Good going, cuervo72's son... Vili Fualaau has nothing on ya'.

So, now that Obama has apologized to those of us who are losing health insurance policies, and we've discovered a potentially huge marriage penalty in there, is this a time for more "executive orders", or is this just part of his game plan?

From Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen:


WTF?

(Edited having read the article and reflected on it)

I think its just incredibly poorly written, I'd prefer to believe that he was trying to discuss the views of old fashioned racists and has a poor grasp of the meaning of the word he used rather than truly believing it to be was a 'conventional' view ....

On the other hand it might be that that writer lives in the 1800's or something?

(I'd prefer to think that the 'conventional' view today is that people of all races are accepted as equals by people)

So, wait, you guys missed the kerfuffle over the Cheerios commercial then?

There are a lot of issues with the GOP, but I don't know too many staunch republicans who would have an issue with a bi-racial marriage. This is another example of what frustrates me about politics today. You have the Rush Limbaugh "All liberals are idiots" side and the Elite Media "look at all those hicks in red states" side.

And people who don't identify with either side are forced to either hold their nose and join a side or simply sit the entire process out.

Actually having read this:

Washington Post columnist article

It sounds like the writer is just a 'profesisonal arsehole' - that is he writes articles simply to infuriate people and create hits/discussion .... basically he's a paid troll (and its obviously working as we've mentioned and discuss him, damn it ;) ).

That isn't Cohen. Last week he wrote that Twelve Years a Slave showed him that slavery wasn't about benevolent masters treating their slaves well. This seems to be Cohen's honest thoughts about the current world.

I agree this doesn't apply to even a majority of the GOP, but if you have to repress a gag reflex upon seeing a biracial family, you're a racist.

There are plenty of hicks in blue states that think like that, much less red states.

The video on Upworthy of all the kids trying to figure out why people didn't like that ad is fantastic.

There was really kerfuffle over that commercial? ... seriously?

Kids React to Controversial Cheerios Commercial - YouTube

Yeah I get that - heck there are LOADS of articles indicating why its normal and acceptable ... what I'm not seeing is the reason is the initial 'negative' reaction.

I'm guessing it was a group of trolls on youtube which has been blown out of all proportion for column inches?

(sorry to be cynical but I've yet to see anything which indicates a negative reaction to that commercial - outside of the blogs decrying the 'negative reaction' to that commercial ... I agree totally that its not controversial but also think that promoting there having been a reaction can have a negative effect by reinforcing in people who are racist that there are far more others out there like them than their is in reality in most areas)

I'm the same as you, Marc. I watched the ad and thought nothing of anything. Hell, I didn't even really notice it was an interracial family because it looked normal to me.

Interesting play by Clinton:

Clinton to Obama: Let Americans keep canceled health plans

I really don't see Clinton's angle here. Everything he does is so politically calculated: what am I missing?

SI

I think the uber-cynical people are going to say, he's setting Hillary up to be popular among the "I lost my plan" folks, but want government involvement in our healthcare system.... maybe?

That's the best guess I've come up with (fwiw)

It seems a lot of politicians who get out of politics take on an elder statesman-like "above the fray" persona where they feel free to criticize those in their party, maybe praise people in the other party, etc. I bet it comes from a place of having their every stance and comment carefully calculated for decades. Of course, they come off much more likeable when they finally start acting like real people instead of part of a bigger party machine.

Clinton's always enjoyed being the smartest guy in the room.

This seems the most likely to me. He comes off pretty genuine in actually wanting this health care idea to work and is offering a way for Obama to reduce the fallout. I don't see an angle by him here as I think about it.

I'm okay with this but not good. Wonder how the fix is coming along. One month didn't seem long enough.

Not sure I like the play here. It seems Obama is content with providing minimal amount of support needed to prop up Afghan government in hopes that the forthcoming elections will bring in someone more cooperative and to maintain some sort of presence.

- The Washington Post

Holy crap.


Anybody have more info on this?

Not a lot more beyond the background/bio info at this point apparently.

Deeds critically wounded; son dead from gunshot - Richmond Times-Dispatch: Government And Politics

Not confirmed yet.

News report on MSNBC said police are not looking for any suspects.

This isn't going to help the President any at all.

Another big bomb dropped today in hearings......

Obamacare bombshell: IT official says HealthCare.gov needs payment feature

Sounds more like scaremongering tbh - most large scale software is developed in modules/sections where possible and I doubt this is any surprise to the people creating it.

(note this doesn't mean they won't screw it up - it amazes me how they've managed to bungle it so far tbh ..)

*If* the article is accurate, and *if* I'm understand what they're saying...

Considering how it'd have to calculate and, I'm assuming transmit money to somewhere, that sounds incredibly complex. (The calculation part, and ensuring you don't move too much / not enough money). It also sounds fairly important to people actually trying to pay money through this travesty of a site.

Meaning... 1) again, it should have never launched this early. Politics came first, as usual. 2) given their track record, if this is as intricate as I'm picturing...hoo boy, the clusterfuck when THAT goes live is going to be epic.

edit: Reiterating the 'ifs' up there. The article is moderately vague on WTF this piece was exactly supposed to do.

I know it's a conservative source, so it may be exaggerated, but this is the secondary effect I've been most worried about with Obamacare.

Second wave of health plan cancellations looms | Fox News

Businesses will behave to maximize profit. Anything less and they risk lawsuits if they're big enough, or obsolescence if they aren't.

This is when I'll lose my insurance, which was designed for small businesses - BCBS has already made that clear.

It's also around the time that those who have Obamacare will begin to realize that high deductibles, while probably a more fair way to design a health care system (in principle, there are some positives about Obamacare), are radically different from what most people are used to when they think of health insurance.

That may happen to some degree, but no way 1/3 of the American population is losing health insurance.

It's probably exaggerated. But what percentage is acceptable to you?

We don't have "you will keep your plan."

We don't have "you will keep your doctor."

We don't have "your costs will go down."

We do have a massive administrative problem, starting (and probably not ending) with healthcare.gov.

What's left? What are we doing this for?

At this point, I think, unless Democrats want to lose the Senate badly and Obama will fall below the veto threshold, it's time simply to repeal the law.

There's zero possibility of repeal. Some of the cost controls appear to be slowing medical spending growth and many parts of the ACA are extremely popular.

I'd be all for legislative fixes to make the ACA work better and I suspect those changes would get plenty of Dem support, however, the GOP refuses to fix anything. I don't think the law if perfect by any means, but it's not going away even if there's a GOP sweep in 2016.

What percentage of people losing their plans in 2014 due to Obamacare is acceptable to you?

I haven't seen Democrats advance any plans to fix this. What are your evil Republicans blocking, exactly?

The GOP has said they won't do any fixes, so why bother. The one fix that was tried, a change that fixed a section effecting religious leaders, was blocked. If they won't even allow a fix the Southern Baptist Conference was pushing there isn't any point.

People have lost their insurance plan every year I've been alive. I don't know if this will effect more or fewer than in the past. I'm fine with looking at ways to make the transition smoother. I really don't have any loyalty to the ACA. My goals are universal coverage and slowing the growth of healthcare spending. I have a lot of flexibility on how those goals are achieved.

Can you provide evidence that millions of people have lost their insurance each year? For reasons having nothing to do with leaving a job that provided that insurance?

I asked a question, though. For those who have an existing plan, and don't leave their jobs or non-jobs, what is an acceptable percentage of canceled plans?

What were the details of this religious exception?

It still amazes me (but it shouldn't) of how many people have faith in the federal govt and apparently had high expectations (thus causing things like plummeting approval ratings). I guess they hadn't lived long enough to know better.

I have never heard of any (non-company) plans being cancelled. Switched, decreased and made more expensive, yes. I also know of individual and family dropping insurance because it no longer become affordable - which is where we all may end up.

My sister had private health insurance that wasn't with her company. She had a gall bladder something or other that had to be removed. As soon as she got out of the hospital, her company dropped her, wouldn't even cover the post-op visit. Anecdotal, but I'm guessing she isn't alone.

What was the reason given?

It happens all the time. Nobody is losing insurance, they just have to pay more and/or the benefits change. Where I work we changed the details of our plan and the co-pay went up this year. That same thing happens at workplaces all over the U.S. every year.

Here's a quick run down of the religous leader problem:


The GOP ended up keeping it from coming to a vote.

I asked a simple question. How much is acceptable to you?

You say something happens all the time, but refuse to provide any evidence. I'm not asking about a co-pay change (what a nice benefit that is, by the way). I'm talking about being dropped from an insurance package and told to go to the government for insurance.

When people discover the reality of what a high-deductible plan is, they will be unpleasantly surprised.

I'd rather people didn't have any problems with their insurance, but that isn't realistic. Nobody is going to the government for insurance, they may go to a government website, but there is no government insurance. Every option is a private plan.

If the new standard is that nothing can change about anyone's insurance, the ACA can never be repealed. I would expect you to be outraged when all of the people that got insurance due to ACA changes were suddenly stripped of that coverage.

I'm not arguing the law is perfect or that there aren't ways to make it better. My point is really that the landscape has changed enough that we'll never go back to the way it was pre-ACA. The sooner the GOP realizes that and starts working to amend rather than repeal the better off we'll all be.

Bullshit. All it takes is enough sense & courage.

Wait, those are in such short supply these days ... yeah, you're probably right.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/News...ellations.aspx


Edit: Note that the article is from 2010 and indicates it was a common practice across all insurers.

Somewhere south of 84 million would be a good start.

More seriously, however, we'll know more after March, when open enrollment ends. If the number of people who have gained insurance due to ACA (through Exchanges or Medicaid) exceeds the number of people who lost their individual plans (which, as I showed earlier, often barely qualify as insurance), then I'll call it a win.

Cripes, this is a frightening thread to read right now.

That's about right. They get different plans; they aren't 'losing' insurance.

And yes, FWIW, some of the provisions in the ACA, preventing insurance companies from refusing to cover folks is a direct result of people being dropped do to health factors.

The irony here is that defenders of the ACA felt it was needed because a lot of people without employer coverage couldn't afford available plans. Now, with the ACA, people who had affordable coverage are losing their plans (replaced with more expensive exchange options). Yet, somehow, this instance of losing coverage is somehow more acceptable to the ACA defenders.