The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

* though my son had a string of like 3-4 teachers who left/retired/had babies either right after he had them or within two years

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?

[JPhillips]

From Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen:

Today’s GOP is not racist, as Harry Belafonte alleged about the tea party, but it is deeply troubled — about the expansion of government, about immigration, about secularism, about the mainstreaming of what used to be the avant-garde. People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children.

WTF?

[Marc Vaughan]

(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)

[cuervo72]

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

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

From Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen:
WTF?

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.

[Marc Vaughan]

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 ).

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

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.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Arles

You have the Rush Limbaugh "All liberals are idiots" side and the Elite Media "look at all those hicks in red states" side.

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

[Grover]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

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

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

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

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

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

[Grover]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

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

Kids React to Controversial Cheerios Commercial - YouTube

[Marc Vaughan]

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)

[Grover]

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.

[Arles]

Interesting play by Clinton:

Clinton to Obama: Let Americans keep canceled health plans

WASHINGTON — Former President Bill Clinton said that President Obama should honor his oft-repeated pledge and allow people to hang on to health care plans that are being canceled as a result of the Affordable Care Act.

"I personally believe, even if it takes a change in the law, that the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they've got," Clinton said in an interview at OZY.com published on Tuesday.

The comments from Clinton, who has been a strong supporter of Obama's signature health care legislation, came after Obama said on Thursday that he is sorry that some Americans are losing their current health insurance plans as a result of the ACA, despite his assurances that Americans could keep their insurance plans if they like them.

"I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me," Obama said. "We've got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this."

The White House has said that the president is exploring administrative action to help some of the millions on the individual insurance market who have received cancellation notices but hasn't announced any specific steps they may take.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said that Clinton's comments were in line with Obama's statement last week that he has asked his administration officials "to close some of the gaps in the law."

"The president has tasked his team with looking at a range of option," said Carney, who declined what options the president may be considering.

In the interview with OZY.COM, Clinton added, "For young people mostly, but not all young, who are in the individual market whose incomes are above 400 percent of the poverty level — they were the ones who heard the promise that if you like what you've got you can keep it."

[sterlingice]

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

SI

[ISiddiqui]

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?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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)

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

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

SI

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.

[JPhillips]

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

[Arles]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

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.

[Edward64]

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

President Obama announced Thursday an administrative change in one of the bedrock ideas of the new health-care law, allowing insurers to continue offering individual insurance plans for another year even if they do not comply with the law’s rules for minimum benefits.

[Edward64]

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

The United States and Afghanistan have circulated a completed draft of a bilateral security agreement that will indefinitely extend the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan beyond next year’s combat troop withdrawal, and they expect to sign the document by the end of the year, according to congressional and Obama administration officials.

The agreement resolves the issue of “immunity” for U.S. troops from Afghan prosecution — a sticking point in negotiations — by stipulating that the United States will have exclusive legal jurisdiction over American military personnel and Defense Department civilians working with them. At the same time, it makes clear that no one is exempt from prosecution for wrongdoing, according to a senior administration official.
:
:
Karzai declined to offer specifics about the agreement, but officials said the roughly two-dozen-page accord falls well short of his demand that the United States commit to protecting Afghan territory against any outside attack, a condition that would have required a Senate-ratified treaty. Instead, it expresses a strong U.S. interest in Afghanistan’s stability and security, and promises consultation and consideration of unspecified assistance.

In a preamble, the document repeats language from a broader strategic partnership agreement signed last year in which the United States pledged not to use Afghan territory or facilities “as a launching point for attacks against other countries.” But that language is not expected to prohibit U.S. drone strikes against al-Qaeda and other insurgent groups in neighboring Pakistan.
:
:
Most estimates have indicated that the administration will retain 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. personnel in Afghanistan after the end of combat operations to advise and train local forces and conduct some counterterrorism missions.

[JPhillips]

Holy crap.

Virginia Democratic state Sen. Creigh Deeds, a former gubernatorial nominee, was in critical condition Tuesday after being stabbed in his home, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported.

The Times-Dispatch also reported Deed's son Gus was dead from a gunshot wound, citing law enforcement sources.

Anybody have more info on this?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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

[JPhillips]

Democratic sources tell News4 that Deeds' son Austin "Gus" Deeds attacked his father Tuesday morning before turning a gun on himself. Police say Gus Deeds died at the scene.

Not confirmed yet.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Not confirmed yet.

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

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

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

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

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

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

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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

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 ..)

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

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 ..)

Originally Posted by Article

That so-called financial management tool was originally supposed to be part of HealthCare.gov when it launched Oct. 1, but officials later suspended its launch as part of their effort to get the consumer interface part of the site ready. The tool will, when it works, transmit the subsidies that the government is kicking in for many enrollees to offset the costs of their monthly premiums.

*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.

[Solecismic]

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.

[JPhillips]

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

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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.

[Solecismic]

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?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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?

[Buccaneer]

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.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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?

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.

[miked]

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.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by miked

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?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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 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:

Months of outreach to Republican Senate offices by religious leaders have yielded no official GOP support to an appeal from a broad coalition of religious denominations to ensure that church-sponsored health plans can participate in the ACA’s health insurance exchanges. Worse yet, from a partisan Republican point of view, two Democratic senators, Mark Pryor and Chris Coons, were the first responders to this call, introducing legislation late last week. Pryor is widely viewed as the GOP’s number one senatorial target in 2014.

Without the requested “fix,” as many as one million clergy members and church employees now enrolled in church-sponsored health plans could soon face the choice of leaving these plans (designed to meet their unique needs, such as the frequent reassignment of clergy across state lines) or losing access to the tax subsidies provided by the ACA to help lower-to-middle income Americans purchase insurance.

Observers generally agree that the exclusion of church health plans from eligibility for the exchanges, which occurred because they do not sell policies to the general public, was an oversight caused by staffers scrambling to draft bill language under tight deadlines. Because employees of religious institutions are usually paid modestly, many will qualify for subsidies made available on a sliding scale to families earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level. But the subsidies can only be used to purchase insurance from the exchanges.

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

[Solecismic]

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

My point is really that the landscape has changed enough that we'll never go back to the way it was pre-ACA.

Bullshit. All it takes is enough sense & courage.

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

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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.

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

UnitedHealthcare officials announced Wednesday they will no longer cancel policies held by sick people. The company is acting in advance of a ban on the practice that's part of the new health care law.

The UnitedHealthcare announcement was followed late Wednesday by an announcement from America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) that health insurers in general would commit to dropping the practice of cancelling policies when holders become ill.

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

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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?

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.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

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

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

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.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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.