The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JonInMiddleGA]

"We have reached agreement," EU spokesman Michael Mann said in a Twitter post.

And now there will be peace in our time.

[Edward64]

A nice summary.

I'm not an expert but if inspectors will truly have unlimited (?) access, why not.

20 questions about the Iran nuclear deal - CNN.com

Enough with the background. Let's talk about the deal that was reached.

It's more of an interim agreement before the deal. Described as an initial, six-month deal, the White House says it includes "substantial limitations that will help prevent Iran from creating a nuclear weapon." In short, it slows the country's nuclear development program in exchange for lifting some sanctions while a more formal agreement is worked out.
:
:
What about the stockpiles Iran already has?

As part of the deal, Iran will be required to dilute its stockpile of uranium that had been enriched to 20%. While uranium isn't bomb-grade until it's enriched to 90% purity, "once you're at 20%, you're about 80% of the way there," Hibbs says. The deal also mandates Iran halt all enrichment above 5% and dismantle the technical equipment required to do that. Before the end of the initial phase of the deal, all its stockpiles should be diluted below 5% or converted to a form not suitable for further enrichment, the deal states.
:
:
How will we know Iran is living up to its end of the deal?

Iran is expected to provide daily access to inspectors from the international agency, IAEA. The inspectors will be expected to visit centrifuge assembly and storage facilities, uranium mills and the Arak reactor, among others. The P5+1 and Iran will also form a joint task force on the issue.
:
:
What's not in the deal?

A better deal would have included Iranians shipping out their highly enriched uranium to be converted elsewhere, says Aaron David Miller, vice president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "It would have been better ... if Iran had much more of their nuclear infrastructure put out of use. But that's the deal they got."
:
:
Who else is unhappy?

Saudi Arabia. It's a majority Sunni country. Iran is majority Shiite. Saudi Arabia, like Israel, is troubled by Iran's growing clout in the Middle East. "The Saudi government has been very concerned about these negotiations with Iran and unhappy at the prospect of a deal with Iran," a Saudi government official who is not authorized to speak to the media told CNN.

[albionmoonlight]

Pardons by President Obama:

Drug Offenders: 11

Thanksgiving Turkeys: 10

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Pardons by President Obama:

Drug Offenders: 11

Thanksgiving Turkeys: 10

What about thanksgiving turkeys that deal drugs?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

What about thanksgiving turkeys that deal drugs?

Counted on both lists, naturally

SI

[Arles]

I'm not really sure what the solution for this is outside of higher fines. The entire theory of this new system is based upon premiums from younger, healthier people helping to offset the cost of pre-existing condition/higher risk groups.

For the life of me, I can't understand why these fines weren't set higher from the start. I'm guessing the idea was that lower fines might cause companies to kick people to exchanges and benefit the system long term (of course, hurting people short term). At this rate, though, there might not be a "long term" with this system to worry about.

Young invincibles spurn O-Care | TheHill

Mounting opposition to ObamaCare among young adults is creating a new crisis for the White House.

While the federal enrollment website HealthCare.gov appears to be improving by the day, polls show the “young invincibles” key to making the law work are becoming less likely to enroll.

Younger people were skeptical of the healthcare reform law even before its troubled rollout, despite their support for President Obama.

But polling indicates the problems facing HealthCare.gov — a site the administration initially touted as a hip, tech-friendly experience — have reinforced their doubts about the need to have health insurance at all.

A poll released Wednesday by Harvard University’s Institute of Politics found that more than half of 18- to 29-year-olds disapprove of ObamaCare and believe it will raise their healthcare costs.

Even more troubling for the administration is that less than one-third of uninsured young people said they plan to enroll in coverage.

Without a large number of young, healthy people in the insurance exchanges, it could create a “death spiral” of high premiums that could threaten the long-term viability of the marketplaces.

The minimum fine for individuals is only $95 in the first year, however, and many young people are expected to pay the penalty rather than obtain coverage.

A survey released Wednesday by Gallup found that more than one-quarter of people without health insurance would rather pay the fine.

[Marc Vaughan]

A poll released Wednesday by Harvard University’s Institute of Politics found that more than half of 18- to 29-year-olds disapprove of ObamaCare and believe it will raise their healthcare costs.

I'd have thought that a fair proportion of those wouldn't be actually paying for their own care as they're still be under their parents policies?

(my daughter is covered under mine despite being 19)

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I'd have thought that a fair proportion of those wouldn't be actually paying for their own care as they're still be under their parents policies?

(my daughter is covered under mine despite being 19)

I think up to age 26 can be covered as long as they don't have access to employer coverage. If they have a fulltime job, my impression is that they can't be covered by their parents. Maybe someone else has more info.

I think it's common for kids still in college, but I'm not sure how many working 22-26 year olds are still covered by their parents. Still, the point is that many of the 22-29 year old people were expected to be "free money" in the Obamacare plan and it just doesn't seem like those people are signing up in the numbers expected. Perhaps the fault lies in the projections run by the Obamacare camp at the start when planning on the total cost. Either way, the system needs these people paying premiums to remain solvent long term.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think up to age 26 can be covered as long as they don't have access to employer coverage. If they have a fulltime job, my impression is that they can't be covered by their parents. Maybe someone else has more info.

I think it's common for kids still in college, but I'm not sure how many working 22-26 year olds are still covered by their parents. Still, the point is that many of the 22-29 year old people were expected to be "free money" in the Obamacare plan and it just doesn't seem like those people are signing up in the numbers expected. Perhaps the fault lies in the projections run by the Obamacare camp at the start when planning on the total cost. Either way, the system needs these people paying premiums to remain solvent long term.

The question really is, how many of these 18-29 year olds fall outside of coverage, since they can stay on parents until 26, or have coverage if employed. Perhaps the issue is they mis-judged the number that would need to buy coverage now, or is there some sudden rate increase hidden in kids being covered by their parents until age 26?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The question really is, how many of these 18-29 year olds fall outside of coverage, since they can stay on parents until 26, or have coverage if employed. Perhaps the issue is they mis-judged the number that would need to buy coverage now, or is there some sudden rate increase hidden in kids being covered by their parents until age 26?

Yeah that was my thought - that and whether the lower age range of that scale was used to heighten the level of percentage who aren't signing up .... as all they're implying is that there is a low take up from that age, not whether the kids have cover (it could be that take up is reasonable for those who don't have cover - its not at all clear and most statistics I've seen reported on such things seem to have a clear agenda, hence my cynicism).

I think any long-term change like this has to be judged several years after its inception - the micro analysis of things at present isn't helping anyone at all and instead just feeding hysteria (which I'm sure is half of the intended cause of such things).

[Coffee Warlord]

I seriously hope I can continue on my wife's insurance (one of the scant few awesome benefits to her being a teacher). There's already been noises about them dropping spouses from coverage.

My company's rates will increase $100 / month for 2014, with a "few benefit changes" coming, to be discussed next week. Awesome.

To amend. Interestingly, the (already expensive here) rates are the same for employee only. If you want your spouse or kids, you're getting raped.

[cartman]

Wow, the House actually stopped slap-fighting long enough to pass a bipartisan piece of legislation. The "Innovation Act" (HR 3309), keeps patent holders (or trolls) from suing end users of an alleged infringing product, not allow a maze of shell companies to bring suits, and forces the the patent holder to pay the legal costs of the defense if the patent holder loses.

The Senate has signaled that it should face no opposition, and Obama said he will sign it. Here is a link to the text of the bill:

Innovation Act (H.R. 3309) - GovTrack.us

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Arles

I'm not really sure what the solution for this is outside of higher fines. The entire theory of this new system is based upon premiums from younger, healthier people helping to offset the cost of pre-existing condition/higher risk groups.

For the life of me, I can't understand why these fines weren't set higher from the start. I'm guessing the idea was that lower fines might cause companies to kick people to exchanges and benefit the system long term (of course, hurting people short term). At this rate, though, there might not be a "long term" with this system to worry about.

Young invincibles spurn O-Care | TheHill

Or you know offer something people actually want rather than what you think they should have.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Or you know offer something people actually want rather than what you think they should have.

The problem with that is that if you ask people what they want and provide only that then a lot of the time it'd be the wrong decision.

For instance healthcare isn't MEANT to be an investment opportunity etc. - its meant to be a failsafe to help people who need it and you hope like heck you aren't one of them.

Most young people think they're invincible and while at that age most will be lucky and healthy some will need help and at present those (as with all the uninsured) have to be treated somehow ...

Or to look at things another way - I see healthcare the same way I do car insurance, its a requirement in case shit happens.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Or to look at things another way - I see healthcare the same way I do car insurance, its a requirement in case shit happens.

I've made that parallel myself, though it just occurred to me - driving is an optional activity.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I've made that parallel myself, though it just occurred to me - driving is an optional activity.

In much of Florida I'd say thats debatable - I didn't drive before I emigrated* and after 3-4 months cycling around I finally gave in and learnt to drive, this region simply has no public transport and cycling outside of 'homestead' areas is downright dodgy because drivers simply don't expect to see people doing it (that and many of the roads are in an atrocious state).

*When I was younger I did the whole motorbike thing, but gave it up when I had kids because I really didn't want them to follow along that route ... I didn't bother learning to drive because public transport was a far better option than driving when I lived in the London area, even in the 'burbs' I commuted in and out of London by train and walked everywhere in my local town - England is just setup to encourage shanks' pony.

[Warhammer]

The problem with the healthcare vs auto coverage is that healthcare you will need at some point. For auto coverage you have people like me with high useage rates with no claims which helps the lot.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

The problem with the healthcare vs auto coverage is that healthcare you will need at some point. For auto coverage you have people like me with high useage rates with no claims which helps the lot.

That's not necessarily true, especially with younger healthier people. Knock on wood, I've not had medical expenses outside of check ups and shots for 20 years.

Healthcare - Home

[JPhillips]

Conservative and Obamacare critic states why the ACA won't be repealed:

Now, thanks to the colossal foul-up of the Obamacare exchange software, we might not get to 24 million exchange enrollees by 2017. But let’s say it’s half that. That’s still 12 exchange plus 12 Medicaid equals 24 million Obamacare enrollees by 2017. Is the Republican nominee for President in 2016 really going to run on a platform of taking health coverage away from 24 million Americans? Especially after the Republicans ran in 2014 on ensuring that Americans can keep their health plans? …

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Conservative and Obamacare critic states why the ACA won't be repealed:

I think this is what will really be the best thing to come from the mess -- somebody will have to think of something better and we will get something better.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

That's not necessarily true, especially with younger healthier people. Knock on wood, I've not had medical expenses outside of check ups and shots for 20 years.

Healthcare - Home

But someday you WILL need it. It's almost as certain as death and taxes.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Conservative and Obamacare critic states why the ACA won't be repealed:

Repeal the ACA and open up private health care organizations to participate state to state. How many of those 24 million are worse off?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Arles

Repeal the ACA and open up private health care organizations to participate state to state. How many of those 24 million are worse off?

I had to laugh at this response. It makes far too much sense.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Arles

Repeal the ACA and open up private health care organizations to participate state to state. How many of those 24 million are worse off?

Out of interest - what restrictions are in place to prevent health care organisations participating state to state at present?

(I ask because I work remotely from my employer and they sporadically leap me through different US corporations at their random whim (i.e. which corporation is paying me) ... none of these corporations are based in the same state as me, but each put me under their health coverage and I use the same policies etc. that the main company provide, ie. its not changed because I'm in Florida)

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

Repeal the ACA and open up private health care organizations to participate state to state. How many of those 24 million are worse off?

BUT THEY'LL BE CANCELLATION NOTICES!!!

Seriously, the millions kicked off Medicaid will clearly be worse off and those with preexisting conditions and the 22-26 age group on their parent's plans will probably be worse off.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

BUT THEY'LL BE CANCELLATION NOTICES!!!

Seriously, the millions kicked off Medicaid will clearly be worse off and those with preexisting conditions and the 22-26 age group on their parent's plans will probably be worse off.

Not to mention everyone who will only be able to afford a "catastrophe plan" that doesn't really provide jack-shit as the rates will rise back up thanks to the fragmentation of the risk pool.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

as the rates will rise back up

I'll be more worried about this part if they ever head back down first.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Arles

Repeal the ACA and open up private health care organizations to participate state to state. How many of those 24 million are worse off?

Yeah, because deregulation + interstate commerce worked well for banking and credit card companies.

Oh, wait...

[JPhillips]

Obama shook hands with Raul Castro at Mandela's funeral.

You know who else shook hands?

Hitler.

President Obama's handshake with Cuban President Raul Castro on Tuesday was met with a mostly muted reaction from conservatives and Republicans. Invoking memories of the Munich Agreement, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) broke the right's silence with a harsh assessment of the gesture.

"It gives Raul some propaganda to continue to prop up his dictatorial, brutal regime, that's all," McCain said of the handshake between the two world leaders that took place at a memorial service for Nelson Mandela.

When asked if Obama should have extended his hand, McCain was quick to respond.

"Of course not," the senator said. "Why should you shake hands with somebody who's keeping Americans in prison? I mean, what's the point?"

Then, after a slight pause, McCain went there.

"Neville Chamberlain shook hands with Hitler," he added.

[cartman]

So I guess then that McCain wouldn't shake anyone's hand that is in government at any level, if the standard is "don't shake hands with somebody who's keeping Americans in prison".

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The whole Cuban thing is total BS at this point. The only thing keeping those guys in power is our own policy. Open up travel and relations with that country and that regime will come crumbling down.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Obama shook hands with Raul Castro at Mandela's funeral.

You know who else shook hands?

Hitler.

To be fair, I doubt McCain is aware of that internet game.

[DaddyTorgo]

How many Americans are in Cuban prisons right now?

//Honestly curious, I have no idea. I wouldn't expect it to be very many though.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mike D

To be fair, I doubt McCain is aware of the internet.

fixed that for you

[cuervo72]

Eh, his daughter is all over the internet, I think. And McCain was "hip" enough to be on Parks & Rec. And that's not even a CBS show!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

How many Americans are in Cuban prisons right now?

//Honestly curious, I have no idea. I wouldn't expect it to be very many though.

Agreed, I didn't know there were any.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

fixed that for you

touché.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Eh, his daughter is all over the internet, I think. And McCain was "hip" enough to be on Parks & Rec. And that's not even a CBS show!

I know - was just joking around.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mike D

Agreed, I didn't know there were any.



touché.

I'd honestly be curious if there are any.

I see news stories about 1

Cuban authorities arrested Gross in 2009, holding him for more than a year before formally accusing him of illegally distributing prohibited satellite communications equipment to Cuban dissidents.

After a brief trial in 2011, he was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

According to USAID, Gross was in the country to work on a U.S. government-funded project to set up individual satellite-based Internet connections in Cuba. His family has said he was working to help Jewish groups set up Web access.

[cartman]

The only one I can think of was the guy who was arrested a couple of years back as a suspected spy, who made several trips to install computers and internet access on the island.

[cartman]

Here's an interesting visual representation to show how partisan the Senate has become over the past 20 or so years.

Political polarisation: United States of Amoeba | The Economist

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The whole Cuban thing is total BS at this point. The only thing keeping those guys in power is our own policy. Open up travel and relations with that country and that regime will come crumbling down.

I agree. And from a selfish point of view it'll help our businesses in a time when we need it. Silly that we can't ship cars, food, and other American made products to them that they need/want. We trade with far worse regimes.

[SirFozzie]

A) Good to see that there's a bipartisan budget deal from the "Super-Super Committee" and B ) after the beating the R's took after the last shutdown, I'm sure that the R's will whip in favor of this... and by that I mean an actual whip will be involved.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

A) Good to see that there's a bipartisan budget deal from the "Super-Super Committee" and B ) after the beating the R's took after the last shutdown, I'm sure that the R's will whip in favor of this... and by that I mean an actual whip will be involved.

There's a Tom DeLay joke here somewhere

SI

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

A) Good to see that there's a bipartisan budget deal from the "Super-Super Committee" and B ) after the beating the R's took after the last shutdown, I'm sure that the R's will whip in favor of this... and by that I mean an actual whip will be involved.

Love that they managed to increase discretionary spending as part of this. The long-term mandatory cuts may be good, but they managed to stick more pork in it anyway...

[flere-imsaho]

From The Guardian, but I didn't realize this was the case (emphasis added):

Congress was on the verge of the first bipartisan budget deal in nearly three decades

I didn't realize it had been so long since the two parties had actually worked together to pass an actual budget. Unreal.

[Dutch]

Once they realized it was just money and our debt is so out of control that nobody gives a shit anymore, it was easy! Everybody likes free money.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Mike D

Once they realized it was just money and our debt is so out of control that nobody gives a shit anymore, it was easy! Everybody likes free money.

No shit. What's another trillion to either party? Bi-partisan support! The system is working again!

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by panerd

No shit. What's another trillion to either party? Bi-partisan support! The system is working again!

It's easier to learn to fiddle than to argue about which brand of fiddle to purchase.

[JPhillips]

You do realize this deal reduces the deficit, right?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You do realize this deal reduces the deficit, right?

No, it doesn't. Unless you count relatively small cuts in proposed scheduled increases to be a reduction. It's a serious violation of the promises made only recently.

Budget deal a step backward: Opposing view