Understanding the Republican Party
A rational person looks at American public life and wonders how it is that we can enact policies that are so unenlightened -- I don't mean just Democrats, but ordinary people around the world. How can America pay gazillion-dollar subsidies to corporations who are already making gazillion-dollar profits, while at the same time stripping survival benefits from poor people? How can anyone in their right mind stand up and say that we need more guns in schools? Why is the US struggling to meet the lowest educational standards of the developed world? Why do American citizens go bankrupt trying to deal with ordinary health problems? What is the obsession in this country with suppressing women's rights?
The explanation is that we have a political party that believes in these things so strongly that no other legislation can be enacted until their priorities are met. The party is supported by a majority of voters in some regions of the country, it is powerful enough that it must be taken seriously The other party must make compromises with the Republican Party in order to get to more enlightened agenda items, and then these have to be watered down to the point of meaninglessness.
Democracy Corps, James Carville's group, is doing something really fascinating, called the Republican Party Project. They conducted a bunch of focus groups with people who report themselves to be Republicans, to find out what they believe and who they are. The cool thing about this report is that it is objective and dispassionate. You might think a bunch of Democrats would try to tar and feather the Republicans with their own words, but this report is different from that. You are stronger when you understand your enemy's motives and thought processes, and this report was created from that perspective. Of course the Democrats want to win elections, and Democracy Corps is supporting that by producing an accurate and unbiased analysis of the party they will have to beat.
The evangelicals support the Tea Party because they are pushing ahead and getting things done, but they differ in their core beliefs: the Tea Party is concerned with reducing taxes and the size of government, and mostly doesn't really care if gay people marry, mostly thinks it is not the government's job to make women's medical decisions for them. And finally, there is the traditional moderate conservative Republican bloc: "They are centrally focused on market-based economics, small government, and eliminating waste and inefficiency. They are largely open to progressive social policies, including on gay marriage and immigration. They disdain the Tea Party and have a hard time taking Fox News seriously." This is the smallest of the three groups.
The traditional conservative view is a legitimate and even necessary part of the national conversation. A certain amount of money goes into the treasury and there can be different views about what it should be spent on. We may be threatened by foreign countries and groups, and there can be more than one opinion about how to deal with them, and so on. In the dialog between management and labor, the GOP represents management. Well somebody's got to.
I think the Founding Fathers saw the danger of something like the evangelical bloc and tried to prevent it by carefully wording an amendment to the Constitution regulating government's ability to promote a religion or to impede one. No matter how many times they deny it, there really is a legal separation of church and state. And the power of the evangelical component of the GOP lies in the weakening of the separation of religion and government; it is their right to believe the things they do, and to live according to their customs, but it is not their right to force the rest of us to obey their taboos, no matter how repugnant we pagans may be to them.
The Tea Party is a new thing, they are the hell-raisers of the party who come up with impossible demands and then filibuster and shout people down if they don't get what they want. They define themselves as "Washington outsiders" and really don't seem to understand that a democratic government really does require that people make concessions, including them. It really does mean you don't get everything you want every time. But because their blustering has so successfully gummed up the governmental machinery, the Tea Party is seen within the GOP as a kind of success, and the other groups are hoping to get some of what they want through the Tea Party's momentum.
There is a recurrent tacit theme, mentioned several times by the authors, for instance, "While few talk about Obama in racial terms, the base supporters are very conscious of being white in a country with growing minorities."
Though the Democracy Corps paper does not address the topic in depth, it is obvious that a core appeal of today's GOP flows from the evolving demographic face of our country. White people are not a majority in some regions, and the tide is moving that way nearly everywhere. It is okay to get goose-bumpy about the Constitution and your sense of patriotism, but if you actually believe in it you have to remember that the Constitution gives rights to everyone, not just you. The freedom of religion is easy to accept when it protects your religion, not so easy when it protects somebody else's, say Wicca or Islam. But that's the way it works.
Some white people are feeling backed into a corner these days. The Constitution used to be a prop for them, it gave them permission to say what they wanted and pass laws that were consistent with their way of life, and that was fine, But now they are tasting what it was like for the rest of the population during that time, when other groups had to accept white Christian domination. The Constitution is no longer a crutch for one group, now the process of democracy is requiring white Americans to tolerate people who are different from them. The Tea Party sounds a little frantic, they know it is best not to talk about race but this is a portrait of white people who want to keep their privilege, their entitlement, when they feel it slipping away from them.
This paper is a fascinating read, if you want to understand one side of American politics. Don't take my snarky word for it, click on the link and read the whole thing.
The explanation is that we have a political party that believes in these things so strongly that no other legislation can be enacted until their priorities are met. The party is supported by a majority of voters in some regions of the country, it is powerful enough that it must be taken seriously The other party must make compromises with the Republican Party in order to get to more enlightened agenda items, and then these have to be watered down to the point of meaninglessness.
Democracy Corps, James Carville's group, is doing something really fascinating, called the Republican Party Project. They conducted a bunch of focus groups with people who report themselves to be Republicans, to find out what they believe and who they are. The cool thing about this report is that it is objective and dispassionate. You might think a bunch of Democrats would try to tar and feather the Republicans with their own words, but this report is different from that. You are stronger when you understand your enemy's motives and thought processes, and this report was created from that perspective. Of course the Democrats want to win elections, and Democracy Corps is supporting that by producing an accurate and unbiased analysis of the party they will have to beat.
Understand that the base thinks they are losing politically and losing control of the country – and their starting reaction is “worried,” “discouraged,” “scared,” and “concerned” about the direction of the country – and a little powerless to change course. They think Obama has imposed his agenda, while Republicans in DC have let him get away with it. Inside the GOPThe report finds that there are three components to the Republican Party, and they are not necessarily on the same page. The largest group is composed of evangelical Christians, for whom the most important topics are the social ones, homosexuality and abortion in particular (they're against it).
The evangelicals support the Tea Party because they are pushing ahead and getting things done, but they differ in their core beliefs: the Tea Party is concerned with reducing taxes and the size of government, and mostly doesn't really care if gay people marry, mostly thinks it is not the government's job to make women's medical decisions for them. And finally, there is the traditional moderate conservative Republican bloc: "They are centrally focused on market-based economics, small government, and eliminating waste and inefficiency. They are largely open to progressive social policies, including on gay marriage and immigration. They disdain the Tea Party and have a hard time taking Fox News seriously." This is the smallest of the three groups.
The traditional conservative view is a legitimate and even necessary part of the national conversation. A certain amount of money goes into the treasury and there can be different views about what it should be spent on. We may be threatened by foreign countries and groups, and there can be more than one opinion about how to deal with them, and so on. In the dialog between management and labor, the GOP represents management. Well somebody's got to.
I think the Founding Fathers saw the danger of something like the evangelical bloc and tried to prevent it by carefully wording an amendment to the Constitution regulating government's ability to promote a religion or to impede one. No matter how many times they deny it, there really is a legal separation of church and state. And the power of the evangelical component of the GOP lies in the weakening of the separation of religion and government; it is their right to believe the things they do, and to live according to their customs, but it is not their right to force the rest of us to obey their taboos, no matter how repugnant we pagans may be to them.
The Tea Party is a new thing, they are the hell-raisers of the party who come up with impossible demands and then filibuster and shout people down if they don't get what they want. They define themselves as "Washington outsiders" and really don't seem to understand that a democratic government really does require that people make concessions, including them. It really does mean you don't get everything you want every time. But because their blustering has so successfully gummed up the governmental machinery, the Tea Party is seen within the GOP as a kind of success, and the other groups are hoping to get some of what they want through the Tea Party's momentum.
There is a recurrent tacit theme, mentioned several times by the authors, for instance, "While few talk about Obama in racial terms, the base supporters are very conscious of being white in a country with growing minorities."
Though the Democracy Corps paper does not address the topic in depth, it is obvious that a core appeal of today's GOP flows from the evolving demographic face of our country. White people are not a majority in some regions, and the tide is moving that way nearly everywhere. It is okay to get goose-bumpy about the Constitution and your sense of patriotism, but if you actually believe in it you have to remember that the Constitution gives rights to everyone, not just you. The freedom of religion is easy to accept when it protects your religion, not so easy when it protects somebody else's, say Wicca or Islam. But that's the way it works.
Some white people are feeling backed into a corner these days. The Constitution used to be a prop for them, it gave them permission to say what they wanted and pass laws that were consistent with their way of life, and that was fine, But now they are tasting what it was like for the rest of the population during that time, when other groups had to accept white Christian domination. The Constitution is no longer a crutch for one group, now the process of democracy is requiring white Americans to tolerate people who are different from them. The Tea Party sounds a little frantic, they know it is best not to talk about race but this is a portrait of white people who want to keep their privilege, their entitlement, when they feel it slipping away from them.
This paper is a fascinating read, if you want to understand one side of American politics. Don't take my snarky word for it, click on the link and read the whole thing.
130 Comments:
"... it is their right to believe the things they do, and to live according to their customs, but it is not their right to force the rest of us to obey their taboos, ....."
given this statement, how do you justify forcing objecting religious folks to pay for insurance that funds abortions ? or to fund abortions ?
If "religious folk" -- and here you are assuming that only a certain narrow band of beliefs counts as "religious" -- don't want to have abortions, then I fully, a hundred percent, support their right not to have one. It is the same as an insurance policy that would pay for abortion services for men -- how could it possibly matter if their insurance covers something they are not going to have?
JimK
they are PAYING for it for other folks.
because they are forced to cover insurance that covers it for them or anyone else.
because you can't choose your policy anymore, you must choose a policy that follows Obamacare's rules, which says it MUST cover abortions, and birth control, etc.
same reason that people over 50 are now paying for maternity coverage as are MEN. When was the last time you are aware of that a man had a baby ?
and here is where all the handouts lead :
http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/10/22/memphis-house-fire-leaves-3yo-dead-aunt-just-wants-food-stamps/
these are the sort of people you are paying to have more children, because you give them money when they do ! children they obviously don't value, since this idiot was less concerned about the food stamps in her purse than the babies that had just died.
which of course, makes perfect sense, as our current welfare/food stamp system encourages folks who don't really want children to bring more into the world.... for the govt payment.
and I have asked repeatedly on this blog how you solve this problem.
no one answers. and you encourage and reward these sorts of parents.
wow.
democrats need to start thinking the results of your policies through... and you really don't seem to ...
if you pay poor people to have children when they can't support the children they have, they will have more children. and the children's value is reduced to the value of the govt payment they produce.
if you cut medicare payments to the bone, doctors will stop taking medicare patients... we are seeing this now. so Virginia, brilliantly, proposes a law that says 'gee, let's force doctors in va to accept medicare patients (and Medicaid by the way)... forgetting I guess that though it is pretty darn inconvenient people CAN move.
oh, next brilliant idea. let's force ALL the doctors to accept medicare patients on the national level. and doctors, who go through 7 years or so of grueling education to become doctors will continue to do this out of the goodness of their hearts ... or because they have an exciting career ? really ?
you are living in a bubble world.
Listen, employees for Adventist Hospital are covered for blood transfusions. Jewish-owned companies don't require their male employees to be circumcised. It is stupid to think you should punish all your employees because of your own interpretation of scripture.
You have just reached the point of boringness where I am finished responding to you. It is crazy to try to reason with crazy people.
JimK
yep. typical. can't argue the facts so call names and go away.
before obamacare started mandating what insurance policies had to cover and didn't have to cover this wasn't a problem !
and of course he PROMISED that abortions wouldn't be covered and then mandated that all insurance companies cover them. unbelievable.
You don't know how to argue facts because you skip over most of them, such as
"...23 states...have passed laws that ban all plans in their health exchange from offering coverage for elective abortion. Eight of those states have also banned private insurers outside the exchange from offering coverage for abortion as well. Most, but not all, include exceptions for life endangerment, rape or incest. Some of those states allow abortion coverage to be sold as a separate policy, called a rider, but so far there's no evidence that any plan is offering that."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/11/01/242174176/which-plans-cover-abortion-no-answers-on-healthcare-gov
If you live in a state that does allow insurance plans to cover abortion, organize and see what changes you can effect at the state level to stop allowing. Or you could move to one of the 23 states that does not allow abortion to be covered if it's that important to you.
Also, employers can easily not pay for the portion of any health insurance policy an insurer might offer that covers any medical treatment that does not meet with their own religious beliefs. They can simply pass the entirety of the cost for whatever coverage they object to onto the employee who wishes to purchase it. The employers' religious views should not interfere with their employees' religious freedom.
"The explanation is that we have a political party that believes in these things so strongly that no other legislation can be enacted until their priorities are met."
spot on description of the Democratic Party who won't do what's right for the country and negotiate a deficit reduction plan unless they can raise taxes
or won't eat at America's favorite fast-food restaurant because it's owner doesn't think guys should marry guys
yesterday's Gallup poll had Obama's approval down another two and now stands at forty
one click from the thirties
when elected, it was in the seventies
I wonder what happened
oh yeah, a couple of weeks ago Barry, Harry and the Gang of Dems refused to consider even the slightest change to Obamacare and were willing the let the whole government shut down if it didn't go 100% their way
in the last few weeks, we've seen examples of how homosexuality is sado-masochistic and randomly promiscuous
now here's an example of what it leads to:
the Washington Post Magazine has a weekly column where they set up a blind date and then describe what happens
every couple of months, to show how hipster they are, they set up a gay couple
last week it was a couple of lesbians
in the set-up description, it relates that one of them is already in a relationship and then says: is that a deal-breaker?
anyway, the date goes well and at the end, as usual, there is a description of the aftermath
these two got together for another date and that time they brought along the significant other
I think we all see where this is going
Well, Obama doesn't have to run for office anymore, however, Representatives and Senators do.
Today's RCP's average generic Congressional vote shows Congressional Democrats are favored by 6.6% over Congressional GOPers.
Tomorrow's vote in the Virginia Governor's race will be illuminating.
elections aren't held on a generic basis but an individual one
considered that way, and also considering the advantage the Dems have because their registered numbers are much higher, and also the increasingly propagandistic stance of the mainstream media, a 6.6% lead is pretty pathetic
believe me, Americans overwhelmingly support the Republican positions
they don't want the government to borrow another cent, they don't want to raise taxes, they want to lower government spending, they detest Obamacare, they disaaprove of Obama and they are pro-life
It takes a lot of spinning to maintain the bubble!
Democratic Senators don't think it's a bubble:
In interviews, Democratic senators running in 2014, party elders and Senate leaders said the Obama administration must rescue the law from its rocky start because it's becoming a big political liability for next year.
Democratic senators from red states — the most vulnerable incumbents up for reelection next year — voted for Obamacare and have been among the law’s biggest champions, believing that voters would embrace it once they experienced its benefits. They could end up being some of the law’s most prominent casualties if its unpopularity continues to grow.
If voters continue experiencing problems like a balky website, canceled policies and higher premiums, the fallout could be brutal next November, Democrats acknowledge.
For that reason, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) issued some blunt advice to the administration: “Fix it.”
Asked how it would affect Senate Democratic candidates in 2014, the No. 2 Senate Democrat said: “If it’s fixed, and when it’s fixed, that will decide whether the issue is a big issue next year.”
Democrats are clearly anxious to see the issue resolved because their most at-risk senators in 2014 voted for the measure on Christmas Eve 2009. Those Democrats — Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Kay Hagan of North Carolina — all have defended the law in the face of GOP attacks. But their frustration with the White House is showing, whether it’s Pryor and Hagan backing an extension of Obamacare’s enrollment period, Landrieu proposing legislation to ensure insurance policyholders won’t lose their existing coverage or Begich voicing his fury with the White House.
Asked whether the White House’s credibility had been shot through this latest episode, one Democratic senator said: “You got to have it, to lose it.”
A trio of face-saving changes to Obamacare proposed by conservative Democratic senators would do significant damage to the law, according to health policy experts.
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) wants to make sure people can keep their insurance plans even if they fail to meet basic benefit standards under Obamacare. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) wants to delay by one year the tax penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate. And ten Democrats want to give people more time to enroll on the exchanges.
These proposals come in response to the political fallout of Obamacare's woeful and embarrassing enrollment launch one month ago. But they carry a potentially steep price: each harms the law's core goals by potentially destabilizing the market and raising premiums, experts and the insurance industry warn.
"I think each of these proposals would be significantly disruptive to the law's goals," said Tim Jost, a professor at Washington and Lee University and leading expert on Obamacare.
"Tomorrow's vote in the Virginia Governor's race will be illuminating"
only if Cucinelli wins
if sleazeball MacAuliffe wins, it will attributable to the McDonnell scandal
the good news is Obama is campaigning for MacAuliffe
that's always a boost for Republicans
For many Republicans, the most frustrating aspect of the government shutdown that lasted from Oct. 1 to Oct. 16 wasn't that it was a fight that couldn't really be won. Nor was it that the Republican Party took almost all the blame, even though President Obama and congressional Democrats were just as intransigent as Tea Party conservatives.
No, their real gripe was that the entire drama obscured the bungled rollout of the Democrats’ precious Affordable Care Act. All GOP lawmakers really needed to do to underscore the shortcomings of this law, they said, was nothing.
For three years Republicans warned that this contraption was so bulky and poorly built that it would have trouble getting off the ground—and that Americans would hate it. Ignored or marginalized by the media, these critics are now having their say.
“We’ve been warning that these things were going to happen since 2009,” said Kirsten Kukowski, the press secretary for the Republican National Committee.
“This law is a mess,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said on the eve of the rollout. “It needs to go. It’s way past time to start over.”
By way of response, Obama mocked conservatives for their “crazy” pessimism. “The closer we get, the more desperate they get,” he said. “The Republicans’ biggest fear at this point is not that the Affordable Care Act will fail. What they’re worried about is it’s going to succeed.”
What a difference a month makes.
“Hold me accountable for the debacle,” Kathleen Sebelius told Congress last week. That’s the word she used: “debacle.”
Democrats in the four dozen truly competitive congressional districts in this country—and in the Senate races in America’s “purple” states—are deeply concerned.
Eleven Senate Democrats, most of whom face re-election next year, officially requested a postponement of the March 31 deadline when all Americans must show proof they have health care insurance. Under an administration schedule, next October insurance companies are required to offer another round of coverage options—with an almost inevitable rise in premiums.
This will occur weeks before Election Day 2014, something not lost on political operatives. “What genius came up with that timetable?” one key Democrat asked.
How fast the conventional wisdom can change. Only three weeks ago, the liberal commentariat —joined by some hand-wringing Republicans—proclaimed the death of Tea Party, but not before it had stampeded the GOP over the precipice of extremism.
Yet, in our fast-moving world, the government shutdown of 2013 already seems an afterthought. The Affordable Care Act, by contrast, is not going anywhere. For those who do want to re-litigate the shutdown, the underlying rationale of the recalcitrant House Republicans, and their much-maligned Senate allies, suddenly doesn’t look so idiosyncratic.
The president and his political advisers know this.
Given how much he has been reviled, the last word should probably go to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who believed shutting down the federal government was preferable to GOP acquiescence to Obamacare’s implementation.
“All the people a few weeks ago were saying there is no way you can win this fight,” he told Greta Van Susteren. “They also said there is no way any D’s are going to flip. We are starting to see Democrats flip as this thing—it’s a train wreck—it’s not working. In any political fight, when the truth is on your side, you are in a good situation.”
there's not much a TTFer can say
it's hopeless for the liberal agenda
Obama really did it this time
ROFL
And Huckabee is the PUSA!
NOT!
ROFL!!!
People are gonna love Obamacare once it is forced on them.
NOT!!
“’Tis but a scratch!”
So insists the knight after King Arthur cuts off his left arm in the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail. When Arthur severs his right arm and begs him to surrender, the obstreperous knight again refuses: “Just a flesh wound,” he claims.
Given the disastrous rollout of Obamacare, one could easily conflate HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ performance on Capitol Hill recently with Python’s knight scene. Sebelius had no explanation for what has caused the massive technological failures behind the law’s exchanges, didn’t explain how they would be fixed—and didn’t say who would be held to account for failing to get the implementation right.
In fact, when asked by one Congressman whether the President himself was “ultimately responsible” for the fiasco, Sebelius responded, “Whatever.”
It’s not the first time Secretary Sebelius has shown such insouciance. “No one is getting fired” over the exchanges’ myriad problems, she claimed last Thursday. She went on to say that “the majority of people calling for me to resign…are people I don’t work for.” This from a public servant receiving a salary of $200,000 per year funded by all federal taxpayers!
The President himself is also in denial about the train wreck unfolding before him. Hours after Sebelius’ testimony, the President pooh-poohed the news that millions of Americans will need to shop for new health insurance after losing their current coverage due to Obamacare. In a speech in Boston, the President tried to blame insurance companies for cancelling policies—due to requirements his administration put into place. In other words, “Nothing to see here. Move it along.”
The President also claimed that individuals losing their current plan will get “a better deal.” However, a recent Heritage Foundation study found that the law will raise premiums in the exchanges in 45 states, in some cases causing rates to more than double. So much for the promise of “bending the cost curve down.”
It’s worth pondering why the left—from President Obama on down—seems unwilling to admit any problem with the law, either in its policy or in its implementation. When Nancy Pelosi famously said Congress had to pass the bill so that we could find out what’s in it, she wasn’t just admitting that she and her colleagues hadn’t read the bill they voted on. She was also implying that—unlike the “visionary” leaders of the left—most Americans simply couldn’t appreciate the true wonder and beauty of Obamacare until we experienced it.
It’s that type of patronizing liberalism—don’t worry about a thing, we know what’s best for you—that led people like Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to claim three years ago that Obamacare would “become more and more popular” once the law passed. It’s what led President Obama to tell Charlie Rose last year that his biggest fault was not any errant decision on policy, but rather failing to “tell a story” to the American people.
Yet the stories of the past month demonstrate a wholesale failure of the entire Obamacare scheme. It’s not just the technology behind the exchanges—although that is a mess. It’s also the people losing their coverage, and the people who won’t be able to afford new policies.
Obamacare is a 2,700-page reminder of Reagan’s famous dictum that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” When an entire law is based on those nine words, and isn’t working in the least, the only rational move is to stop the law. Alternatively, one could simply go full Monty Python.
In the Holy Grail, the knight meets an ignominious end. His arms and legs severed, he continues to howl into the wind: “I’m invincible!” The knight’s triumphalist rhetoric has echoed through the Obama administration in recent days. But for both the limbless knight and Obamacare, the facts speak otherwise.
That's right. Make all the hopeful (to you) yet false predictions you want. It will not change the facts such as the relevant news out of Virginia Governor's Race:
Cuccinelli is so far to the right that the libertarian candidate will likely end up earning his party an automatic statewide ballot line for the next three hears in the Old Dominion State!
Newsmax/Zogby Poll: McAuliffe Maintains Strength in Va. Gov. Race
Published on Monday, November 04 2013 13:38
Written by By John Gizzi
"Twenty-four hours before Virginians vote to elect a new governor, the latest Newsmax/Zogby tracking poll shows Democrat Terry McAuliffe continuing to hold a double-digit lead over Republican Ken Cuccinelli.
Even worse news for Republicans, Libertarian Robert Sarvis is on target to achieve what his supporters call "the magic 10 percent," that is, the percentage required by state law for the Libertarian Party to have an automatic statewide ballot line for the next three years, the poll found.
According to Zogby's latest data, McAuliffe, former Democratic National Committee chairman, leads Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli by a margin of 43 percent to 31 percent.
That's about the same as the 44-to-32 percent edge Zogby showed McAuliffe holding over the weekend. The latest numbers also showed Sarvis at 11 percent, other candidates at 3 percent, with 11 percent undecided.
The Democrat and Libertarian candidates fare even better with voters who have already made up their minds. Zogby found that among "decided voters," McAuliffe has 48 percent; Cuccinelli, 35 percent; Sarvis, 13 percent; and other candidates 4 percent.
With McAuliffe headed for a big win Tuesday, the odds are increasing against Republicans winning either of the other two statewide races — lieutenant governor and attorney general.
What Zogby previously predicted could be "one of the bigger election stories Nov. 5" is coming true — namely, the rise of Sarvis and the Libertarians, to the detriment of Republicans.
"Third-party candidates usually fade in closing days, but no evidence of that in Virginia. Sarvis is picking up," Zogby told Newsmax. "If his numbers hold, he is receiving 18 percent among men, 12 percent among Republicans, and 26 percent among independents."
Zogby also pointed out that Sarvis clearly is cutting into voting groups that normally would be firmly in the Cuccinelli camp: 13 percent among conservatives; 11 percent among born-again Christians; 12 percent among gun-owners; 15 percent among current National Rifle Association members; 12 percent in the conservative western region of Virginia; 14 percent among investors; and 15 percent among NASCAR fans.
The poll of 600 likely voters was conducted Nov. 1-3 and has a margin of error of 4 percent.
Click here to view the crosstabs
The Newsmax/Zogby poll of Virginia likely voters sampled 600 online respondents among whom were 36 percent Democrats, 35 percent Republicans, and 29 percent independents; 71 percent white, 6 percent Hispanic, and 18 percent African-American; and 13.5 percent age 18-29, 37 percent age 30-49, 33 percent age 50-64, and 16.5 percent age 65 or older."
Oh, and FYI
Christopher Newport University's Judy Ford Wason Center for Public Policy: Virginia Survey: 2013 Statewide Elections
"...Senator Ralph Northam is polling over 50% for the first time over Bishop E.W. Jackson among likely voters, 51% to 39%. Northam’s lead continues to come from a strong gender gap, with likely female voters siding with him over Jackson by 11%. Republican voters continue to resist Jackson, with 4% saying they will vote for Northam and 15% saying they are yet undecided. Among independents, Northam holds a 13% lead, 45% to 32%.
“Northam looks like he is in a commanding lead, beating Jackson in every demographic group and holding a big advantage among Independents,” said Kidd..."
'I Would Jump At It'
The media labeled her an Obamacare victim. Here's what she really thinks.
"If you’ve followed the stories of insurance cancellations related to Obamacare, you may have heard about Dianne Barrette. She’s the 57-year-old Florida realtor who was paying $54 a month for a Blue Cross insurance plan. The plan won’t be available after December. And while FloridaBlue offered her a new plan, the company told her the premium would be $591 a month. Barrette, who makes $30,000 a year and could not pay for such a plan, was flabbergasted. Jan Crawford of CBS News made her the key source for a story about plan cancellations. An appearance on Fox News followed, as did multiple cameos in press releases from Obamacare critics. For at least a few days, she was the poster child for the Obamacare cancellation story....
[Click the above link to read the details of the health insurance plans and subsidy available to her under the provisions of the ACA.]
...When I gave her a broad description of the plans available, she seemed interested. I noted that she’d be paying $100 or $150 extra a month for policies that still had high cost-sharing, so that she would still be a lot of money out of her own pocket. (I also made very clear that I’m not an insurance agent or broker—that, when she finally goes shopping for insurance, she should talk to a real expert for advice.) Here was her response: "I would jump at it," she said. "With my age, things can happen. I don’t want to have bills that could make me bankrupt. I don’t want to lose my house."
Barrette can't be sure until she sees the numbers for herself. And so far she hasn't been able to do so, thanks to the technological problems at healthcare.gov. But as she’s become more aware of her options, she said, she’s no longer aghast at losing her plan—and curious to see what alternatives are available. "Maybe," she told me, "it’s a blessing in disguise."
Special Investigation: How Insurers Are Hiding Obamacare Benefits From Customers
"Donna received the letter canceling her insurance plan on Sept. 16. Her insurance company, LifeWise of Washington, told her that they'd identified a new plan for her. If she did nothing, she'd be covered.
A 56-year-old Seattle resident with a 57-year-old husband and 15-year-old daughter, Donna had been looking forward to the savings that the Affordable Care Act had to offer.
But that's not what she found. Instead, she'd be paying an additional $300 a month for coverage. The letter made no mention of the health insurance marketplace that would soon open in Washington, where she could shop for competitive plans, and only an oblique reference to financial help that she might qualify for, if she made the effort to call and find out.
Otherwise, she'd be automatically rolled over to a new plan -- and, as the letter said, "If you're happy with this plan, do nothing."
If Donna had done nothing, she would have ended up spending about ****$1,000 more a month for insurance than she will now that she went to the marketplace****, picked the best plan for her family and accessed tax credits at the heart of the health care reform law.
"The info that we were sent by LifeWise was totally bogus. Why the heck did they try to screw us?" Donna said. "People who are afraid of the ACA should be much more afraid of the insurance companies who will exploit their fear and end up overcharging them."
Donna is not alone.
Across the country, insurance companies have sent misleading letters to consumers, trying to lock them into the companies' own, sometimes more expensive health insurance plans rather than let them shop for insurance and tax credits on the Obamacare marketplaces -- which could lead to people like Donna spending thousands more for insurance than the law intended. In some cases, mentions of the marketplace in those letters are relegated to a mere footnote, which can be easily overlooked.
The extreme lengths to which some insurance companies are going to hold on to existing customers at higher price, as the Affordable Care Act fundamentally re-orders the individual insurance market, has caught the attention of state insurance regulators.
The insurance companies argue that it's simply capitalism at work. But regulators don't see it that way. By warning customers that their health insurance plans are being canceled as a result of Obamacare and urging them to secure new insurance plans before the Obamacare launched on Oct. 1, these insurers put their customers at risk of enrolling in plans that were not as good or as affordable as what they could buy on the marketplaces.
TPM has confirmed two specific examples where companies contacted their customers prior to the marketplace's Oct. 1 opening and pushed them to renew their health coverage at a higher price than they would pay through the marketplace. State regulators identified the schemes, but they weren't necessarily able to stop them.
It's not yet clear how widespread this practice became in the months leading up to the marketplace's opening -- or how many Americans will end up paying more than they should be for health coverage. But misleading letters have been sent out in at least four states across the country, and one offending carrier, Humana, is a company with a national reach...."
[Click the above link to read details of how insurance companies are misleading and attempting to overcharge their own customers]
How Republicans Have Trashed The Economy, In 1 Chart
"The next time a Republican tells you government spending is out of control, the chart below is all you need to prove otherwise.
The Financial Times has a story on Monday that is long and paywalled and not all that surprising to anybody who has been watching Republicans squeeze the life out of the economy for the past four years or so. Still, it's a story worth telling again and again, and it can be summed up in its opening paragraph:
"Public investment in the US has hit its lowest level since demobilisation after the second world war because of Republican success in stymieing President Barack Obama’s push for more spending on infrastructure, science and education," write Robin Harding, Richard McGregor and Gabriel Muller.
And they have a helpful chart to illustrate this, which I have reproduced here using data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Click this link to see the Financial Times Chart
Government investment is what the government sector spends on buildings and equipment and research and development. It fell in the second quarter of 2013 to 3.6 percent, the lowest level since 1948. This is because, driven by Republicans' newfound religion about deficits, a conversion that miraculously occurred on Inauguration Day 2009, the U.S. government has slashed spending by the largest amount since the end of the Vietnam War, The New York Times reported earlier this year.
That is austerity, and it's a big reason -- maybe the big reason -- the recovery has been so sluggish. Yet Republicans still aren't satisfied, wanting another round of cuts, which is why we'll probably have another destructive budget fight all over again early next year."
Look at that chart. Reagan's spending as a percent of GDP was higher than Obama's spending as a percentage of GDP has been!
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446
okay anon.
comments ?
You Also Can't Keep Your Doctor
I had great cancer doctors and health insurance. My plan was cancelled. Now I worry how long I'll live.
She's been beating the odds for years and I hope she continues to do so.
But parts of her story sure smell fishy.
She's known since JANUARY, that her policy would not be in effect after Dec. 31, 2013. Why did she wait so long to shop around on the open market for special plans that might cover her needs? Granted the California Exchange wasn't going to open until Oct. 1, but she could have started shopping on the open market back in January when she got the letter.
She tells the reader nothing about her decision to do nothing about her 2014 health care for 10 months.
Did she say anything in this article about the ACA being the reason US Healthcare Insurance Company canceled the policy that had already paid $1.2 million for her medical treatments?
No, she didn't.
She began her US Healthcare Insurance Company policy in March of 2007 so it's likely that plan had a lifetime cap in place because it was issued back in the days when insurers were still allowed to set lifetime limits.
She conveniently did not say why her insurance company told her in January they would cancel her policy at the end of the year.
My family used to have a $1million cap on our old insurance policy.
I strongly suspect her insurance policy got canceled because she reached the USHealthcare Insurance Company cap on that plan.
Fortunately for all of us, the ACA changed that lifetime cap insurers used to place on health insurance policies as follows:
"Under the law, lifetime limits on most benefits are prohibited in any health plan or insurance policy issued or renewed on or after September 23, 2010...No annual dollar limits are allowed on most covered benefits beginning January 1, 2014."
She also claims "time is running out" after her four week search (and ten months of doing no searching whatsoever, apparently), but she has 6 more weeks until Dec 15, the deadline to be enrolled a new plan by Jan. 1, 2014 AND another 3.5 months after that to find a plan.
Down near the bottom of this article she informs readers:
"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)."
I can assure you Obama had no input into UCSD's decision to only accept ONE SINGLE INSURANCE PLAN, which also sound fishy as the entire UC Health system entered into an agreement with Anthem Blue Cross back in June and no doubt there is more than ONE PLAN offered under that agreement.
http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/services/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/pages/corporate-tax-rates-table.aspx
well.
I have had both UHC health care through my husband and Blue Cross/bs through my previous employer and UHC is fabulous.
really fabulous.
I never have to send a claim more than once, and I used to CERTIFIED mail claims to BC/BS and they would LOSE them. It was completely unreal. they are AWFUL.
I remember when my kids were little discussing this with another mom at an ornament party, who had just had a baby and was trying to get the insurance to pay the bill... and she had, BC/BC - carefirst, California insurance with a MD employer. Just like me. had to fax the forms (typically like 40 pages they would claim they had lost) ... I spent hours and hours and hours trying to get them to pay. I went to the escalation board in CA.
BC/BS is the WORST insurance in the entire world.
So if this lady had UHC, who is WONDERFUL, and the exchange was trying to force her onto to BC/BS...and did any research whatsoever, yep I would fight that like heck.
I still have outstanding bills from last February I have to go argue with BC/BS about, whom after Childrens has sent them the bill THREE TIMEs and I have faxed them the primary EOB twice, they are claiming they don't have it. Their behavior is UNBELIEVABLE
they are SO TERRIBLE. whereas United Health care has never lost a claim. NOT ONCE.
this is Theresa, I have 3 kids, and I spend a lot of time making sure the insurance paid before I would pay the bill (tried that once, paying the doctor first, and the doctor would then not cooperate in filing the necessary forms).... never did THAT again.
and it to make it worse, BC/BS has a contract with the doctors that says YOU CAN"T FILE for them... so the doctors don't file (or according to BC/BC don't file correctly) and then will tell you to fax it (pages and pages sometimes if it is procedure of any significance that might have multiple doctors).
these BC/BS folks are trained to delay and avoid patients until they give up.
so I really get why this lady wants to keep her health insurance. I cannot imagine how you could deal with end stage cancer and dealing with BC/BS or some other none caring shitty insurance at the same time.
and really questioning why if she found out in January she didn't get around to it until October ? she has end stage cancer... Maybe she was busy with other things.... like maybe she was in the hospital ! Maybe she didn't realize what an enormous problem it would be or that it would take so long.
and it says something, doesn't it, that good insurers like UHC aren't on the exchange and the lousy awful will pillage you silly insurers like BC/BS are first to jump in with both feet.
Unreal.
I will go pull out our UHC policy and tell you what the life time cap was last year and this year.
that has been our insurance for the past 20 years. and I love these guys. I cannot imagine having to deal with BC/BS as a primary.
well, I did go back and check the policies description for both years and checked the UHC EOBs and I can't find anything about a lifetime cap on the policy information from them.
I would have to call, and I don't have time to do any more research on that this evening.
However, I will ask the next time I have to call them about something. For both years.
Pretty sure that the lifetime cap was one of the pieces of Obamacare that was delayed and not yet implemented - wasn't it ?
But you have added more significance to this lady's story than I originally realized, she is getting KICKED off UHC (which is a great plan and insurance company) and FORCED ONTO BC/BS... the worse insurance company in the world.
and you know what, I have experienced this personally, and having not only NEVER abandoned a two/three year old unattended I have also spent my entire life working so that they HAD health care and continue to make sure they go to the doctor and that the insurance companies PAY their doctors....
whether it is braces or moles that need to be removed or broken toes/arms.. whatever. we have had an assortment. in that exercise I have dealt two insurance companies almost exclusively for the past 15 year. UHC as the primary and BC/BS as the secondary.
and BC/BS STINKS. they STINK. they should be avoided like the plague. and while commiserating with various billing agents at the various doctors offices trying to get BC/BS to process the darn claim, they have ALL confirmed to me that they are the WORST insurance around.
SO, the exchange only has BC/BS for this lady when she had UHC (a much better insurance company that she had before).
So your argument that well, these were lousy plans that folks used to have is BS. Just like everything that comes out of this President's mouth.
Didn't you hear ? Today he tried to claim that he had ALWAYS said that well, you can't keep your plan if it isn't up to our standards.
HE is LYING about his LIES.
He must not understand that there is this fabulous invention these days called VIDEO TAPE.
shocking.
too funny.
I just checked Carefirst (which is BC/BS CA, with is pretty sure the same as Anthem BS)...
http://www.yelp.com/biz/carefirst-bluecross-blueshield-washington
well, I guess it is nice to know that I was not alone in my experience.
15 reviews, all horrible, and 27 reviews filtered because I guess folks were cursing so much that the review couldn't be posted.
which, yep, describes how I feel about them.
I will have to remember to email them that Yelp page when I start arguing with them about PROCESSING the claim I have been unsuccessfully being trying to get them to process from February (which I have submitted, oh, no less than 3 or 4 times now between me and the doctors).
par for the course for these jerks.
"A rational person looks at American public life and wonders how it is that we can enact policies that are so unenlightened -- I don't mean just Democrats, but ordinary people around the world."
this is a rhetorical trick being used by Jim to associate Democrats with rationality and normality
they possess neither
they have become, in the 21st century, an extreme left party which believes government should achieve economic "justice" by redistributing income and pass laws that American citizens don't agree with because government knows best
when you factor in the aggressive association of media reporting with criminality and the pressure on corporations to publicly support administration positions and the abuse of taxing authorities to harass political opposition, you see we are not that many steps from full-blown socialism
all being led by the socially challenged loner in the White House who recently bragged "turns out I'm pretty good at killing people" and a nutty Mormon Pointdexter running the Senate
oh yeah, that's normal and rational
"How can America pay gazillion-dollar subsidies to corporations who are already making gazillion-dollar profits,"
we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world
countries all over the world compete to give corporations incentives to locate there
why?
because the more big corporations a country has, the better off their people are
here in America, the government uses tax incentives to manipulate the behavior of corporations
over the years, the strategy has worked fairly well
from a perspective of economic justice, however, taxing corporations is inexcusable
corporations are really individuals who have, rather than squander their discretionary cash, invested it in ways that will provide jobs, services, and products to the greater society
our thanks to these industrious people is to tax them twice: once when their corporation makes a profit and again when it is paid out to the investors
how is that fair?
"while at the same time stripping survival benefits from poor people?"
in America, even in the ghetto, no one starves, and most have cable TV, cell phones, X-boxes and sneakers that cost $200
not that there isn't suffering that private charities shouldn't work to aleviate
but survival is really not in question except from the violence that is rampant is areas with "gun control"
"How can anyone in their right mind stand up and say that we need more guns in schools?"
because if the authorities at a school don't have guns, the kids are sitting ducks for nuts who are paid by the government to sit home alone all day and surf the internet researching ways to wreak havoc and get a little attention
btw, has anyone noticed that lazy Priya has become scarce since what Kathy Sebelius calls the "debacle" came forth
"Why is the US struggling to meet the lowest educational standards of the developed world?"
good question
another good question: why do wealthy people all over the world, who have a choice, choose to send their kids to America so they can go to college with our educationally challenged kids?
"Why do American citizens go bankrupt trying to deal with ordinary health problems?"
it's because medical costs are too high, stupid
unfortunately, against the will of the American people, our close to socialist government, has just exacerbated the situation immensely
"What is the obsession in this country with suppressing women's rights?"
true
think of all the innocent women who were killed before they even left their mothers' wombs
and nine old gray-haired men forty-some years ago declared their murderers have a right to do this, under the Constitution
shameful
amazingly, even with this, women are better off in America than most places in the world
"Pretty sure that the lifetime cap was one of the pieces of Obamacare that was delayed and not yet implemented - wasn't it ?"
I provided you with the text and a link to the answer to this question. Here's the relevant part of that text again:
"No annual dollar limits are allowed on most covered benefits beginning January 1, 2014."
"But you have added more significance to this lady's story than I originally realized, she is getting KICKED off UHC (which is a great plan and insurance company) and FORCED ONTO BC/BS... the worse insurance company in the world.
And who is forcing that change??
The hospital she goes to is the one FORCING her onto ANTHEM BC/BS because the UC system made an exclusive agreement with them.
"SO, the exchange only has BC/BS for this lady when she had UHC "
No, that's not true. The California Exchange offers policies from twelve insurers (scroll down to page 3).
Now, try to comprehend what the woman told you in her article (you might find if you calm down and stop spitting venom you might comprehend what she said):
"...in January, United Healthcare sent me a letter announcing that they were pulling out of the individual California market. The company suggested I look to Covered California starting in October.....UCSD has agreed to accept only one Covered California plan—a very restrictive Anthem EPO Plan."
Who is it that limits her to one plan? UCSD, the place she wants to continue to get care, that's who.
"So your argument that well, these were lousy plans that folks used to have is BS."
Don't put words in my mouth. The plans for Donna (the "56-year-old Seattle resident with a 57-year-old husband and 15-year-old daughter") and Dianne Barrette (the "57-year-old Florida realtor") were lousy plans and both of these families found better plans at their exchanges. I never said any such thing about Edie Littlefield Sundby's plan that spent $1.2 million keeping her alive.
My only criticism of her is that she waited 10 months after being told her US Healthcare Insurance Policy would not be offered any more before looking for a replacement policy.
"Carefirst (which is BC/BS CA, with is pretty sure the same as Anthem BS)"
No, that is not true. Care First and Anthem are two separate companies but Care First is not offered in California. There is no "BC/BS CA" -- each is a separate company.
For the link click phobic, the 12 insurers in California are:
"Alameda Alliance for Health
Anthem Blue Cross of California
Blue Shield of California
Chinese Community Health
Contra Costa Health Plan
Health Net
Kaiser Permanente
L.A. Care Health Plan
Molina Healthcare
Sharp Health Plan
Valley Health Plan
Western Health Advantage"
Hate has no home in Representation - Congressional candidate for NC3 parts company with the GOP to run on the Democratic ticket By Christopher Dean
"“Enough is enough,” says Jason R. Thigpen – formerly a Republican candidate seeking election to the U.S. House in North Carolina’s 3rd Congressional District. “After discussing it with my wife and family, I’ve decided to run as a Democrat rather than a Republican. I simply cannot stand with a Party where its most extreme element promote hate and division amongst people. Nothing about my platform has, nor will it change. The government shutdown was simply the straw that broke the camels back. I guess being an American just isn’t good enough anymore and I refuse to be part of an extremist movement in the GOP that only appears to thrive on fear and hate mongering of anyone and everyone who doesn’t walk their line. We’ve received some wonderful support by numerous leaders and members within the NC GOP, as the vast majority of Republicans are wonderful, hard-working people that don’t agree with those radical nut-jobs either but unfortunately the extremists in the party, with their ‘burn it all down’ philosophy, appear to be the ones turning out the majority of voters in the primaries and mid-term elections. And I want the people to know there is a choice.”
“Regardless of Party affiliation, we should be able to agree and agree to disagree on issues, and still go out for coffee or dinner afterwards. To think anyone can despise, loath, insult, and threaten another American simply because of their Party affiliation is almost depressing. I mean, how many Democrats or Republicans entire families are registered with the same Party? So if your mother, father, brother, or sister are registered with a different Party would you disown them? Would you wish harm on them? Would you choose to no longer celebrate holidays with them? Would you no longer love them? These are the real questions that need answering before continuing the debate because when did being an American just no longer matter?”, Thigpen asks.
Thigpen further explains, “I didn’t go to war to defend the liberties and freedoms of one Party, race, sex, or one income class of Americans. Whether white, black, Hispanic, Asian, man, woman, gay, lesbian, straight, rich, or poor – we fought together as equals, side-by-side for the benefit of every American in the same. So, to come home from serving our country and see North Carolina legislators using their super-majority status to gerrymander districts and pass a law to deliberately suppress and oppress the voting rights of Democrats but more specifically minorities and college students, is absolutely deplorable. This same group of spineless legislators piggybacked a motorcycle safety bill with legislation intentionally geared to shut down women’s health clinics because of their ‘right righteous’ beliefs on abortion, while then cutting funding to the programs which help feed and provide healthcare to the babies they invariably forced the same women to have. Sounds like the Christian thing to do, huh? These legislators, acting under the guise of the religious right and morality believe themselves to be the divine judge but according to the Bible, there is only one judge. They say they’re for a smaller government and individual rights while pushing legislation for more government intervention and regulation usurping our right to choose for ourselves. They take money away from the public school system so they can call it broken, only to give the money to their charter schools that are really private schools, just so our kids don’t go to the same school as theirs all the while giving some great speech trying to convince us it isn’t segregation. Right. But all along, they seemingly want you to believe that you have a choice – like ‘cake or death.’..."
"...“Thigpen says, “We have to choose a party Republican or Democrat that possess the ideals that we can adhere to and have an opportunity to represent our families, friends, and neighbors. The GOP leadership has such little regard and faith in the more than 1 Million people whom live in NC’s 3rd Congressional District that they don’t believe even one of us are good enough to represent OUR District. So they sent a lobbyist who’s lived in Washington, D.C. for the last 15 or more years. What an insult.”
Shutting down the government was seemingly easy for our elected Representatives, as they’re not adversely affected with their pay being protected by the Constitution. They were some real patriots though, huh? These so called Representatives sat around in Washington playing chicken with their constituent’s lives all while patting each other on the back saying ‘great job.’ Yeah that’s real patriotic all right. But for the millions of Americans that rely on the benefits to feed their children, receive life sustaining medication and countless other services imperative to their needs, this was a selfish decision motivated by personal agenda. Party affiliation is irrelevant. What is relevant is that those persons elected by the people to safeguard their rights failed in their duty to protect them. Moral principle and virtue are exactly what these Representatives fail to regard in their actions and it is time they are held accountable.”
Thigpen says faith is an important part of his life, and several verses from the Bible that he finds particularly relevant to this discussion are from II Timothy chapter 4 verses 2-5, “Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. The time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.”
Jason R. Thigpen stands for the people of North Carolina and this great Nation because they matter, for their children and their children’s children, for they are our future leaders and innovators that will continue to carry the torch of leadership, innovation, liberty and freedom. Jason is dedicated to truly serving the people and with his proven leadership and unwavering commitment he will strive to promote prosperity for every North Carolinian and American. It is for this reason candidate Thigpen will be representing the people as a Conservative Democrat.
Thigpen closes by saying, “Representing your family, neighbors, and community is relatively easy as long as you put people before party and politics. That is my campaign slogan because regardless of whether I win or lose this election…I believe the great people of NC’s 3rd District deserve a legitimate choice in who’s going to represent them. Throughout all of the advocacy work I’ve done in our communities I’ve come to realize that our actions and efforts are what best define us to the people not the letters D or R. I’m doing this for my family, friends, and neighbors because I truly believe in serving the interests of every constituent, not just a few of them.”
"Shutting down the government was seemingly easy for our elected Representatives, as they’re not adversely affected with their pay being protected by the Constitution. They were some real patriots though, huh? These so called Representatives sat around in Washington playing chicken with their constituent’s lives all while patting each other on the back saying ‘great job.’ Yeah that’s real patriotic all right. But for the millions of Americans that rely on the benefits to feed their children, receive life sustaining medication and countless other services imperative to their needs, this was a selfish decision motivated by personal agenda."
Yes, you are right. Barry Obama and Harry Reid could easily have passed and signed any of the funding bills passed by the Republican House of Representatives but instead chose to hold out because any change or compromise of their Obamacare legislation is unthinkable to them. The final bill before the shut down would only require that the individual mandate be delayed a year, a change that now seems common sense. But Barry and Harry cared more about their agenda than their constituents.
"Party affiliation is irrelevant."
So why are you switching parties then?
Face it, you are one of 435 and really want some attention.
Pathetic politician.
First page of Google results for search term: "poll, who do you blame for the Government shut down?"
1. Poll shows Republicans taking blame for government shutdown ...
www.latimes.com/.../la-pn-nbc-wsj-poll-republican-shutdown-2...
2. Poll: Americans not happy about shutdown; more blame GOP - CBS ...
►►
www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57605822/
3. POLL: Who do you blame for the government shutdown? | www ...
www.kirotv.com › News
4. Government shutdown: Most Americans blame Republicans. But will ...
www.csmonitor.com/.../Government-shutdown-Most-Americans...
5. In New Poll, Americans Blame Everyone for Government Shutdown ...
swampland.time.com/.../in-new-poll-americans-blame-everyone...
6. NBC/WSJ poll: Shutdown debate damages GOP - First Read
►►
firstread.nbcnews.com/_.../20903624-nbcwsj-poll-shut.
7. Poll: Voters blame GOP more than Dems for government shutdown
The Seattle Times (blog) - 13 hours ago
8. CNN Poll: Who would get blamed for government shutdown? – CNN ...
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/.../cnn-poll-who-would-get-blamed-for-go...
9. CNN Poll: Republicans would bear the brunt of shutdown blame ...
www.cnn.com/2013/09/30/politics/cnn-poll-shutdown-blame/
10. Government Shutdown Blamed On Republicans: Poll - Huffington Post
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../government-shutdown-republicans-poll_n_...
"The Kentucky Department of Insurance has fined Humana $65,430 because it offered policyholders an unapproved opportunity to amend their insurance as part of a letter that regulators have called “misleading.”
The department investigated letters sent in August to 6,543 individual plan policyholders in Kentucky. The letters said they needed to renew their plans for 2014 within 30 days or choose a more expensive option that complies with the Affordable Care Act.
But regulators last month called the letters misleading, arguing they did not make sufficiently clear that policyholders could compare and choose competing plans on the state’s health insurance exchanges, which open on Oct. 1, and for which they could be eligible for federal subsidies.
Humana's letter mentioned the exchange enrollment period, but only in a footnote. It also said a customer can get the cheaper premium option by agreeing to changes that hadn’t been approved by the state insurance department.
While the investigation continues into whether the letter was intentionally misleading, state officials said, the department fined Humana on Sept 10 for the unapproved amendment that “caused confusion” among policyholders. An estimated 2,200 returned signed amendments, it said.
“The Department of Insurance fined Humana for providing members with a policy amendment form that was not approved. This was a clear-cut violation of Kentucky’s insurance code,” said Sharon Clark, Insurance Department commissioner.
“The Department has other concerns with the letter and with Humana’s actions. We have met with Humana and continue our investigation. We will take additional administrative action, if appropriate,” she said.
Clark has previously said she considered the letter “misleading intentionally.”
Humana spokeswoman Kate Marx said Tuesday that the company “is working in concert with the state Department of Insurance. Humana does not plan to appeal the decision.”..."
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013309240089&nclick_check=1
First page of Google results for search term: "poll, who do you blame for the Government shut down?"
and, yet, facts are facts
Harry and Barry could have ended the shutdown as easily as anyone else in Washington
they clearly thought their agenda was more important
an agenda, btw, at odds with the will of the American people
and next November, the shutdown will be long forgotten and Obamacare will still be a mess that affects everyone
and Repubs will be able to say "we all voted against it and tried everything we could to do the will of those who elected us"
not a bad place to be, huh?
"The Senate voted 61-30 on Monday to begin debate on legislation that would create workplace protections for gay and transgender people in all 50 states.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) received the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster, and will now have to move through a series of procedural hurdles before final Senate passage, which is expected later this week.
Seven Republicans joined Democrats in voting to advance the bill: Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Rob Portman (Ohio), Pat Toomey (Pa.), Dean Heller (Nev.), Mark Kirk (Ill.) and Orrin Hatch (Utah).
Another GOP supporter of ENDA, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), was not present for the vote.
"The right to work is fundamental," Collins said on the Senate floor. "How can we in good conscious deny that right to any LGBT individual? … It’s simply the right thing to do to pass this bill."
The bill, S. 815, would ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Democrats and gay rights groups say ENDA is needed because not every state has approved such protections.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would enforce the new workplace rules.
The White House said President Obama “welcomes the Senate’s bipartisan first step” towards passage of the bill.
“[Obama] thanks the lawmakers from both sides of the aisle who have stood up for America’s core values of fairness and equality,” said White House press secretary Jay Carney in a statement...
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/189209-senate-advances-gay-rights-bill
"The right to work is fundamental," Collins said on the Senate floor. "How can we in good conscious deny that right to any LGBT individual? … It’s simply the right thing to do to pass this bill."
SUSAN, GAYS HAVE NO TROUBLE FINDING A JOB IN AMERICA. TRANSGENDERS MAY BUT IF THEY GIT SOME COUNSELING TO DEVELOP A LESS BIZARRE APPEARANCE, THEY'D BE FINE AS WELL.
THE BILL YOU JUST VOTED FOR IS UNNECESSARY, WILL LEAD TO SUPERFLUOUS LITIGATION, AND IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE IT WILL NEVER PASS THE HOUSE
Caps Lock screamed:
“SUSAN, GAYS HAVE NO TROUBLE FINDING A JOB IN AMERICA.”
Honey, sometimes they can’t even create jobs in America, when the locals get too unfriendly. Here’s a small, poor Mississippi town that is desperate for new businesses, unless of course, it’s a gay bar:
See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/04/shannon-mississippi-gay-bar_n_4183751.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
More caps lock screemaing:
“TRANSGENDERS MAY BUT IF THEY GIT SOME COUNSELING TO DEVELOP A LESS BIZARRE APPEARANCE, THEY'D BE FINE AS WELL.”
Care to fill me in on what’s so bizarre about my appearance? Is it my blue jeans, my blouse, my black suede boots, my curly hair? Please be specific; maybe I could use the fashion help.
Or perhaps what’s so bizarre the transwomen here: http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TSsuccesses/TSgallery3.html
Or the transmen here:
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TSsuccesses/TransMen-Hebrew.html
I submit to you that transfolk will be fine when psychopathic conservative Christians stop slandering transpeople with unfounded accusations of pedophilia and being a “danger to children.” Not to mention “spawn of satan,” “mentally ill,” and “bizarre.”
“THE BILL YOU JUST VOTED FOR IS UNNECESSARY, WILL LEAD TO SUPERFLUOUS LITIGATION,”
Suing ignorant Christians because of the dangerous, anti-social beliefs and behaviors is never superfluous. It is sometimes the only thing that teaches them an important lesson. Consider it a public service.
“AND IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE IT WILL NEVER PASS THE HOUSE”
Too bad the house didn’t think of their irrelevance when the “kill Obamacare” bill they passed 41 times failed 41 times in the senate – especially knowing the big O would just veto it if they did somehow manage to pass it.
Republicans bitched about how Obamacare was passed, but funny, I don’t recall them having to threaten to shut down the government to get their way. They just lived with the vote.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
Theresa, you still haven't commented on bad anonymous lying about poll numbers on the shutdown at October 12, 2013 6:19 PM by swapping Republican blame numbers for Democrat blame numbers(I prove this at October 12, 2013 7:59 PM )
You keep trying to lecture us on morals, what do you have to say about your teamate's blatant lies? Or is it that immorality is okay when its one of your guys?
Bad anonymous/Theresa said "You Also Can't Keep Your Doctor".
This is typical of Republican bullsh*t about Obamacare. Under Obamacare you will be able to choose your doctor and the government will not be between you and your doctor, but rather between you and your insurance company, insuring for example that they can't drop you for a pre-existing condition. The law doesn’t force Americans to pick new plans or new doctors. While its true there’s no guarantee that your employer won’t switch plans or if you switch jobs, your new work-based coverage might not have your doctor as an in-network provider but this is how it worked before the law as well.
So, once again, Republicans are bitching to the extreme about how part of Obamacare works when it worked the exact same way before Obamacare. They were happy with this healthcare feature before Obama put his name on it but suddenly when you label it Obamacare its a bad thing. Losers.
Priya.
even the liberal outlets are now acknowledging that the "if you like your plan you can keep your plan" Promise the Obama administration made was a lie.
and it just piles on...
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obamacare-68-percent-may/2013/11/04/id/534587
as for Anthem BlueCross versus Carefist BC... they are all part of the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Federation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Cross_Blue_Shield_Association
not sure if Anthem BlueCross has the same lousy and awful reviews as Carefirst MD or not. are you really advancing that UHC decision to drop out of the individual CA market had nothing to do with Obamacare ? because the article specifically states that UHC told her the reason she was being dropped was BECAUSE of Obamacare.
"Honey, sometimes they can’t even create jobs in America, when the locals get too unfriendly. Here’s a small, poor Mississippi town that is desperate for new businesses, unless of course, it’s a gay bar"
ACTUALLY, IF SOME SMALL TOWN WANTS TO REGULATE BARS AND NOT ALLOW BARS FOCUSED ON CERTAIN TYPES OF SEXUAL PRACTICES, THAT'S NOT UNCOMMON
PERSONALLY, AS A LIBERTARIAN, I'D FAVORING ALLOWING IT BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING I'D WANT TO SEE THE FEDERAL MARSHALLS FROM WASHINGTON ENFORCING
HOPE YOU'RE NOT SAYING THAT MAKING THE OPENING OF GAY BARS A CIVIL RIGHT IS WHY WE NEED ENDA
"Care to fill me in on what’s so bizarre about my appearance? Is it my blue jeans, my blouse, my black suede boots, my curly hair? Please be specific; maybe I could use the fashion help."
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU LOOK LIKE, CINCO. I WAS SIMPLY SAYING THAT SOME TRANS MIGHT HAVE TROUBLE GETTING JOBS BECAUSE OF THIS. IF NO ONE CAN TELL, AND THAT MAY BE THE CASE FOR MANY, I DON'T THINK THERE WOULD BE A PROBLEM. I DON'T THINK THE LAW SHOULD PROTECT SOMEONE'S RIGHT TO LOOK WEIRD.
THAT'S JUST WEIRD.
IF YOU REALLY WANT SOME FASHION TIPS, CALL TIM GUNN. OKAAAY, PEOPLE.
"I submit to you that transfolk will be fine when psychopathic conservative Christians stop slandering transpeople with unfounded accusations of pedophilia and being a “danger to children.”"
I THINK WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS WHEN PEOPLE OPPOSE BATHROOM AND LOCKER USE IN OTHER THAN ONE'S BIRTH GENDER. THE CONCERN, AND IT'S FROM MORE THAN TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANS, IS THAT THIS WILL ALLOW SOMEONE TO PRETEND TO BE TRANS AND ENTER THE WRONG LOCKER ROOM. NOT HARD TO IMAGINE A GROUP OF TEENAGE BOYS SAYING "HEY, IF WE PRETEND WE THINK WE'RE GIRLS THEN THE COUNTRY CLUB CAN'T KEEP US FROM GOING IN THE GIRLS' LOCKER ROOM AND ENJOYING THE SCENERY."
"Not to mention “spawn of satan,”"
NEVER HEARD ANYONE SAY THIS ABOUT TRANS, AND I'D NEVER SAY THAT, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REFER TO SOMEONE HAS THE SPAWN OF SATAN.
“mentally ill,”
THERE'S AN ARGUMENT FOR SAYING THAT BELIEVING YOU ARE SOMETHING YOU'RE NOT IS A MENTAL ILLNESS.
"and “bizarre.”"
AN OPINION, AND EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO IT. IF SOMEONE APPEARS BIZARRE TO THE AVERAGE PERSON, THEY MAY BE INAPPROPRIATE IN JOBS THAT ARE A FACE TO THE PUBLIC.
"Suing ignorant Christians because of the dangerous, anti-social beliefs"
WE LIVE IN A COUNTRY WHERE BELIEFS ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED, ALTHOUGH I KNOW LUNATIC FRINGE GAY ADVOCATES WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE THAT.
"and behaviors is never superfluous."
IF ANY OF THOSE "BEHAVIORS" INVOLVE SPEECH OR FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, SEE ABOVE.
"It is sometimes the only thing that teaches them an important lesson."
OH, THEY ALREADY KNOW YOU'RE OUT TO DESTROY THEM.
"Too bad the house didn’t think of their irrelevance when the “kill Obamacare” bill they passed 41 times failed 41 times in the senate – especially knowing the big O would just veto it if they did somehow manage to pass it."
OH, THEY HAD TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHO WAS FOR AND AGAINST IT SO THE AMERICAN VOTERS WILL HAVE THAT KNOWLEDGE.
"Republicans bitched about how Obamacare was passed, but funny, I don’t recall them having to threaten to shut down the government to get their way. They just lived with the vote."
DEMS PUSHED THIS BILL THROUGH AGAINST THE WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WITHOUT A SINGLE VOTE FROM THE OTHER PARTY AND WITHOUT HAVING READ IT.
IT WILL HAUNT THEM IN THE FUTURE AS IT DOES NOW.
"Blogger Priya Lynn"
NOTICE NO MENTION OF THAT WONDERFUL OBAMACARE
HA-HA-HA-HA-ROFL-LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!
"The law doesn’t force Americans to pick new plans or new doctors."
ACTUALLY, IT DOES. IT OUTLAWS PLANS THAT PEOPLE ARE HAPPY WITH.
Forbes article has a good explanation of what is happening.
this lady's plan covered 1.2 million of her cancer treatments at fabulous cancer hospitals, yet because it doesn't meet the obamacare standards you are really still going to try and call this a LOUSY plan ? When the alternatives are nowhere close to what she had before ?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/05/no-obamacare-might-not-cover-your-preexisting-condition/
No, Obamacare Might Not Cover Your Preexisting Condition
How many times have we heard, over the last three and a half years, that one of the primary and most popular features of Obamacare is that no one could be denied coverage for a preexisting condition? It turns out that this is just another one of the false claims used to sell the public on a health care reform that seems to move every aspect of health care in the wrong direction.
Edie Littlefield Sundby
The Affordable Care Act does indeed specify, in Section 1201, that “a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not impose any preexisting condition exclusion with respect to such plan or coverage.” In other words, a health plan cannot deny enrollment, or the plan’s benefits, to someone based on that person’s preexisting.
However, that is not the same as saying that a plan has to include coverage for any particular preexisting condition, and it certainly does not mean a plan has to include coverage for ongoing treatment that a patient started before obtain coverage in an exchange plan on January 1, 2014.
Key to understanding this distinction is that having “health coverage” is not the same as actually obtaining “health care.” The insurance plan has to take anyone who wants to enroll, regardless of their health status or health history – but they don’t have to provide the same treatments, the same doctors, or the same medications that a patient has been receiving.
For someone in the middle of a cancer treatment, or someone with a chronic condition, this can be almost equivalent to losing insurance entirely.
Edie Littlefield Sundby writes in the Wall Street Journal that she is on the verge of losing her treatment program for stage-4 gallbladder cancer. Why? Her existing plan doesn’t meet the ACA standards, so it has to be canceled. Her treatment program involves doctors at both the Stanford and UC San Diego medical centers, and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Texas – but there is no plan in the California exchange that includes both Stanford and UCSD centers in it network, much less M.D. Anderson. In fact, UCSD has joined only one provider network, and it’s a heretofore almost unknown type called an “Exclusive Provider Organization” (EPO). The “exclusive” means that in an EPO, coverage is provided exclusively within the network – there is no out-of-network coverage at, except what uninsured people get at the emergency room.
Despite the President’s repeated promises, there is no way Ms. Sundby can keep her doctors, or her health plan, in the new system. Her preexisting condition doesn’t prevent her from enrolling in any of the new Obamacare exchange plans – but none of those plans actually cover the treatment for her preexisting condition.
Ms. Sundby’s predicament is not an isolated case. Abby Goodnough of the New York Times reports the case of Kenny Wheeler of Shelbyville, Kentucky, who has a neuromuscular disorder requiring ongoing treatment. Kentucky’s exchange has had far fewer operational problems than the federal exchange, but its health plan sponsors could not tell Mr. Wheeler whether his prescription drugs or his doctors would be covered, and even his doctors’ office was unable to tell him whether they were in the exchange plan networks. He is guaranteed enrollment, but can’t determine whether actual treatment for his preexisting condition will be covered.
The problem will probably turn out to be most severe in New York. New York has set up its own exchange, and all of its plans are EPOs. That means no out-of-network coverage – yet the exchange web site doesn’t provide a list of in-network providers, or a search tool to determine whether particular doctors or hospitals are included. In fact, of the 14 states (plus DC) that run their own exchanges, only four states even claim to have provider search tools – and one of them is Kentucky, where the search tool didn’t work for Mr. Wheeler. When the federal exchange is finally actually accessible, it will not offer a search tool either.
Nancy Pelosi famously said that we had to pass the health care bill to find out what’s in it – now you have to sign up for a health plan before you find out what’s covered.
This is not just a “glitch” – it’s a real problem that will affect actual care for millions of Americans with preexisting conditions. Ms. Sundby has been fighting stage-4 gallbladder cancer for seven years, against horrible odds – the five-year survival rate is 2%. Now, she is fighting to avoid becoming the first Obamacare fatality. She is not likely to get much help from the Obama Administration; as Secretary Sebelius said concerning a different patient, “someone lives and someone dies,” and she seems to regard her job as to remain neutral when the choice is between life and death.
Theresa, in all but about 5% of cases its true that if you like your plan you can keep your plan. For that 5% their plans are being cancelled because they don't meet even the lowest standards of a reasonable insurance plan. They cover virtually nothing and the people that have them will be far better off with a plan that meets Obamacare standards.
And I'm still waiting for you to tell us what you think about bad anonymous lying about those polls on the shutdown by substituting Republican blame numbers for Democrat blame numbers. Do you have any criticism for your lying teamate or is immorality okay for you when it comes from your side?
stupid, lazy Priya
insurance plans are cancelled if they don't cover free birth control pills
btw, today's Gallup poll has Obama's approval rating sinking to 39%
also, Theresa seems like a nice lady but we're not tag-teaming
we're only on the same team if you divide the world into sane people on one team and TTFers on the other
also, while I always edit pastes from another site and may not include everything in them, I've never falsified any material facts
so Priya.
"For that 5% their plans are being cancelled because they don't meet even the lowest standards of a reasonable insurance plan. They cover virtually nothing and the people that have them will be far better off with a plan that meets Obamacare standards"
So NOT a reasonable insurance plan by your logic above is Edie Sundy's plan, who had UHC coverage that paid out over 1.2 million for her cancer treatment over the last 5 years at multiple world class hospitals. That UHC plan, which saved her life, covers "virtually nothing".
really ?
and the "reasonable plan" is the plan offered by the Obama exchange that won't allow her to go to the cancer hospitals she desperately needs and has been using with her UHC "covers virtually nothing plan"... that covered the treatment that has been keep her alive.
come on.
and Edie will definitely not be "far better off" with an exchange plan that doesn't cover her cancer hospitals. she will probably die from it... do you define that as "better off" ?
Perhaps you do.
Theresa, I'm still waiting for you to show some integrity and tell your teamate bad anonymous that its not acceptable to tell lies like he did about the shutdown polls.
You like to scream about morality and pretend liberals are okay with child molestation, let's hear you tell someone on your side to behave morally.
"as for Anthem BlueCross versus Carefist BC... they are all part of the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Federation."
They are all separate corporations.
"the article specifically states that UHC told her the reason she was being dropped was BECAUSE of Obamacare."
There really is a sucker born every minute.
The letters that got Humana fined, which it is not fighting against but stepping up to pay for their misbehavior, told it's clients the same thing. The Humana letter said insured people "needed to renew their plans for 2014 within 30 days or choose a more expensive option that complies with the Affordable Care Act."
"are you really advancing that UHC decision to drop out of the individual CA market had nothing to do with Obamacare ? because the article specifically states that UHC told her the reason she was being dropped was BECAUSE of Obamacare."
Theresa, the term "Obamacare" does not appear in the text of Sundby's article so you saying it did appear in her op ed makes you a what?
It makes you a liar.
Here's what she reports the letter does say about why she was dropped. Nothing, it simply says the company was pulling out of the market in CA:
"But in January, United Healthcare sent me a letter announcing that they were pulling out of the individual California market. The company suggested I look to Covered California starting in October."
And then she adds:
"Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan."
That's quite a stretch for her to say when she already admitted it was United Healthcare Insurance Company's decision to pull out of the individual California market.
And here's some data on what informed United Healthcare's decision to not offer plans in CA anymore.
The Real Reason That The Cancer Patient Writing In Today’s Wall Street Journal Lost Her Insurance
"...United Healthcare dropped her coverage because they’ve struggled to compete in California’s individual health care market for years and didn’t want to pay for sicker patients like Sundby.
The company, which only had 8,000 individual policy holders in California out of the two million who participate in the market, announced (along with a second insurer, Aetna) that it would be pulling out of the individual market in May. The company could not compete with Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Shield of California and Kaiser Permanente, who control more than 80 percent of the individual market. “Over the years, it has become more difficult to administer these plans in a cost-effective way for our members,” UnitedHealth spokeswoman Cheryl Randolph explained. “We will continue to keep a major presence in California, focusing instead on large and small employers.”
The two insurers were also operating at a tax disadvantage in the state. As California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones explained, “One of the factors I believe contributed to this decision….is the special tax break that California law gives to Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, which has allowed and continues to allow those two companies to avoid paying $100 million in state taxes a year.” “Aetna and United Healthcare don’t get the special tax break provided to Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and so they faced a major competitive disadvantage in California.”
And then there is the company’s own justification for leaving. “The company’s plans reflect its concern that the first wave of newly insured customers under the law may be the costliest,” UHC Chief Executive Officer Stephen Helmsley told investors last October. “UnitedHealth will watch and see how the exchanges evolve and expects the first enrollees will have ‘a pent-up appetite’ for medical care. We are approaching them with some degree of caution because of that.”
Get that? The company packed its bags and dumped its beneficiaries because it wants its competitors to swallow the first wave of sicker enrollees only to re-enter the market later and profit from the healthy people who still haven’t signed up for coverage.
Sundby is losing her coverage and her doctors because of a business decision her insurer made within the competitive dynamics of California’s health care market. She’ll now have to enroll in a new plan that offers tighter networks of providers as a way to control health care costs and offer lower premiums. Eleven insurers are participating in Covered California and for the first time they won’t be able to deny coverage to Sundby or any other cancer patients.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
UnitedHealth Spurns Obama Exchanges as Rules Stall Profit
UnitedHealth, Aetna and Cigna opt out of California insurance exchange
"Edie Littlefield Sundby writes in the Wall Street Journal that she is on the verge of losing her treatment program for stage-4 gallbladder cancer. Why? Her existing plan doesn’t meet the ACA standards, so it has to be canceled."
nope that is what the Forbes article said.
and OF COURSE insurance companies want to make a profit. they are a business. but what I can tell you from years of having to deal with Blueshield CA (who fronts for Carefirst MD, my previous company was based out of CA and most of the employees are there) versus United Health Care, that there is no comparison.
Blueshield CA repeatedly engaged in practices where they would LOSE claims, deny claims, adjust them to far less than what UHC said the "allowed rate was" (1/5 of what UHC said the allowed rate is)....
over and over and over again.
so if UHC is making a decision now to pull out and not take those customers, that is a far more upfront and honest decision than accepting the customers like BC/BS does and then denying everything.
The bottom line is, UHC made the decision to pull out of the CA marketplace because the new regulations (ACA/obamacare)forced them to make that decision.
and the plans she is being offered on the exchange plans DON"T cover the Cancer hospitals she has been receiving treatment at.
AND THE Administration KNEW they were lying.
are you okay with Obama lying and lying and lying and lying ?
You must be, because you are still defending him.
even Joe Trippi has said that they should have said this. It was incorrect.
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite
"Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”
That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.
Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”
“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” said Robert Laszewski, of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consultant who works for health industry firms."
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
but none of those plans actually cover the treatment for her preexisting condition.
That is not true.
None of the plans she has so far found offered will cover doctors at all three of the institutions she wants to get her care from in network, but everyone can go out of network for care. In network doctors and out of network doctors will cost different amounts depending on whether she enrolls in a Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum plan.
A little reminder by Consumer Reports about how health insurance plans worked before the AFA made them provide insurance coverage that might actually help people prevent bankruptcy in the event of a health crisis:
Hazardous health plans
Coverage gaps can leave you in big trouble
Last updated: May 2009
Just moments ago, Illinois became the 15th state to pass the freedom to marry. The bill will soon head to the desk of Governor Pat Quinn who has promised to sign it into law.
Congratulations Virginia Women !
you voted for a man who left his wife on the car for an hour on the WAY home from the hospital with his newborn child to go to A FUNDRAISER, then advertised that mistreatment of his wife in HIS OWN BOOK as an accomplishment, and you STILL voted for this jerk by a 20% margin because "he is the candidate that cares about WOMEN."
Wow.
Just wow.
So liberal women must like men that mistreat them
Okay. do the liberal women on this blog think that leaving a newborn child in the car with your wife on the way home from the hospital while you visit a fundraiser is okay ?
I am ashamed of my gender.
If my husband had tried to do that to me, I would have left him at the fundraiser, driven away, and changed the locks before he got home.
and you all SAY you are for independent, smart women and VOTE FOR a candidate who treats his wife like THIS ?????
Hypocrites.
below are a couple of posts by TTFers in the days leading up to yesterday's election
McAuliffe was up twelve and then Obama with the Obamacare albatross came to the state to give him a "boost"
clearly, Dems nationwide are deeply concerned today
clearly, had it not been for a libertarian scraping off some votes the vote, Obamacare would have lost the election for McAuliffe
Republicans, btw, will continue to control the legislature
whatever happened to the shutdown bringing an end to the Republican Party?
yes, November 2014 is quite illuminated now
this has to be the most depressing victory the Dems have ever suffered
"Tomorrow's vote in the Virginia Governor's race will be illuminating"
"Twenty-four hours before Virginians vote to elect a new governor, the latest Newsmax/Zogby tracking poll shows Democrat Terry McAuliffe continuing to hold a double-digit lead over Republican Ken Cuccinelli.
Even worse news for Republicans, Libertarian Robert Sarvis is on target to achieve what his supporters call "the magic 10 percent," that is, the percentage required by state law for the Libertarian Party to have an automatic statewide ballot line for the next three years, the poll found.
According to Zogby's latest data, McAuliffe, former Democratic National Committee chairman, leads Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli by a margin of 43 percent to 31 percent.
That's about the same as the 44-to-32 percent edge Zogby showed McAuliffe holding over the weekend. The latest numbers also showed Sarvis at 11 percent, other candidates at 3 percent, with 11 percent undecided.
The Democrat and Libertarian candidates fare even better with voters who have already made up their minds. Zogby found that among "decided voters," McAuliffe has 48 percent; Cuccinelli, 35 percent; Sarvis, 13 percent; and other candidates 4 percent."
how about the blue state of New Jersey where Republican Chris Christie won by a landslide?
yeah, that shutdown was the last nail in the generic Republican coffin alright
hahahahahahahaha!!!
"I am ashamed of my gender."
Then get back in the kitchen where you belong!
And while you're at it, go back to paying more for your health insurance because of your gendered shame.
The tea party lost it all yesterday in Virginia and Christie showed how NOT being a tea bagger can win elections for the GOP.
Even in Alabama the tea party candidate lost his primary run off by 5 points.
Oh and side kick Anon, yes, the polls were wrong about the margin of Cuccinelli's tea party loss in Virginia, but they were not wrong about the outcome of that election.
Pop!
Pop!
Pop!
the point is that the Republican Party is perfectly viable regardless of the shutdown
and that's the point that pops the Dems' fantasy balloon
you're in for a surprise
the only thing unpopular about the Tea Party is the name
voters agree with Tea Party issues across the board
the Tea Party may need to change their name
the Dems need to change their positions
and the #1 issue for November 2014 is:
Obamacare
Keep spinning buddy.
pretty much all you can say
keep trying to convince yourself that Obama's dismal approval rating and the unanimous Dem support for Obamacare is just a bubble
"The tea party lost it all yesterday in Virginia and Christie showed how NOT being a tea bagger can win elections for the GOP."
there's a big surprise coming for y'all
while Christie may have better tactics, his position on issue line up pretty closely with the Tea Party
but if his election makes you feel better about the debacle the Dems will face in November 2014, don't let me pop your bubble with a point of truth
hahahaha!!
this is beautiful!!
it's clear to everyone now that Obama lied to get Obamacare passed
and that the Dems in Congress were well aware of it
America will never forget this....
It's funny how things change over time. Who remembers this one almost exactly one year ago?
Conservatives Blaming Chris Christie For Romney’s Loss
"It was inevitable that conservative activists and advocates would find someone other than Mitt Romney and the Republican Party to blame for the fact that Mitt Romney lost the election and succeeded in winning only two of the states that Barack Obama had won in 2008. After all, we can’t admit that the Republican Party is slowly but surely losing touch with a large segment of the American public, including its fastest growing minority group. We can’t say that four years of opposing the President at every turn while failing to offer a coherent alternative contributed to the GOP’s problem. Nobody’s going to admit that the fact that GOP still hasn’t come to terms with the legacy of the Bush years, or that it spent the better part of the winter and spring of 2012 alienating women, contributed to its electoral troubles. And, surely, it can’t be because the polls were right all along and the American people actually wanted to re-elect the President. No, a scapegoat must be found and, at least in this initial 24 hours after Election Night, that scapegoat appears to be the Governor of New Jersey.
For example, here’s what Robert Stacey McCain has to say at The American Spectator:
"The list of fools who have brought this disaster upon us certainly also will include New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, the gelatinous clown who (a) hogged up a prime time spot at the Republican convention to sing his own praises; (b) embraced Obama as the hero of Hurricane Sandy; and (c) then refused to appear at campaign events in support of Romney’s presidential campaign. Good luck with the remainder of your political future, governor. It is unlikely Republicans shall soon forget your perfidious betrayal.
And Andrew Malcom:
Voters witnessed the end of Chris Christie’s budding hopes for a national Republican career. His ill-timed, over-the-top effusive praise for a visiting POTUS after Hurricane Sandy was an obvious bid to buy Obama’s silence next year when the New Jersey governor faces a real reelection challenge, likely from Newark Mayor Cory Booker.
But beyond the Garden state, conservatives rightly view Christie’s comments and presidential hand-holding and hugging as near-traitorous for needlessly elevating Obama’s photo op to help stall Romney’s momentum just days out. And assist the complicit media in ignoring FEMA’s botched local assistance that ran out of water, of all things. “Great job, Craigie.”
Christie may still try something in 2016. Oh, look! With Romney’s defeat, the road is conveniently clear for him — and others from the GOP’s incredibly deep bench. But Christie will have as much success with that effort as he has with Jenny Craig."
There are similar words from Dick Morris, and Mary Matalin, and there were yet more words directed at the Governor of New Jersey by some unnamed Romney adviser:
"Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, the adviser adds, is persona non grata in Romney’s inner circle. “He went out of his way to embrace the president during the final week of the campaign,” the adviser says. “It wasn’t necessary and it hurt us. Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, and Chris Christie undermined the Republican message.”"
A year ago GOPers blamed him for Romney's defeat and today Chris Christie is their savior!
What a lovely pirouette!!
NIH Faces Critical Blood Shortage
The National Institutes of Health is asking Group A donors to consider donating blood for current patients.
Posted by Laura L Thornton (Editor) , November 05, 2013 at 05:21 PM
The National Institutes of Health blood bank is "in urgent need of group A blood donors," according to an email message from an NIH spokesperson.
"We have patients in the hospital now who need your help. If you are a donor with group A blood, please donate today by visiting the NIH Blood Bank located on the first floor of the Clinical Center," the message read.
The blood bank is open from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The email message asks donors to call 301-496-1048 to schedule an appointment.
"Convenient, free parking is available for blood donors," the message adds.
Learn more about donating blood at NIH's website, http://www.bloodbank.nih.gov.
"A year ago GOPers blamed him for Romney's defeat and today Chris Christie is their savior!"
bizarre
obviously, everyone in the country can blame Christie that we are suffering through a second Obama term
I don't know that anyone in the GOP considers him to be the party's savior
the talking heads on cable just need to have something to say
personally, I'm going with Scott Walker
unless Mike Huckabee retires from TV
guess that shut up the Dembo Dumbos
it's easy to be glum when the future looks grim for Dems!!
sheer verbal dextereity has stopped the wackos dead in their tracks
at this point, they wouldn't dare try to defend Obamacare!!!
I see sidekick Anon's spin has slowed to a wobble.
That will make it easier for him/her to digest the fact that the losing Cuccinelli campaign closing argument, was:
"“The biggest single budget decision the next governor will make will be to support or oppose the expansion of Obamacare with the Medicaid expansion,” Cuccinelli said. “Terry McAuliffe wants to expand Obamacare even farther. I do not.”"
the website went online over five weeks ago
let me know when it works and we can talk
that's funny
Vulnerable Democrats must have watched in dismay as Democrat Terry McAuliffe barely clung to victory on Tuesday. Having spent three times more money than his rival and with the backing of his popular patrons, Bill and Hillary Clinton, McAulliffe was breezing to victory just three weeks ago. But his once-stout lead in the polls over Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli nearly vanished as voter outrage over the crash landing of ObamaCare nearly wrecked the race. A double-digit lead turned into a two-point scrape. Exit polls showed intense opposition to ObamaCare that helped Cuccinelli, who was written off by the national GOP and who had to lug along the scandal-plagued administration of Republican incumbent Gov. Bob McDonnell.
It looks like if Cuccinelli had another week to tag McAuliffe for his unflinching support of President Obama’s unpopular new entitlement, the race might have ended differently. What if he would have had another year? That’s the reality facing vulnerable Democrats on the 2014 election cycle. As Republican candidates without Cuccinelli’s structural problems contemplate months and months of public frustrations with administrative failures, cancelled policies and premium spikes, the path to a Senate majority starts to look a little clearer as the fortunes of Democrats in red states and swing states continues to dim.
great news!
the numbers are in for Delaware
and, so far, four people have signed up
that's almost a person a week!!!
it's just heart-warming
kind of makes all the time and effort worth it
a teen girl in the neighborhood has put up a poster at the grocery store advertising babysitting with little tear-off numbers
so far, she's doing better than Obamacare in Delaware
six tags are missing
good thing she didn't try a website...
"Delaware has seen only a handful enrollments in its new ObamaCare insurance exchange, which is served by HealthCare.gov, according to an informal survey of community groups.
The Associated Press reported that four patients had signed up for coverage as of Wednesday. The figure came from conversations with organizations hired to provide guidance within the marketplaces.
Officials blamed the low enrollment figures on problems with the federal enrollment website and delays in background checks for outreach workers, according to the AP."
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Wednesday met with frustrated Senate Democrats, who fear the disastrous rollout of his signature healthcare law could complicate their already difficult re-election fights in 2014.
The Obama administration has weathered intense criticism since millions of people have seen their health insurance policies canceled, despite Obama's pledge that Americans could keep their current plans under Obamacare.
The fallout has been exacerbated by the fact that these people cannot shop for insurance alternatives on the malfunctioning website, HealthCare.gov.
Obama, joined by Vice President Joe Biden, sat down with 16 Senate Democrats, 15 of them who are up for re-election next year, many of them facing competitive races.
One of the senators, Mark Begich of Alaska, issued a statement after what he said was a two-hour session. He said he expressed his frustration at the difficulties involving the website that has not worked properly since going live on October 1.
"It's absolutely unacceptable in this day and age that the administration can't deliver on the promises it made to all Americans because of technical problems with a website," Begich said.
Senate Mark Pryor of Arkansas said after the meeting: "The American people are frustrated with the White House's botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act, and I am too."
"In today's meeting, I told the president and vice president three things: 1) fix the website immediately 2) address the problems with the law and 3) hold the individuals in charge accountable for these mistakes. I won't let up until these problems are fixed," he said.
In a sign of its political potency, the rocky launch of Obamacare helped Republican Ken Cuccinelli cut into the lead enjoyed by Democratic Party insider Terry McAuliffe, who barely won Tuesday's election for Virginia governor despite an earlier twelve point lead.
BRET BAIER: Ed Henry is reporting today that they're definitely floating a one-year delay -- which the president apparently didn't agree to. A six-month delay, three months. Could this be the next shoe that Democrats and even this White House say we should delay it?
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I think it's going to have to happen, unless there's a miraculous recovery and unless it's working like the Apple website by the first of December, which is highly unlikely. Unless there is a way to get around the cancellation issue, which I can't see at all. There’s going to have to be a delay. And the impetus will come from the Democrats in the Senate, who are going to get slaughtered.
Look what happened last night in Virginia. Obamacare single handedly -- only a slight exaggeration, turned what should have been a landslide into a cliffhanger. Cuccinelli was behind by double digits after the shutdown really hurt him in northern Virginia, where there are a lot of government workers. He was way behind. He decided to gamble it all in the last week attacking Obamacare. He came to the point where by 10:00 last night, he was actually ahead in the count, and then he lost narrowly.
That’s all due to Obamacare. And this is not new. Four years ago in Virginia and New Jersey, Obama campaigned for the Democratic candidates for governor and they both lost. And the issue was the beginning of the Tea Party revolt, the issues were the stimulus, high taxation, high spending and it was Obamacare. So this is now the second time Obamacare is striking and it's going to continue to strike. It petered away after the last time because it was all in theory, it wasn't happening, it was suspended. But it's happening now. And unless they stop the avalanche here, the Democrats are going to get buried in this.
Actuaries: ACA delays would cause chaos
"An organization representing the country’s actuarial industry warned lawmakers on Wednesday that proposed delays to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would cause chaos in the marketplace.
“Delaying the implementation of the ACA’s individual mandate or extending the enrollment period for obtaining coverage could have negative consequences for health insurance coverage and costs,” the American Academy of Actuaries (AAA) said in a statement.
AAA said the delays could result in premium-collections that aren’t sufficient to cover claims, a higher than anticipated number of uninsured individuals, increased costs to the federal government and higher insurance premiums in 2015.
“Policymakers need to consider the implications of delaying the individual mandate or extending the open enrollment period before taking action,” the Academy’s senior fellow, Cori Uccello, said.
According to the AAA, the limited open enrollment period and the individual mandate were critical components in determining the 2014 premium rates and to ensuring a diverse risk pool.
Democrats in the House and Senate have proposed legislation that would delay the individual health insurance mandate penalties under ObamaCare until the HealthCare.gov site is fully functional.
A host of others have proposed extending the enrollment period, arguing consumers striving to meet the deadlines have been thwarted by the malfunctioning website.
The healthcare law requires that people have health insurance by March 31, 2014, or face fines.
TAGS:"
Why Seniors Are Turning Against The GOP
Aug. 6, 2013 (Happy 100th Dad)
"There’s something going on with seniors: It is now strikingly clear that they have turned sharply against the GOP. This is apparent in seniors’ party affiliation and vote intention, in their views on the Republican Party and its leaders, and in their surprising positions on jobs, health care, retirement security, investment economics, and the other big issues that will likely define the 2014 midterm elections.
We first noticed a shift among seniors early in the summer of 2011, as Paul Ryan’s plan to privatize Medicare became widely known (and despised) among those at or nearing retirement. Since then, the Republican Party has come to be defined by much more than its desire to dismantle Medicare. To voters from the center right to the far left, the GOP is now defined by resistance, intolerance, intransigence, and economics that would make even the Robber Barons blush. We have seen other voters pull back from the GOP, but among no group has this shift been as sharp as it is among senior citizens:
—In 2010, seniors voted for Republicans by a 21 point margin (38 percent to 59 percent). Among seniors likely to vote in 2014, the Republican candidate leads by just 5 points (41 percent to 46 percent.)
—When Republicans took control of the House of Representatives at the beginning of 2011, 43 percent of seniors gave the Republican Party a favorable rating. Last month, just 28 percent of seniors rated the GOP favorably. This is not an equal-opportunity rejection of parties or government — over the same period, the Democratic Party’s favorable rating among seniors has increased 3 points, from 37 percent favorable to 40 percent favorable.
—When the Republican congress took office in early 2011, 45 percent of seniors approved of their job performance. That number has dropped to just 22 percent — with 71 percent disapproving.
—Seniors are now much less likely to identify with the Republican Party. On Election Day in 2010, the Republican Party enjoyed a net 10 point party identification advantage among seniors (29 percent identified as Democrats, 39 percent as Republicans). As of last month, Democrats now had a net 6 point advantage in party identification among seniors (39 percent to 33 percent).
—More than half (55 percent) of seniors say the Republican Party is too extreme, half (52 percent) say it is out of touch, and half (52 percent) say the GOP is dividing the country. Just 10 percent of seniors believe that the Republican Party does not put special interests ahead of ordinary voters.
—On almost every issue we tested — including gay rights, aid to the poor, immigration, and gun control — more than half of seniors believe that the Republican Party is too extreme.
What do seniors care about now? Our Democracy Corps July National Survey found that:
—89 percent of seniors want to protect Medicare benefits and premiums.
—87 percent of seniors want to raise pay for working women.
—79 percent of seniors think we need to expand scholarships for working adults.
—77 percent of seniors want to expand access to high-quality and affordable childcare for working parents.
—74 percent of seniors want to cut subsidies to big oil companies, agribusinesses, and multinational corporations in order to invest in education, infrastructure, and technology.
—66 percent of seniors want to expand state health insurance exchanges under Obamacare.
All of these issues will be critical to the national debate as the 2014 election nears. The more seniors hear from Republicans on these and other issues, the more we can expect the GOP’s advantage among this important group to decline. And we can count on one thing in 2014: Seniors will vote.
2009 Senior vote in VA
Deeds 40%
McConnell 60%
2013 Senior vote in VA
McAuliffe 45%
Cuccinelli 51%
that's fascinating how all your polls of seniors find a big shift away from Republicans
are these the same pollsters that had McAuliffe ahead 12 points the day before the election?
hahahahahahahahahaha!!
"AAA said the delays could result in premium-collections that aren’t sufficient to cover claims,"
and demonstrate how much the young will paying above the costs of their own insurance to support everyone else
that's the big worry- that everyone will figure out what's going on
"I think the Founding Fathers saw the danger of something like the evangelical bloc and tried to prevent it by carefully wording an amendment to the Constitution regulating government's ability to promote a religion or to impede one."
no, they didn't, you're wrong
they were haunted by the way Henry VIII and his successors misused religion as a means of control
they didn't believe people should be tortured or killed for their beliefs
who does?
this is a far cry from the hyper-interpretation created by the Warren court and since expanded by today's liberals
they'd be horrified to learn, for example, that our leaders couldn't lead public prayers asking God's blessing or that kids couldn't go to public school and share their faith because it might make someone who didn't share it feel bad
"No matter how many times they deny it, there really is a legal separation of church and state."
yes, there is
it's a biblical principle, introduced by Christ
"And the power of the evangelical component of the GOP lies in the weakening of the separation of religion and government;"
that would be a figment of your imagination
"it is their right to believe the things they do, and to live according to their customs, but it is not their right to force the rest of us to obey their taboos, no matter how repugnant we pagans may be to them."
you persist in asserting that banning the murder of unborn children or defining marriage as representing both genders is just a religious idiosyncrasy
this is untrue
these have held true in all cultures and religions until recent years
ENDA Vote: Senate Votes To Outlaw LGBT Workplace Discrimination!!!
The final bipartisan vote was 64-32, with 10 Republicans joining Democrats. The Republican senators backing the legislation were cosponsors Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), along with Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.).
The Cancer Patient From The Wall Street Journal Will Likely Save Thousands Under Obamacare
"Edie Sundby, a Stage-4 gallbladder cancer patient who is losing her individual health care policy in California, could pay less for comprehensive insurance in Obamacare’s health care exchanges.
Sundby’s story first gained national attention after she penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, arguing that Obamacare would cost her more and force her to abandon her cancer doctors. Her high deductible individual health care policy from United Healthcare (called PacifiCare in California) had paid $1.2 million to keep her alive and “never once questioned any treatment or procedure” until earlier this year. In May, the company announced that it would be canceling insurance policies for its 8,000 enrollees and leaving the California market altogether. “Over the years, it has become more difficult to administer these plans in a cost-effective way for our members,” UnitedHealth spokeswoman Cheryl Randolph explained, suggesting that the company had long struggled to compete with insurers like Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Shield of California and Kaiser Permanente, who control more than 80 percent of the individual market.
Its exit left Sundby in a lurch. During an appearance on Fox News on Wednesday, she described her old catastrophic policy as “fabulous” and “fantastic,” in part because it paid for treatment by both Stanford and UC San Diego doctors. But the policy also came at a high cost. The AARP reported last year in a profile of Sundby’s fight against cancer that the family spent “tens of thousands of dollars” on treatment beyond the cost of coverage. “The results, financially, were ‘traumatic,’” AARP quotes her husband Dale as saying. “But we are, as a family, willing to go to the end, to spend whatever it takes. That’s what vows and commitments are all about.”
And so when ThinkProgress estimated the cost of a high-deductible policy offered by PacifiCare and then compared that plan to a policy in the California exchange, we found that the family would pay slightly less and benefit from a whole host of new consumer protections.
Relying on PacifiCare’s base rate filings with the California Department of Insurance, ThinkProgress estimated how much Sundby and her husband (who is on the same plan) could be paying for a high-deductible PPO in the individual health care market in 2013. We grew the base premium filed by the company by a conservative 40 percent to account for underwriting — the process by which insurers increase premiums to account for beneficiaries’ health profile. (On average, PacificCare increases base premiums by as much as 50 percent and given Sundby’s high medical expenses, her policy was likely heavily underwritten.) We also assumed that the couple hit all maximums in accounting for the average annual cost, estimating that they will pay approximately $37,000 for health care by the end of 2013:
"PACIFIC CARE PPO (CATASTROPHIC POLICY): $2,186 monthly premium ($26,241/year). $3,000 deductible. 20% co-insurance for in-network (50% out-of-network) $8,000 in-network max. (Estimated annual cost: $37,241)"...
Continued
"...ThinkProgress then searched the California exchange for the most expensive and expansive health care plan in San Diego and found a Platinum-level “Ultimate PPO” from Blue Cross. Using the same calculations — minus the underwriting increase, which is outlawed by the law — we found that the Sundbys would actually pay less for health care during a high utilization year or $31,028. We did not account for tax credits in our calculations:
"BLUE OF CALIFORNIA ULTIMATE PPO: $1,919 monthly premium ($23,028/year). $0 deductible. $8,000 in-network-max (50% co-insurance for non-participating provider). (Estimated annual cost: around $31,028)"
The new policy comes with strong consumer protections: Sundby’s plan can’t be suddenly cancelled, it won’t be able to charge her more per month just because she’s a woman and she will likely receive a more comprehensive benefits package with her new policy.
Still, Sundby may need to find a different health care provider, since her doctor at UC San Diego is only participating in one plan offered by Anthem Blue Cross in the exchange, but the same policy is not accepted at Stanford. (“Stanford takes a different Blue Cross plan, one that uses a broader preferred provider network of doctors, but that plan is not available in San Diego.”) If Sundby continues to see the non-participating doctors, she will incur additional out-of-pocket health care costs.
The estimates also assume that the couple hit all of their spending maxes. If they don’t, they could pay even less for health care under Obamacare."
she wants to keep her doctors
she thinks the doctors she's been using are key to prolonging her life
Obama told her she could
but he didn't add that she would have to go before Emanuel's health panel
well, Barack Obama has now apologized to America for Obamacare and says he will try to force insurance companies not to cancel people's insurance
couldn't he just scrap Obamacare and start over?
and when is he going to apologize for running for President?
now that Sir B.O. has apologized to America for Obamacare, are there any TTFers who have something they'd like to say?
we will now entertain your sincere apologies
I think when the Dear Leader of any totalitarian cult apologizes to the general public, his minions are generally obliged to do the same
at least, that's the word on the street about totalitarian cults
"I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me."
President Barack Obama
November 8, 2013
it's nice that Barry has apologized for the problems he has caused with Obamacare
now, when will he apologize for the shutdown he caused by not accepting a few common sense adjustments to the program he has apologized for?
Tucked away in recent polls are measures of clear disappointment with the Democratic Party. The disappointment is substantial, and it raises big questions about the 2014 midterms.
When the GOP is matched up against the Democrats on key political measures, it looks very good.
A mid-October Pew Research national poll found that a plurality regard the Republicans as "better able to deal with the economy" than the Democrats (44%-37%). Independents favored the GOP on the economy by a whopping 46%-30% margin in that survey.
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.
An early read of voter preferences for the House in 2014 by the Pew Research Center in mid-October had the Democrats with a six-point edge: 49% to 43% among registered voters. In historical terms, this is a relatively modest margin. Six points is the same lead the Democrats had in 2009, a lead that steadily eroded in 2010. The GOP picked up six Senate seats and 63 House seats in that year's midterm.
One clear troubling sign for the Democrats at this early stage is independent voters, who decide most elections. They are evenly divided, according to Pew's mid-October survey: 43% say that "if the elections for Congress were being held today," they would vote for the Republican candidate in their district, 43% say they would vote for the Democratic candidate.
It is not too much of an oversimplification to say that Democrats are struggling because President Obama is struggling.
At the start of Mr. Obama's second term 52% approved of the job he was doing, 40% disapproved in the Pew Research January national survey. His job-approval ratings reversed by October: 43% approved and 51% disapproved. In a Gallup survey this week, Mr. Obama's job approval was 39%
The economy and ObamaCare's inauspicious debut are likely the most powerful drags on the president and in turn on his party. In a September Pew survey, 63% of Americans say the nation's economic system is no more secure today than it was before the 2008 market crash.
A majority of Americans say their household incomes and jobs still have not recovered from the great recession. But pluralities think that government's policies have helped large banks, corporations and the rich more than the middle-class, the poor or small businesses.
Broad discontent with the launch of ObamaCare has only reinforced concern about the president's policies. Most polls show reaction to the launch of the health-insurance exchanges reinforcing public disapproval of the legislation, which stands at 52% according to an Oct. 21 Pew Research survey. Little wonder that Mr. Obama's Democratic Party trails the GOP on the economy, and the GOP has drawn even with Democrats on management of the government.
While the midterms are still a year away, there are many reasons to believe that Republicans may not be hurt so much in the House as a consequence of the recent budget crisis imbroglio. Tea party candidates will carry a lot of that baggage, but they will mostly run in districts that endorse their point of view.
In that regard, Chris Christie's sweeping victory among men and women, young and old, black, white and Hispanic in a blue state is a measure of the continued viability potential of the Republican brand.
"I think when the Dear Leader of any totalitarian cult apologizes to the general public, his minions are generally obliged to do the same"
Here's an apology that didn't come for 10 years you might want to ponder as you spew forth your thoughts on Presidential apologies.
George W. Bush Apologizes for Iraq War
Mar 20, 2013
"Former U.S. President George W. Bush apologized for the Iraq War today, saying the conflict was "his biggest mistake."
In a statement released to a Texas newspaper, the 66-year-old Bush said he meant well when he sent America to war but asked the American people to forgive what in retrospect was "a clear example of poor judgement."
The admission comes on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War, which began in 2003 and ended in 2011 with more than 36,000 American casualties and estimates of more than 100,000 civilian deaths...."
I suspect that Cuccinelli's votes came largely because of agreement with his conservative social-issue views. McAuliffe is an unusually liberal governor for Virginia.
"Chris Christie's sweeping victory among men and women, young and old, black, white and Hispanic in a blue state is a measure of the continued viability potential of the Republican brand."
Oops!
Somebody missed a few points, but that's what happens when you are spinning like a top.
It's time to teach some relevant facts.
"2016 Outlook
Twenty point margin in a blue state? Check.
Win the Latino vote? Check.
Win women, perform well among union members and young voters? Check.
Win these same voters in a hypothetical 2016 presidential match-up? Oops.
Takeaway: Issues like same-sex marriage, abortion, and minimum wage are not all that important to Democratic-leaning voters in New Jersey when they vote for governor. [Something Barbara Buono never quite figured out.] However, these issues become very relevant to these same “blue” voting blocs when they consider Christie as potential presidential timber.
Coattails
There were none. Zip. Zero. Nada. In the first district, Assemblyman Nelson Albano was hoisted on his own petard. It looks like there may be one GOP pick-up in the 38th that could be attributed to coattails. That’s it.
The Democrats saw the Christie tsunami coming and realized they needed to ride that wave to survive. They used his own “bipartisanship” mantra to tout their cooperation with the governor on key points. Their GOTV effort worked hard to get voters to split their tickets – voting Republican for governor and Democratic for legislature.
The South Jersey incumbent legislators were particularly adept at this. Take a look at the vote totals from the state’s five southernmost counties (Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland, Salem, Gloucester). According to the unofficial results, Christie won these five counties with 143,799 votes to 76,623 for Buono. However, the Democratic candidates for state Senate in these counties took 117,316 votes to 97,696 for the GOP slate.
That means about 40,000 voters supported the Republican for governor and the Democrats for senate. In other words, nearly 1-in-5 voters who went to the polls in those counties yesterday split their tickets – an amazing feat!
Turnout
Just 38% of registered voters showed up yesterday. That compares to 47% in 2009 – which set a then-record low for a governor’s race in New Jersey. Yesterday’s turnout is now the absolute lowest turnout on record of any November election where a statewide office (Governor/US Senate) topped the ballot. The special Senate election three weeks ago – at 24% turnout – set the all-time low for any general election regardless of which office topped the ballot.
Looked at another way, Gov. Christie won the support of 23% of registered voters to 15% for Buono, whereas 6-in-10 registered voters apparently cast their ballots for “meh!”
Bottom Line
Countervailing messages came out of yesterday’s election. “The Governor” was a very powerful brand, but not much beyond that. I fully expect that Team Christie will successfully highlight the positive and downplay the negative, as they have been doing for the past four years."
More NJ exit poll details here
so, a Republican wins in a landslide in New Jersey
and you say that won't work on a national level because Dems won lower seats because they emphasized how well they worked with the Republican governor?
interesting lapse of logic
first of all, there is not a Republican president in office to play off
but, more importantly, this shows that the Republican brand is not a bar to victory in election, as Dems were raving just not more than a week ago
and since polls show most Americans agree with Republican, and frankly, Tea Party positions, it looks like the two-party is still perfectly viable
sorry, kids
you were wrong
now, let's hear your apology
I wonder when Obama will apologize for cash-for-clunkers, trillion dollar deficits, persistent unemployment, IRS harassment of his enemies, the red line in Syria, barricading the national parks and forcing the shutdown by refusing to negotiate the budget
unemployment up in October
start preparing your apology, Barack
in the words of Darth Vader:
apology accepted
cough-choke-gag!!
his week K Sebelius testified before Congress that there are "hundreds" of problems that need to be fixed with the Obamacare website
I would presume each one needs to be analyzed, fixed and tested
realistically, what are the chances this will happen within the next 22 days
come on...
The president now is toxic. The thing is called Obamacare. There's no running away from it. It's got his name on it. You see the president, you think about the policy and you know it's a disaster. And the problem for the Democrats is, they are hostage to a bunch of geeks working right now late into the night trying to fix a system which is not just the glitches we talked about. The architecture, the underlying structure of it is wrong.
I think the likelihood of it being fixed, working like you would expect from any normal commercial private website normally by December 1 is pretty small. And the pressure on the White House will become irresistible. If it isn't up and running smoothly and perfectly, they're going to start with postponements and then the whole thing starts to unravel.
The Obamacare Web site doesn’t work. Hundreds of thousands of insured Americans are seeing their plans summarily terminated. Millions more face the same prospect next year. Confronted with a crisis of governance, how does President Obama respond?
He campaigns.
“I’ve got one more campaign in me,” he told grass-roots supporters Monday, “to make sure his signature health care law works.”
Campaigning to make something work? How does that work? Presidential sweet-talk persuades the nonfunctional Web portal to function?
This odd belief that rhetoric trumps reality leads to strange scenes. Like Obama’s nationally televised address trying to resell Obamacare. Don’t worry about the Web site, he said. I’ll get it fixed. And besides, there are alternatives, such as an 800 number he promptly gave out. Twice.
You half expected him to offer a special: Add the mop and get a free year of Obamacare! But the 800 number was more than bad form. It was bad substance. Turns out you can give all the information you want to the person at the other end of the line — or to your friendly community “navigator” — but that person must enter your data into the very same nonfunctioning Web site .
Didn’t Obama know this? Did he really think that this TV campaign would work when anybody who actually does what he suggested would find himself still stuck in the same cul-de-sac?
And yet he tried precisely the same tack when the second crisis — the canceled policies — struck.
Last Wednesday, he simply denied reality and said he really hasn’t changed his message from when he promised in June 2009: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan. Period.”
Instead of simply admitting he was wrong, he went Clintonian, explaining that the pledge only applied to certain specified plans — which he now says he meant all along. Alas, this is one case of death by punctuation. “Period” means without caveats, modifications, loopholes or escape hatches.
Having denied the obvious deception, the president proceeds to say that, well, anyway, you’ll be better off under the plan my health-care experts have imposed on you.
But many of those getting notices will find this equally untrue: Their new plan is likely to carry a higher premium and a bigger deductible and to cut them off from their current doctor.
Does Obama really think that recipients of those notices — millions of them — won’t notice that? Even the mainstream media have featured dozens of interviews of people tossed off plans they like — only to be offered expensive, less attractive Obama-mandated alternatives.
Obamacare proponents who live in the real world might admit that they intended to cancel people’s individual plans all along because kicking people off individual policies is at the heart of populating the health exchanges. You must cancel the good, less frilly plans because forcing these people into more expensive plans (that they don’t need) produces the inflated rates that subsidize the health care of others.
The more honest Obamacare advocates are, in effect, admitting that to make this omelet you have to break 8 million eggs — roughly the number of people with individual plans who are expected to lose them. Obama, however, goes on as if he can conjure omelets out of thin air.
This rather bizarre belief in the unlimited power of the speech arises from Obama’s biography. Isn’t that how he rose? Words. It’s not as if he built a company, an enterprise, an institution. He built one thing — his own persona. By persuasion. One great speech in 2004 propels him to the presidential level. More great speeches and he wins the White House.
But then comes governance. A speech in Cairo, utterly crushed by the Arab Spring. Talk of a Russian reset, repeatedly thrown back at him by a contemptuous Russian dictator. Fifty-four speeches to get health care enacted — only to see it now imperiled by the reality of its ruinous rollout and broken promises.
I’m not surprised that Obama tells untruths. He’s surely not the only politician to do so. I’m just surprised that he chooses to tell such obvious ones — ones that will inevitably be found out.
Who will tell Obama that lies so transparent render rhetoric not just useless but ridiculous?
Obamacare really is a rollicking success story
earlier this week, we learned that four people have already signed up in Delaware so far
now, it turns that our won little town of DC is doing even better
we have five, that's right, five
fasten your seatbelts, libs
we're catching up to the girl in the neighborhood with the babysitting business:
"Only five people have fully completed the enrollment process in the D.C. insurance exchange, according to information compiled by lawmakers from four of the insurance companies participating in the exchange.
Two people enrolled in CareFirst BlueShield plans during October and three enrolled in Kaiser Permanente plans during the month.
The information was collected by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)."
Having a slow day at the office?
Besides taking a two hour lunch break, you've posted 8 comments already today.
thanks for monitoring my activities
don't tell the NSA
they're always trying to spy on me
btw, the names of the five people in DC who have signed up have been released:
Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Marion Barry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Marion Barry
hey, wait a minute!!
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/11/mic-check-former-msnbc-host-and-open-occupy-supporter-loses-health-insurance/
Lol.
don't feel sorry for him though, wish his had gone higher. serves him right.
oh, now this is a setback
after all those people in Delaware and DC, almost two habdfuls, apparently only one person has signed up in North Carolina
and there's the little complication that the one person who signed may have had his identity stolen due to lax cyber-security on the site
oh well, people, the glass is half-full
I mean that's one better than zero
so let's stay positive, folks
keep on truckin', Obamacare!!:
"CHAPEL HILL, N.C. (CBS Charlotte) - North Carolina’s largest insurer is having its share of problems with the Obamacare website.
Internal emails obtained by WNCN-TV show that Blue Cross Blue Shield show that only one person was able to successfully use Healthcare.gov to enroll in the new exchange.
But even that single person has not paid, which means the enrollment is not complete.
The emails suggest the “payment re-direct option” on government servers isn’t working.
Blue Cross Blue Shield found the entire system is so filled with glitches that the company decided not to upload data because it was afraid false information might enter its computer system.
And the emails reveal a scammer was using the insurer’s name to try to obtain personal information."
"The Obamacare website might still not be working, but journalists are. All across the country, as Republicans try to highlight tragic tales of Americans losing their current health insurance and allegedly stuck with more expensive options, journalists are coming to the rescue. In case after case, journalists investigated these stories and called the policyholders and combed the insurance exchange websites to bring actual facts to bear in our public debate about Obamacare...
...If you are one of the small fraction of Americans who currently relies on the individual insurance market and has seen your current policy canceled, call a journalist — like one of those in the stories above. Reporters all across the country are hungry for real-life stories about how Obamacare is working.
Plus, most reporters have access to high-speed Internet. If you can't get through to the Obamacare exchange site, there's a journalist standing by willing to help you navigate the exchange options and explore your pros and cons in terms of costs and benefits. The website might still be glitchy, but old-fashioned shoe-leather reporting is as reliable as ever."
When Ratigan (who left journalism behind last year to start a farm in California, and hasn't made a penny since) looks on the exchange for California, he too will find better coverage at a lower rate, just like the others who complained before checking out what Obamacare offers.
He'll do just as well as Edie Littlefield Sundby, a stage-four gallbladder cancer survivor also living in California. Sundby will save thousands of dollars and unlike US Healthcare did to her this year, her new Obamacare insurance policy will not be canceled out from under her by her insurer.
maybe he doesn't want welfare, maybe he would feel better about himself paying for plan he can afford than asking everyone else to pay for him....
scratch that. he's a dem, so he will be just find with that.
BTW, does the exchange look at your assets or just your income to figure out your subsidy ?
answered my own question.
wow.
so maybe I like this plan and maybe we can both quit.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/06/29/how-obamacare-could-help-you-retire-earlier-or-destroy-itself-t/
If we quit (or at least one of us does) than we get student loans for the kids at low rates, which we can't qualify for now... we get tax breaks for the kids college (which we don't get now) and we get free health care.
Hmmm...
so I could retire and dedicate myself to politics full time.
Very interesting.
why work guys ?
why work ?
it might be nice for a while but then I would be SO BORED.
dont' you get bored Priya ?
"Today, I pardon Richard Nixon"
lose next election
"Ayatollah, let my people go- or else"
lose next election
"Read my lips. No new taxes."
lose next election
"Hillary is going to fix up health care"
lose next election
"If you like the insurance you have now, you can keep it. PERIOD."
lose next election
Barack Obama looked out at the hundreds of supporters packed into McCormick Place at 12:38 on the morning of Nov. 7, 2012 and proclaimed to cheers that the nation had just "voted for action, not politics as usual."
He proclaimed in a Rolling Stone interview that "We need to refocus on trying to get things done for the American people.' "
Less than 24 hours after his victory speech, he learned that CIA Director David Petraeus was quitting because of an extramarital affair.
Before the month was out, the Republican-led investigations into Benghazi gained steam, with the controversy claiming its biggest victim only five weeks after the election when Susan Rice withdrew her name from consideration for secretary of State.
While this was developing, Obama was engaged in fiscal-cliff battles with Republicans, finally allowing the GOP to lock in the bulk of the Bush-era tax cuts.
On the day after Rice's withdrawal, a gunman shocked the nation by killing 20 children and six adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.
Instead of going for immigration reform as his top legislative priority, he squandered much of his political capital on a doomed effort to enact gun restrictions.
He tried to bluff the Republicans about the sequester and wound up having to slash the budget of Federal agencies 5% across the board.
He was ridiculed when tried to retaliate by shutting down White House tours and delaying flights.
In March and April, House Republicans battered him on Benghazi.
In May, the nation learned that he had used the Internal Revenue Service to inappropriately monitor conservative groups.
At the same time, he came under fire for Justice Department investigations of journalists.
In June, Edward Snowden started leaking highly sensitive and embarrassing National Security Agency documents. By July, Snowden was demanding asylum in Russia, leading Obama to cancel a planned summit with Vladimir Putin at the precise time he was looking to the Russian president to bail him out of a no-win battle with Congress over Syria. It was also in June that the White House had to acknowledge that Syria had crossed Obama's "red line" and used chemical weapons. That led to a request to use military force that seemed doomed before Putin stepped in.
Obama's annus horribilis wasn't over, of course.
The public was disgusted by his actions during the government shutdown.
Still to come was the badly botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act, a mess still awaiting a fix.
The result, on the one-year anniversary of his reelection, is that Obama finds himself at a personal low point in his approval ratings. Gallup's daily tracking poll released Tuesday had him at 39 percent approval. In Friday, Pew research released polls with same 39 percent approval. In the past 60 years, only Richard Nixon (29 percent) and George W. Bush (38 percent) had lower ratings a year after their reelection.
Obama's difficulties with Congress go back to the campaign he conducted in 2012 where Obama was more focused on tearing down his rival than building a mandate for action in the second term.
you forgot how he lied to the America people about being able to keep the insurance
and, then, when everyone had figured that out, he said it doesn't matter that he lied because he had to pass it even though voters were against because he knew what was best for them
now that he's channeling Mao Tse-Teng, it's time to really worry
what else does he think he knows better about than us and what eextra-constitutional methods will he use to impose it on us?
Anon, this statement will not be very concise, but I want to be clear. I host a blog here where people can discuss issues and express themselves. We make everyone welcome, within some very liberal boundaries. I have only banned one person, I think, in the nine years this blog has been here; I have deleted a few comments, but not many.
You like to express conservative views, and nobody here really minds that. Most of us don't agree with you but we don't discourage diverse opinions and I think it is good for liberals to be exposed to your kind of reasoning, if only to hone their counterarguments.
Lately it has been kind of hard for your side, and you are a little desperate. People don't like the Republican Party very much right now, the group is in a state of confusion and disarray, and I understand you would like to focus the attention on any little thing the President does wrong, but you must realize this is not really the place to do that. The rest of us here are not desperate about politics, most of us honestly want to see America become a better place and are not obsessed with winning elections. We understand how the system works, it is slow and frustrating but change is possible. We support our leaders when we feel they're right and criticize them when we think they are wrong. This is not a political blog; because we are interested in social change we need to be aware of the proclivities of policy-makers, but TTF is not part of any party or campaign.
Lately you have been clogging the comments sections with mindless propaganda, often edited to make it even more one-sided than it was. It is one thing after another, with no intellectual value added by you or by the writers you choose to reproduce here. I do not feel you are trying to discuss, but only to disgust. You do not seem to realize that where there is this much of it, and your intentions are so obvious, it doesn't even disgust anyone, it only bores them. You are neither persuading nor demoralizing anyone here with this stuff. People just don't read it.
TTF was a central player in some controversies in our county, and lately there has been no call for that, so we are more of a background item in the community these days. I post something when I feel like it, and we have a core group of commenters who share their thoughts. It is kind of nice, no big deal but there are a handful of people who check in regularly and put in their two cents worth.
But why would they come here, when all they see is this? You oppose the black President, we get that. Everything he does is wrong. He is incompetent, foreign, stupid, we get that. You think gay people are deviants, transgender people should dress like their birth certificate says, we get that, your views are not unique. Nor are they very well thought out, or very well expressed. The rest of the TTF community is willing to discuss your views with you, there is no problem there. But the stream of irrelevant copy-and-pastes is not interesting to anyone. You won't win that way, you only make the whole thing less valuable to everyone.
Years ago I banned "illiterate anon," who couldn't spell or stay on-topic and whose hateful thoughts were so poisonous I just decided to kick him out. Other than that, I don't think I have blocked anyone. But I am very close to blocking you. I have your IP number at home and at work, and the server software is very easy to set up so that your comments are simply not received. You won't get to say good-bye, you will simply disappear.
Again, if you would like to express an opinion, maybe try to convince someone of a point, show someone the errors in their logic, fine. But your comments lately are like farts, where others come into the room and hold their breath and try to walk past them. This is my living room and you are right on the brink of being asked to leave because of your bad manners and the bad smell.
JimK
"clearly, had it not been for a libertarian scraping off some votes the vote, Obamacare would have lost the election for McAuliffe"
Nice spin, but factually false.
"Was the Libertarian candidate Sarvis a spoiler? In a word: no. In a straight two-way matchup, voters preferred McAuliffe to Cuccinelli by two points. That’s almost identical to the final outcome. In fact, Sarvis drew from independents and moderates, and took at least as many votes from the Democrat as the Republican."
That little fact even comes from a reputable source for you: Fox News: Exit polls: McAuliffe wins in Virginia with strong support among women
And BTW, that VA exit poll report also includes this little reminder:
"Virginia voters today elected a governor from the same party as the sitting president -- breaking a more than three-decade trend. "
Even with that knee jerk trend going for him, Cuccinelli was too extreme for Virginia voters.
"HONOLULU, Nov 8 (Reuters) - Hawaii's House of Representatives approved a bill on Friday to legalize same-sex marriage in the overwhelmingly Democratic state popular as a wedding and honeymoon destination, paving the way for anticipated final passage in the Senate next week.
The measure cleared the House in a late-night vote of 30-19, with six of the chamber's seven Republicans joining 13 Democrats in opposing the legislation. Two Democrats were absent for the vote.
Governor Neil Abercrombie has indicated he would swiftly sign the measure into law, making Hawaii the 15th or 16th U.S. state to extend marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples, depending on when the governor of Illinois signs that state's bill.
As currently drafted, the Hawaii bill would take effect on Dec. 2..."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/09/hawaii-gay-marriage-bill_n_4245015.html
Impacts and Costs of the October 2013 Federal Government Shutdown
Jim said "Again, if you would like to express an opinion, maybe try to convince someone of a point, show someone the errors in their logic, fine. But your comments lately are like farts, where others come into the room and hold their breath and try to walk past them.".
Exactly. Now when I come here, most of the time I skip all bad anonymous's comments and try to find things others have said but with bad anonymous making 90% of the comments through cut and paste there isn't much to choose from.
Its ironic that bad anonymous frequently accuses others of making too many comments when that is his own worst trait.
Bad anonymous hasn't got any quality arguments so he relies on quantity instead in a vain effort to counter reality.
Oh dear, it looks like our local tea party radical got a spanking!
Even pro-business GOPers have had enough of tea party radicals -- and their government shut down and repeated threats of default -- and are raising money to defeat them in 2014.
I find the GOP infighting interesting to watch. The Hill reports in MI, the business wing of the GOP supported by the US Chamber of Commerce, is raising funds to defeat the tea party incumbent Amash. They are hoping Ellis will defeat Amash like Bradley Byrne defeated the tea party candidate, Dean Young, in Alabama.
Meanwhile, over in tea party land, it seems Palin and her cohorts plan to support tea party insurgents in primaries, forcing all GOPers to the hard right during the primaries, before they all have to move back to the center to win statewide Senate general elections.
Palin has set her sights to "shake up" the primaries for:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
Sen. Lindsey Graham
Sen. Lamar Alexander
Sen. Thad Cochran
I wonder how McCain feels about Palin setting out to defeat his dear friend, Sen. Graham.
to be fair, giving Anon a hard time for talking about politics when you posted the subject line as about politics is a little unfair Jim.
I posted this topic specifically to give people a chance to talk about politics, which is a favorite topic here. That is not the problem. Copying and pasting articles from rightwing web sites, with sarcastic comments, could be fine now and then, but I felt that Anon has been trying to disrupt any serious discussion. If he wants to win an argument by expressing reasonable thoughts supported by facts, then he is welcome here. If he is only going to make communication impossible for all by jamming the airwaves then he will be gone.
I think everyone will agree I have been more than tolerant, for a long time. Very few sites would put up with this. As it is, I have only given a warning.
JimK
Its one thing to talk about politics from your own perspective, its quite another to copy and paste from right wing web sites over and over and over in an effort to drown everyone else out.
Jim has been far more tolerant than the owners of any other web site I've ever been to.
I think we can all agree Anon's "ha ha" taunts have not been missed.
White guy wins after leading voters to believe he’s black
Dave Wilson pretended to be black when he was actually "a conservative white Republican running in a district whose voters are overwhelmingly black Democrats," he used his cousin's name to make it appear he had received an endorsement "from a former state representative of the same name who's also African-American," and justified his dishonesty by saying:
"Every time a politician talks, he's out there deceiving voters."
And if you don't believe anyone would stoop so low, you can watch the video and listen to him giggle about it himself.
The founding fathers of our American democracy must be rolling over in their graves!
How To Help Typhoon Haiyan Survivors
We don't need to argue about the cause of super storms like typhoon Haiyan, but we can all help the survivors get back on their feet by supporting one or more of the organizations mobilizing and deploying major disaster relief to victims listed in the article linked to above.
Virginia Governor-Elect McAuliffe held a press conference and announced the first executive order he will sign once sworn into office will be to protect Virginia "state employees, including gays, lesbians and transgender people, from discrimination on the job."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/terry-mcauliffe-elected-governor-of-virginia-after-bitter-race-against-ken-cuccinelli/2013/11/06/6d8a8c9a-46b0-11e3-b6f8-3782ff6cb769_story.html
"Bad anonymous hasn't got any quality arguments so he relies on quantity instead in a vain effort to counter reality."
Speaking of reality, el Presidente has apologized to America for messing up our health care system with a disingenuous wealth transfer scheme.
Isn't it high time for lazy Priya to apologize for supporting this scheme?
Post a Comment
<< Home