The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

His point I imagine (although I'm sure he'll deny it) is that we need a system where the costs aren't arbitrarily defined by the insurance companies and subject to so much price fluctuation based just on where you're located.

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

His point I imagine (although I'm sure he'll deny it) is that we need a system where the costs aren't arbitrarily defined by the insurance companies and subject to so much price fluctuation based just on where you're located.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

His point I imagine (although I'm sure he'll deny it) is that we need a system where the costs aren't arbitrarily defined by the insurance companies and subject to so much price fluctuation based just on where you're located.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That would be a good start.

Another convert to the single-payer camp, then?

[ISiddiqui]

Well... that was unexpected.

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

[DaddyTorgo]

Mind=blown.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

His point I imagine (although I'm sure he'll deny it) is that we need a system where the costs aren't arbitrarily defined by the insurance companies and subject to so much price fluctuation based just on where you're located.

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

[JPhillips]

WTF?

A newly published U.S. Army regulation says a service member can be referred to as a “Negro” when describing “black or African American” personnel. The Army confirmed the language is contained in the October 22 “Army Command Policy,” known as regulation AR 600-20. The regulation is periodically updated but the Army could not say how recently the word was added to the document.

In a lengthy section of the document describing “race and ethnic code definitions,” the regulation states under the category “Black or African American” that would include, “A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Terms such as “Haitian” or “Negro” can be used in addition to “Black” or “African American”.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

WTF?

It was also used on the 2010 Census.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

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

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.

[thesloppy]

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.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

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

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

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.

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.

[Easy Mac]

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.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

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.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

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

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

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.

[JPhillips]

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.

[Thomkal]

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

[stevew]

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

[tarcone]

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?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by tarcone

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.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by tarcone

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?

So a lot like the last 4 years?

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

So a lot like the last 4 years?

SI

yes

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by tarcone

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?

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.

[flere-imsaho]

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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?

[Edward64]

"All-in" is more than firing bullets from hundreds of miles away.

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

The American presence at Al-Dhafra, which the Pentagon has not publicly acknowledged, is a vital part of the U.S.-led campaign against Islamic State militants: The base’s twin runways have launched more strike aircraft — including the Air Force’s most-sophisticated warplane, the F-22 Raptor — than any other military facility in the region.

On many nights, the American planes are accompanied by a wave of F-16 Fighting Falcons operated by the UAE’s air force. After the U.S. military, Emirati fighters have conducted more missions against the Islamic State since the air war began than any other member of the multinational coalition, often striking targets that are just as difficult and dangerous as those attacked by the Americans.
:
“The UAE has gone all-in,” said Anthony Zinni, a former commander of all U.S. forces in the Middle East. As U.S. ties with long-standing allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia have frayed, and Egypt and Jordan contend with domestic challenges, the UAE now occupies a unique position in the region. “It’s the strongest relationship that the United States has in the Arab world today,” Zinni said.
:
“We’re different from our neighbors,” said Yousef al-Otaiba, the UAE ambassador in Washington, who noted that his country has participated in every major U.S.-led coalition since the 1991 Persian Gulf War — save for the 2003 invasion of Iraq — joining Americans in Somalia, Kosovo, Libya and Afghanistan in addition to the ongoing air campaign against the Islamic State. “We’re your best friends in this part of the world,” he said.

The alliance extends beyond air power. Jebel Ali, the deep-water harbor near the city of Dubai, is the U.S. Navy’s busiest overseas port of call. The UAE kept elite ground troops in Afghanistan for 11 years, conducting raids and training Afghan commandos in cooperation with U.S. Special Operations forces.

The close relationship has alarmed some in Washington and the Middle East, but the concern does not come from the usual quarters. The government of Israel and its supporters in the United States have been privately in favor of the UAE’s military buildup because of shared anxiety about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the growing influence of Islamists in the Arab world. Instead, the critics include U.S. and Arab officials who prefer a more conciliatory approach toward Islamists and Iran. “They want to be your friends,” a senior official of an influential Arab nation said of the UAE, “because they want to pull you into their fights.”

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

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.

[Edward64]

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

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama said on Sunday that he will pursue an executive order on immigration reform and that congressional Republicans can take further action if they so please.

"I'm going to do what I can do through executive action," Obama said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "It's not going to be everything that needs to get done. And it will take time to put that in place."

"And in the interim, the minute they pass a bill that addresses the problems of immigration reform, I will sign it and it supersedes whatever actions I take," the president continued. "I'm encouraging them."

Obama laid blame for his forthcoming executive order at the feet of House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) for failing to allow a vote on the comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed with a bipartisan majority in the Senate.

"I preside over a process in which the Senate produced a bipartisan bill. I then said to John Boehner, 'John, let's get this passed through the House,'" Obama told "Face the Nation" host Bob Scheiffer. "For a year, I stood back and let him work on this. He decided not to call the Senate bill and he couldn't produce his own bill. And I told him at the time, 'John, if you don't do it, I've got legal authority to make improvements on the system. I prefer to see it done through Congress, but every day that I wait we're misallocating resources, we're deporting people that don't need to be deported.'"

The president said he then laid out his final deadline for House Republicans. "If you can't get it done before the end of the year, I'm going to have to take the steps that I can to improve the system," he said he told Boehner.

Boehner has announced "there will be no chance for immigration reform" if the president pursues executive action.

"When you play with matches, you take the risk of burning yourself. And he's going to burn himself if he continues to go down this path," Boehner said on Thursday

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by rowech

I'm sure that's because it's a mandate?

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.

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.

Now there you're kidding yourself.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

[flere-imsaho]

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.

[cartman]

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

[JPhillips]

Good God the Dems are useless.

Senate Democrats are looking at taking a vote in the lame-duck session that starts today to force approval of TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL pipeline, a party aide said, a move that may bolster Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu’s re-election chances.

The purpose of the vote would be symbolic: To highlight Landrieu’s support for the pipeline and her influence on energy issues in Washington -- a centerpiece of her campaign. A vote in favor of the pipeline may benefit Landrieu in her Dec. 6 runoff election, in which she faces Republican Representative Bill Cassidy.

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.

[Buccaneer]

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

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Good God the Dems are useless.

Fucking idiots. All of them.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

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

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by cartman

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

When I was in Beijing it was horrible...

[Buccaneer]

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

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

When I was in Beijing it was horrible...

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

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

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

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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

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

[Buccaneer]

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.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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

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.

[larrymcg421]

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?