Monday Open Thread [11.10.14]
Howard Dean echos Jason: “Where the hell is the Democratic party?…You’ve got to stand for something if you want to win…You cannot win if you are afraid…You’ve got to strengthen the state parties. It requires discipline, accountability, but it also requires money to go to the state parties and we have to trust the state parties.”
Obama endorses FCC reclassification of internet providers. This is a big step toward net neutrality and will piss off some very large corporations and trigger an even bigger flood of PAC money.
Why does the average person who is not into politics think there isn’t much difference between the parties ? Because there isn’t. Until Democrats start acting like Democrats and govern like Democrats including providing real support for working people including Union workers November will become a normal occurrence
Looking for reasons why you lost. Here is the Architect of Obama Care admitting the language of the ACA was purposely written to deceive the electorate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G790p0LcgbI
Maybe before the next election you guys should try being honest, just state that you are actively promoting socialism.
No, I guess that won’t help you get elected either!
Obamacare is a fine example of Democrats not running or governing like Democrats. Obamacare was a Republican idea, brought back to life from the 90’s GOP proposals.
The Democratic base wants single payer/public option.
You also can’t win on meaningless banking/credit card reform (thanks Carper), either.
Want to charge up the base? Throw a banker in jail.
The GOP wants socialism, too. Its corporate socialism. So lets not kid ourselves, ok?
Open the link, Rusty, watch the video, and then see why this statement….
“the language of the ACA was purposely written to deceive the electorate.”
is false…
It makes Republicans look like the stupidest doofus in town, to even bring this up… Try opening your emails first Rusty, before embarrassing you and your party.
“”You’ve got to strengthen the state parties. It requires discipline, accountability, but it also requires money to go to the state parties and we have to trust the state parties,”
We’re screwed.
How is the ACA socialism? Can you explain without slogans? Saying people have to have insurance is individual responsibility. I thought you people wanted that? Socialism is when CEO’s serve on each others boards determining each others 10 figure bonuses while denying 10 cent raises to the front line workers who generate the wealth!!!
But Rusty Dills, what about the Socialist unborn? Never to know the touch of a Catholic priest, never to see it’s mother die from lack of healthcare, never to know the contempt and hatred of the Republican party????? But perhaps to realize this is but one election and that conservative will ultimately be rejected by America, at least the non brain dead ones that is.
Shot Spotter works:
The progressive wing of the party needs to hijack the party in order to take the power back from the Corporate dens that have taken over the party. Corporate Dems really are the same as Republicans and as long as they control the party, this past November will be a regular occurance. Its time the progressives pulled out there swords and well, off with their heads.
The ACA was poorly written & i don’t think the people who voted for it, read it!
Certain things I agree with, but now we are paying a price. The rates went up, everyone in the insurance industry said it, before the ACA went into effect. It needs to be overhauled, PERIOD! And don’t say it’s the Republicans fault. It’s the Governments fault and we all voted them in.
@Anonymous: It’s the Republicans fault.
@puck: Yes, that arrest definitely proves Shot Spotter is worth the cost. That’s one thug who won’t shoot anyone else in the lower leg!
@Geezer: hmmm…. my sarcasm detector is going off, but for the life of me I can’t figure out what you are bitching about this time.
Through the miracle of Shot Spotter, we arrested and might jail a shooter who otherwise would have gone unapprehended.
For this to be a good use of the city’s limited resources, we must assume that the city has a finite supply of bad actors, and that once we arrest them all, peace will reign. I disagree with that assumption.
SussexAnon says: “Obamacare was a Republican idea, brought back to life from the 90′s GOP proposals.”
There is a HUGE difference between the Heritage Foundation’s proposal and what came out in the ACA. Just because they both contain the word “mandate” does not mean they are the same thing.
Define “HUGE.”
Have you read the Heritage Foundation’s plan on health care that is supposed to be the “template” for ACA?
Not lately, so please define “HUGE.”
Heritage Foundation plan stated that the mandate would be for “catastrophic care” (similar to Liability auto insurance) – it protects you from others; ACA mandates that everyone have “general” Health Insurance (the Collision plan) – covers things you do to yourself.
Heritage Foundation’s plan proposed a change to the tax code to incentivize buying insurance (tax breaks); ACA penalizes you if you don’t.
Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance. Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seatbelts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement. This mandate is based on two important principles. First, that health care protection is a responsibility of individuals, not businesses. Thus to the extent that anybody should be required to provide coverage to a family, the household mandate assumes that it is t h e family that carries the first responsibility. Second, it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection. If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not h e has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services – even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab. A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract. Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of health care. But on the other hand, each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself.
Change the tax treatment of health care. The plan would treat all health care benefits provided by employers as taxable income to the employee. Thus it would end the personal income tax exclusion for company-based health plans. But the plan would then provide above-the-line tax credits directly to households to protect them from the unreasonable financial impact of health insurance or out-of-pocket health costs. Specifically, a 20 percent credit would be provided for all insurance purchases that met basic requirements (such as covering catastrophic health costs). In addition, a steeply rising credit would be available for out-of-pocket health care spending by a family. This credit is related to health care costs as a percentage of family income.
This change in the tax code would have a very significant impact on the health care market. By shifting the tax benefits away from employer-provided services and to the individual, the plan would give the same tax incentives for all health care coverage regardless of the type of employment of the family earners. Thus the worker in a small business or one who is self-employed would have the same tax benefits for health care as the employee in a Fortune 500 company. Not only would this provide a powerful incentive for insurance to those who currently have no such incentive, but it also would allow households to shop around for the best plan to meet their needs.
If you want to refresh your understanding of the Heritage Foundation’s plan:
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/assuring-affordable-health-care-for-all-americans
Doesn’t sound HUGE to me. Tax breaks aren’t worth much unless you pay a lot in taxes, and the Heritage folks never had to make the books balance.
If I have this straight, you’re whining because you have to pay taxes. Boo hoo.
That’s the problem, you don’t have “this straight”.
SussexAnon said Obamacare was a “Republican idea” which is simply not true. I provided a link in addition to some excerpts of the “republican idea” and nowhere in there is there any similarity to ACA.
Just because you choose to gloss over the “mandate” part of it and attack the tax breaks doesn’t justify anything.
Just because you choose to attack the mandate and gloss over the fact that tax breaks don’t matter to the people who lack insurance doesn’t justify anything, either.
It is a Republican idea. The modifications in the Heritage plan were mostly introduced by Mitt Romney, a Republican last time I checked, in adopting the plan for Massachusetts.
I gather you’re a libertarian. The issues you are focused on are not the bulk of the law, they’re just parts that offend you because you feel no responsibility to others and, as I said before, you’re basically whining about having to pay taxes to support others. Boo hoo.
Why all this fighting over the ACA, it’s clear D’s romped last Tuesday at the polls with all the support for this law. It’s not like someone lost power in Washington because they passed poorly written legislation and screwed up the implementation, too. Seriously, it’s not like R’s are going to use this screw-up against D’s for years to come, this is Obama’s signature legislation, his legacy. You act like someone has squandered everything.
Once again, you’re wrong.
1. The entire argument that ACA was a Republican idea was the fact that it contained a Mandate – And as I have pointed out from the text of the Heritage Foundation’s plan, the mandates simply aren’t the same.
2. If you bothered to read Romney’s original bills, you would see that he too only designated “catastrophic care” mandate (like the HF plan), not the full coverage that the Democratic Majority Mass. Legislature proposed. Additionally, he vetoed 8 provisions of the Democrat’s Law which they, in turn by majority, overruled 6.
“The entire argument that ACA was a Republican idea was the fact that it contained a Mandate”
That is not the entire argument. The entire argument is that we have this contraption instead of single-payer — Medicare for all — because you people are antagonistic toward paying your taxes.
The Democratic idea is single payer. Any other proposal is you people putting your libertarian principles ahead of results. The Democratic error was in thinking that starting from a Republican plan would somehow appease Republicans.
Again, these words: “Obamacare was a Republican idea, brought back to life from the 90′s GOP proposals.”
Nothing about ACA comes from the “90’s GOP proposals” except for the loosely termed mandate.
And speaking of taxes, who do you think benefits more, the Health Insurance industry or the consumer?
Glad to know you favor corporate welfare though.
Virtually everything except the mandate comes from the idea of keeping for-profit insurance companies as players in the system. From where we stand, the differences beyond that are minimal.
If you want an efficient system, adopt single-payer. Almost every other country manages it quite well. American exceptionalism!
No, we don’t favor corporate welfare. We favor a single-payer system, but we favor Obamacare to your Randian fantasies.
I don’t have to look any further than the dealing of my fellow veterans and their experiences with the VA to know that single-payer is not the answer.
As I said, every other country can do it, but we can’t. ‘Murica, fuck yeah!
We The People have spoken…
You mean 38% of the people have spoken. Enjoy your two years.
Wait, we really want the government to run our healthcare system?? SS is almost nothing, Fannie may, freddie mac, we could go on and on. Term limits, get some of these free loaders out of politics!
Crazy, huh anon?
There are Veterans contemplating suicide over the lack of care from government run healthcare, and these guys want to jump in head-first.
It works in every other industrialized country. Single payer isn’t revolutionary. Anon said one this right though: “get some of these free loaders out of politics!” I agree.
“SS is almost nothing” simply not true and if the earnings cap was adjusted up a few percent SS would be in fat cat city. Even Republican-light Demcorats like John Carney say it, so it must be true.
“Fannie may, freddie mac” It was actually Countrywide Mortgage and BofA made loans that wrecked the economy, but don’t let fact cloud your thinking.
“Government is bad at doing stuff” is a self fulfilling prophecy when you elect people who hate government and are hell bent on wrecking shit.
Yeah, and most industrialized countries also don’t allow GMOs in their food (or at least advertise it), so healthcare is cheaper and less of a burden on the taxpayer because people are healthier.
Or something like that. 😉
:tinfoilhat:
Jason330: Making headway, we agree that there are “freeloaders in politics”. I do enjoy other points of view, that’s why I keep reading DE Liberal;)
“SS is almost nothing,”
No, you’re mistaking Social Security for your intelligence level. Social Security is good for more than 20 more years, and once we do the obvious and remove the earnings cap, will be funded into the 2070s.
“There are Veterans contemplating suicide over the lack of care from government run healthcare, and these guys want to jump in head-first.”
In a couple of sunbelt cities with more retirees than health-care facilities for them. The less you know, the more you like conservatives and Republicans.
Google bad loans made by non regulated lending agencies
22 Suicides per day by latest VA statistics. Many while waiting for help.
As a Veteran, I’m a well aware of what my fellow Vets have to suffer through.
We sure can fund the wars though
VA issues aren’t “funding” related.
Just an example: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/07/25/a_lack_of_funding_isnt_the_vas_problem_123447.html