Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... Democrats and liberals need to be smart enough to realize that just voting for a savior isn't going to work. To think that it will, is to be as dumb as those who vote Republican.

I don't want a savior. I want a fighter!

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I don't want a savior. I want a fighter!

Well then, you have to join his or her fight. You can't just vote and assume (s)he will take it from there. No politician is a fighter for justice who does not have an army of citizens fighting with him or her, all the time.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It depends where you live. If you live in a swing state, then progressive voters need to consider appointments to the Supreme Court, and the power of the executive to act and to block the worst damages the GOP can do.

I recommend against assuming that more damage will benefit the liberals or Democrats. More likely, our sinking, banana republic will be increasingly seen as the new normal, just as it has increasingly been ever since Reagan was put in. The right-wing ideology will be even-more entrenched than it is now, and the pundits will convince the people and their politicians of whatever party to support this status quo. Progressive winds will never be strong enough again to blow over this monolith. No, it's important to vote out Republicans whenever and wherever possible. They put up all the blocks, and the blockheads.

That is the ONLY path forward to progress. Unless and until they are out of the way, we have ZERO chance of moving up and forward from the current moderate, complicit, incompetent Democrats to real progressive leadership and citizenship. JOB ONE is GETTING RID OF REPUBLICANS. We have a long road ahead of us to accomplish this vital and absolutely necessary national goal.

Reagan is a nearly perfect model. He took positions, fought to get them accepted, and fought some more to get his programs passed. Most important, he changed the narrative. Offering GOP-Lite Democrats only reinforces their narrative ... that liberalism is dead.

Love him or hate him, Jim Webb is taking stand. EW is cut from the same cloth. Hillary, is definitely not.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

As the wit noted, ASSUME makes an ASS of U and ME.

True; the Democrats should not assume they are smart enough to vote the right way; they are not.

People are not stupid. They are pissed. Do you expect them to support you, if you specifically attack the source of their livelihood without offering a viable, preferably better alternative? All these rural folks make their livings doing things the EPA is trying to limit or ban outright: coal mining, ranching and dairy farming, fertilizer-based farming, fracking, the list is long. What do you expect? They will not lie down and die to save the planet - even if they think it's a risk, which most don't.

No, they are pitifully stupid. They gave the worst possible candidate enough votes so he could cheat his way into office, twice, even after he started an unnecessary war that killed and crippled thousands of our own people. The people VOTED for that, and knowingly so. The case against Bush's war was abundantly made, by authors and politicians alike. The people STUPIDLY voted for him anyway. After that debacle, I became less active in the Green Party than I had been, which was considerable (I was even an elected county official). I knew after that, that the people were not smart enough to embrace really intelligent and caring candidates. Pissed? Then why the bleep do they vote against themselves?

And global warming is a known fact; if people are too dumb to see that solar and wind are long overdue, and that they create jobs, that is just stupid. If they don't think it is risky to heat up the planet, and suffer the consequences to their own lands, and you're right many don't, then they are as ignorant and stupid as I say they are. And anyway there are enough non-rural folks and potential moderates to swing the election, if they are smart enough to vote, and to vote the right way. Democrats don't need North Dakota and West Virginia and places like that to win elections. It's the people in Wisconsin and Ohio and places like that who have gone to the devil, and whose legislative districts have been gerrymandered.

When you offer nothing, and try to take away something ... anything, you lose. For example, if AGW is an issue that can't be ignored, then it's up to the "takers" to find a way to make the ones having to sacrifice for the common good, fully whole. For the coal miners, well-paid jobs doing reclamation work are a good and viable option. Now, find similar options for other similarly affected rural blue-collar workers in all those other dying industries, and fight to get them funded.

Fight for them, and they'll vote for you.

I don't disagree with you on such proposals. Would the voters be smart enough to resist all the short-sighted Republican propaganda that would be directed against these proposals, especially if they require any government regulation or tax money? The ideology would likely defeat them in rural states. ON the other hand, do you assume that a moderate like Hillary Clinton elected by blue states would be unwilling to make such proposals, if brought to her attention and concern?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I won't vote for Hillary. I find her nearly as bad as the average GOPper, but worse in one way. Having her in office is a GOP fig-leaf they can use to do as much damage as they wish. BHO tried to be reasonable. After the first off-year election, he should have taken off the gloves, and made the issues high-contrast. Instead, he waffled, and got the blame anyway.

So what's the benefit of voting for the lesser evil, if it serves the interests of greater evil?

In the primary, I'd vote for Warren over Clinton in a heartbeat (I voted Clinton over Obama in 2008), but I would consider myself damn stupid to stay home for the general because people have picked up this meme that Clinton is just less evil - that's like saying catching a cold is just a tad less evil than being shot in the head with a .45 at close range.

I think this is how Progressives get a Bush or a Ray-gun for 8 years. I don't have that many years left, and I'll be damn if I'm going to sit back and watch a GOP henchman take us into stupid wars, overturn whatever social value gains that have been made, and set us up for another economic disaster. The fact that people don't grasp how quickly and inevitable that will happen is just another sign of Americans' generally shared attention deficit disorder.

Oh, and MAYBE Clinton might suck up to corporate interest more than Obama, but I'm pretty damn sure she would not have fallen into the trap of assuming any GOP monstrosity could be reasonable or gave a shit about the country - if elected in 2008, I think she'd have a trophy case of hanging balls, the ones that come in pairs, and I would be way okay with that.

In addition to not having a snowball's chance, Webb's type of populism leans a tad too much to the Right for me.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Reagan is a nearly perfect model. He took positions, fought to get them accepted, and fought some more to get his programs passed. Most important, he changed the narrative. Offering GOP-Lite Democrats only reinforces their narrative ... that liberalism is dead.

Who is going to "offer" non-GOP lite Democratic candidates? Some political pols in smoke-filled rooms? No, the people have to be smart enough, and the candidates have to be available.

Love him or hate him, Jim Webb is taking stand. EW is cut from the same cloth. Hillary, is definitely not.

I would vote for EW if she runs, if I could, and Bernie too; probably not Jim Webb. I don't know if I would vote for Hillary if nominated; I still tend to vote Green. But if I lived in FL, NV, OH or VA, I might very well vote for Hillary, if she's the nominee. And as playwrite pointed out, sometimes she IS a fighter for the right things. But she will need the wind at her back if she becomes president. Otherwise, forget it. And forget even Elizabeth Warren; she won't deliver either without wind at her back. She will wobble like Obama does, without that wind.

Jim Webb; maybe not. Jimmy Webb yes!

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

In all, this is probably the greatest political miscalculation of my lifetime. Democrats should have been expecting a triumphant demographic destiny, but they traded it for some insurance company campaign contributions that never really materialized.

What would you have rather had the Dems do?

Originally Posted by playwrite

What's missing here is given the likely low incomes of most Millies in their 20s, under the ACA their monthly premiums are probable less than the cost of a dinner and a movie; for many, they are paying nothing. Why not bump up to a Silver or even a Gold plan with less co-pays and deductible if the differential in premium is the cost of a 6-pack? Unlike many of their elders, Millies have generally not been made dumb by idiotic ideology.

If Millies as a whole do end up making that tradeoff then more power to them. Typically, I could understand why a typical young person would take the six-pack--it gives you a nice buzz in the now. Planning for the unknown usually isn't sexy.

Originally Posted by playwrite

In the primary, I'd vote for Warren over Clinton in a heartbeat (I voted Clinton over Obama in 2008), but I would consider myself damn stupid to stay home for the general because people have picked up this meme that Clinton is just less evil - that's like saying catching a cold is just a tad less evil than being shot in the head with a .45 at close range.

Clinton has two major negatives:

1. She rallies the GOP faithful just by breathing air. They see her as the Socialist Mother
2. She triangulates, but is perceived as being far left ... hence the center moves right when she's in the picture.

Originally Posted by PW ...

I think this is how Progressives get a Bush or a Ray-gun for 8 years. I don't have that many years left, and I'll be damn if I'm going to sit back and watch a GOP henchman take us into stupid wars, overturn whatever social value gains that have been made, and set us up for another economic disaster. The fact that people don't grasp how quickly and inevitable that will happen is just another sign of Americans' generally shared attention deficit disorder.

Apparently, we can't attain escape velocity carrying the baggage we're currently carrying. That's due in large part to the post-modern values structure, where conflict is shunned, and hugs all around. After the last 6 years of olive branches from the let and arrows from the right, we need a reset. Hillary isn't it.

Originally Posted by PW ...

Oh, and MAYBE Clinton might suck up to corporate interest more than Obama, but I'm pretty damn sure she would not have fallen into the trap of assuming any GOP monstrosity could be reasonable or gave a shit about the country - if elected in 2008, I think she'd have a trophy case of hanging balls, the ones that come in pairs, and I would be way okay with that.

Here, we'll just have to disagree. If there would have been a trophy case, it would have been full of personal triumphs. I expected another round of Clintonian triangulating, which was reason enough to avoid her.

Originally Posted by PW ...

In addition to not having a snowball's chance, Webb's type of populism leans a tad too much to the Right for me.

Webb is very complex, and not totally to my liking either. He's much less a hawk than Hillary, though certainly not a dove in the true sense. In office, I doubt he would commit troops lightly, and only in a manner that guarantees quick success. On the doplomatic front, I suspect he would be tough as nails ... a good counter to Putin and the Chinese. His domestic policy is harder to define, but he would connect with the Appalachian blue collars, and that's a net plus. I also agree that he has no chance, but he serves a valuable purpose inserting a new spine into the party.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Who is going to "offer" non-GOP lite Democratic candidates? Some political pols in smoke-filled rooms? No, the people have to be smart enough, and the candidates have to be available.

The party is squishy and scared, so it "plays safe" to no one's benefit. Even the 2014 rout seems to be a ho-hum event for the party insiders. This is the primary reason I turned my back on the Democrats. They stand for nothing but niche social issues. That isn't even working on the tactical level anymore. They have no stomach for taking-on the PTB, and the electorate knows it.

So Democratic candidates are selected by a small number representing the niche groups, and even they wonder why do little gets done.

Originally Posted by Eric ...

I would vote for EW if she runs, if I could, and Bernie too; probably not Jim Webb. I don't know if I would vote for Hillary if nominated; I still tend to vote Green. But if I lived in FL, NV, OH or VA, I might very well vote for Hillary, if she's the nominee. And as playwrite pointed out, sometimes she IS a fighter for the right things. But she will need the wind at her back if she becomes president. Otherwise, forget it. And forget even Elizabeth Warren; she won't deliver either without wind at her back. She will wobble like Obama does, without that wind.

Jim Webb; maybe not. Jimmy Webb yes!

Hillary's prime constituency is Hillary. I don't see her as a net-positive. Warts and all, I do see Webb that way.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

What would you have rather had the Dems do?

Well they started off with a middle-right plan and negotiated it further right. They should have offered a liberal plan and negotiated that to the middle. In short, we don't need Democrats who bring in corporate lobbyists to write reform bills. We already have politicians like that, and we call those guys Republicans.

At the very least, a public option was a popular provision among voters, and it makes a LOT of sense in terms of efficiency & competition. The ONLY reason to leave it out would be to appease the insurance companies, so the president and party should have called out the jerks like Ben Nelson about that fact. Failure to include a public option also institutionalizes the fact that the "left wing" party is forcing us to buy a private product from a private, for-profit company.

But they couldn't, because they thought the insurance companies would be eternally grateful and lavish them with campaign contributions. In reality, they were grateful for about six weeks, until the Republicans said "we can get you even more."

And it really doesn't matter how much public largess the Democrats offer Wall Street - because we all know the GOP is willing to go further and sell out even harder.

We're still projected to hit 20% of GDP spent on healthcare by 2022 and other than alientating a bunch of voters, we haven't done anything to address the fact that our health spending has outpaced GDP growth for ~50 years.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Well they started off with a middle-right plan and negotiated it further right. They should have offered a liberal plan and negotiated that to the middle. In short, we don't need Democrats who bring in corporate lobbyists to write reform bills. We already have politicians like that, and we call those guys Republicans.

At the very least, a public option was a popular provision among voters, and it makes a LOT of sense in terms of efficiency & competition. The ONLY reason to leave it out would be to appease the insurance companies, so the president and party should have called out the jerks like Ben Nelson about that fact. Failure to include a public option also institutionalizes the fact that the "left wing" party is forcing us to buy a private product from a private, for-profit company.

But they couldn't, because they thought the insurance companies would be eternally grateful and lavish them with campaign contributions. In reality, they were grateful for about six weeks, until the Republicans said "we can get you even more."

And it really doesn't matter how much public largess the Democrats offer Wall Street - because we all know the GOP is willing to go further and sell out even harder.

We're still projected to hit 20% of GDP spent on healthcare by 2022 and other than alientating a bunch of voters, we haven't done anything to address the fact that our health spending has outpaced GDP growth for ~50 years.

I could have written this. I wish I had.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The party is squishy and scared, so it "plays safe" to no one's benefit. Even the 2014 rout seems to be a ho-hum event for the party insiders. This is the primary reason I turned my back on the Democrats. They stand for nothing but niche social issues. That isn't even working on the tactical level anymore. They have no stomach for taking-on the PTB, and the electorate knows it.

So Democratic candidates are selected by a small number representing the niche groups, and even they wonder why do little gets done.



Hillary's prime constituency is Hillary. I don't see her as a net-positive. Warts and all, I do see Webb that way.

Indeed. From what I understand Steve Israel aka Doctor Doom has been tapped to head the DCCC fundraising again. Two more years of excuses for not winning competitive seats because of his insistance of running Wall Street friendly shills in working class districts. It's like saying ''Vote for us, we'll sell you out too, just for less, and vote against whatever cultural/social issues matter to you along the way.''

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Well they started off with a middle-right plan and negotiated it further right. They should have offered a liberal plan and negotiated that to the middle. In short, we don't need Democrats who bring in corporate lobbyists to write reform bills. We already have politicians like that, and we call those guys Republicans.

At the very least, a public option was a popular provision among voters, and it makes a LOT of sense in terms of efficiency & competition. The ONLY reason to leave it out would be to appease the insurance companies, so the president and party should have called out the jerks like Ben Nelson about that fact. Failure to include a public option also institutionalizes the fact that the "left wing" party is forcing us to buy a private product from a private, for-profit company.

But they couldn't, because they thought the insurance companies would be eternally grateful and lavish them with campaign contributions. In reality, they were grateful for about six weeks, until the Republicans said "we can get you even more."

And it really doesn't matter how much public largess the Democrats offer Wall Street - because we all know the GOP is willing to go further and sell out even harder.

We're still projected to hit 20% of GDP spent on healthcare by 2022 and other than alientating a bunch of voters, we haven't done anything to address the fact that our health spending has outpaced GDP growth for ~50 years.

It risks pushing young people into the arms of sociopathic Libertarians who will push for gutting Medicare as an act of vengeance on the old by the young.

I just helped a friend sign up through the Obamacare website.
She qualified for a hefty tax credit, but she'll be getting no benefits unless she meets the gigantic deductible that she can't afford to pay anyway. This was the only plan on the exchange that her budget could cover.
Meanwhile the insurance company collects corporate welfare. What a nifty system.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

I just helped a friend sign up through the Obamacare website.
She qualified for a hefty tax credit, but she'll be getting no benefits unless she meets the gigantic deductible that she can't afford to pay anyway. This was the only plan on the exchange that her budget could cover.
Meanwhile the insurance company collects corporate welfare. What a nifty system.

Yup, that sounds like my experience. So my wife and I are "insured" with a $12,000 OOP family maximum.

And that's after paying out close to $600/month (between me and the government) for a mid-range silver plan from the only halfway reputable insurer on the list.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Yup, that sounds like my experience. So my wife and I are "insured" with a $12,000 OOP family maximum.

And that's after paying out close to $600/month (between me and the government) for a mid-range silver plan from the only halfway reputable insurer on the list.

Yeah it looked like $6K was the average deductible for plans available to low income individuals. Even though the gov is shelling out about $300 per month for the "coverage."
Now I finally understand. I don't know which idiot thought up this shit.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Yeah it looked like $6K was the average deductible for plans available to low income individuals. Even though the gov is shelling out about $300 per month for the "coverage."
Now I finally understand. I don't know which idiot thought up this shit.

An insurance lobbyist convinced the Democrats it would be a great way to get votes and campaign donations.

But the voters aren't that dumb, and the campaign donations only went to Republicans who promised to make the scam even better.

Probably one of the worst political decisions I've seen in my lifetime.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

What would you have rather had the Dems do?

One can only wonder how the populace would have responded, had "Medicare for All" been enacted, instead of "Obamacare."

That, along with some rational purchasing policy concerning high volume discounting from pharmacy, medical equipment and insurance vendors, could have brought us into the Twenty-First Century, and simply amazed most of our citizens.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

An insurance lobbyist convinced the Democrats it would be a great way to get votes and campaign donations.

But the voters aren't that dumb, and the campaign donations only went to Republicans who promised to make the scam even better.

Probably one of the worst political decisions I've seen in my lifetime.

The only thing I'll add here is that my newly insured friend is one of those crazy vegan hippies who uses alternative medicine and had her baby at home (an organic farm) with a midwife.
Thanks to those tax credits, which go straight to the insurance company, she is now more of a "burden to the system" than she ever was before.
But she had to sign up for this shit or face a tax penalty that she also couldn't afford.

I see we're back to these unsupported anecdotes from the Right and pipe dreams from the Left.

Not one, two or three but EVERY ACA 'horror story' has been thoroughly debunked or the perpetrator has slinked off.

John, we've been through this ad nauseum before. First, you're in one of the most active GOP-controlled states trying to derail the ACA. They haven't done a damn thing to make their insurers competitive in any way in your state. That's not the ACA's fault; rather, that's the mean morons in your state electing mean morons to run the state into the ground - and you know that. Now get off your ass and try doing something about that.

Second, you're mum on what YOU are paying. Why do you care what the govt is subsidizing? Weird.

Third, with the Silver plans' 70% coverage, your maximum OPP of $6K would mean you would be having a minimum of $20K in health costs, and from there, EVERYTHING else would be covered. You really believe you're going to have $20K in health cost every year??? Or do you really believe you will be hitting the 'sour spot' of just $20K and not get into a dollar more that would be 100% covered and thereby rapidly beginning to lower your % share of the coverage.

Fourth, with the ACA's mandatory Medical Lost Ratio, the insurers are greatly limited, for the first time, on what profits they can make. Medical care is extremely expensive; that's what makes insurance expensive. The ACA has now made it possible for 10s of millions of people to get insurance/care. It's not Nirvana but it has been greatly beneficial.

And that leads to the critics on the Left. This may be news to you but try to get this through your head -

THERE WILL NEVER BE SINGLE PAYER OR EVEN A PUBLIC OPTION IN YOUR LIFETIME UNLESS BOTH THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE CONGRESS IS NOT ONLY IN THE HANDS OF THE DEMOCRATS BUT PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS. If you want to make that happen, the only way is through the elections process; everything else is just masturbating.


In the interim, getting it done, baby, getting it done for millions of Americans -

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/op...pgtype=article

An Ode to Obamacare

Let’s sing the praises of Obamacare for a minute.

Get back here! I said just for a minute. O.K., it’s not the tidiest law in history. You’re probably still sulking because you wanted something simple and rational, like a single-payer plan. But it’s here, and about 10 million people have health coverage who didn’t have it before.

Plus, it’s apparently working better than any of us imagined. Here is how great the Affordable Care Act is doing: The Supreme Court is about to hear a challenge to the law, filed on behalf of four Virginia plaintiffs, who claim to have suffered grievous harm by being forced to either buy health coverage or pay a penalty. Lately, reporters have been trying to track down this quartet of pain, and discovered they are:

— A 64-year-old limo driver who does not seem to be required to do anything under the Affordable Care Act because the cost of even a very cheap health care plan would be more than 8 percent of his income. (People who have to pay more than 8 percent are allowed to just opt out of the whole program and stay blissfully uninsured.) Also, he’s a Vietnam veteran and thus presumably eligible for free veteran’s health care, making the whole discussion even more irrelevant.

— A 63-year old man in Virginia Beach who would apparently have been eligible for stupendous savings on health insurance under the new law. And who is also a veteran.

— A woman who listed her address as a motel where she hasn’t been staying since late 2013. And wherever she is, she probably wouldn’t have any Obamacare problems because of the 8 percent rule.

— A 64-year-old woman who seemed to have little or no idea what the case was about. “I don’t like the idea of throwing people off their health insurance,” she told Stephanie Mencimer of Mother Jones.

That plaintiff, an anti-gay rights activist, also told Mencimer that because of previous health problems, she faced insurance costs of $1,500 a month, a vastly higher premium than she’d pay under Obamacare. Also, The Wall Street Journal determined that her annual rate of pay as a substitute teacher was so low she, too, should be off the hook because of the 8 percent rule. Also, she’s about to qualify for Medicare.

Comments by some of the plaintiffs did suggest that they experienced serious pain over the fact that Barack Obama is president. “... When he was elected, he got his Muslim people to vote for him, that’s how he won,” one told Facebook.

“These are the best they can do?” asked David Levine, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law.

Wow. Obamacare must be the greatest law in the history of ... laws.

All this may not be enough to get the case thrown out of court. But still. “It’s not hard, frankly, to find plaintiffs who want to take down the government,” said Neal Katyal, a law professor at Georgetown who formerly served as acting solicitor general. “The fact that these folks apparently couldn’t find four people who actually had a legitimate grievance is very telling.”

The case the Supreme Court is considering would be outrageous even if the plaintiffs were four disabled orphans being threatened with eviction. Linda Greenhouse had a wonderful opinion column recently in The Times explaining the whole thing, but the bottom line is that there is sloppy wording in two Obamacare subclauses, although they’re easy to interpret correctly if you read the entire law. The simplest way to clear things up, of course, would be for Congress to just fix the language.

Pop Quiz: Last week the House of Representatives took up the issue of Obamacare and:

A) Voted to tweak the wording in those two subclauses.

B) Voted to repeal Obamacare for the 56th time.

C) Voted to repeal Obamacare for the 67th time.

D) Decided to let everything putter along the way it is and passed a resolution demanding that Beyoncé be given the Grammy for best album.

The answer is either B or C. Even the House of Representatives seems to have lost count.

Critics said that since Republicans were offering no alternative health plan, their position was wildly irresponsible, particular to those Obamacare-covered citizens. This is totally unfair because it overlooks an important provision of the bill requiring three House committee chairs to get together and come up with what Republican leaders called a “thoughtful replacement strategy.”

We have been looking forward to that thoughtful replacement strategy since the days when everyone was excited about iPads and zombies on TV.

Really, Obamacare is terrific. You can tell by looking at the people who are against it.

Yeah that's it. We're both lying. About the exact same results.
That's really all you've got, playdude?

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Yeah that's it. We're both lying. About the exact same results.
That's really all you've got, playdude?

Well then back it up. I'd sure like to see how a policyholder will "be getting no benefits unless she meets the gigantic deductible."

You do understand how insurance works???


Ah, this is where you now slink off.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Well then back it up. I'd sure like to see how a policyholder will "be getting no benefits unless she meets the gigantic deductible."

You do understand how insurance works???


Ah, this is where you now slink off.

It's from a pdf file so I can't include a link:

"You must pay all the costs up to the deductible amount before this plan begins to pay for covered services you use."

P.S. Here's a link but not directly from the provider:
https://www.healthsherpa.com/health-...a-eligible-hmo