girth, it’s the round shape. Sort of a humpty dumpty appearance that invites comparisons with a ravenous two year old or something.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Nothing a good mono-colored pant suit can’t fix.

          • lobstahbisque

            Black is very slimming. But the Reagan-inspired maximum shoulder padding look is out; makes his head look too small.

    • jefe68

      Why not? Taft was huge. I think two Christie’s could have fit into his pants.

    • TFRX

      Didn’t he have lap-band surgery?

      The props for taking care of himself are one thing. Realizing that this is something on ly people with some means can do is quite anothyer.

      • lobstahbisque

        Well that’s my delicate point. I mean Shrub had a kind of “have a beer with me matee” charm, despite the fact that he’s an alcoholic. Is there a similar rub off with Christie as someone you’d like to share a few lobsters with? And think of the class ramifications!

        • TFRX

          Christie strikes me as a kick-down, kiss-up kind of bully. The things he’s been caught saying, in public, are pretty off-putting.

          Of course, he may get on Mark Halperin, Chuck Todd and Jake Tapper’s collective good side, so the mainstream press may not examine this.

    • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

      Wait aren’t you all about “fair”?

      Is that now the preferred way to couch attacks here?

      As in “i know it’s not a fair question, but does ANYBODY think Reid is maintaining his control on the Democrats in the Senate? I know he held the caucus together during the Government Shutdown, but many are regretting that now with the Roll-Out Debacle.”

      • lobstahbisque

        Calm down. just imagine someone with that kind of damaged or non-existent impulse control with his hands on a nucular (sic) arsenal.

        • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

          Who has to imagine? Is not President Obama a smoker?

  • HonestDebate1

    I agree and good luck. Unfortunately I am in a demographic that can be discriminated against without consequence. I’m a white male.

    • jefe68

      Oy vay. And what nerve.

  • HonestDebate1
    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Obama is back to blaming republicans for the economy.

      Lou Dobbs had a good analysis last night explaining the irony that Obama is INCREASING the class divide with his policies despite his rhetorical desire to decrease it.

      #obamanomics
      #clueless
      #shameful

      • HonestDebate1

        It absolutely blows my mind that Obama’s policies (Obamacare, “stimulus”, energy, taxation, etc.) skate blame and that he is seen as doing all he can to save the country from Republicans. They call it the great recession but it could have been the blip.

  • OnPointComments

    Does it matter if someone lies to you about something that is important?

    OBAMACARE LAID BARE
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-obamacare-laid-bare/2013/10/31/d229515a-4254-11e3-a624-41d661b0bb78_story.html

    “Hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters went out to people who had been assured a dozen times by the president that “If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan. Period.”

    “The cancellations lay bare three pillars of Obamacare: (a) mendacity, (b) paternalism and (c) subterfuge.

    (a)…a law designed to cover the uninsured is now throwing far more people off their insurance than it can possibly be signing up on the nonfunctioning insurance exchanges. Indeed, most of the 19 million people with individual insurance will have to find new and likely more expensive coverage. And that doesn’t even include the additional millions who are sure to lose their employer-provided coverage. That’s a lot of people. That’s a pretty big lie.

    (b)…Sure, you freely chose the policy, paid for the policy, renewed the policy, liked the policy. But you’re too primitive to know what you need. We do. Your policy is hereby canceled.

    (c)…The planners knew all along that if you force insurance buyers to overpay for stuff they don’t need, that money can subsidize other people. Obamacare is the largest transfer of wealth in recent American history. But you can’t say that openly lest you lose elections. So you do it by subterfuge: hidden taxes, penalties, mandates and coverage requirements that yield a surplus of overpayments.

    “…when you find your policy canceled, your premium raised and your deductible outrageously increased, you’ve learned the real meaning of “free” in the liberal lexicon: something paid for by your neighbor — best, by subterfuge.”

  • JONBOSTON

    You read these stories about the impact of Obamacare, especially the op-ed written on Monday in the WSJ by Edie Littlefield Sundby, a California woman with stage four cancer kept in remission these past seven years by a crack team of doctors , and wonder how did Obama ever get re-elected. How could there be that many stupid voters who ignored all of the failed domestic and foreign policies, unparalleled incompetence, total absence of presidential leadership and serial lying? I guess it says more about the pathetic state of our country than the fact that a clown prince of fools is re-elected president. Typical was the caller from West Desmoines Iowa who blamed the insurance cancellations on insurance companies rather than Obamacare forcing them to do so. Sad that Ashbrook and Beatty failed to mention this simple fact that any knowledgeable and fair-minded person would have pointed out.

    Sunby’s op-ed went viral over the internet and media.” Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world class health plan,” she wrote. “For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and eath. Take away people’s ability to control their medical coverage and they may die. I guess that’s a highly effective way to control medical costs. Perhaps that’s the point.”

    In 2012, Obama’s accomplished campaign election team of professional liars made hay with outrageously false claims that Mitt Romney had caused an ex-steelworker’s wife to die of cancer by terminating her husband’s employment and coverage. By this standard Obamacare will soon be a mass serial killer.

    • OnPointComments

      Does it matter if someone lies to you about something that is important?

      There is a book by Andy Andrews that asks the question “How do you kill 11 million people?” and continues with “How can a condemned group of people headed for a gas chamber be compelled to act in a docile manner? The answer is breathtakingly simple. And it is a method still being used by some elected leaders to achieve various goals today. How do you kill 11 million people? Lie to them.”

      I haven’t wandered off into the realm of Godwin’s Law. President Obama’s lies aren’t anywhere near as serious as the lies that killed 11 million people, but they are lies nonetheless, they are serious, and these lies are sometimes deadly. Why would he lie? I believe Charles Krauthammer is right: “Simple formula: Delay, stonewall and wait for a supine and protective press to turn spectacularly incurious.” He lies because he thinks he can get away with it.

      • HonestDebate1

        … and he thinks he can get away with it because he has gotten away with it for 5 years.

        • OnPointComments

          “Maybe the bystander president was as surprised by this [cancellation of policies] as he claims to have been by the IRS scandal, the Associated Press and James Rosen phone logs, the failure of the Obamacare Web site, the premeditation of the Benghazi attacks, the tapping of Angela Merkel’s phone — i.e., the workings of the federal government of which he is the nominal head.” Charles Krauthammer is skeptical about President Obama’s feigned ignorance, and so am I. There comes a point where the evidence of mendacity is overwhelming.

          • John Cedar

            I caught some of the biography on Krauthammer Fox did the other day. Then I heard the great Rush relate the same thing I was thinking. That Krauthammer said he realized Obama was a left wing [Communist] only after his state of the Union Address. Who in their “right” mind did not realize this about Obama during the democratic primary or sooner if they follow politics??? Bueller…anyone???

          • HonestDebate1

            I voted for Hillary in the 2008 NC primary. I thought Operation Chaos was a legit reason but I seriously believed anything would have been better than the certain disaster Obama would bring.

            The irony is, very early on I decided I would vote for whoever won the Republican nomination except for McCain. I thought on the very off chance he won that I would sit it out. Then Obama won and I knew I had to take a stand. That and Sarah Palin led to my enthusiastic vote for McCain. By the time Obama was elected I was certain everything we are seeing now would come to pass.

          • John Cedar

            Ha! So you’re almost as slow on the uptake as Krauthammer? Why did it take you until “by the time Obama was elected…”???

            Clinton would have been a much safer and better president. She is much less divisive and much less of a left wing loon than Obama is (and that is really saying something).

          • HonestDebate1

            Nope, I knew when I voted for Hillary in the primary which was long before he was elected. Actually before that. I’m not an idiot.

            By the time he was elected I was certain he would be the worst President in history. I did everything I could, including voting for Hillary to stop it. I never dreamed he was electable and if I made a mistake it was there.

            Re-read my comment. You ain’t got nothin’ on me.

    • brettearle

      Do you actually believe that this woman’s death will necessarily be brought on by what’s happened?

      If God forbid, she dies, you will be saying that she would have stayed alive had she stayed on her plan.

      All of us can do our research on this OpED piece. But have you mentioned what her alternative is?

      You have not gone into any detail–NOT ONE IOTA–about her plan NOW………

      ……as if her plan NOW is either non-existent or so unprofessional and incompetent that the new team of oncologists and the new forms of coverage would never–NOT IN A BILLION YEARS–take the
      written-record lead and the transfer-conference lead, from the Coverage and the MD team that no is longer in place..

      Before you come to your potentially INSIPID CONCLUSION why don’t you wait and either report, or find out, what coverage SHE WILL RECEIVE NOW?–
      rather than to look for an excuse to skewer Obama now–as if this is a malignant tit-for-tat GAME.

      You are creating the pathetic impression–by your HALF-BAKED explanation–that she’s out on the street–because you need to DEMONIZE THIS PATIENT’S CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIT YOUR IDEOLOGICAL AGENDA–WITHOUT FILLING IN MORE OF THE DETAILS….

      …….OF…. WHERE….SHE….GOES…FROM…HERE

      2 wrongs don’t make a right, my friend….

      • HonestDebate1

        There was no need for her to lose her plan and the doctor she liked and trusted as a result of a political agenda to fundamentally transform America. I’ll let Jon address you specifically (if he chooses) but millions of people are facing the same problem.

        • brettearle

          As expected you missed my point–even though I, too, would have liked to have seen her keep her Plan.

          If you guys are going to pounce, make sure you do it with ALL the facts–that are already known–first.

          And if those are all the Facts that have come out so far, then don’t blurt out something half-Baked to suit your agenda.

          Otherwise Myth or half-facts become Facts…is…my…point. And you guys simply look pretty much on the amateurish side.

          • HonestDebate1

            I think you are of the mistaken opinion that we, or speaking for myself I, haven’t read her story, seen her interviewed and heard her describe her plan and her doctors. She is a microcosm of the bigger picture.

            This is not a game Brettearle, it’s deadly serious. This is not partisan. I have no reason to hate Obama. I have no reason to invent reasons to criticize him. The disaster of Obamacare is not a myth.

            Here, read her op-ed.

            http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446

            [edit] And despite your present snit regarding replying to me, as well as your insulting rhetoric above, I would reply differently if I thought you were defending Obama at all cost like many here do… as they accuse me of the same thing you just did. I think it’s shallow as hell but I know enough by now to understand that is not the case with you despite appearances.

            I also appreciate your risking demerits from the schoolmarm and replying.

          • brettearle

            That is quite a piece and highly edifying.

            You may recall Cain’s comment to President Clinton, before millions, in 1993, after the First Lady tried to be the Major Domo for the first Democrat attempt.

            You may also recall Cain’s claim, in the 2012 debates, that his cancer would have resulted in his death, had ACA been in coverage.

            The director of BCBS, for Massachusetts, fully and completely refuted this.

            However, I am really glad you brought this up.

            This test-case scenario, of real potential tragedy, should be brought to the attention of Kathleen Sebelius.

            Indeed, I’d be surprised if it hasn’t been already. A WSJ piece, like this, would catch the Administration’s attention.

            Let’s see what the fallout or explanation is for this.

            Also, if there is an Ombudsman for ACA, I’d like to know what is being said or done.

            It is hard for me to believe that ACA wouldn’t have had emergency fail-safe for something like this.

            Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

            I may ask others of my Ledger’s side to take a look.

            This sounds Too Bad To Be Fully True.

            And, too, whether you like it or not, there is nothing in the OpEd that spells, conclusively, her death knell–EVEN THOUGH we don’t want to see something like that happen to her.

            The 5%–or whatever the Administration’s quote was–about those who would lose their coverage, I doubt was intended to include a very regrettable case, such as the patient who wrote that OpEd piece, Ms. Sunby .

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            You might chalk this one up to ‘unintended consequences’. However, I don’t think this is so unintended. Central planning 101. There are some 40K pages of regulations; many of which are attempting to ‘bend the cost curve by having plans limit doctor pools.

            I suspect the next shoe to drop after the web site gets sorted out is the doctor chaos. Many folks will be losing doctors they’ve known and loved for years. For instance families will have to pick between a plan that covers the parents doctor or the kids pediatrician. Not necessarily life or death but clearly disruptive.

          • pete18

            On top of that, the people covered under medicare will find it harder and harder to find doctors that will accept medicare payments. If they do, seeing those doctors will be more difficult because of the glut of new medicare patients. If UCA is ever able sign up the number of people that was anticipated in the design of the program. The other thing that will happen, which critics have been warning about for years, is that it will be hard to find doctors and there will be long waits to see your doctor and get treatments for non-medicare patients too. That’s because there are no incentives within Obamacare for new doctors to enter the field. They will be paid less as part of “bending the cost curve down” therefore less people will continue working as doctors and less people will enter the medical field. Since the demand for doctors will be much greater this guarantees a doctor shortage. Period!

          • HonestDebate1

            She is one of many, the stories will cascade into an avalanche and we knew it. We said it. We were called racist for speaking truth. Maybe we had a point.

          • pete18

            But isn’t it amazing that the 5% number is about 1/2 the number of estimated uninsured people that the whole program was designed to help. The administration is trying to downplay the number but it is obviously significant compared to the number of people that engendered the rush to pass the plan.

        • JONBOSTON

          Greg,
          In case you haven’t seen it , I did reply several hours ago ( see above).
          Jon

          • HonestDebate1

            Yes, I read it just before I replied to Brettearle a minute ago. I really could not possibly agree with you (and Pete and OPC) more. Brettearle is a liberal democrat. That’s my opinion although he may argue the liberal part. I think he is out of line but I also think he is an honest broker. When one is invested and truly believes it’s hard to accept reality. He wrote: “It is hard for me to believe that ACA wouldn’t have had emergency fail-safe for something like this”. But it is the reality. It is also the reality there was a failsafe (grandfather clause) that democrats stripped away. The harsher reality is they knew this would happen and it was essential to the plan. People must lose their policies and that means in some cases people must d… I don’t want to say it but it’s plain.

            There are millions of people coming to grips with this reality. My gut reaction is to slap them for being complicit. But there are some who are honest enough to slap themselves. I’ll try to forgive them. It’s got to be hard for liberals who believe in honest debate to decide when to admit they were wrong. It’s undeniable IMO, they were wrong to support this debacle.

          • pete18

            Just a note, I agree with you that Brettearle is an honest broker, one of the few lefty posters on this forum that is.

      • pete18

        How is it demonizing? She lost the plan and the doctor that she liked and thinks she needs to stay alive because of Obama care. She may or may not be able to find something that works for her in the exchanges. That is a horrific result and the president had promised her that his law would not cause this to happen, “PERIOD!” That is a broken promise that deserves demonizing because it is causing hell for a lot of people.

        • brettearle

          You do not know all the facts.

          That is clear from what you just wrote.

          As if someone, with such progressive cancer, is going to be twisting in the wind…..

          p…l…e…a…s..e

          • pete18

            What facts am I missing?

          • brettearle

            Your question obfuscates that which I ALREADY asked.

            And that which you HAVEN’T YET answered.

            Your question is nearly a 100% Dodge.

          • pete18

            You didn’t ask a question. Ask one and I’ll answer it. Please also answer mine, what facts am I missing?

          • brettearle

            You continue to obfuscate.

            If I hadn’t asked questions, I’d be asking them now.

            I ALREADY asked questions.

            They’re in plain sight, above.

            I can’t be responsible for your incomplete visual review.

            If you don’t think I’ve already asked questions, then ask HD–if I have or not.

          • pete18

            No Brettearle, I’m trying to get clarification. You didn’t ask a question of me and you covered many different points with Jon and none of them were relevant to my point.

            Right now the woman has lost her coverage and access to her doctor. It’s unlikely anything she gets from Obamacare is going to give her access again to the doctor she had been working with and who knows her. That is a broken promise and it’s BIG STUFF, particularly for someone who is in the middle of cancer treatment. Even if she somehow was able to get better coverage at a better price under Obama Care, which I think is highly unlikely given everything we’ve seen so far, that wasn’t the promise. The promise was you can keep the plan and doctor you have if you want to! PERIOD!!!!!!

            I can’t believe you’re trying to defend such BS over something that is going to affect MILLIONS of people.

            All of this stuff that is happening now was obvious to the critics of Obama Care because it was built into the structure of the plan. It was never going to work as advertised.

            So, which facts am I missing?

        • jefe68

          Have not read anything posted above that refutes everything you lot have been posting on this?

          Your response speaks more about how the details and facts of this story do not fit into your right wing narrative. So you fall back onto hyperbolic fear mongering, which is all you have.

          Facts are stubborn things.

      • JONBOSTON

        It so happens I heard Ms Sundby interviewed by Greta van Susteren on FoxNews. She lives in San Diego and because of her rare form of cancer, she sees docs at Stanford Medical , M D Anderson cancer center in Houston and her local hospital in san Diego for emergency treatment. I believe she had insurance with Kaiser ( not sure) that is no longer being offered in California’s exchange. She needs coverage that crosses interstate but her Calif insurance options don’t even cross counties. The woman is not political and is only raising the issue because it may cost her her life.

        Obama supporters have a hard time with reality and are driven more by emotion than facts. And Obama knows this — the less informed citizenry , the more they buy his BS. Sorry, but he’s an awful, arrogant, narcissistic incompetent who unfortunately is this country’s president.

        • hennorama

          JONBOSTON — speaking of “the less informed citizenry,” it’s clear that you didn’t read the op-ed to which you referred in your OP, as it contains information that is contrary to what you wrote above.

          In the op-ed, Ms. Littlefield Sundby indicated that her present health care insurer is United Healthcare (UHC), not Kaiser Permanente. Also in the piece is the fact that UHC informed her in January 2013 that they were pulling out of the ENTIRE California individual health insurance market. Please note that she wrote that UHC “sent me a letter announcing that they were pulling out of the individual California market.” and notably did NOT write “UHC announced that they canceled my policy due to Obamacare.”

          Whether UHC made this decision solely because of Obamacare, or whether UHC is just using Obamacare as an excuse to leave, is an open question. On balance, it appears that UHC decided to leave this market due to low potential profits. Prior to their announcement to leave CA, UHC had only a very tiny sliver (about 0.4 percent) of the individual market. Such a small market share is difficult to administer profitably. It’s also pretty clear from such a small market share that UHC either was unable to compete in the CA market, or that they really didn’t want to be in that market at all.

          However, UHC is still participating in the individual health insurance market in 12 states, so it’s difficult to conclude that their actions in CA were due to Obamacare rules alone. The rules of the PPACA are the same in all states, so if it was simply a question of the rules, one would expect that UHC would pull out of those 12 other states as well. UHC has publicly stated that they are taking a wait-and-see stance about the individual market. As reported in May on bloomberg.com, “UnitedHealth will ‘watch and see’ how the exchanges evolve and expects the first enrollees will have ‘a pent-up appetite’ for medical care, [UHC Chief Executive Officer Stephen] Hemsley said. ‘We are approaching them with some degree of caution because of that.’ “

          The message from UHC, in effect, is “We don’t want to cover high-cost policyholders,” such as Ms. Littlefield Sundby, for example.

          See:

          http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-30/unitedhealth-spurs-obama-exchanges-as-rules-stall-profit.html

          So this means that what you wrote is inaccurate. You incorrectly identify her present insurer, and also inaccurately wrote that her existing policy “is no longer being offered in California’s exchange.” Instead, her existing insurer, UHC, decided to exit the entire California individual health insurance market.

          This corporate decision was made sometime before Ms. Littlefield Sundby was notified, back in January 2013.

          Also as you stated, Ms. Littlefield Sundby wrote that she used “the medical center of the University of California, San Diego, and its Moores Cancer Center; Stanford University’s Cancer Institute; and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.”

          The issue is not, as you wrote, that “her Calif insurance options don’t even cross counties,” but rather that her options inside the Covered California health insurance exchange come with some restrictions, as do virtually all health insurance plans. Also, to correct what seems to be your misunderstanding, whether the services of a particular provider are covered under one’s health insurance depends on the terms of the policy, and not the location of the provider. As Ms. Littlefield Sundby indicated, the exchange plan that she was considering has a restricted provider list (which includes her local provider), and does not cover out-of-network care, except for emergencies.

          However, implicit in the article is that coverage options outside the exchange DO allow Ms. Littlefield Sundby to keep her doctors.

          Also not mentioned, in both your posts and the article, is that prior to the PPACA, had Ms. Littlefield Sundby been dropped by her insurer when they left her state, she would have great difficulty obtaining ANY coverage whatsoever, other than perhaps through a high-risk/pre-existing condition pool. Imagine what would happen to her without coverage. As a point of reference, the article indicates that UHC paid $1.2 million under the terms of her policy.

          I’m glad that she has options, and due to the PPACA, she cannot be denied a policy due to her pre-existing conditions.

          For more, including links to other source material, please see my prior post on this topic, here:

          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/11/08/twitter-ipo-rob-ford-obamacare#comment-1115961082

          • JONBOSTON

            You like to knit pick very minor points that do nothing to change the primary argument being raised. You often do so in an attempt to elevate your argument–one failing of yours. You obviously didn’t read my comments where I noted that I wasn’t sure that Kaiser was her insurer. And I did read her op-ed article in addition to seeing her interviewed. So spare me.

            I suggest you read the follow-up WSJ article entitled “Edie Sundby’s Choice”, dated Nov 7th. The thrust of the article is that ” UnitedHealthcare only fled the state because Obamacare’s subsidized exchanges are meant to steal their customers. As more people are pulled into government coverage, policies like Ms. Sundby’s are harder to sustain economically, so insurers bail….”

            As you note UHC has spent $1.2m in coverage , hardly profiteering. UHC isn’t participating in the Calif exchange because the rules are too restrictive and only 13 insurers out of the 33 that applied are allowed to participate. UHC is now barred from selling individual plans until 2017.

            The article further notes that “as it imposes these policy cancellations, Obamacare is also systematically destroying one of the best features of the current individual market, known as “guaranteed renewability at class-average rates”. This meant that once an insurance policy was issued, people could renew their coverage year after year at the same rates as their peer group. So someone like Ms Sundby who got sick would not pay higher premiums than average and her insurer could not deny coverage–unless UNC quit the business. This guaranteed renewability is no longer a guarantee thanks to Obamacare.”

            Net net, Obamacare has effectively caused UHC to leave the Calf market , thereby preventing Ms Sundby from continuing with the coverage she had and enjoyed.

          • hennorama

            JONBOSTON – thank you for your response.

            Pointing out your inaccuracies is not nitpicking, especially when you had written about “Obama supporters …driven more by emotion than facts” and about “…the less informed citizenry…”

            Another opinion piece from the WSJ is not proof of anything, other than the opinions of the WSJ.

            UHC is leaving the ENTIRE individual health insurance market in California, both outside and inside the new insurance exchanges. In the piece to which you referred, a UHC spokeperson is quoted as having said,

            “Because of UnitedHealthcare of California’s historically small presence in the individual market and the fact that individual consumers in the state are well served with many competitive product offerings, we will focus on our employer group insurance and Medicare business in California for 2014.”

            See:
            http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303936904579177930307493584

            And back in July, UHC said, “Our individual business in California has always been relatively small and we currently serve less than 8,000 individual customers across the state,” the company said in a statement. “Over the years, it has become more difficult to administer these plans in a cost-effective way for our members in California.”

            See:
            http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/02/unitedhealthcare-to-stop-selling-individual-plans-in-calif/

            NOWHERE does UHC indicate “We’re leaving the California individual health insurance market, for at least three years, because of Obamacare.” NOWHERE.

            And NOWHERE does UHC indicate, as you wrote, that “UHC isn’t participating in the Calif exchange because the rules are too restrictive.” Rather, UHC has indicated that they will take a wait-and-see approach, because they believe (probably correctly) that early enrollees in the exchanges will be more expensive to cover, due to the likelihood of pent-up/deferred demand for services. Here’s what the LA Times reported back in May:

            “A spokesman for Minnetonka, Minn.-based UnitedHealth said, “We are simply taking the time to carefully evaluate and better understand how the exchanges will work to ensure we are best prepared to participate meaningfully in their development.”

            And on bloomberg.com, also in May 2013:

            “UnitedHealth will ‘watch and see’ how the exchanges evolve and expects the first enrollees will have ‘a pent-up appetite’ for medical care, [UHC Chief Executive Officer Stephen] Hemsley said. ‘We are approaching them with some degree of caution because of that.’ “

            See:
            http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-health-insure-20130523,0,1895918.story#axzz2kGw0LtbR
            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-30/unitedhealth-spurs-obama-exchanges-as-rules-stall-profit.html

            Rather, the message is “We give up. We can’t make money on individual health insurance in California.” This is a business decision on their part. After all, even after competing in the CA individual market for years, THEY HAD LESS THAN 8,000 CUSTOMERS. That is less than one-half of one percent of the market. Given such poor results, it’s understandable that they are getting out, at least for now.

            I have never said that UHC was “profiteering,” but rather that they feel that they CANNOT profit in the individual CA market, or at least not as much as they would like. Let’s just use the example of Ms. Littlefield Sundby, and the $1.2 million UHC has paid out under her policy. If UHC had an average of 8,000 policyholders during this period, that would mean they paid out $150 PER POLICYHOLDER, just for her benefit. Hard to make money like that, whatever the rules are.

            Because UHC left the state market entirely, they have no obligations whatsoever to their current individual policyholders once the policies expire. UHC is free to make such a decision, of course, and based on their poor results, it makes perfect sense for them to do so. They may come back into the CA market in 2017, but right now they believe, as their spokeperson said, it makes more sense to “focus on [UHC's] employer group insurance and Medicare business in California.”

            If you conclude otherwise, please point out anything that UHC has said that leads you to such a conclusion.

            Thanks again for your response.

          • brettearle

            What’s the URL followup?

          • hennorama
          • brettearle

            Henn–

            For your listening pleasure….

            [An intro to the entire web site]

            http://mockthedummy.com/2010/05/10/how-dummies-respond-to-oil-spills/

          • hennorama

            brettearle — OMG that is hilarious. Many thanks.

          • Bruce94

            Thanks, Hen, for the above public service announcement and your scrupulous attention to details which, of course, the JONBOSTONS of the world would like to gloss over. The problem with offering a critique of policy initiatives based solely on a few anecdotal reports from questionable sources with obvious ideological agendas is that the devil is often in the details. Policy directions should be debated on what is verifiable data and data in the aggregate as one of the panelists on Nov. 7 OP show, “Arguments for and against Obamacare,” correctly observed.

            Furthermore, as my reply to JONBOSTON’s comment above indicates, I think the potential cancellation rate in the individual ins. market attributable to the ACA was hyped in the intro to this program. My understanding (maybe you could check this out) is that PRIOR to the ACA, there was a 40-60% turnover rate (i.e. cancellation and renewal churn) for policyholders in this market anyway. And more to the point, I haven’t been able to find a credible source for the contention that the 5% of the pop. in the individual market could see a cancellation notice or premium hike. What I have found is that reliable data on this issue is hard to come by, but roughly half to two-thirds of folks in this market might be affected, and, if they are, they would likely have access to more comprehensive plans at affordable rates under the ACA.

            My understanding of the history here, is that when the law passed, this segment of market, the five percent, had policies that were grandfathered in, and if individuals liked those policies, they could keep them. What happened subsequently was that insureres either changed those plans causing the plans to drop further out of compliance with the ACA’s min. standards or insurers decided based on their business model (profits before people?) to withdraw those plans because they would not be competitive in the newly created marketplace (i.e. exchanges).

            Either way, if Obama had a problem explaining the impact of getting rid of the junk in the individual insurance market, his previous statements on the issue were not nearly as disingenuous or misleading as the whoppers told by his uncompromising ideological opponents who continually and shamelessly mischaracterized the ACA as unconstitutional, as socialized medicine, as a govt. takeover, or as a green light for death panels.

          • hennorama

            Bruce94 – thank you for your response, and your very kind words.

            Having accurate information is important, and helps to counter the emotional impact of anecdotes, as you point out.

            Research indicates the following as to considerations involving the individual market, and “grandfathering,” as published in the Federal Register on June 17, 2010:

            “Reliable data are scant, but a variety of studies indicate that between 40 percent and 67 percent of policies are in effect for less than one year.”

            “a small group of individuals maintain their policies over longer time periods. One study found that 17 percent of individuals maintained their policies for more than two years, while another found that nearly 30 percent maintained policies for more than three years.”

            “In addition, the coverage that some individuals maintain for long periods might lose its grandfather status because the cost sharing parameters in policies change by more than the limits specified in these interim final regulations. The frequency of this outcome cannot be gauged due to lack of data, but as a result of it, the Departments estimate that the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 percent to 67 percent range that is estimated based on the fraction of individual policies that turn over from one year to the next.”

            See:
            http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-17/pdf/2010-14488.pdf (page 34553, which is page 17 of the PDF)

            In other words, you are correct when writing “PRIOR to the ACA, there was a 40-60% annual turnover rate (i.e. cancellation and renewal churn) for policyholders in this market anyway.”

            It’s also important to note that only a small percentage of individuals kept their individual policies (as opposed to “coverage”) for longer than two or three years.

            Certainly anyone in this small segment of the populace who face policy cancellation is confronted with what may be difficult choices, and one empathizes with those finding themselves in these circumstances. But this is not a new phenomenon,

            One must also note that Ms. Littlefield Sundby’s circumstances are NOT a “grandfathering” issue, but rather that United Healthcare, her present insurer, decided to leave her state’s individual health insurance market ALTOGETHER.

            What’s also interesting is that everyone seems to have forgotten that part of the context of the “if you like your plan you can keep it” statements was that a so-called “public option” was being considered, and critics were saying it would be socialized medicine, etc. One way to counter this was to emphasize the phrase above, and similar.

            In a June 23, 2009 press conference, well BEFORE passage of the PPACA, Jake Tapper noted, in part:

            If the public option is available and is cheapest, “then lots of employers will want to have their employees covered by that cheaper plan, which will not have to be for-profit, unlike private plans, and may, possibly, benefit from some government subsidies, who knows. And then their employees would be signed up for this public plan, which would violate what you’re promising the American people, that they will not have to change health care plans if they like the plan they have.”

            Tapper was suggesting that many employers would go onto the exchanges and will pick the public option, which would clearly change some people’s health plans.

            President Obama explained, in part:

            “When I say if you have your plan and you like it, or you have a doctor and you like your doctor, that you don’t have to change plans, what I’m saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform. … Let’s say that we take the advice of some folks who are out there and say, ‘Oh, this is not the time to do health care. We can’t afford it. It’s too complicated. Let’s take our time,’ et cetera. So let’s assume that nothing happened. I can guarantee you that there’s the possibility for a whole lot of Americans out there that they’re not going to end up having the same health care they have. Because what’s going to happen is, as costs keep on going up, employers are going to start making decisions: ‘We’ve got to raise premiums on our employees. In some cases, we can’t provide health insurance at all.’ And so there are going to be a whole set of changes out there. That’s exactly why health reform is so important.”

            See:
            http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/11/barack-obama/barack-obama-promises-you-can-keep-your-health-ins/

            Thanks again for your very kind words.

          • Bruce94

            Thanks for the summary and links. Without knowing the particulars of the case raised in the WSJ op-ed, I certainly agree that folks who are confronted with difficult decisions and unpleasant changes due to the ACA are deserving of our empathy as well as practical assistance from patient advocates and system navigators who may be available to them.

            As someone who’s been on COBRA between jobs and in the individual market, I can certainly understand the consternation out there over possible coverage lapses or rate increases. As someone who has worked for and helped manage the largest dept. in an organization with over 400 employees, I know how difficult it was to maintain an affordable insurance plan with a robust benefit package for those employees. Aside from the pressure of healthcare costs in general rising uncontrollably, we were always one complicated surgery away from having our rates go through the roof or being dropped by the insurance company and having to shop for yet another plan.

          • hennorama

            Bruce94 — you’re welcome, of course, and backatcha.

            Your post points out the inconvenient truths involved in the small group and individual health insurance marketplace. As you wrote, “we were always one complicated surgery away from having our rates go through the roof or being dropped…” When I was an employer, with a much lower number of employees, similar issues cropped up, most notably one employee’s chronic conditions. It was an enormous challenge to secure reasonably affordable coverage.

            One also must point out that even an organization with over 400 employees is still a small pool over which to spread health care costs.

            One of the issues involved in the WSJ op-ed, which was not mentioned in the piece, is that the writer’s insurer, United Healthcare (UHC) had fewer than 8,000 individual policyholders in California, out of a market of about 2 million. UHC has paid out over $1.2 million under the terms of the writer’s policy alone. As noted in another post, if UHC had an average of 8,000 policyholders during this period (since March 2007), that would mean they paid out $150 PER POLICYHOLDER, just for her benefits. It’s hard for an insurer to make money like that, whatever the rules are, so it’s no surprise that UHC would want to exit the CA individual market.

            Thank you for your informative response.

    • Bruce94

      The only “clown prince of fools” running in the last
      election was Romney whose 47% gaffe helped an informed electorate come to the only conclusion that a rational person could—that the top of the GOP ticket was a detached, dysfunctional plutocrat whose agenda was to entrench the power of corporations and wealthy individuals in the interest of an oligarchy that
      thrives when we become increasingly polarized.
      Fortunately, there were enough perceptive voters who re-elected Obama because they correctly understood the patently absurd narrative pushed by Romney/Ryan that we have a nation of “takers vs. makers.” Fortunately, for the vast middle-class and working poor, the GOP strategy in the service of this false narrative was an abysmal failure—a strategy pitting unionized workers against non-unionized, public-sector against private employees, older workers against younger, and the poor against the working middle-class.

      Only in the narcissistic, libertarian, far right echo
      chamber is the pre-ACA status quo of 40 million uninsured Americans considered morally
      acceptable or economically sustainable. Only
      in the far right echo chamber is attacking a bipartisan approach to healthcare reform from the get-go, declaring Obama’s initiative as an opportunity to make it his “Waterloo,” and employing the filibuster in an unprecedented, perverse manner to obstruct any progress considered competent leadership from across the aisle.

      I do, however, agree that it was sad that Ashbrook and Beatty failed to mention a few things like in the intro to the program when the potential cancellation rate in the individual ins. market due to the ACA was hyped. Nowhere can I find a credible source to
      support the notion that “five percent of Americans” could see their junk policies cancelled or their insurance premiums go up as a result of the ACA. At most, an estimated two-and-half to three percent are likely to be affected, and many, if not most, of these folks will have access to more comprehensive plans at affordable rates–plans that are required under the ACA to function more legitimately as real insurance against a potential, major loss.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Romney didn’t lose; America lost.
        We lost the service of a good man who would have cleaned up the corruption and bloat in DC.
        #voterregret

      • JONBOSTON

        your comments are so laden with cliches, caricatures, cartoon characterizations, and just plain idiocy I don’t know whether to laugh or express pity.
        And yes we do have a nation that’s more and more polarized by takers being pitted against producers , thanks to our clown prince of fools ( although he acts like he’s king).

  • OnPointComments

    I saw this today on the Whitehouse website. It’s difficult to obliterate all of the evidence of pervasive lying.

    Keeping the Plan You Like – by Kathleen Sebelius
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/06/14/keeping-plan-you

    Excerpt:
    “The Affordable Care Act is designed to let Americans keep their health insurance if they like it while adding important consumer benefits to give businesses, families and individuals higher quality care at lower prices and more control over their own care.

    “The bottom line is that under the Affordable Care Act, if you like your doctor and plan, you can keep them.

  • HonestDebate1

    Huckabee made an interesting point. Before Obama’s non-apology apology he lied about the lie by saying he gave a caveat he demonstrably never gave. He looked at his notes to tell the lie. The lie about the lie was vetted and approved by the entire spin machine. This is awful.

    • lobstahbisque

      Huckabee! Who IS she? Where did she go? is he fat again? Thank God (sic) Bill Maher is about to start. G’nite.

      • HonestDebate1

        He’s on Fox of course, it’s good show.

        • lobstahbisque

          Ah– so like a cancer, he’s currently in remission. That’s good too. By the way, what are the BAD shows on Fox?

          • HonestDebate1

            I’m not crazy about Hannity and Carol Ott’s health show is not my cup of tea. Huckabee has had his show for years now. He jammed with the “Little River Band” the other night. That was cool.

  • HonestDebate1

    There was no way Obama was ever going to the the original Bush tax cuts expire. Never. There was not support even when he had majorities. It was a horrible idea and would have devastated the poor.

    It’s not the right’s health insurance plan. Not even close.

    Kowtowing to Wall Street is not the province of Conservatives. It’s what Washington does.

    He did gut Medicare though.

  • HonestDebate1

    “She is also very lucky that the PPACA exists.” -Hennorama in regards to Edie Littlefield Sundby

    I find this comment to be outrageous. It is not only a disingenuous (Henn is not stupid and knows better) attempt to defend the indefensible, it is the height of arrogance to suggest Ms. Sundby is wrong about what has happened to her. She doesn’t feel lucky, she’s afraid. We are seeing the marching orders going out and many are eager to parrot it. The message isn’t if you like your doctor and plan you can keep them. It’s if Obama doesn’t like your plan then it’s crap and he knows what’s best for you. Is anyone buying it?

    I am putting this up top because I need to maintain a modicum of faith in the OP blog community. Will any lib reject this trash in writing? I sure hope so.

    • jefe68

      I find your entire regressive right wing clown show to be outrageous.

      • HonestDebate1

        Do you consider Ms. Sunby to be lucky that Obamacare exists?

        • JGC
          • HonestDebate1

            I sincerely hope so but I’m dubious. I find the article misleading. I hate the shoot the messenger argument when used in lieu of anything else but when the White house strategy and communications guy gets his talking point from a radical site like think progress it stinks. Scrutiny is good. One thing is certain, they both are in full cover mode. I expect to see a lot of this.

            They imply her plan will be better and the cost will go down but a careful reading reveals they are speculating completely on the cost. The vast majority of premiums and deductibles are going up. The ones that are going down are doing so mainly because of subsidies which I don’t think she qualifies for. I can’t imagine her cost are going down and there was no evidence given to support it. That doesn’t stop them from implying otherwise.

            And she is losing access to her doctors at UCSD.

            I think she is best qualified to decide what she considers the better plan to be and right now we are being told any plan that does;t meet the minimum standards is crap.That is not credible and in fact the notion is scary as hell.

            The insurance companies are the other victim here. This was all known years ago and I posted just a few examples above. If they can’t make a profit (a good thing) then they must adapt.

            I think it outrageous to say she is lucky Obamacare exists.

          • TFRX

            Every tattered lie which supports your crap you post.

            Every real piece of evidence countering it you concern troll with “oooh, I hope so, but I don’t think it’ll happen”.

            You used to not be a troll all the time.

          • HonestDebate1

            So do you take the word “may” as “will” and consider it gospel? Does the source (I know you’re picky) being Obama’s chief communications strategery guy give you any pause at all?

          • JGC

            Is she losing her access to her doctors at UCSD?

            “UCSD, where Sundby says she’s gotten emergency treatment, does not (participate with Blue Shield of Calif.’s Gold 80 PPO Plan) but the plan covers her out-of-network. Even better, the ACA forbids insurance companies from penalizing members for receiving out-of-network emergency services…Even if (ALL) Sundby’s care is out-of-network, the (new) Blue Shield Gold 80 PPO plan has an out-of-pocket maximum of…$9350 out-of-network. (Compare that to) Pacific PPO, the plan Sundby told Kelly she had, had an out-of-pocket maximum of $10,000 for in-network services and $15,000 out-of-network, which did not include her $5000 deductible, and an extra $1000 deductible every (every!) time she was hospitalized.”

            Sundby will clearly have access to her doctors and she will be paying less for her healthcare under the ACA.

          • HonestDebate1

            No, they are not participating and we don’t know what she is paying now according to your link. We have no way to know if the numbers you just cited apply to her. She has had her plan for years and they are using toddy’s prices. The link said she MAY be paying less. Of course they say that.

            It is not for the government to decide what is in her best interest. The default assumption must be that she knows best.

          • JGC

            You are right, I do not know what she is paying right now for the UCSD Pacific PPO Plan. My sleuthing is not up to Nancy Drew’s. One thing Sundby may have missed is she specifies that USCD accepts only the one “restrictive” Anthem EPO through the Covered California exchange. But it is not clear that she was guided to also search OUTSIDE the exchange, for private plans, which everyone is permitted to do. I think this is where the recommendation for the Blue Shield Gold 80 PPO came from.

          • HonestDebate1

            I just think it’s prudent to take her at her word over the speculation by spin meisters.

          • hennorama

            JGC – it’s interesting how the word “access” is being made to mean different things in this discussion.

            Remember how conservatives point out that “everyone has access to healthcare already” and how Mitt Romney famously said “Well, we do provide care for people who don’t have insurance, people — we — if someone has a heart attack, they don’t sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care.”

            Now, “access to doctors” is being used by some to mean that “coverage of the services of the providers I choose must be paid for under the terms of my health insurance policy.”

            It’s comical. Ms. Sundby is free to go to ANY health care provider she chooses, and her access to providers is not restricted in any way, shape, or form.

            Thanks for pointing this out, again.

          • HonestDebate1

            Bogus, you are distracting from the point and inching the argument away from the premise. Everything was peachy until Obamacare shifted the paradigm and you are trying your best to argue it’s for her own good. She disagrees.

          • JGC

            Shoot the messenger…It does feel uncomfortable (even mean-spirited) to dissect the life and health care decisions of Ms. Edie Littlefield Sundby, a stage-4 cancer survivor. I thought the Mediaite piece by Tommy Christopher did a fair amount of delicate tip-toeing in that regard, but Sundby is the one who first put herself forward as a case study for the ACA impact, by offering an op-ed for a major news organization. An op-ed, which of course, is mainly opinion, and cannot be held to the scrutiny of professional reporting standards. Which parts of either article did you find misleading?

            And you must be one of the few civilians weeping over the “victimized” insurance companies.

          • HonestDebate1

            I didn’t mean it that way. I was the one shooting the messenger with skepticism about Pfiefer and Think Progress.

            And I am not quite weeping but I do certainly think the insurance companies are being victimized, They provide a valuable service and operate on a very thin profit margin. I don’t think they are villains.

          • hennorama

            JGC – that’s pretty much what I discovered as well.

            Ms. Sundby is lucky that, due to the PPACA, she cannot be denied health insurance coverage due to her pre-existing conditions. She has options which would have been unavailable without the PPACA.

            Thanks for finding a source with some info about Ms. Sundby’s present plan, as well as a plan that’s available to her – a plan with a ZERO overall deductible. Here’s the part of the linked article that discussed this:

            “But even if all of Edie Sundby’s care is out-of-network, the Blue Shield plan has an out-of-pocket maximum of $6,350 for in-network services, and $9,350 out-of-network. Pacificare PPO, the plan she told Kelly she had, had a $10,000 OOP max for in-network services, and $15,000 for out-of network, which did not include her $5,000 deductible. It also did not include an extra $1,000 deductible she had to pay every time she was hospitalized, in or out of network, emergency or not. Blue Shield of California’s Gold 80 PPO plan has no such hospitalization deductible, nor any deductible at all.”

            On Wed. Nov. 6th, Ms. Sundby was interviewed by Fox News’. Megyn Kelly. Unfortunatley, Ms. Kelly conflated Ms. Lundby’s circumstance, where her insurer, United Healthcare (UHC), decided to withdraw from the California market, and thereby not offer insurance to Ms. Lundby, with others whose health insurance policies are being canceled due to the policy not complying with various parts of the PPACA. This is inaccurate and misleading. Ms. Sundby can’t renew her policy because her insurer decided to flee the CA market.

            Ms. Kelly had to get her “Blame Obamacare” narrative points into the interview, so she cut Ms. Sundby off as she was talking about her struggle with cancer. Then Ms. Kelly stated unequivocally, “I know that United pulled out of the California market for various reasons, but its CEO was explicit about the fact that Obamacare tipped the scales. The White House has rejected that. I’ve gotta run Edie…”

            See:
            http://video.foxnews.com/v/2813502213001/110713kellysundby920/

            Interestingly, no such “explicit … fact” comment from UHC CEO Stephen Hemsley was discovered during multiple web searches. (Try it yourself).

            Here is what UHC CEO Hemsley said in January 2013, as reported on forbes.com:

            “We will only participate in exchanges that we assess to be fair, commercially sustainable and provide a reasonable return on the capital they will require,” UnitedHealth Group Inc. CEO Stephen Hemsley said.

            See:

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2013/02/18/obamacares-health-exchanges-are-customer-free-zones/

            Also interesting is that Ms. Kelly’s comment that “United pulled out of the California market for various reasons” omits the ACTUAL fact that, as of the date of the interview, and after competing in the CA individual market for years, UHC HAD LESS THAN 8,000 CUSTOMERS, which is less than one-half of one percent of the market.

            Clearly no CEO wants to say what is apparent to anyone with even half a brain:

            “We here at UHC give up on California’s individual health insurance market. Throughout our years of trying to crack this market, we have gotten our collective butts handed to us by our competitors, and we’ve determined that we can’t make money on individual health insurance in California. We are therefore doing the responsible thing for our shareholders, and cutting and running from this market.”

            Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

            Thanks again for the link.

          • HonestDebate1

            I’ll believe the person whose life is on the line. You can believe the spin machine’s assumptions whose politics are on the line.

            “You would think it would be simple to find a health-exchange plan that allows me, living in San Diego, to continue to see my primary oncologist at Stanford University and my primary care doctors at the University of California, San Diego. Not so. UCSD has agreed to accept only one Covered California plan—a very restrictive Anthem EPO Plan. EPO stands for exclusive provider organization, which means the plan has a small network of doctors and facilities and no out-of-network coverage (as in a preferred-provider organization plan) except for emergencies. Stanford accepts an Anthem PPO plan but it is not available for purchase in San Diego (only Anthem HMO and EPO plans are available in San Diego).”

      • pete18

        Two drinks, mixed in sterling handled cups for Miss Marie Antoinette.

        • jefe68

          Yawn.

  • HonestDebate1

    “If you like your plan you can keep it and you don’t have to change a thing due to the health care law.”

    It’s still there.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/healthcare-overview

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    150!

    Obama golfs his 150th round of golf as President but snubs the 150th anniversary of Lincoln’s Gettysburg address.

    #firstblackpresident

    “Obama long ago veered away from any affinity he may have believed he had with Lincoln, which gives credibility to the criticism that his connection to Lincoln was always a political calculation rather than a true bond.”

    http://triblive.com/opinion/salena/5026093-74/lincoln-obama-president#axzz2kH2Nsmdq

  • HonestDebate1

    What were the predictions for the insurance industry in 2010?

    “Insurance agents and brokers and small insurance companies are among those who may have to scramble to stay afloat over the next few years. This is partly by design and partly an unintended consequence of a new law that is so sweeping, it will affect nearly every corner of an industry that accounts for one-sixth of the U.S. economy.”

    http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013623,00.html#ixzz2kHNFPDyN

    “I’ve gotta revise my estimate. We may last two to three years, tops, and let me tell you why.”

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2010/03/23/stacy_our_eib_insurance_expert

    “Given that the typical profit margin for a health insurance plan is under 5%, there isn’t much fat on the bone. It may well be impossible for United to move its individual-market MLR from 67.8% to 80%; instead, the company may decide to exit the business altogether.”

    http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/06/health-reform-business-healthcare-obamacare-wellpoint-cigna.html

    From obama’s perspective, so far so good.

  • OnPointComments

    Someone besides me is wondering why the government decided to change health care for everyone to cover a minority of people who are uninsured.

    To Achieve ObamaCare’s Insurance Goals, We Must Abolish ObamaCare
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/11/10/to-achieve-obamacares-insurance-goals-we-must-abolish-obamacare/

    Excerpt:
    The Obama administration has revamped our entire health care system because of 5 million uninsured poor singles and 4 million uninsured with pre-existing conditions. These 9 million are a far cry from the 40-50 million uninsured that ObamaCare purports to help at the expense of our premium sticker shock and losing our doctors and our policies.

  • JGC

    O.K., now I do feel relieved:

    Toronto Councillor Doug Ford (brother of Mayor Rob) said in a radio interview his brother still has a future as mayor. “If Rob goes away on a little vacation, a week or two weeks, comes back, Rob loses 50, 60 pounds, stays on the straight and narrow, because he’s a good, good man… it’d be tough to beat Rob Ford.”

    A few weeks reflection and “a little bit of counselling” would be a good start. “I don’t think Rob is in denial…Does he go out and get hammered every single night? No.”

    Other politicians, provincial and federal, have worse drinking problems. “If you want to compare apples to apples, I’ll take Rob the way he is right now, taking care of the purse strings of the city hall, of our taxpayers’ money, over 35 of those councillors combined.”

    “Rob does not come in drunk, he does not come in hammered, and he is not a crack addict, and I am not a naive brother.”

    (freely plagiarized from the Globe and Mail article by Tu Thanh Hu, 8 Nov 2013)

    • hennorama

      JGC — didn’t Mayor Ford’s mother also say something along the lines of “Rob should just get a driver, and lose some weight…?”

      Talk about enablers … sheesh.

      • JGC

        All of Toronto is enabling this guy!

    • HonestDebate1

      “I think the best thing he can do is take a toke on the mayor of Toronto’s crack pipe, because his numbers are about 48,” Carville joked on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” referring to Rob Ford, who has admitted smoking crack.

      http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/james-carville-president-obama-poll-numbers-99658.html#ixzz2kLNtulsx

  • JGC

    How did those 2010 reports of Senator Rand Paul’s fakified board certification in ophthamology sneak past me? This is vastly more interesting than all the over-played plagiarism charges being thrown at him. I know Paul is huffily declaring he will be happy to return to his Kentucky practice if we don’t stop annoying him with (true) insinuations about his character, but if he is not board certified — not even by that other “board” consisting of himself and his relatives– how will he reap the incipient bonanza of Obamacare dollars from KYNECT? Will Dr. Paul have to take payment in the form of a bag of apples and two chickens for each of his back alley cataract surgeries?

  • HonestDebate1

    Here is President Obama in 2008 saying Obamacare will not have a mandate. At least Hillary was telling the truth.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AOJBiklP1Q

  • Bruce94

    And here’s the would-be Obfuscator-in-Chief speaking out of both sides of his mouth, promoting the Individual Mandate much to the chagrin of his fellow GOP Presidential pretenders and providing a strong rationale for one of the most controversial elements in the ACA:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuJimiCgl80

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Larry King? Is he still alive?

      Here is what you don’t seem to get. If the Dems had gone for a mandate of minimal catastrophic coverage ONLY, this would be far less controversial. Instead of a one page bill we got 2699 extra pages of overreach that created an additional 40K pages of central planning gobbledygook that will have far reaching untended consequences to the economy.

  • HonestDebate1

    Obamacare was designed to put insurance companies out of business and move us to single payer. For those buying the party line that insurance companies are the culprits, here are some more predictions (AKA promises) from 2009, this time from Democrats:

    “And next to me was a guy from the insurance company who argued against the public health insurance option, saying it wouldn’t let private insurance compete. That a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer. My single-payer friends, he was right. The man was right.” – Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT4mV3R7vu4&feature=player_embedded/youtube

    “I think that if we get a good public option it could lead to single-payer and that is the best way to reach single-payer. Saying you’ll do nothing till you get single-payer is a sure way never to get it. … I think the best way we’re going to get single-payer, the only way, is to have a public option and demonstrate the strength of its power.” – Barney Frank

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98&feature=player_embedded/youtube

    “[T]he only reason not to do [single-payer] is that politically it’s hard to do in one step…You’d have to convince people to completely give up the insurance they have, whereas something that lets people keep the insurance they have but then offers the option of a public plan, that may evolve into single-payer, but you can do it politically…” – Krackpot Krugman

    “They have a sneaky strategy, the point of which is to put in place something that over time the natural incentives within its own market will move it to single-payer.” – Ezra Klein

    “I happen to be a proponent of the single-payer universal health care plan. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately.” Barrack Obama

    • J__o__h__n

      These quotes mention the public option which was not part of the final law.

      • hennorama

        J__o__h__n — how dare you point out the obvious?

      • HonestDebate1

        No, only one does. This was never supposed to work. Single payer is the goal and it always has been. I made another comment not far down of other predictions that insurance companies would be squeezed. They are being mandated to include coverage that may not apply to the individual consumer. They are being told they must cover pre-existing conditions on equal terms with healthy people who have paid in for decades. It’s impossible for insurance companies to profit in this manner. They knew the website wasn’t ready but went with it anyway because they want the debacle. The important thing is the train towards singe payer keeps chugging.

        But if you want to focus on the public option I would consider subsidizing people for plans the demand the insurance companies must provide is not far from it. Maybe that’s not good enough for you either, if not check the analysis I will reply to the schoolmarm with. I love putting her in her place and not having her reply so I’ll put it there.

        • J__o__h__n

          The first three quotes mention it.

          • hennorama

            J__o__h__n — please stop confusing the Dishonest Pontificating One with facts from his own post.

          • HonestDebate1

            Then put on your big girl smarty pantsuit and reply below. Maybe you can make a new thread and aim it at me. Or maybe you can tell me I misspelled something. And in truth my comment was not about the public option so make sure to obsess on that and nothing else I wrote.

          • HonestDebate1

            You are right I stand corrected, sloppy… and irrelevant. The public options there.

  • Bruce94

    HonestDebate1 left out at least two other YouTube videos of a very knowledgeable, persuasive spokesperson for healthcare reform and the public option.

    The first conveys how we got to this point in our history and how the Far Right hysteria over the ACA (epitomized by some of the images and comments below) resembles the same paranoia expressed by conservatives in the past over passage of Social Security and Medicare.

    The second reminds us that polling data back then indicated overwhelming public support for the public option, not that it mattered to the intransigent minority in the Senate, which time and again have shown contempt for majority rule and one-man-one vote by abusing the filibuster and advice & consent rules while their counterparts in the House from gerrymandered districts in states with voter suppression laws continue to avoid accountability.

    So the public option withered on the vine. Sound familiar? Look at the legislative history to date of comprehensive immigration reform, tax reform, universal background checks on gun sales, Infrastructure Bank, American Jobs Act, Veterans Job Corp.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rbuCC8w4cA

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kNDMc30tMo

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      “paranoia expressed by conservatives in the past over passage of Social Security and Medicare.”

      I don’t know how you define paranoia but here are the unfunded liabilities as calculated by actuarial science (ie, MATH):

      SS unfunded liability: $16.6T
      Medicare Part D unfunded liability: $22T
      Medicare unfunded liability: $87.7T

      The current US GDP is about $16T to give an idea of the scale of the problem.

      http://usdebtclock.org/

      btw — SS was designed as a simple bargain for workers. The massive growth in disability recipients is rapidly draining the ‘trust fund’. Medicare has many problems beyond the unfunded liabilities. There is massive fraud as well as a huge subsidy from the private health care market. Medicare is NOT scalable as currently designed.

    • HonestDebate1

      I left out a million videos. I don’t get your point or maybe you don’t get mine which is Obama was elected on a lie. Hillary told the truth but Obama couldn’t get elected with the truth. She couldn’t compete with lies.

      • Bruce94

        If he did modify his position on the mandate well into his first term, there’s no credible evidence that he was withholding his true conviction or lying about it during the primary with Clinton. He could just have easily (imo more likely) been convinced after a careful and painstaking analysis of the alternatives, that his previous position was flawed and the mandate offered the best way forward for healthcare reform. We simply have no way of knowing, but that doesn’t seem to curb the smears and innuendos.

        • HonestDebate1

          I will agree that if he believed it then he was not lying. And if you call 6 months “well into his fist term” then fine. And it is true we can’t know for sure.

          I don’t buy it. IMO he takes it one step at a time and the first step was to defeat Hillary. This helped him.

          What about his saying it wasn’t a tax and then arguing it was?

        • brettearle

          Simply don’t have the time to get involved in the forum, as often as I like–so I check in from time to time.

          Regarding the Mandate….is it not true that it was imposed to help make the numbers work?

          The young–who see themselves as fairly invincible–MUST be forced to pony up; otherwise the pool won’t be helped to even out for those who will use coverage more, If they are chronically ill or are simply seeking care, more often, because they are getting older.

  • OnPointComments

    Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), commenting on President Obama’s “apology” for people losing their health care plans:

    “It certainly wasn’t an apology. When I heard it, really the analogy I was thinking of was, you tell somebody, ‘Boy, I’m really sorry your dog died,’ and you refuse to acknowledge the fact that you just ran over that dog with your car. Those are your tire tracks on that dog.”

  • pete18

    “Along with the smug insureds, President Obama doesn’t care much about the relatively small percentage of us with canceled coverage and no viable replacement. He keeps apologizing while maintaining that it’s for the good of the country, a vast improvement “over all.” And the “over all” might agree. But the self-employed middle class is being sacrificed at the altar of politically correct rhetoric, with nobody helping to ensure our health, fiscal or otherwise, because it’s trendy to cheer for the underdog. Embracing the noble cause is all very
    well — as long as yours isn’t the “fortunate” family that loses its
    access to comprehensive, affordable health care while the rest of the nation gets it”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/opinion/daring-to-complain-about-obamacare.html?smid=tw-share

    • hennorama

      pete18 – a few observations on the entire linked op-ed, from Lori Gottelieb:

      -as a self-employed person, Ms. Gottelieb can “deduct” (technically it’s an adjustment to income) 100% of her health insurance premiums. She seems to not understand this, as she wrote “but what about my $5,400 rate hike (after-tax dollars, I wanted to add, but dared not…)”

      -Ms. Gottelieb seems to be happy with her insurance broker (“the two people who showed real empathy were my insurance broker and my friend Nicole”), but she also wrote that she changed her policy “in 2011 … I altered mine, dumping maternity benefits…” If her broker was involved in this change, certainly the broker should have made Ms. Gottlieb aware of the implications of the change, i.e., that she would lose grandfathered status. My broker certainly advised me of this well-known issue.

      -it is impossible to determine the relative overall financial impacts of changes to Ms. Gottelieb’s health insurance, as no information as to plan deductibles, covered items, etc. were given, nor was there any mention of the history of premium increases by her current insurer.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        You certainly go to a lot of trouble to justify the unjustifiable.

        “i.e., that she would lose grandfathered status.”

        President Obama: “If you like your plan; you can keep your plan. Period.”

        The ‘leader’ of the country made a promise while selling his health care law to the American people. There was no fine print in the promise. That promise has now been broken.

        • hennorama

          WftC – thank you for your response.

          My point was not about any statements made by President Obama, but rather that a competent and knowledgeable insurance broker would have been aware of the implications of Ms. Gottelieb’s policy changes, and should have made these implications known (again, assuming that her broker was involved in the policy changes). As stated, my broker made me aware of this reality.

          As to the “if you like it you can keep it” statements – I’ve always understood them in the context of the “public option” vs. private insurers.

          I’ve also always understood that there would be some disruptions due to the PPACA. As I wrote in a reply to you last November, “Yes, there will be disruptions due to these changes. But the status quo was not working, and it too was becoming more and more expensive. This is a long-term process that is just beginning.”

          See:
          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/11/15/part-time#comment-711177261

          Thanks again for your response.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            OK, I have to be blunt.

            This isn’t about you and your awareness of the disruption this law would cause for some citizens.

            You might still believe this is the best way forward. If so, we can agree to disagree.

            Personally, I’m hoping for some major voter nullification at the polls next November. It appears that is the only way to minimize the damage.

          • OnPointComments

            If the predictions of some commentators are correct, by this time next year many people with employer-provided insurance will be receiving cancellation notices. I bet the backlash in the voting booth will be huge.

          • hennorama

            WftC – TY again for your response.

            I never indicated that this was about me. I simply made some observations, and shared my personal experience, just as Ms. Gottelieb did in writing her op-ed.

            While I am certainly quixotic in some ways, I deal in reality. For example, before I buy a house, the seller gives me a disclosure form. Do I take it at face value? Certainly not. I do due diligence, hire a property inspector, do title searches, etc., etc.

            And certainly when politics are involved, one believes politicians at one’s own peril.

            Those that are complaining about being effected by the PPACA seem to be surprised that they might possibly be expected to comply with the law, or that they would never ever never ever never ever ever be impacted.

            It’s not unreasonable to complain, but it is unreasonable for anyone to think that their health insurance and/or health care will remain unchanged forever.

            Do you disagree?

          • pete18

            The staus-quo needed changes, but these changes are making things worse, not better. Not all changes are good, the defects on this policy were clear and pointed out many times by the critics. So far all the critics predictions are coming true and none of Obama’s promises are. It will be unsustainable as it is now designed.

          • hennorama

            pete18 – thank you for your response, and your opinions.

            Please allow a quibble with your statement that “…none of Obama’s promises are [coming true]:

            Per politifact.com’s “Promise Kept rulings on the The Obameter,” President Obama (and Congress):

            -Closed the “doughnut hole” in Medicare prescription drug plan
            -Provided easy-to-understand comparisons of the Medicare prescription drug plans
            -Required insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions
            -Gave tax credits to those who need help to pay health premiums
            -Required children to have health insurance coverage
            -Expanded eligibility for Medicaid
            -Expanded eligibility for State Children’s Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP)
            -Required health plans to disclose how much of the premium goes to patient care
            -Established an independent health institute to provide accurate and objective information
            -Implemented and funded proven health intervention programs
            -Expanded funding to train primary care providers and public health practitioners
            -Increased funding to expand community based prevention programs
            -Improved recruitment of public health workers

            Etc.

            http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/?page=1

            Tens of millions of Americans have already benefited from the PPACA, including millions who have gotten preventative care without co-pays or deductibles, millions of seniors who have saved on prescription drugs, millions of young people who have gotten coverage on their parents’ health insurance plans, and hundreds of thousands (and perhaps millions) of small businesses that have claimed tax deductions for providing health insurance to their employees.

            Not to mention the many Americans with a preexisting medical condition who can now get affordable health insurance, and who might not otherwise have been able to pay for necessary health care.

            Thanks again for your response.

          • fun bobby

            Obama is delivering on the hope and change. on healthcare.gov you can hope and hope that it will let you make a change

        • HonestDebate1

          Absolutely right but even if you weren’t and followed Henn to the weeds, she is still missing the other point. The grandfather clause was changed after the law was passed on a party line vote. It was essentially stripped away. Change the copay $5 and it’s toast. It is virtually impossible to be grandfathered because it is virtually impossible for the insurance companies to fulfill the requirements and keep the policies identical. And now that it’s done it may not be possible to undo.

          http://hotair.com/archives/2013/11/11/cant-the-white-house-rewrite-obamacares-regs-to-reinstate-canceled-plans-before-the-end-of-the-year/

          But I keep coming back to the fact that those plans must be cancelled. I do not believe for a minute that Obama will allow the plans to be reinstated if it was possible to do so. The idea already went down in flames a year ago.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Nice article.

            I see now they are floating a trial balloon to give new subsidies to folks with cancelled policies to make them whole.

            1) they can’t do this without congress (I know it’s never stopped them before)
            2) breaks the deficit neutral promise (we already know that promise was crap but this will accelerate it).

      • pete18

        I’m not sure what your point is? She was able to deduct her premiums before the rates went up too,
        so the increase isn’t softened by this deduction, if that’s what you’re suggesting.

        As to your second point, may I quote President Obama, ” At the same time — I just want to be completely clear about this; I keep on saying this but somehow folks aren’t listening — if you
        like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. Nobody is going to force you to leave your health care plan.”

        • hennorama

          pete18 – TY again for your response.

          Ms. Gottelieb is an intelligent person and a published author, yet she appears to misunderstand the very simple fact that her health insurance premiums are tax-deductible. She also may not understand that her broker may not be worthy of praise. In order to make her point, significant details are left out of her op-ed.

          Still, her opinions are deemed worthy of publication. This seems to be simply an extension of the trend of parading those complaining about the PPACA in front of cameras, and putting their opinions in print, despite their inaccuracy.

          Ms. Gottelieb complains about her policy being canceled, yet she made a deliberate choice to change it, to a policy that was clearly not PPACA-compliant, as it lacked one of the 10 essential benefits – maternity coverage.

          Ms. Gottelieb should look in the mirror, and then complain to her insurance broker if the broker was involved in the policy change.

          It’s hardly surprising that PPACA rules would be crafted in such a way as to bring more and more insurance plans into compliance over time, and only the foolish and the ignorant would believe that they would never ever ever be impacted, or that their health insurance and/or health care would remain unchanged forever.

          Thanks again for your response.

          • pete18

            “and only the foolish and the ignorant would believe that they would
            never ever ever be impacted, or that their health insurance and/or
            health care would remain unchanged forever.”

            That would describe everyone who actually believed President Obama. I can’t believe that you are blaming the victim here.

          • hennorama

            pete18 – TY again for the favor of your reply.

            Please point to any instance where President or even then-Senator Obama said “some people will never ever ever be impacted” by the PPACA, and/or “your health insurance and/or health care will remain unchanged forever.”

            As to Ms. Gottelieb being a “victim” – that would mean that personal responsibility only applies selectively, and that such an intelligent person should not be held responsible for their own active and freely made choices.

            Is that your point?

          • OnPointComments

            You seem to have latched on to this “never ever ever” and “unchanged forever” spiel of yours as an excuse for President Obama to lie to America. Do you really believe that “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away, no matter what” wasn’t a lie, or if you can’t bring yourself to call it what it is, wasn’t designed to mislead? Isn’t “never ever ever” rendered a foolish excuse when millions and millions of plans were cancelled within months of the October 1st launch date of the Obamacare exchanges? Apparently when President Obama said “we will keep this promise to the American people,” at least one Obama apologist thinks keeping a promise is valid for about 60 days.

          • hennorama

            OPC – thank you for your response. For some reason, it does not appear on my DISQUS dashboard. One hopes that if you have made other recent responses to my posts, that you understand why no reply may have been forthcoming.

            As stated on multiple occasions, I have viewed these “if you like it you can keep it” statements in the context of the “public option,” which was a huge part of the discussions leading up to passage of this legislation. I have also stated my opinion that it would have been far better if President Obama had qualified these statements, especially after enactment of the PPACA. In addition, as previously stated, I am of the opinion that the communication and public education about the PPACA were and are sorely lacking, and have been horribly inadequate.

            If these “if you like it you can keep it” statements are complete lies, then all non-PPACA compliant plans would have to be canceled. That has not happened, so these statements must be at least partly true, right?

            Was the President as clear as he should have been, especially AFTER passage of the PPACA? Clearly not. Should the President have added “as long as your plan meets minimum standards” or similar? Yes, of course. Were these statements designed to mislead? No, again, as the origin and context of these statements involved the “public option.” In other words, if a “public option” were to be included in the legislation, no one would be forced to drop their private insurance.

            It’s not as though these statements were made up out of whole cloth. It’s absolutely true that older policies can and do enjoy grandfathered status. OTOH, it’s also true that some policyholders won’t be able to renew policies that they like.

            You are of course free to focus solely on the lack of qualification in these statements, rather than the truth contained in them.

            Thanks again for your response.

          • hennorama

            pete18 – please note that my original response below was to your UNEDITED comment, which not only did not include the sentence “Why are you letting him off the hook?,” but also the last two paragraphs, which you added later. Sorry that you seem to feel that alerting the reader to such significant edits is unimportant.

            That said, please allow me to respond to your edits.

            I am not “letting [President Obama] off the hook.” I have previously written about my opinion that the communication and public education about the PPACA were and are sorely lacking, and have been horribly inadequate. And certainly it would have been far better if President Obama had qualified his “if you like it you can keep it” statements, especially after enactment. I have also previously written that my understanding of these statements was in the context of the “public option,” which was a huge part of the discussions leading up to passage of this legislation.

            Please pardon me for not repeating these points in every post on this topic.

            Of course, the press should report on the impacts of the PPACA. However, the press has an obligation to report accurately and completely, and that certainly has not been the case with a large number of these so-called “victims” that have been put on parade. As to Ms. Gottelieb’s ignorance of the tax advantages she enjoys, she can ultimately be excused (although as a published author, she certainly must understand the value and importance of fact-checking), but the NYT cannot.

            Your opinion about the premiums for the new policy offered by her present insurer is noted as an opinion only.

            That you feel that pointing out anything contrary to your point of view is “focusing on the minutia of irrelevant details” is unsurprising.

            Perhaps the next time you edit your post in such a significant manner, you might point out such a minute and irrelevant detail, so that the reader can be fully informed.

          • pete18

            Not trying to trick you on the edits, they are spontaneous changes made when revisiting the posts. To me these are casual conversations not thesis documents, so I don’t note every edit I make.

            I’m not sure what is “opinion” about her premiums, unless she’s lying in her op-ed.

            A tax deduction would not offset a premium increase. As Funbobby pointed out below, deductions are not tax credits, all they do is allow you to not pay taxes on the amount of the deduction. So, Ms. Gottelieb, depending on her tax rate, would save anywhere between10% to 39%
            on the premium, so $540 to $2,160. So no matter how you cut it, her rate goes up significantly, which was her only point. That is not an opinion but a fact that anyone can calculate. To fault her for not giving us the after tax consequence of her premium rate is absurd, and a focus on irrelevant detail, since it doesn’t change her complaint or the problem with the law in her case.

            I’m also not sure why you keep referring to the “public option” when discussing Obama’s lies. The public option was never on the table (EDIT WARNING, I’M MAKING AN EDIT HERE, DON”T MISS IT!!!!) —it was never seriously on the table when the bill was being debated and was off the table completely when the law was passed, and yet he still made the exact same explicit and unwavering promises after the bill was passed– when he made these promises, so why are you using that as a reason to excuse him?

          • hennorama

            pete18 – thank you again for your thoughtful response, and especially your humorous “EDIT WARNING.”

            I don’t attribute any nefarious intent to your edits. Rather, I’m trying to preserve the record. Had I not gone back into the forum and then discovered the edits, my initial response would appear to ignore the questions posed in said edits. In addition, I would have had no way of knowing about said edits, as they do not generate any DISQUS notifications.

            Please allow me to patiently state that my tax knowledge is quite extensive, and please allow me to again correct your continued inaccuracy in describing health insurance premiums for a self-employed person as “a tax deduction.”

            As I pointed out in my very first response to you in this thread, [“as a self-employed person, Ms. Gottelieb can “deduct” (technically it's an adjustment to income) 100% of her health insurance premiums”], these are adjustments to income, and not deductions. Adjustments to income are more valuable than deductions, since they reduce Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) rather than simply reducing taxable income. One’s AGI and modified AGI are important in many other tax provisions besides taxable income. For example, if Ms. Gottelieb had significant unreimbursed health care expenses in tax year 2013, and assuming she itemizes her deductions, said expenses are deductible to the extent that they exceed 10 percent of AGI (7.5% is she were age 65 or older). Therefore, the lower her AGI, the greater those deductions might be.

            But that was not and is not my point, at all. Rather, the point is that while Ms. Gottelieb is ignorant of something as simple as the tax advantages she enjoys, despite her ignorance, her opinion was deemed to be of sufficient import to be published. I don’t “fault her for not giving us the after tax consequence of her premium,” but rather ultimately excuse her ignorance, and fault the NY Times. The NY Times is not excused for lazily deeming her opinion to be worthy of publication, despite her ignorance.

            A secondary point is that her op-ed is part of the unfortunate trend of ignorant and inaccurate reporting on, and op-eds from, those complaining about the PPACA.

            Ms. Gottelieb specifically discussed only the option presented to her by her present insurer, while tangentially mentioning, in paragraph 13, another, lower cost option (“friends … asked why I didn’t “just” switch all of our long-term doctors, suck it up and pay an extra $200 a month for a restrictive network on the exchange…”

            My comment about YOUR opinion was in response to part of your opinion, to wit, “… this added cost in fact operates as a “tax” to support this new horrific system.” Those words are opinion, not fact. Sorry that I did not communicate well enough so that you understood.

            As to why I keep referring to the “public option” – the origin of the “if you like it you can keep it” statements was the discussion of the “public option, and then-Senator Obama was saying this as part of the 2008 campaign for the presidency. This seems to have escaped the collective memory, but one can read more about it on the Web. For example, politifact.com rated as TRUE, then-candidate Obama’s statement “if you’ve got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it,” made on October 7th, 2008 in a debate in Nashville, Tenn.:

            FTA:
            “Barack Obama defended his health care plan during a debate in Nashville, Tenn., on Oct. 7, 2008. His opponents have attacked his plan as “government-run” health care.

            “No. 1, let me just repeat, if you’ve got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it,” Obama said. “All I’m going to do is help you to lower the premiums on it. You’ll still have choice of doctor.”

            “Obama is accurately describing his health care plan here. He advocates a program that seeks to build on the current system, rather than dismantling it and starting over.”

            See:
            http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/09/barack-obama/obamas-plan-expands-existing-system/
            See also:
            http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/11/barack-obama/barack-obama-promises-you-can-keep-your-health-ins/

            To me, the problem is that President Obama did not adjust these statements AFTER passage of the PPACA, and after the rules involving grandfathering were finalized.

            Finally, the “public option” was definitely part of the legislative history of the PPACA, as it was included in the initial legislation in the House, and was debated extensively. You can look it up.

            See:
            http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1673534/Patient-Protection-and-Affordable-Care-Act-PPACA
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Health_Care_for_America_Act
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Legislative_history

            Thanks again for your thoughtful and humorous response.

          • pete18

            Hen,

            Here’s what makes all your focus on the public option completely irrelevant:

            ” So after I signed the bill, I looked around to see if there any — (laughter) — asteroids falling or — (applause) — some cracks opening up in the Earth. (Laughter.) It turned out it was a nice day. (Laughter.) Birds were chirping. Folks were strolling down the Mall.
            People still have their doctors.

            From this day forward, all of the cynics, all the naysayers — they’re going to have to confront the reality of what this reform is and what it isn’t. They’ll have to finally acknowledge this isn’t a
            government takeover of our health care system. They’ll see that if
            Americans like their doctor, they’ll be keeping their doctor. You like
            your plan? You’ll be keeping your plan. No one is taking that away
            from you. Three months from now, six months from now you’re going to
            look around. You’re going to be sitting in a doctor’s office reading
            through the old People magazines. (Laughter.) And you’ll say, hey,
            this is the same doctor, same plan. It wasn’t Armageddon.”

            This statement was made after the bill was signed. Once again there are no qualifiers in this statement. He made similar statements after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of ACA. This cannot be forgiven as Obama forgetting to “adjust” his statements.

            Your Sebelius quotes actually make the case for Obama having lied rather than documenting some sort of transparency that the millions of people who are losing the policies had somehow missed. No one notices what someone like Sebelius might post in blog but they pay close attention to what the President of the United States promises, without qualification, over and over and over again in both selling and promoting a new policy that will dramatically change the face of healthcare. If Sebelius was aware of the narrowness of the grandfather clause so was Obama. That means Obama was knowingly telling a lie in 2010 and at best a clueless moron anytime earlier.

            The Departments of the Treasury, Labor and Health and Human Services detailed their rules for grandfather status and their estimates for how many people would lose coverage because of the law. Those estimates ranged between 49% and 80% for small employer plans and 34% to 64% for large employer plans.

            http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2013/11/FederalRegister092.jpg

            That report came out on June 17th, Obama said this on June 28th after the supreme court ruled in favor of ACA,

            “First, if you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already
            have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance — this law
            will only make it more secure and more affordable.”

            http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/28/remarks-president-supreme-court-ruling-affordable-care-act

            If the Departments of the Treasury, Labor and Health and Human Services knew this wasn’t true then Obama knew it wasn’t true. So he was knowingly telling a lie. I realize you admit to having “problems” with Obama’s words after the law is passed, but I’m not sure why your having such a hard time admitting that they were lies. There’s no way around this. And even if they were only well intended broken promises, you should still be upset with how many people are losing the plans they had and wanted now and will continue to do so in the future.

            As to the Adjusted Gross income vs regular deductions you still are focused on something that makes no difference to Ms. Gottelieb’s point. Those tax distinctions, no matter how optimistically you might apply them, still don’t change the fact that she is paying significantly more under her new plan. She would be also be paying significantly more if she took her friend’s advice and purchased a lesser plan at $200 more a month ($2,400 a year). Whether it is described as a “tax” or an additional cost makes no difference.

          • fun bobby

            a deduction is not a credit. is the new line now that anyone who did not know the president was lying was foolish and ignorant?

    • JGC

      Message to Lori Gottlieb: Have a chat with your fellow “middle class” comrade Edie Littlefield Sundby about the value of being covered in the event of a stage-4 cancer diagnosis.

      • pete18

        Well, perhaps you’d have a point if President Obama sold this way, “My fellow Americans, the health care plan I’m proposing will cause millions of you to lose the health care coverage and doctor that you like, but don’t worry because it will cost you more and you’ll be covered for many things that you don’t need. The upside of course, is that if you didn’t already have coverage and you get stage 4 cancer you will be able to get coverage. For those of you have already have coverage, this is an irrelevant fact because the current law already assures that your coverage can’t be denied you due to a catastrophic illness. So, how many of you think that your congressmen and senators will support this plan?”

        But of course he didn’t. Period.

  • pete18

    Obama insisted anew Thursday that the problem is limited to people who buy their own insurance. “We’re talking about 5 percent of the population who are in what’s called the individual market. They’re out there buying health insurance on their own,” he told NBC.

    But a closer examination finds that the number of people who have plans changing, or have already changed, could be between 34 million to 52 million. That’s because many employer-provided insurance plans also could change, not just individually purchased insurance plans.

    Administration officials decline to say how many employer-sponsored plans could change. But those numbers could be between 23 million to 41 million, based on a McClatchy analysis of estimates offered by the Department of Health and Human Services in June 2010.

    Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/07/207909/analysis-tens-of-millions-could.html#storylink=cpy

    • hennorama

      pete18 — also from the linked article, just after the quote above:

      “Obama aides did acknowledge around the time the law was enacted in 2010 that some people could lose their coverage if their plans changed after the law was passed. Those people would in turn receive what the administration described as superior coverage. But in the years since the law’s passage, HHS officials have downplayed that consequence of the hard-fought law.

      “If health plans significantly raise co-payments or deductibles or significantly reduce (them) . . . they’ll lose their grandfather status and their customers will get the same full set of consumer protections as new plans,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said at a June 15, 2010, news conference.

      “Many changes in the old insurance plans could trigger the loss of the protected status. Regulations issued by HHS state that the grandfathered status would be lost if the policies eliminate coverage for a particular condition, reduce the annual dollar limit on benefits, increase co-payments by as little as $5 or 15 percent, or increase out-of-pocket maximums by more than 15 percent or premiums by more than 5 percent.

      “Later in June 2010, Sebelius’ department published estimates in the Federal Register that 39 percent to 69 percent of employers’ fully insured plans would relinquish the coverage they had prior to the March 2010 passage of the ACA and thus would have to cancel or change policies.

      “About 60 million people are covered in fully insured plans, which make up about 40 percent of employer-provided health plans. Fully insured plans are usually offered by large employers. These plans have the insurance company rather than the employer assume the financial risk of annual health care expenses exceeding expectations. The rest of employers self-insure.

      “To escape having to provide the new law’s minimum required benefits, plans would have to largely maintain the co-pays, premiums and out-of-pocket limits that existed prior to March 2010.

      “Already this year, only 36 percent of employer plans were pre-2010 plans, compared with 56 percent in 2011, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a leading health care research organization. That means that millions of people’s plans already had changed or were canceled in the three and a half years since the law was enacted in March 2010.

      “That doesn’t automatically mean the plans were changed or canceled because of the new law.

      “I think there needs to be great emphasis that plans are not being canceled because of ACA requirements,” said Jon Gabel, a senior fellow at the University of Chicago’s Health Care Research Department. “They’re being canceled because insurers do not want to ‘grandfather’ some plans.”

      Repeating from above, with emphasis:

      “THAT DOESN’T AUTOMATICALLY MEAN THE PLANS WERE CHANGED OR CANCELED BECAUSE OF THE NEW LAW.”

      http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/07/207909/analysis-tens-of-millions-could.html#storylink=cpy

      • Bruce94

        Your effort to inject clarity and sanity into this discussion given the hyperbolic posts of the pete18′s and OnPointComment’s on this forum is commendable. However, it appears to me that these anti-healthcare reform zealots are not amenable to reason or logic because they are on a mission to restore the pre-ACA reality of a dysfunctional medical market with over 40 million uninsured–a national disgrace that is both morally unacceptable and fiscally unsustainable.

        As to pete18′s contention, I can find no reliable source that says over 2-3% of the pop. is likely to be adversely affected (i.e. receive cancellations or experience premium hikes in the new exchanges). This represents 7-10 million people, which although significant is nowhere near the gazillions that pete18 and other fear-mongers are hyperventilating about. And if the efforts of Republican governors and state legislators to thwart the new law can be overcome and the exchanges can get up and running, many or most of these folks will likely wind up with more comprehensive insurance at affordable rates–rates that could actually be more favorable when you factor in Medicaid, subsidies, certain tax advantages for those shopping on the exchanges, and the ability of young people to buy special catastrophic plans and/or remain on their parents’ policies. Here are few sources I came across which tend to support the above analysis, and some are by no means complimentary of Obama.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/29/this-is-why-obamacare-is-cancelling-some-peoples-insurance-plans/

        http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114622/obamacare-premiums-and-rate-shock-new-studies-and-consensus

        http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite

        Sadly, the pete18′s and his ilk seem to be dead set against any serious effort to remedy the gross inefficiencies and distortions of the pre-ACA medical market because they have bought into the one or more of the following:

        –the far right anti-govt. conspiracy theory that healthcare reform will destroy our liberty

        –the dumbing down of America, which is to say that unlike every other advanced, civilized country in the world, we’re too stupid to figure out how to devise universal healthcare

        –the Social Darwinist theory that 40 plus million Americans are without insurance protection because they must be too lazy or foolish OR

        –the Ayn Rand fallacy that “free” markets are perfectly self-correcting mechanisms and never warrant govt. intervention or regulation

        Maybe you can think of some other reasons why healthcare reform seems to bring out paranoid anti-govt. rants like those you’ve so painstakingly and effectively addressed on this forum.

        • pete18

          “As to pete18′s contention, I can find no reliable source that says over
          2-3% of the pop. is likely to be adversely affected (i.e. receive
          cancellations or experience premium hikes in the new exchanges).”

          Try a little harder. Let’s take the Obama administration itself, which in 2010 estimated that up to 93 million Americans could lose their current insurance based on the changes in the law.

          ““The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small
          employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish
          their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” wrote the administration
          on page 34,552 of the Register. All in all, more than half of
          employer-sponsored plans will lose their “grandfather status” and become
          illegal. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million
          Americans—more than half the population—was covered by
          employer-sponsored insurance in 2013.

          Another 25 million people, according to the CBO, have “nongroup and
          other” forms of insurance; that is to say, they participate in the
          market for individually-purchased insurance. In this market, the
          administration projected that “40 to 67 percent” of individually-purchased plans would lose their Obamacare-sanctioned
          “grandfather status” and become illegal, solely due to the fact that
          there is a high turnover of participants and insurance arrangements in
          this market. (Plans purchased after March 23, 2010 do not benefit from
          the “grandfather” clause.) The real turnover rate would be higher,
          because plans can lose their grandfather status for a number of other
          reasons.

          How many people are exposed to these problems? 60 percent of
          Americans have private-sector health insurance—precisely the number that
          Jay Carney dismissed. As to the number of people facing cancellations,
          51 percent of the employer-based market plus 53.5 percent of the
          non-group market (the middle of the administration’s range) amounts to
          93 million Americans.”

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/

          Here’s the Federal Register if you’d like to confirm the numbers from the source:

          http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-17/pdf/FR-2010-06-17.pdf

          The key chart is here: http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2013/11/FederalRegister092.jpg

          • Bruce94

            “Insurance companies [have] ripped off Americans for years with lousy health plans. Obamacare was designed to fix that.” If your plan was cancelled, perhaps you should blame the profit-motive and the insurance company which decided to exit the market and leave its customers/policyholders scrambling rather than upgrade their product (a practice they’ve been engaging in long before the ACA came along).

            For “The Real Story behind the Phony Canceled Health Insurance Scandal,” I suggest the following:

            http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/obamacare-canceled-health-insurance

            “CBO and JCT estimate that about 3 million to 5 million fewer people will obtain employer-based coverage” as a result of the ACA. “In CBO and JCT’s judgment, a sharp decline in employer-based health insurance…is unlikely.”

            While “there is clearly a tremendous amount of uncertainty about how employees and employers will respond…one piece of evidence that may be relevant is the experience in Massachusetts, where employment-based health insurance coverage appears to have increased since that state’s reforms…were implemented.”

            http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43090

            Spare me the hysteria over the employer plans’ fate under the ACA.
            But if it turns out there’s a lot of junk in that market as well as the individual market, I guess that should surprise no one.

          • pete18

            I take your quick shift to Obama-excuse-making-talking point #2, as a tacit admission of being wrong about your previous point. I know, it is hard to argue against the administration’s own estimates.

            While I’m sure there are some bad policies out there that some consumers were unaware of when they purchased them, here’s what you must confront, the way the law and its rules were written th percentage of the non-junk policies will avoid the ax. It’s impossible, and the
            administration knew this.

            From the Washington Post’s article on the veracity of Obama’s health care promises:

            As we have noted, a key part of the law is forcing insurers to offer an “essential health benefits” package, providing coverage in 10 categories. The list includes: ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral
            and vision care.

            For some plans, this would be a big change. In 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services noted:
            “62 percent of enrollees do not have coverage for maternity services;
            34 percent of enrollees do not have coverage for substance abuse services; 18 percent of enrollees do not have coverage for mental health services; 9 percent of enrollees do not have coverage for prescription drugs.”

            The law did allow “grandfathered” plans —for people who had obtained their insurance before the law was signed on March 23, 2010 — to escape this requirement and some other aspects of the law. But the regulations written by HHS while implementing the law set some tough guidelines, so that if an insurance company makes changes to a plan’s benefits or how much members pay through premiums, co-pays or deductibles, then a person’s plan likely loses that status.

            If you dig into the regulations (go
            to page 34560), you will see that HHS wrote them extremely tight. One
            provision says that if co-payment increases by more than $5, plus medical cost of inflation, then the plan can no longer be grandfathered. (With last year’s
            inflation rate of 4 percent, that means the co-pay could not increase by more
            than $5.90).

            This was pointed out by the Republicans in 2010, who tried to block the Democrats’ version of the grandfather clause, as well as a host Obama care critics before that. Clearly Obama lied when making his promise and clearly a large number of people with good policies have lost coverage and will continue to lose coverage they had and liked because of this law.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/30/obamas-pledge-that-no-one-will-take-away-your-health-plan/

          • Bruce94

            Thanks for the reply, and I take your point about the need to “confront” the way the law and subsequent rules were written. I suspect how we define junk vs non-junk policies may be at the crux of the matter. I think there’s just too much uncertainty in the employer-based market to engage in wild speculation as to how it will all shake out. The last time I checked, however, the vast majority of employer-based group plans exceeded the min. requirements of the ACA.

            If we focus on the problem at hand in the individual market, I’ve read (and shared the sources) that the total pop. that might be adversely affected or exposed to changes is around 2%, which while significant does not reflect the nightmare scenario that we’re seeing in the far right, conservative echo chamber.

            While I agree that the President could and should have done a much better job of explaining it, if the above estimate holds, then in a sense his “if you like it, you can keep it” promise was about 98% true unlike the totally false and outrageous claims from the other side including these gems–that the ACA sets up death panels, or violates the constitution, or represents a govt. takeover, or is a form of socialized medicine.

            If you choose to characterize the President’s promise as a lie, then you have to admit it pales in comparison to the lies and distortions peddled by his ideological opponents.

          • hennorama

            pete18 — you mean (gasp!) the rules were designed so that over time, more and more plans would comply with the law?

            What a shocker! The horror!

          • pete18

            Yes, and the law was designed to get people off of private plans and onto public ones (gasp!). The law was falsely sold and is a fraud. Sadly, it is real shock and horror for those who are losing their plans or now have to pay more for their insurance. The horror is only beginning, wait until the employer mandate kicks in next year. Those of you defending the law will have your work cut out for you with the contortions you’ll have to bend into to justify the large number of policy losses that will be happening then.

          • hennorama

            pete18 — I guess I’ve missed all the “public plans” that are available for those who have private health insurance to switch to.

            Perhaps it’s because they don’t exist.

            However, no doubt someone at Cato, AEI or Heritage will soon redefine the word “public” to conform to your claims, if they haven’t already done so.

            Please note that the fact that I do not vehemently denounce the PPACA does not make me a defender of it. And neither does refuting the false and inaccurate claims made by you and others make me a “defender.”

            Thank you for response.

          • pete18

            I meant to say, get people off the private plans that people wanted to keep and on to the exchange plans, which are crafted by government policies and restrictions. In other words the ACA and it’s rules are designed for people to lose the plans they want, the very opposite of what the President promised.

            Given that the only claims you attempt to refute are ones attacking the ACA, your protest rings hollow. Particularly when any objective observer who cares about honest and effective government could find such an abundance of broken promises, lies, bad projections, misleading statements, inaccuracies, false assumptions, and predictions colored by thick and dark rose colored glasses from the President and his supporters in the construction and promotion of this program.

          • hennorama

            pete18 – thank you for your response. The following is intended as a good-natured ribbing.

            So … you knew, before writing about “public” plans, that there ARE no “public” plans, yet you went ahead and wrote it anyway?

            Hmmmm … this sounds a bit suspicious.

            One might charitably characterize your falsity as a “misleading statement.”

            Are you now going to tell everyone who read your comment that you knew in advance that what you wrote was false? And if you knew that what you wrote was false BEFORE writing it, were you lying?

            Why did you mislead the American people in such a heinous manner, sir?

            I would present the list of your other “lies, … misleading statements, inaccuracies, false assumptions, and predictions,” from this thread alone, but see no real purpose in doing so.

            I also see no real purpose in continuing this exchange, but thank you for your generally polite, respectful, thoughtful, and occasionally humorous comments. Best regards.

          • pete18

            “So … you knew, before writing about “public” plans, that there ARE no “public” plans, yet you went ahead and wrote it anyway?

            Hmmmm … this sounds a bit suspicious.

            One might charitably characterize your falsity as a “misleading statement.”

            You might have a point if I’d been emphatically using that description for three-years.

            Maybe, as the one-sided “truth” editor for this forum you’d prefer the term “incorrect promise” as used by the New York Times to describe Obama’s lies on the ACA: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/11/on-this-mornings-obamacare-stories-better-late-than-never.php

            When you find yourself ready to return to the conversation, maybe you can clarify your position on Obamacare since the only logical conclusion that one can draw from your comments is that of a supporter (one who thinks we are better off with Obamacare than without it). A straightforward answer as to whether you think the President lied or not in his promises for people to keep their plans would also add veracity to your claim as the “misunderstood man.”

            Props to your polite and topics based conversations as well.

        • jefe68

          You forgot the health insurance companies, who have rigged the system to make more of a profit.

          The reality is our for profit system is not changing, and the rising cost of health care is not being addressed. Until we make real reform and get rid of the for profit, fee for service system we now have not much is going to change.

          http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/12/1255100/-Insurers-gaming-the-ACA-and-robbing-the-public

          http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/10/1253969/-The-revenge-of-the-insurance-industry

          • Bruce94

            Thanks for the links. I agree with the substance of your remarks. I’m afraid (and hope I’m wrong about this) the political reality may be that it will take another decade or two before we get a handle on some of the critical issues you raise including the profit-motive, delivery system and cost containment.

        • hennorama

          Bruce94 — thanks for your response, your support, and the linked articles.

          One counterpoint — in my experience, OPC and pete18 (and others) are generally respectful, reasonable and thoughtful during our exchanges. This doesn’t mean that we agree with each other after said exchanges, of course, or that they find various arguments, facts, and information to be relevant to the discussion.

          It’s not unreasonable for opponents of the PPACA to focus on any point that finds political and media traction, as this issue of “but you promised we could keep our insurance…” has. That’s just politics. It’s also not surprising that any point will be puffed up in order to make it seem like doomsday, if that helps to advance their viewpoint.

          Combating such puffery and hyperbole is not easy, especially when PPACA opponents have no discernible standards for accuracy in media, and accentuate the emotional appeal of those they parade in front of the public.

          The recent examples of a cancer patient whose insurer canceled her policy after deciding to leave her state, and a writer who actively chose a non-PPACA compliant policy and now complains that her non-compliant policy is no longer available, are just two in the long line of so-called “victims” that have been put on parade.

          Diverting a parade is no easy task, but the attempt is perhaps illuminating to others, making it worthwhile.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    “How Obama is soaking the young
    Past generations could expect a better life, but today’s youth are picking up the tab for the baby boomers”

    “”While today’s 65-year-olds will receive on average net lifetime benefits of $327,400, children born now will suffer net lifetime losses of $420,600 as they struggle to pay the bills of aging Americans.”

    http://theweek.com/article/index/252607/how-obama-is-soaking-the-young

    • OnPointComments

      Charles Krauthammer has described Obamacare as the greatest transfer of wealth from the young to the elderly in the history of the country.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    From the ‘you can’t make this stuff up department’:

    “Who counts as an Obamacare enrollee? The Obama administration settles on a definition.”

    “It will count people who have purchased a plan as well as those who have a plan sitting in their online shopping cart but have not yet paid.”

    Officers of Amazon( or any major company) would go to jail if they reported sales using this method. Do they think this is a political winner? There is zero upside.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/11/who-counts-as-an-obamacare-enrollee-the-obama-administration-settles-on-a-definition/

    • OnPointComments

      I had just finished writing this comment:

      The Obama administration is scrambling to report an increased number of people enrolled under Obamacare, so it’s come up with its own definition of what qualifies as enrollment. Even with the administration’s enhanced definition, enrollment will likely hover at just above 10% of the predicted number.

      WHO COUNTS AS AN OBAMACARE ENROLLEE? THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SETTLES ON A DEFINITION.
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/11/who-counts-as-an-obamacare-enrollee-the-obama-administration-settles-on-a-definition/

      “Health insurance plans only count subscribers as enrolled in a health plan once they’ve submited a payment.

      “When the Obama administration releases health law enrollment figures later this week, though, it will use a more expansive definition. It will count people who have purchased a plan as well as those who have a plan sitting in their online shopping cart but have not yet paid.

      I bet if a public insurance company decided to use the Obama administration’s definition of enrollment, the company would be investigated by the SEC.
      GMTA

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        I thought the GOP subpoena of the records last week was overreach but now it looks like it might be necessary after all. I owe these guys an apology.

    • HonestDebate1

      Are they counting those fleeing to Medicaid?

      The Wall Street Journal is reporting the number is 50K. The target was 7 million by March 31. They are 1.4% there and a quarter of the time period has elapsed.

      • JGC

        Quite honestly, if I was working minimum wage in one of the states that is NOT doing the Medicaid expansion, I would investigate moving to a state that has the full Medicaid sign-up. After all, I would be getting at least $7.25/hr for a basic job no matter where the work was located or the skillset involved, so it might as well be in a state that will offer me health care coverage. To be fair, people who earn so little do not easily have the means to save enough for a move such as I am suggesting.

        But do you think this could be another Great Migration, except for health care coverage instead of avoidance of race discrimination?

        • HonestDebate1

          I am not slighting those on Medicaid. Early on they were indeed counting the new medicaid enrollees as Obamacare enrollees to pad the numbers so I’m just curious if they are still doing it.

          • JGC

            Yeah, I sort of meandered and changed the subject, because it is an interesting idea to me, the thought that people may purposefully move just to gain access to healthcare.

            No idea about the method of counting ACA enrollees (other than there will be a count later this week, and they are not at this point demanding enrollees have already paid for their policy to be counted — this because the deadline for payment is not until Dec 15).

        • fun bobby

          or maybe the unwashed masses will come up to Canada and make your ER waits even longer

          • JGC

            Welcome! Bienvenue!

          • fun bobby

            try the crack, its great when you are in a drunken stupor

          • JGC

            Toronto needs to hire The Governor from the Walking Dead, to bring a little old-fashioned law and order to their town. Or maybe Bloomberg has the time to straighten things out, now that he is out of a job.

            I’m just following a live broadcast of the Toronto counsellors meeting to vote on a motion to beg Mayor Ford to please step away from the office. Apparently, there is no mechanism to force him out of office; all they can do is ask him to consider their request.

          • fun bobby

            hilarious. I wish we could get rid of bloomberg

        • hennorama

          JGC — your post brings to mind the reverse question:

          Do you think there will be a migration of principled lower-income folks who oppose the PPACA, from states where they qualify for expanded Medicaid, to states where they would not?

          One supposes that the Heritage Foundation, or similar organization could raise funds to cover their moving expenses, right?

          • JGC

            I don’t think the Heritage Foundation would be capable of furnishing the funds for moving expenses: totally against the pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps ethos!

            But now that I think about it, there was some sort of Canadian study (Harper gov’t funded?) that looked at ways to make the eastern seaboard provinces’ employment insurance more difficult to collect; when the fisheries were closed down for the season or due to a fishery collapse, to force the unemployed to expand their job search beyond their province or locality, and there was talk of a component to provide modest funding for the move (presumably to the Alberta tar sand fields). I don’t know where this idea fell.

          • hennorama

            JGC — thank you for your illuminating response.

            That brings to mind the phenomenon of patient-dumping, whereby indigent patients are transported to the doors of a public hospital, or to another municipality or state. In September, the City of San Francisco sued the State of Nevada over this practice:

            “SAN FRANCISCO (Sept. 10, 2013) — City Attorney Dennis Herrera today filed a class action against the State of Nevada on behalf of California local governments to which indigent patients were improperly bused from the state-run Rawson-Neal Hospital in Las Vegas. The lawsuit filed in San Francisco Superior Court this morning seeks a court-ordered injunction barring Nevada from similar patient discharge practices in the future, and reimbursement for San Francisco’s costs to provide care to the patients bused there.”

            And as reported on abcnews.go.com”

            “The San Francisco City Attorney’s Office launched an investigation in April after news broke that Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital in Las Vegas had bused nearly 1,500 patients out of state since 2008. Since then, the office has found that 500 of those patients were bused to California, at least 24 of which were bused to San Francisco even though neither they nor their families were San Francisco residents, according to the lawsuit.”

            See:
            http://www.sfcityattorney.org/index.aspx?page=553
            http://abcnews.go.com/Health/san-francisco-sues-nevada-patient-dumping/story?id=20350308

            We live in a crazy world, no?

    • fun bobby

      perhaps you found a loophole for the tax/fine! just put it in your cart and you should be all set right?

  • OnPointComments

    In my opinion, President Obama’s statement, repeated over and over, was crystal clear. It’s also become crystal clear that it was a lie, and that the administration knew it was a lie when President Obama was making the statement.

    “No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

    As one editorial cartoonist noted, there wasn’t an asterisk after the word “period * “.

  • JGC

    I just returned from a week in western Pennsylvania, helping my elderly mother during her recovery from an out-patient procedure. I read through the pre-op instruction list with her, fairly standard boiler plate stuff, like no food or drink after midnight, no aspirin or blood thinners, the night before the operation. Except for the last guideline: it was recommended there be no smoking or chewing at least a week before the operation, if possible. (Chewing, as in tobacco.) Mom, get that plug out of your bottom lip, immediately!

    • HonestDebate1

      Come down here and I’ll take you back into the mountains of Appalachia and introduce you to some baccer chewing bombshell babes who can hoe a field of cabbage, can 50 quarts of beans, shoot a deer, field dress it and still have some lovin’ left for their man.

      I hope your mom did well.

      • JGC

        She’s fine.

        I was there during elk season. To a person, the lucky people who drew the limited licenses described it as “the dream of a lifetime”.

        • fun bobby

          your mom got a tag?

  • OnPointComments

    Another ramification of a president who surrounds himself with incompetent sycophants who only tell him what he wants to hear.

    OBAMACARE’S “LIMITLESS” SECURITY RISKS
    http://www.humanevents.com/2013/11/12/obamacares-limitless-security-risks/

    “…CBS News tells us the Healthcare.gov project manager, Henry Chao, was “kept in the dark” about security risks that a memo from his own agency described as “limitless.” And those security risks aren’t scheduled to be addressed until… mid-2014 or early 2015.

    “Every responsible media outlet in America should be broadcasting warnings at the public to stay the hell away from the ObamaCare exchanges…the security flaws could leave users vulnerable to “identity theft, unauthorized access, and misrouted data.”

  • HonestDebate1

    Now Bill Clinton is saying the President should keep his promise even if he has to change the law. Democrats have given Obama 72 hours to come up with something or they will support the Rebublican bill. Even Diane Feinstein is on board. But if he keeps his promise, Obamacare is doomed. It depends on large numbers enrolling and they aren’t there. The target was 7 million by March 31. Obama is in a pickle.

    Now riddle me this liberals: Given the train wreck (h/t Max Baucus), what would have been a better option than the Republicans offer to delay Obamacare implementation? Avoiding the shutdown is would have been gravy.

    • pete18

      Worst President ever.

    • JGC

      As Rumsfeld might say, “Keep calm and stay the course.”

  • OnPointComments

    There’s something mildly entertaining about watching these Democrats, who shoved Obamacare down the throats of Americans knowing that the majority of Americans didn’t want it, now scrambling to distance themselves from the fiasco.

  • OnPointComments

    Many more questions in the poll, but here is the gist of it.

    QUINNIPIAC POLL, NOVEMBER 6-11, 2013:
    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1975

    Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?
    Approve 39%; Disapprove 54%

    In general, how satisfied are you with the way things are going in the nation today?
    Very satisfied 2%; Somewhat satisfied 19%; Somewhat dissatisfied 31%; Very dissatisfied 47%

    Would you say that Barack Obama – is honest and trustworthy or not?
    Yes 44%; No 52%

    Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling – the economy?
    Approve 38%; Disapprove 59%

    Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling – health care?
    Approve 36%; Disapprove 60%

    Do you think that in general the Obama administration has been competent in running the government?
    Yes 43%; No 53%

  • OnPointComments

    One of the latest Obamacare ads. One thing you can say about young liberal Democrat women is that they’re cheap dates — give them free birth control and they’re ready to jump in bed with the next guy who comes along. At least that’s apparently what the Obamacare ad agency thinks.

    Ad:
    Got insurance? Susie & Nate Hot to Trot: Let’s Get Physical. OMG he’s hot! Let’s hope he’s as easy to get as this birth control. My health insurance covers the pill, which means all I have to worry about is getting him between the covers. I got insurance.

    • fun bobby

      wow, your tax dollars at work. its sort of brave new worldish in a way

  • HonestDebate1

    As I understand it, Fred Upton is the sponsor of the House “keep your plan” bill. The problem is, putting the genie back in the bottle at this point has it’s own set of devastating consequences for insurance companies and consumers. Still, it seems likey to pass because it’s a political bonanza for Republicans to force Obama to confront the lie. This risk pool thing won’t work if people can just hit reset and keep their plans. It’s antithetical to the mandate which is essential to any semblance of success. Steny Hoyer is noncommittal which, IMO, means he is considering supporting Upton’s bill.

    The Senate counterpart is sponsored by Mary Landrieu which makes sense because she’s in a red state and up for reelection. And now Diane Feinstein has signed on as a co-sponsor. Wow. Then again, one million Californians have received cancellation notices.

ONPOINT
TODAY
Aug 22, 2014
Attorney General Eric Holder talks with Capt. Ron Johnson of the Missouri State Highway Patrol at Drake's Place Restaurant, Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2014, in Florrissant, Mo. (AP)

The National Guard and Eric Holder in Ferguson. ISIS beheads an American journalist. Texas Governor Rick Perry gets a mug shot. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Aug 22, 2014
In this image from video posted on Facebook, courtesy of the George W. Bush Presidential Center, former President George W. Bush participates in the ice bucket challenge with the help of his wife, Laura Bush, in Kennebunkport, Maine. (AP)

The Ice Bucket Challenge: ALS, viral fundraising and how we give in the age of social media.

RECENT
SHOWS
Aug 22, 2014
In this image from video posted on Facebook, courtesy of the George W. Bush Presidential Center, former President George W. Bush participates in the ice bucket challenge with the help of his wife, Laura Bush, in Kennebunkport, Maine. (AP)

The Ice Bucket Challenge: ALS, viral fundraising and how we give in the age of social media.

 
Aug 22, 2014
Attorney General Eric Holder talks with Capt. Ron Johnson of the Missouri State Highway Patrol at Drake's Place Restaurant, Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2014, in Florrissant, Mo. (AP)

The National Guard and Eric Holder in Ferguson. ISIS beheads an American journalist. Texas Governor Rick Perry gets a mug shot. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Why Facebook And Twitter Had Different Priorities This Week
Friday, Aug 22, 2014

There’s no hidden agenda to the difference between most people’s Facebook and Twitter feeds this week. Just a hidden type of emotional content and case use. Digiday’s John McDermott explains.

More »
Comment
 
Our Week In The Web: August 22, 2014
Friday, Aug 22, 2014

On mixed media messaging, Spotify serendipity and a view of Earth from the International Space Station.

More »
Comment
 
Your (Weird? Wonderful? Wacky?) Roommate Stories
Tuesday, Aug 19, 2014

We asked, and you delivered: some of the best roommate stories from across our many listener input channels.

More »
2 Comments