That would be a good start. :)

Though evidently my premium that got hiked by quite a bit is still on the low end, which is a bit frightening to me.

So... more government regulations on the states? Including a government plan on the exchange? :D

One that works would be nice. It's far too piecemeal, which is obviously caused by the lack of bipartisanship on both sides of the aisle.

Another convert to the single-payer camp, then? :D

Well... that was unexpected.

I'm pleased... but a bit surprised.

Mind=blown.

Sounds like a case to allow for people to shop for insurance plans across state lines?

WTF?

It was also used on the 2010 Census.

This would be nice as well. Obamacare is a perfect example of a good idea implemented about as poorly as one could implement it. Do it right or leave it the hell alone.

Didn't see it mentioned, but Missouri and Kansas both joined the ranks of same sex marriage states yesterday. We've already got three 'civil ceremonies' booked at the winery in 2015. If nothing changes, it looks like we can call those same-sex legal marriages. It's definitely going to boost business for sure.

Setting aside all the issues of cost, I'm most pissed that my insurance has dropped several methods of treatment from coverage as a result of the ACA. Physical therapy, chiropractic and massage have been lumped in with 'alternative medicine' and are no longer covered by my policy in any way. I can see some of the things getting lumped in there, and surely nobody else wants to pay for me to get massaged 3 times a week, but physical therapy? That's alternative medicine now? Modern insurance will seemingly pay for you to take a handful of pills until you need an emergency procedure, but otherwise you're SOL.

We tried that with credit cards. It didn't work too well. Once you do that every insurance company incorporates in the state with the easiest laws and regulations, leaving the other states with no recourse to provide consumer protection.

If that happened, it has nothing to do with the ACA. My mother has been getting therapy for the past couple of weeks and her insurance is paying. From what I've read, many more people are now covered for PT after the ACA.

As a husband of a physical therapist, believe me, PT is covered by the ACA. They are very unhappy about this, because it pays out about 10% of what insurance pays out for it.

So, not surprisingly it sounds like A) I don't particularly understand what I'm talking about and B) still getting screwed.

It's insurance. You're always getting screwed

SI

I saw an (Allstate?) ad the other day trying to sell an option to ensure against a premium increase....FINALLY I can buy some insurance insurance.

I can't believe how many GOPers are using Clinton as the example Obama should follow. As I recall, rather than the nineties being a golden age of bipartisan comity, the GOP impeached Clinton.

Now it wouldn't surprise me to see the nineties replayed, but the outcome won't be legislative unicorns and rainbows.

The Supreme Court gets its dissenting opinion on gay marriage-the 6th appeals Court has upheld the gay marriage ban in 4 states: Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky.

Gay marriage bans in four states upheld, Supreme Court review likely

My wife got a real job and our insurance is now like 225/month for all of us. I'm sure there's some devilish details in there but hello $10 co-pays

Are the next 2 years going to be the legislature trying to undo everything Obama did, and Obama fighting it? Thus, nothing will happen for the next 2 years?

Short Answer: Yes.

So a lot like the last 4 years?

SI

yes

Both sides came out really chippy yesterday. If the GOP has any brain cells, they would tell Boehner he's out of his role as Speaker.

The next 2 years represent a gold-plated opportunity for the Democrats, especially in the Senate, but also the House and even Obama, to troll the fuck out of the GOP, especially since Ted Cruz has already indicated he's not on McConnell's bandwagon. I doubt the Democrats will take the opportunity, but they sure could have fun (and damage the GOP's chances in 2016) if they did.

So you actually think we voted for those GOP candidates so they could go to DC and capitulate?

Just to finish up on previous comment, specifically on UAE.

In the UAE, the United States has a quiet, potent ally nicknamed ‘Little Sparta’ - The Washington Post

I'm sure that's because it's a mandate? How many mandates have we had the last 30 years? The American public doesn't want extremes and they keep voting people in hoping the extremes will stop and real middle ground will be found. Instead, every side that wins thinks this is their chance to get their extreme stuff in and then in 6-8 years, the other side will get a chance. It's no wonder we are going nowhere.

I guess the immigration bill will be the next big battle. Not sure what Obama can present by executive order but I don't have much faith in congress able to present something.

Obama: 'I'm Going To Do What I Can Through Executive Action' On Immigration

You must have missed my quote of a Tweet from election night. About how this wasn't a mandate for the GOP (yet), it was a restraining order for Obama.


Now there you're kidding yourself.

I'd say a good portion of those GOP candidates are more interested in not capitulating to Boehner or McConnell than they're worried about Obama. That's to what I was referring.

Depending upon how much that duo are willing to sell out, that might be pretty close to the same thing.

Sell out, or stand in the way of the personal ambition of guys like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. It'll be fireworks either way.

We'll have to see if China is serious about it. Maybe they have finally gotten tired of having to chew the air in Beijing.

U.S. and China, After Months of Talks, Reach Deal on Climate Change

Good God the Dems are useless.


Not only will this undermine their President, but I'd be surprised if there's a single voter that will vote for Landrieu because of a symbolic vote in the Senate. But at least Joe Manchin won't have to put up with "bullshit".

Fucking idiots. All of them.

What President do they have that the rest of us don't?

Oh, come on. It's obvious I'm talking party affiliation. It does no good for a party to undermine their supposed leader. It just makes everyone identify the party with weakness and indecision. And all for a symbolic vote that won't change the mind of any voter.

One day the Dems should learn how to play the game. They'll look better and get more done.

:+1:

Seriously. This doesn't bode well for the next 2 years.

When I was in Beijing it was horrible...

But in a representative government, the senators of a state should represent their state's interest first. Who else will?

That's far from a settled matter. Is there anything that the Senator should vote against the"interests" of his state? Does his/her conscience matter? Does the good of the nation matter? How do we determine the "interests" of the state? Is it always majority rules? Is that determined by the election winning party? Wouldn't that silence the voices of potentially 49% of the population?

There's no ideal way for a senator to behave. It's always going to be a balance of competing interests.

This. I thought I was prepared for the pollution, but I wasn't. I do, though, now understand why the Chinese spit so much. It took less than half a day for me to be hopelessly congested.

If they do it often enough (vote against the people who elected them), they'll be ex-Senators p.d.q. And they will have silenced the voices of potentially 51% of the population by doing so.

I don't know, are we all on the same page that pollution exists?

I still waffle whether it's true incompetence or willful incompetence that is the defining trait of the Democratic party. Do I hope that they're really this stupid or really this evil?

SI

I assume that a significant majority in Louisiana favor keystone, across all parties. Just because those in Vermont is against it, they should not ridicule those in Louisiana for being favor of it.

I didn't know you were such a fan of earmarks and pork. There are probably few Senators in history that represented their state's interest better than Robert Byrd.

If the Dems aren't willing to use the filibuster in the same way that the GOP has done, they are essentially saying that you should always put the GOP in charge of the Senate because they will get more done. A GOP minority will block things, but a Dem minority will play ball. Why would voters want a Dem majority under those circumstances?