The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[BarTopDancer]

A lot of people up here breathing huge sighs of relief. The Dark Age featuring George Bush and John Ashcroft is ov-ah!


/sparks totally non-medicinal joint
//what? my day will come

Except in LA County the DA is still hell bent on busting MM sales.

[The Lovely Mrs. tod]

Except in LA County the DA is still hell bent on busting MM sales.
There are more MM clinics in Los Angeles County than there are Starbucks. I'm thinking it's a tax thing.

[BarTopDancer]

http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/celebrity-pictures-jon-stewart-news-broken.jpg

[Gemini Cricket]

Hmmmm.
Gavin Newsom is out of the CA Governor's Race (http://www.advocate.com/article.aspx?id=101340)

[Gemini Cricket]

Jon Stewart Does Glenn Beck (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/06/jon-stewart-does-glenn-be_n_348129.html)
Funny shtuff.
:D

[BarTopDancer]

Hmmmm.
Gavin Newsom is out of the CA Governor's Race (http://www.advocate.com/article.aspx?id=101340)

Bummer!

[Ghoulish Delight]

Jon Stewart Does Glenn Beck (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/06/jon-stewart-does-glenn-be_n_348129.html)
Funny shtuff.
:D
Hilarious and depressing all at once.

[Gemini Cricket]

Hilarious and depressing all at once.
Yep. I found it completely depressing once I watched one of Beck's infamous segments (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt_G6Lq9jWQ) on YouTube. Jon Stewart nailed it but sadly, Beck's viewership is up. That being said, I think there is something really wrong with Beck. I mean, the man looks like he really needs some therapy and meds.

[scaeagles]

I mean, the man looks like he really needs some therapy and meds.

Have you looked at the pic you have for your avatar?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Have you looked at the pic you have for your avatar?
That's the result of therapy and meds.

ETA: sneaky cricket.

[Gemini Cricket]

Have you looked at the pic you have for your avatar?
Oh yes. And if you dig up a couple of posts somewhere around here, you'll know that I'm already in therapy and on meds.
:D

ETA - Hee hee, Leo, I changed it moments before you posted. lol I attached the pic Leo's referring to.

[€uroMeinke]

SO what's with these "Tea Bag" Republicans and how did they get their name?

(I'd also like to know about the "Blue Dog" Democrats, but that name isn't nearly as provocative.

[innerSpaceman]

I think they are styling themselves as some modern American quasi-revolutionaries equating being really rude at Town Hall meetings with dumping tea in Boston Harbor.

It should get really interesting when some Republican Teabaggers get around to the di rigour culture wars of fighting gay marriage.

[scaeagles]

I think tea baggers came from a description from someone on MSNBC, but I can't be sure. The protesters called were going to what they called tea parties. As far as "blue dog", I think it comes from someone once saying he's ratehr vote for a value dog than a republican. It stuck for relatively conservative dems. not exactly sure about that one, though.

[Alex]

I'm not sure whether "teabagger" was first used as a term referring to the protesters by themselves or their mockers, but the protesters were the first to refer to what they were doing as "teabagging." It was those quotes from various protest supporters that first set Olbermann and Maddow off.

My memory of "blue dog Democrat" is that is a play on the very old "yellow dog Democrat" which was a term to post-Civil War southern Democrats who would never vote Republican (because it was the party of Lincoln) even though policy-wise it was actually the better party for them.

I believe that the "blue" in "blue dog" is a reference to Democrats who feel they've been left out in the cold by their party (meaning it is too liberal on some issues for them).

[Ghoulish Delight]

The term "tea bag" was photographed on a sign at a protest ("Tea Bag the Democrats before they Tea Bag you"). That sign seems to have been aware of the double-meaning. Fox News started using the term "teabagging" shortly after that, seemingly without really understanding the meaning. Salon.com was probably the first to publicly point out the double meaning explicitly, MSNBC followed shortly with the mockery.

re: blue dog, according to wikipedia, "[/URL] "Blue Dog Democrat" is derived from the term "[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Dog_Democrat"]Yellow Dog Democrat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Democrat#cite_note-glossary-5)." Former Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas) Democrat Rep. Pete Geren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Geren) is credited for coining the term, explaining that the members had been "choked blue" by "extreme" Democrats from the left"

[JWBear]

Interesting (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-e-carroll/its-amazing-whats-conside_b_350558.html)

President Obama has proposed a plan that is slightly to the right of President Nixon. It’s a remarkably moderate incremental sort of reform that a reasonable conservative should recognize as his or her own.

[The Lovely Mrs. tod]

Most interesting thing I've read in weeks. And the sanest.

[Alex]

That's very true and more people should realize it. But that Nixon proposal is also a prime example of the continuing form of politics in which the opposition party in congress is resistant to ever giving the president a "win." Since of course it was Democrats who made sure it never went anywhere on the grounds that it wasn't the utopian ideal (Teddy Kennedy eventually came to view his opposition as a major misstep).

Also, though much despised for many good reasons, Nixon was also amazingly progressive by modern Republican standards on many issues. The party changed a lot between him and Reagan, it is an interesting game of alternate history to consider what would have happened to the party if he hadn't crippled his wing of it with his glorious downfall and opened the door to the ascendancy of the religious wing.

[Morrigoon]

Link to the health care bill (http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf)

[Gemini Cricket]

Link to the health care bill (http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf)
Great grains! 1990 pages! Gimme a sec to read it all... ;)

I'm not going to read it all.
:D


You know, just like the rest of the country, lawmakers included...

[Ghoulish Delight]

As demonstrated by Alex earlier, that's hardly 1990 pages of dense reading. It's 1990 pages of double-spaced, 14pt text w/2" margins
(actually, the left margin approaches 3" once you lop off the line numbering and add in the indentation from outline formatting). Still a lot of reading, but well under half of what "1990 pages" sounds like.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Thanks, goonie!

[Alex]

Oh, and insurance companies will be grated IN PERPETUITY (meaning forever) the exclusive right to market the biologic drugs that are the keys to futuristic medicine. No generics of these drugs would ever be available. Such drug regimens are expected to cost between $10,000 and $18,000 per year.

I assume you mean that the evergreening was granted to the pharm companies and not the insurance companies (which would really not make any sense).

That said, does that really deny the drugs to the poor? If there is a requirement to provide the coverage, and controls on how much the insurance can cost (or the gov. subsidizes cost for those who can't afford) and lifetime and annual caps are eliminated doesn't this just mean that almost immediately the insurance companies will immediately begin advocating with the government to change this?

If such drugs are excluded from the required coverage floor then it does seem a problem, though I don't really have a problem with an initial 8-12 year patent so long as evergreening is reasonably difficult.

All this said, I've been out of country and am not remotely up to date. But the specific text of the House version strikes me as so thoroughly irrelevant that I'm not sure I'll find the energy to read it like I did the initial Ways & Means version as a baseline. I'll probably wait until conference if it ever gets that far.

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, Alex, pharm companies. My mistake. I don't think it's yet known what drug coverage will be like under the new plan. But assuming it's even similar to, let's say, my fairly standard Blue Cross coverage .... having no generic drug option means paying a small fortune for prescription drugs. Right now, if I can't get a generic, my insurance will make me pay through the nose for a prescription. My assumptions for the insurance company / big pharma cave-in now underway in Congress are based solely on my self-anecdotal experience.


Gemini Cricket, I'm not going to be so politically correct that I pretend Mr. Obama is not our first, ya know, colored president. I think I made it quite clear that my potential suggestion for his hypothetical bill signing was insensitive. Absolutely it is. So what?

[scaeagles]

Was a certain thread in the parking actually removed from the LoT?

[DreadPirateRoberts]

Was a certain thread in the parking actually removed from the LoT?

The thread title was changed

[scaeagles]

Ah. Got it. Thanks.

[Gemini Cricket]

I didn't think CNN.com could get any lamer but their new format bugs. Huge ads up top that expand for no reason, smaller font, sometimes the stories that are videos are not labeled as videos (I don't like clicking on their videos, they load really slowly) etc. Oh well, I shouldn't be checking these websites so often anyway. It stresses me out.

[Scrooge McSam]

I didn't think CNN.com could get any lamer but their new format bugs.

Completely. I go there less and less

[alphabassettgrrl]

News websites that I've found to be useful:
www.csmonitor.com Headline, normal articles.
www.slate.com More discussion than headlines, but still.

I'll also read foreign newspapers sometimes. You can find a lot of good stuff at www.ipl.org - select what media you like, and you can read newspapers from around the country and around the world.

[BarTopDancer]

So Carrie Prejean was on Larry King last night and said Sarah Palin is her hero.

'nuff said.

[BarTopDancer]

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/political-pictures-protesters-lols-huge.jpg

[Gemini Cricket]

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/political-pictures-protesters-lols-huge.jpg
lol!
:D




Hey, should we start a Random Political Thoughts Thread (Part Three)? We're over 5000 and this thread loads really slow for me.
:confused::confused::confused:

[SacTown Chronic]

That made me laugh, BTD. And for some reason, reminded me of the sign I saw at a rally that called marijuana users "masturbaters". I'm all like, How do they know I like to get high and arm wrestle my dick? Thought that was a secret.

[Gn2Dlnd]

From the AP:
U.S. President Barack Obama, left, shakes hands with Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong before the gala dinner for APEC leaders in Singapore, Saturday, Nov. 14, 2009. (AP Photo/Vincent Thian)

Were the waiters that slow?

[sleepyjeff]

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/political-pictures-protesters-lols-huge.jpg

:snap:

Awesomeness.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Holy hell. Y'all remember that hanged census worker in Kentucky? Seems he staged it all and hung himself!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34130128/ns/us_news-life/

[SacTown Chronic]

In other Kentucky news, that black fella found wrapped in chains at the bottom of a lake...authorities have concluded that he stole more chain than he could swim with.

[Strangler Lewis]

In other Kentucky news, that black fella found wrapped in chains at the bottom of a lake...authorities have concluded that he stole more chain than he could swim with.

Great f*ck, that's funny!

[Alex]

Holy hell. Y'all remember that hanged census worker in Kentucky? Seems he staged it all and hung himself!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34130128/ns/us_news-life/

I like when I end up looking smart, in this case for not jumping on the crucify Michelle Bachmann bandwagon (though she is, of course, thoroughly nuts).

Not saying that was the reason, it [that he was killed to protect illicit drug/alcohol operations] just strikes me as equally likely (and there are many other possibilities) based on the currently available information as it being someone inspired by Michele Bachman's comments on the census itself.

Ultimately, unless there is direct evidence found one way or another, it may not be possible to assign one murder to one cause. And jumping to conclusions isn't particularly useful except as a rhetorical club. It is something to watch and investigate, of course.

And why is it that people who write on themselves to incite outrage in others can never seem to do it properly.

[BarTopDancer]

Google apologizes for results of "Michelle Obama" image searches (http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/25/google.michelle.obama.controversy-2/)

For most of the past week, when someone typed "Michelle Obama" in the popular search engine Google, one of the first images that came up was a picture of the American first lady altered to resemble a monkey.

On Wednesday morning, the racially offensive image appeared to have been removed from any Google Image searches for "Michelle Obama."

Yet they did nothing about the images that came up with Bush as a monkey. Or is it different because Mrs. Obama is the First Lady and not POTUS?

[BarTopDancer]

Holy hell. Y'all remember that hanged census worker in Kentucky? Seems he staged it all and hung himself!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34130128/ns/us_news-life/

Glad you posted this. Read that yesterday, came to post it and got distracted. I've spent a good part of today trying to remember what I was going to post yesterday.

[Alex]

Google has a history of modifying search results when people are intentionally manipulating things to distort results. If the Obama photo reached the top through such means then the action wouldn't necessarily be out of character.

Otherwise, my preference is that Google not tweak search results because somebody is unhappy about the results given.

It is true, though, that calling a black person a monkey has a racial connotation that calling a white person a monkey does not. The Bush comparisons were pretty clearly intended to call him stupid. Since I don't think there is anybody who calls either Obama stupid, I think that further highlights the reason that particular comparison was taken. So it could be argued that the photo is offensive in a different way and therefore different responses are not necessarily hypocritical.

It should be pointed out that while the photo is not returned with a simple Michelle Obama search, it can still be retrieved by other Google image searches.

But still, if the image reached the top organically then it should be left there. Google's algorithms are designed to figure out what people searching actually want and apparently (if it was organic) people want a racist image of Michelle Obama. This is always a problem, though, with automated dot-connecting, remember a few years back when Wal-Marts automated DVD recommending system included "Planet on the Apes" with searches for (I think) Martin Luther King.

[Betty]

But still, if the image reached the top organically then it should be left there. Google's algorithms are designed to figure out what people searching actually want and apparently (if it was organic) people want a racist image of Michelle Obama.

Google bombs only require a large group of people acting together. Take any image, give it a name that doesn't apply, have enough people link to it using that name, and it will rise to the top of the results.

It would require a greater number of people linking to a photo of her with the correct name to overcome that.

I doubt there is a group of people working to link to nice image her that is greater than those working to push the inappropriate photo.

I would usually agree to let Google stay out of the organic manipulation and just let things happen but in this case, I'm not so sure.

[BarTopDancer]

Good points Alex. As always.

[BarTopDancer]

This girl I work with just said "women should support Sarah Palin because we need more strong women like her in our government. She's smart and she's looking out for all women".

[alphabassettgrrl]

I'm surprised at the support for Ms. Palin.

It has been an opportunity, also, to think about solidarity. I look for and find solidarity in different areas- cyclists, women, stagehands... different kinds of understanding, different kind of shared experience. It's interesting.

[BarTopDancer]

At the top of my list of things I look for when looking for solidarity is people who aren't bat fvcking insane.

I'm still disgusted by what she said. That wasn't all of it. She defended the stepping down from governor by saying "She did what was smart. No one liked what she was doing and she needed time to promote her book".

I had to leave the conversation. I walked away saying "so she's just going to quit being POTUS if people don't like her or she wants o do something else? She's bringing nothing but harm to the woman's movement and I will move to Canada if she is elected"

I seriously lost all respect for her today.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I laughed at your comment about walking away from being POTUS if people don't like her. I've asked husband where he'd like to move if we get someone like Palin as POTUS. I hear the Mediterranean is nice. I don't know about Canada- they have winter.

I'm with you on wanting connections among sane people. I wasn't implying you should be friends with this ... nutter. I was just thinking that solidarity was an interesting thing, and pondering where we look for it and where we find it.

[BarTopDancer]

The problem with people saying they'll move to [wherever] if someone they don't like is POTUS is that you can't just up and move to another country. There are Visa's and jobs and places to live that have to be obtained.

I could move to Canada, I have citizenship, a place to live and family throughout.

That said, I seriously doubt Palin is going to get any sort of traction to actually make a legit go at being POTUS.

[scaeagles]

I'm still waiting for Barbara Streisand to move to wherever it was she promised to move.

[JWBear]

I'm still waiting for Barbara Streisand to move to wherever it was she promised to move.

While you are waiting you can check to see if Steven Baldwin (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/01/stephen-baldwin-on-fox-ne_n_110169.html) has moved out of the country.

[Alex]

Barbra.

And she never said it so it will be a long wait (she said, while at the White House for Clinton something like "if Bush wins you won't seem me around here for the next 4 years." "Here" meant the White House. I suspect she was right on that one).

However, if you want commitment, see Robert Altman. He was quite blunt about it. And he had to balls to eventually follow through by dying...eventually.

[JWBear]

Popular conservative blogger officially breaks from the right wing (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35243_Why_I_Parted_Ways_With_The_Right)

...The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff.

I won’t be going over the cliff with them.

[SacTown Chronic]

At the top of my list of things I look for when looking for solidarity is people who aren't bat fvcking insane.I'd be a lonely man if I had your standards.


*looks around*


Oh, hello friends.

[scaeagles]

I stand corrected on Streisand. A snopes link provided some info on others such as Altman and Peral Jam Vedder and Alec Baldwin.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Wonderful. Irvine City Councilman Steven Choi joins in on the idiotic comparisons of health care reform supporters to Hitler and Stalin.

story (http://www.ocregister.com/news/choi-222848-irvine-council.html)

And then when people called him on it, he whines that the criticism of his actions is "partisanship". :rolleyes:

[scaeagles]

And Harry Reid has compared opposition to the current health care reform to opposition of civil rights, abolishing slavery, and giving women the right to vote.

From this (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/07/reid-compares-health-care-reform-foes-slavery-supporters/) link:

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right," Reid said Monday. "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'"

He continued: "When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right.

"When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."

a$$hole.

[Strangler Lewis]

What historical parallels would you prefer where there was arguably a clear choice to upset the status quo by taking the bull by the horns and doing what was (believed to be) right in a broad strike or essentially not doing it at all by delaying, deferring and compromising? Firing the air traffic controllers?

[scaeagles]

Well, as ridiculous as this is and I DO NOT believe that health care supporters are Nazis, it is true that Nazi Germany moved toward government control of health care.

So I suppose it happens to be the intentional choice of those issues to draw specific moral comparison that is problematic and outrageous. I do not believe our medical system to be immoral, yet those things he mentioned clearly were.

[JWBear]

And Harry Reid has compared opposition to the current health care reform to opposition of civil rights, abolishing slavery, and giving women the right to vote.

From this (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/07/reid-compares-health-care-reform-foes-slavery-supporters/) link:

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right," Reid said Monday. "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'"

He continued: "When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right.

"When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."

a$$hole.

Sorry. I happen to think that he is 100% correct.

[scaeagles]

I am not surprised.

[Ghoulish Delight]

So I suppose it happens to be the intentional choice of those issues to draw specific moral comparison that is problematic and outrageous. I do not believe our medical system to be immoral, yet those things he mentioned clearly were.
I don't consider our medical system immoral, but I consider aspects of our health insurance system immoral. Logical, and prudent for business reasons, but inhumane.

[Alex]

I also don't think our current healthcare system is immoral (though I also don't think that of the proposed healthcare system or single-payer government run healthcare). But I'm also pretty sure that in a few decades my saying that will be viewed as woefully misguided and Reid's view will likely be accepted as basically correct by most people.

That said, my objection to Reid's statement is that it is one without meaningful content. Essentially he said "every controversial legislative change made in this country has had people saying 'let's not do this right now and not in this way.'"

Duh. If there weren't, it wouldn't be controversial.


All that said, I'd say it is a substantively different comment (even if devoid of any real content) form drawing connections between the current proposals and Nazi-ism. You can debate whether mandated health insurance for all will one day be seen widely as an obviously good and necessary change to have been made. You can not, however, say that government controlled healthcare (which in it's current incarnation none of the proposed bills currently create anyway) is a step towards Nazi-ism. It may be something in common but it is no more a causal link than is a government-funded highway system an inevitable step towards Hitler's Germany.

So drawing connections between it and Nazis is spurious on its face in a way I'd argue differs significantly from drawing connections between the future perception of this debate and other examples from American history.

All of that said (again), of course Reid is trying to lay a mental connection between opposing healthcare and opposing the Civil Rights Act. It's a dirty rhetorical trick. But it is on more solid ground (and orders of magnitude less hysterical) than Nazii comparisons.

[Betty]

And Harry Reid has compared opposition to the current health care reform to opposition of civil rights, abolishing slavery, and giving women the right to vote.

From this (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/07/reid-compares-health-care-reform-foes-slavery-supporters/) link:

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right," Reid said Monday. "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'"

He continued: "When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right.

"When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."

a$$hole.


As someone who has no healthcare - I disagree. You speak from a the point of view of someone who has a doctor for their kids when they are sick. We go to the CVS minute clinic - and I'm eternally gratefull for it. My husband - who had health care through his work - was laid off. It's not available through mine because not enough of our staff will participate. (factory workers don't seem to want to.)

So - what in the heck am I supposed to do if one of my kids breaks an arm? Or worse - what if something tragic happens and I end up in the hospital?

What then? I'm fvcked is what!

So - I'm all for not slowing down. Give me access to staying alive thank you very much.

This really pisses me off. You must be so much more deserving then we are or something - perhaps it would just be easier for all of you with health care if all of us without were to just die off then you wouldn't need to share your precious doctors and hospitals with us lowly people.

How sad is it then we have to tell our kids - we can't participate in that because if you get hurt we won't be able to pay for the doctor and the roof over our head/food to eat etc.

How about this - why don't you go without health care for awhile, wait for your kids to get sick or need surgery or something, and get back to me.

[scaeagles]

Oh good lord....where did I say any such thing? All I did is say it is offensive to compare opposition to this particular health care reform bill to opposition to the abolishment of slaery or denying women the vote. Geez. Get off it. NOWHERE did I say nor did I even suggest that I am more deserving than you.

Does your situation suck? Yeah, it does. Does that mean I have to think this particular way of going about health care reform is great or I am like someone who doesn't think slavery is that bad?

THAT, Betty, is what is offensive.

Don't pretend you know me or what I have been through in my life. I happened to have been one of those kids like yours when I was growing up.

[Betty]

Oh good lord....where did I say any such thing? All I did is say it is offensive to compare opposition to this particular health care reform bill to opposition to the abolishment of slaery or denying women the vote. Geez. Get off it. NOWHERE did I say nor did I even suggest that I am more deserving than you.

Does your situation suck? Yeah, it does. Does that mean I have to think this particular way of going about health care reform is great or I am like someone who doesn't think slavery is that bad?

THAT, Betty, is what is offensive.

Don't pretend you know me or what I have been through in my life. I happened to have been one of those kids like yours when I was growing up.

We've been through this before and I believe you said something along the lines that there wouldn't be enough doctors for you if everyone gets health care... you would have to wait too long... etc...

And frankly - I think access to health care IS up there with voting and slavery. After all - you can't vote if you're dead.

[scaeagles]

I did say there would be a doctor shortage, but a doctor shortage for everyone, not just me.

[JWBear]

Something that those who are still comfortably ensconced in their middle-class lives (and that includes me) need to realize is that, the way things are going, there will not be a comfortable middle-class much longer. This country is rapidly being polarized into a very very wealthy minority ruling over a vast population of the poor.

[Alex]

It is certainly a valid point of view to say "even if the current way sucks, it is my view that the alternatives would be worse in aggregate."

Also valid to say "the current system sucks and should be changed but this particular solution would be worse."

My problem with much of the opposition on the right is that they say the latter and behave the former.

[Betty]

I did say there would be a doctor shortage, but a doctor shortage for everyone, not just me.

And as it stands now - I have a pretty severe doctor shortage and you don't. So yeah - I'm jealous and mad about it. My point is that you have the luxury of time and don't seem to feel the same urgency that someone like myself does.

[BarTopDancer]

So - what in the heck am I supposed to do if one of my kids breaks an arm? Or worse - what if something tragic happens and I end up in the hospital?

Catastrophic insurance is cheap. Look into it through Anthem Blue Cross.

It's what I had when I was out of work.

[scaeagles]

So...let's say the highest numbers out there are accurate and 48 million people are uninsured (i do not subscribe that figure). This means that 252 million Americans are insured.

You are saying that it is unfair that 252 million people have something that you do not. Because of that, you would impose a change on the 252 million people that have it.

Of course, I won't claim to say that all 252 million people are happy with it. I'm not always happy with mine (had to pay a lot for the knee surgery and rehab the daughter had). I also won't say that all of the uninsured really want insurance (if they have to pay) because some have other priorities for their money).

I understand there are problems with the current system. However, this does not mean I think the proposed fix is a good idea, and it does not follow that I think nothing should be done. It just means I don't think this shoudl be done.

[BarTopDancer]

Leo - what would you do if either you or your wife lost their job and insurance wasn't available. Or you both lost your jobs.

Now you have to use your savings and UI to live off of and pay for COBRA.

Now your savings are gone and you can no longer afford COBRA.

Now you have no insurance.

What would you do?

Don't say it won't happen, because it can. It is happening to thousands of people across the country.

What would you do?


However, this does not mean I think the proposed fix is a good idea, and it does not follow that I think nothing should be done. It just means I don't think this shoudl be done.

What's your suggestion then? Come up with something better.

[Betty]

[QUOTE=BarTopDancer;308551]Leo - what would you do if either you or your wife lost their job and insurance wasn't available. Or you both lost your jobs.

Now you have to use your savings and UI to live off of and pay for COBRA.

Now your savings are gone and you can no longer afford COBRA.

Now you have no insurance.

What would you do?

Don't say it won't happen, because it can. It is happening to thousands of people across the country.

What would you do?
[\QUOTE]


And COBRA is oh so affordable when you've lost your job... I used to feel the same way SCA. It was someone elses problem... I had insurance so sure, I could see the importance of it, but it wasn't urgent. Things sure do change when it's your family that's affected. My health insurance wasn't all that great - or so I thought until I had none. I didn't know how good I had it.

And letting go of COBRA had to be done. I got a bill for nearly $3,000 for one month. OMFG! Just can't afford it. Well I could - but we would just pay for that and be homeless.

Health care is out of control.

[JWBear]

Of course, even if you have insurance, there is no guarantee that you would be covered when you get sick. If your illness is a very expensive one, the insurance company will find a way to not pay up. (Talk about "death panels"!)

[BarTopDancer]

And COBRA is oh so affordable when you've lost your job.

It's not. I couldn't afford it, even with the subsidization.

Seriously Betty, look into a catastrophic policy through Anthem Blue Cross. At least for the kids. Or do the kids qualify for the MediCal for kids program?

[Strangler Lewis]

So...let's say the highest numbers out there are accurate and 48 million people are uninsured (i do not subscribe that figure). This means that 252 million Americans are insured.

You are saying that it is unfair that 252 million people have something that you do not. Because of that, you would impose a change on the 252 million people that have it.



Maybe. Sixteen percent strikes me as a high failure rate for something that's fairly basic. As an absolute number, 48 million people is huge. If there was a world without public education and sixteen percent of the country (48 million people) was not getting a basic education, I would hope we would impose a change on everybody else or come up with a public option.

[Betty]

It's not. I couldn't afford it, even with the subsidization.

Seriously Betty, look into a catastrophic policy through Anthem Blue Cross. At least for the kids. Or do the kids qualify for the MediCal for kids program?

We're looking into a few options actually - the school just sent home some info and a family friend is going to quote us on a catastrophic policy. Thanks!

[BarTopDancer]

We're looking into a few options actually - the school just sent home some info and a family friend is going to quote us on a catastrophic policy. Thanks!

No prob! My parents did mine through the internet and it was pretty affordable. Hope it works out for you.

[€uroMeinke]

This country is rapidly being polarized into a very very wealthy minority ruling over a vast population of the poor.

Ah but that's when revolutions come and reset the balance - and the wealthy bourgeois intellectuals are put to death

[Alex]

And a select portion of the poor take on the trappings of the bourgeois and oppress those they can. And we start over.

But I won't be there. Unfortunately I'm in the bourgeoisie. Any chance of getting a guillotine out of a sense of style?

[scaeagles]

What would you do?
What's your suggestion then? Come up with something better.

What would I do? While I certainly don't admire my dad in the least, I would do exactly what he did during my mom's lupus and his unemployment...I would take on the debt. Would I want to? No. Not for a moment. But you do what you have to. He declared bankruptcy a few years after her death. it happens. It sucks, but it happens.

So many think thast those who are opposed to this plan must not know what it's like. Here's news for you - I do.

I also will NOT be forced to offer a better plan simply because I don't like what's being offered. Not required. That being said, there are PLENTY of ideas out there I like better. While so many here do not like the site, the heritage Foundation site has had (I haven't been there in the last week or so, so I cannot guarantee that the things I read are still there) plenty of ideas I like, including medical savings accounts, opening insurance availability across state lines, etc.

[flippyshark]

Ah but that's when revolutions come and reset the balance - and the wealthy bourgeois intellectuals are put to death

Alas, revolutions are often won by violent power-hungry people who are likely to be as bad as or worse than the tyrants they displace. See the wonderful Sergio Leone film Duck, You Sucker! for a terrific musing on this.

[Ghoulish Delight]

plenty of ideas I like, including medical savings accounts, opening insurance availability across state lines, etc.
All of which retain the key ingredient that who gets/deserves medical benefits comes down to a business decision, something I will always consider wrong.

Not that the plan as currently going through Congress changes that, but instant-socialization isn't going to happen, but if it's going to happen this will have to do as the awkward first step.

And therin lies the problem, the two sides disagree on the endpoint. I do not believe that any amount of tweaking to bolster free-market forces is going to solve the problem, simply because I believe the problem is an innevitable, even necessary, part of any free-market solution. In the free-market there are, by design, economic losers. That's just fine when it means someone goes without a big TV or a fancy car. It is not fine when it means someone goes without adequate health care.

[scaeagles]

I do not believe the free market necessarily means that there are winners and losers. What I choose to spend my money on does not make me a loser, and i have control (for the most part, anyway) of where I spend my money.

That aside, and completely understanding what you have said otherwise, GD, what I think what frustrates me in this whole national debate is the way the insurance industry is viewed. They came into existance to make a profit, so I don't know why they are slammed for trying to do so. Now, mind you, if they violate the terms of their agreements, they should face litigation or criminal investigation, but I do not fault them for trying to make a profit.

This is why I am against the public option. It is not fair competition for the government, which runs a deficit without blinking an eye and does not need to make a profit, to be in direct competition with the insurance companies.

Should doctors work without making much money? My bill for the second surgery for my achalasia I had was over 40K, and that only included two nights in the hospital. I really do not recall the percentage of that which went to the surgeon, but she was damn skilled and I think worth a whole lot. Is it immoral for her to profit on my illness? She sure does (or at least did) drive a nice car. What is the difference between her making a high salary and the insurance companies making a profit?

[Alex]

Would you support the elimination of Medicare and and the health services of the VA?

Both of those systems are much farther down the road to government healthcare than any of the current proposals.

[scaeagles]

The VA is limited in their scope by definition to veterens. This is part of the agreement made between those who serve(d) and the government, and in that way I don't really view that in the same light. Perhaps I should, but I don't.

Medicare.....there are numerous problems with the system, as I believe there are with Social Security, but it is now an "entitlement" that people have paid into and should therefore get the benefits promised. I beleive the problems evident with medicare are a small foreshadowing of what would happen should a government option become available.

[Ghoulish Delight]

What is the difference between her making a high salary and the insurance companies making a profit?In short, because your surgeon doesn't stand to make more money by denying some people access to her services.

[BarTopDancer]

Heath care should not be a for profit industry for people other than doctors and the people who work in the offices/hospitals. Their profit should be their salary. I have no problem with doctors making a lot of money. I have a huge issue with the CEOs of insurance companies making a ton of money in bonuses based upon how much money they didn't spend in denial of care.

[JWBear]

I sometimes wish Canada would annex us. <sigh>

[scaeagles]

In short, because your surgeon doesn't stand to make more money by denying some people access to her services.


Did she really need to earn 10-12K (or whatever it was) for a 5 hour procedure? That's pretty steep.

[scaeagles]

Heath care should not be a for profit industry for people other than doctors and the people who work in the offices/hospitals. Their profit should be their salary. I have no problem with doctors making a lot of money. I have a huge issue with the CEOs of insurance companies making a ton of money in bonuses based upon how much money they didn't spend in denial of care.


What about the scientists/chemists who come up with some miracle medication? How should they be compensated? If the medication is too expensive for people to afford because of their salaries, maybe they shouldn't make that much.

[Alex]

The VA is limited in their scope by definition to veterens. This is part of the agreement made between those who serve(d) and the government, and in that way I don't really view that in the same light. Perhaps I should, but I don't.

But should it ever have been created in the first place? What if there were a proposal to expand the VA to cover not just current and former members of the military but current and former employees of the federal government (it would, after all just be part of an agreement made between those who serve the government.

If government run healthcare is odious would it not be far better to just put those veterans on private insurance and private provision?

I beleive the problems evident with medicare are a small foreshadowing of what would happen should a government option become available.

As a fellow conservative how does it make you feel to watch the contortions necessary for many opposing the current bill to simultaneously stand as staunch defenders of Medicare from the ravaging visigoths of national healthcare while also considering Medicare doomed to failure and a well established incremental step towards socialism?

[scaeagles]

Makes me ill, really, and it is a sad political reality that once people get something they expect it to be there and should you dare mess with it in any fashion, they vote you out of office. Social Security, medicare, whatever.

If the government employees union negotiates some form of group health care plan with their employer I view that as no different than any employer doing the same with their employees. The employees can opt out should they wish. Frankly, Id have no problem with that. Something tells me it wouldn't be quite the same as the congressional and senatorial plans.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Did she really need to earn 10-12K (or whatever it was) for a 5 hour procedure? That's pretty steep.What she earns and who has access are two different questions. Whether I support changes to compensation for medical professionals (single-provider being the flip side of the coin, but not the only option) is irrelevant in regards to the question of access to health care. While some of the same questions are raised, I have no trouble drawing a clear and distinct line between people providing actual medical services being compensated for the work they do vs. insurance companies maximizing profits by selecting who and who does not get access to those services. Both sides present similar challenges and issues, however the latter side is responsible only for maximizing their and their stockholders wealth, while the former is responsible for actually maintaining healthy people. So I will give them some benefit of the doubt that I will not afford the insurers.

[scaeagles]

However, if her rates for her surgery were half of what they are, or one third of what they are, and that was the case with all surgeons/medical providers, insurance would be less expensive because they would not be paying the providers as much.

[Alex]

Something tells me it wouldn't be quite the same as the congressional and senatorial plans.

All federal employees, including representatives and senators have access to the exact same suite of medical plans.

[scaeagles]

Do they? My bad.

[Alex]

Yes they do. That said, just like anywhere that offers multiple plans where some are more expensive than others (and presumably better), the fact that senators and representatives make more money means they are more able to afford the better ones than the guy cleaning bathrooms at BFE National Park. But there is no plan that you gain access to with your Capitol Building office.

(Not to mention many of them are independently wealthy.)

[BarTopDancer]

What about the scientists/chemists who come up with some miracle medication? How should they be compensated? If the medication is too expensive for people to afford because of their salaries, maybe they shouldn't make that much.

Them too.

One of the other issues with the current state of medicine is the litigious society we live in. Malpractice insurance is through the roof because people sue for everything that goes wrong - and the papers they sign with the risks involve mean nothing in court. Those malpractice insurance costs are passed on to us.

[Alex]

The evidence that malpractice claims are a significant contributor to medical costs or inflation is spotty at best. And the evidence that capping malpractice awards reduces the rate of inflation ("tort reform" is the buzzword on that) is even spottier.

But there's definitely a perception that it is a problem and that affects how and where doctors practice.

[BarTopDancer]

Humm. I just know what my mom pays as an R.N. with no claims against her and over 35 years of experience. Insanity.

[Alex]

Oh, doctors and nurses certainly pay a lot for malpractice insurance. But that doesn't mean it is a major component of total cost or inflation.

It's kind of like most CEO's caught up in the outrage over bank failures. Sure they may be paid too much and that may be a moral outrage. But paying Dick Kevocovich $15 million to be chairman of Wells Fargo is not a significant drain on the bottom line.

Or the impact of earmarks on the federal budget. Most are outrageous but they don't do serious damage to the bottom line and eliminating them won't help at the macro level.

[scaeagles]

Them too. (referring to pharmaceutical scientists in an earlier post)


OK.....so it is OK for specialists and surgeons to make lots of money, but not for chemists who develop a new medicine. Why? What about the people that think that those surgeons make too much, as you say you think those pharmaceutical researchers make too much?

And what about the person who thinks the medical equipment used to diagnose something is too expensive? I have no idea how much an MRI machine costs, but i bet it's a pretty penny. I am certain the machine costs exponentially as much money as the parts that go into it. I bet the person who holds the patents (if any) makes a lot of money on those. If the government simply sets a price on those machines, then the tests are cheaper for the people that need it and insurance costs less.

[BarTopDancer]

OK.....so it is OK for specialists and surgeons to make lots of money, but not for chemists who develop a new medicine. Why? What about the people that think that those surgeons make too much, as you say you think those pharmaceutical researchers make too much?

And what about the person who thinks the medical equipment used to diagnose something is too expensive? I have no idea how much an MRI machine costs, but i bet it's a pretty penny. I am certain the machine costs exponentially as much money as the parts that go into it. I bet the person who holds the patents (if any) makes a lot of money on those. If the government simply sets a price on those machines, then the tests are cheaper for the people that need it and insurance costs less.

I was agreeing with you! They should be compensated for their talents. The CEO of the insurance company should not be compensated for saving money because they denied care to people.

[scaeagles]

OK - my bad. I thought "them too" meant they were paid too much, not that you equated them with the doctors that you don't mind what they make.

What should the CEO of an insurance company be compensated for? This is where what GD brought up applies. They are a business. They were set up to make a profit. Some don't think that's OK. 252 million people currently insured would therefore not be insured if those companies did not exist.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yes, Leo, that's exactly what I'm advocating. :rolleyes:

[BarTopDancer]

What should the CEO of an insurance company be compensated for? This is where what GD brought up applies. They are a business. They were set up to make a profit. Some don't think that's OK. 252 million people currently insured would therefore not be insured if those companies did not exist.

I do not have an issue with a CEO being compensated for running a business. I do have an issue with Executives receiving bonuses that are tied to the amount of money they save by denying coverage/care to people who are covered by their insurance.

[alphabassettgrrl]

So - I'm all for not slowing down. Give me access to staying alive thank you very much.

I'm with you. I don't have insurance, either, in large part because it costs so dang much, and doesn't cover anything anyway. So I can spend a lot of money for useless "coverage."

what I think what frustrates me in this whole national debate is the way the insurance industry is viewed. They came into existance to make a profit, so I don't know why they are slammed for trying to do so.

I guess I don't mind if their profits were reasonable, but they're ENORMOUS, and based on how much they can keep down the claims costs. Which means denial of care. They deny things that seem perfectly logical, and needed, and the conversation is along the lines of "if they really care they'll resubmit it." This is really wrong.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Just for the record, I don't imagine that there are people at insurance companies wringing their hands thinking, "Muuahahaha, whom can I deny coverage to this week to earn my bonus?"

They are not evil people. The decisions they make are not evil. They are prudent. They are rational and reasonable business models. They are the right decisions to make to make the numbers come out right. It just happens that some of those numbers represent money saved by not allowing real human beings access to medical care that can save their lives. When they cut costs to appease their stockholders and maintain their profits, someone down the line is put at risk of death.

Yes, it works for the vast majority of people who are lucky enough to have it. I'm one of those people. But just because I happen to be in the majority for the system was designed to benefit doesn't change that fact that it's a system that does so by treating people's lives as a commodity to be invested in and traded for profit, and I find that appalling. People's lives should not be measured by how much money they can afford to spend, and it is my belief that a government should do what it can to ensure that its citizens are on equal footing when it comes to access to that which protects their lives.

[BarTopDancer]

Here's a good example of an insurance company wasting money:

When claritin, zyrtec and some other allergy drugs showed up on the market not all of them were covered equally. My doctor gave me samples of each and told me to let her know which one worked best and she'd write me a script for it.

I tried them and determined that zyrtec was the best. I went to fill my script and was told that my insurance would not cover it unless I first had a prescription and tried all the other allergy medication out there, including nasal spray which I cannot take at all. So instead of covering zyrtec, which I knew worked I they would pay for 4 or 5 other prescriptions that I knew wouldn't work or I wouldn't even take before just covering the one that did work.

My doc, who is awesome, went to the insurance company and got them to over-ride it. Thankfully.

[mousepod]

I also think that there's a misconception about the cost of medical care with insurance. After my emergency visit to the hospital last week (that included one night's stay), my bill for the deductible + co-pay + my percentage of daily charge was close to $1000. That doesn't include lab fees, which I'm sure will be costly as well.

And I'm covered under what's considered to be a good insurance plan.

[Tom]

I believe as well that many of those who are currently happy with their health insurance will become less happy if cost increases are not controlled soon.

My premiums are about 2.5 times what they were 15 months ago (and I can't change providers due to a pre-existing condition). Right now, I can still afford to pay them, but I won't be able to if they continue in that direction, and I think a lot of people could see themselves similarly priced out of their current insurance in the not-too-far-off future.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Here's a good example of an insurance company wasting money:
...

Actually, they're trying to save money. That Zyrtec prescription could very well cost the insurance company 10, 15, 20 times as much as any of the other brands or generics. So even if they make you go through 4 or 5 other ones and you still end up with Zyrtec, the cost to make you go through that is a drop in the bucket compared to what they stand to save in the long run on the gamble that you'd be happy with one of the other ones. If even 5% of people choose the cheaper drug after that process, they'll have made their money back on those 4 or 5 trial prescriptions they gave to everyone by the time that 5% has come back for the 3rd refill of the cheaper drug.

And anyone can come in and claim they've tried all the others, so yes, it would take a call from the doctor to get around that.

But to me, the fact that this wasn't a waste of money is even worse. This isn't an example of an insurance company throwing money away. It's an example of a very smart business practice, a cost-saving measure that takes very little for them to implement and can save them millions in the long run. But it's at the expense of patient experience and adequate access to benefits.

It's a relatively minor inconvenience. And, in all honesty, probably something a socialized system (assuming medical providers remain privatized) would also engage in to some degree. But it's a good example of how profit-motive from an insurer puts their bottom line, not the health of patients, first.

[wendybeth]

I also think that there's a misconception about the cost of medical care with insurance. After my emergency visit to the hospital last week (that included one night's stay), my bill for the deductible + co-pay + my percentage of daily charge was close to $1000. That doesn't include lab fees, which I'm sure will be costly as well.

And I'm covered under what's considered to be a good insurance plan.

Many of the people who wind up filing for bankruptcy due to medical bills have insurance. Even the best plans do not pay for everything, and oftentimes insurers will come back months later and decide they don't want to pay for a procedure or meds they previously approved.

[lashbear]

You may remember I had a Tenodesis last year (the re-attachment of my Bicep muscle in my right arm). The Out-of pocket cost to me after my medical insurance and the Government medicare paid all their bits was still $1200 - because the Government sets the rebate levels and the AMA sets their "Standard scheduled Fees" and nary the twain shall meet.

At least they threw in that packet of pain-killers. They were fun.

[Alex]

While on conference calls today I've been bouncing around ideas in my head for how I'd re-do the election of the president if granted such power (I'm odd).

The idea I've been swirling around is this:

President is elected (whether using current electoral college model or not) to initial four year term.

After four years, rather than an all out election, the president is subjected to a national vote of confidence. Everybody just votes on "Should Bob continue to be president?"

If majority (though I've been thinking of supermajority requirements too) says yes then repeat every two years until majority no longer say yes. No term limit on office.

If majority says no then full blown presidential election is held 1 year later, current president is not eligible.

Cycle starts over.

Office of vice president is eliminated. In case of presidential death/incapacitation next in line holds office until full presidential election to be held at next scheduled vote of confidence (successor eligible for office).



Assuming all of this for the sake of argument, I'd be interested to know on anything thoughts on repercussions from such a system?

[Strangler Lewis]

1) We have enough of a problem with sabotaging the president with an eye towards an election that's four years off. Making these votes of confidence every two years would probably worsen that. Unless . . .

2) There was a supermajority requirement for a "no" vote. This would overcome our cultural tendency to throw the bums out because it feels good to do it. Also, it might require members of Congress to find a way to work with the president because he's going to be there for a while.

[BarTopDancer]

(I'm odd).


Good thing I was sitting down when I read this. I am shocked! SHOCKED I say!

Assuming all of this for the sake of argument, I'd be interested to know on anything thoughts on repercussions from such a system?

The majority could have kept Bush in office for much longer than he already was.

[Alex]

Or, if you go by opinion polls as an indicator he'd have been out of office after 7 years (by year 6 he was well under 50% in such polls).

Also note that I removed the electoral college for the Confidence votes, so the small state advantage is removed. Also, the vote is not do you want Bush or the Democrat but do you want Bush or a new election between a Democrat and a Republican. Saying no to Bush does not guarantee the office will change parties, I'm thinking this would weaken loyalty to the person.

[Tom]

Or, if you go by opinion polls as an indicator he'd have been out of office after 7 years (by year 6 he was well under 50% in such polls).

I think he might well have been out after four years. I'm not sure he would have been able to muster 51% of the (popular or electoral) votes in 2004 without John Kerry to run against.

[scaeagles]

I don't think any Presidient would last longer than 4 years. With no opponent to focus on and only your own record to defend with multitudes of people looking to spin it as negatively as possible I don't see how you could possibly stay in office. So much of campaigning is how much your opponent sucks. Without the chance to do that and the negatives only coming at you, you would have no chance.

[Alex]

Even Reagan in 1984?

Well, by definition every president would last for at least 5 years (with the last year as a lame duck, but then currently any re-elected president spends 4 years as a lame duck).

Would it being very difficult to go longer than 5 years be a bad thing?

[scaeagles]

Reagan might very well be the exception. And no, I don't necessarily think that would be a bad thing.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Would an outgoing president ever be eligible to run again? If so, after how long? After the next 4 year term?

[Strangler Lewis]

I don't think any Presidient would last longer than 4 years. With no opponent to focus on and only your own record to defend with multitudes of people looking to spin it as negatively as possible I don't see how you could possibly stay in office. So much of campaigning is how much your opponent sucks. Without the chance to do that and the negatives only coming at you, you would have no chance.

That's why you'd want a supermajority for a no vote.

By the way, if there's no vice president, who breaks ties in the Senate?

[scaeagles]

I don't necessarily like the supermajority to vote someone out. Seems to grant a lot of power to someone who can fool 40.1% of the people on a permanent basis. That may not be very hard.

[Alex]

Would an outgoing president ever be eligible to run again? If so, after how long? After the next 4 year term?

Hmm....I could go either way. So I'll say that a former president can not run in the election immediately following his no confidence. But then he is eligible for any future full election (so five years minimum between terms).

By the way, if there's no vice president, who breaks ties in the Senate?

Good question. I resolve that by giving Puerto Rico, Guam, and DC each a senator with a 1/3 vote. No more ties. Or, just give the vote to the president (which is essentially what it became once the 12th Amendment was passed).

[Strangler Lewis]

I don't necessarily like the supermajority to vote someone out. Seems to grant a lot of power to someone who can fool 40.1% of the people on a permanent basis. That may not be very hard.

Ross Perot got about twenty percent of the vote. Everybody who voted for him was an . . . well, let's just say they're a guaranteed no vote in any retention election. So, assuming as you do a 60 percent supermajority, it comes down to obtaining a majority among the remaining 80 percent.

Whether one sees the presidency as higly important or as an office that has grown well beyond its conception in the constitution, there's a good argument to be made for requiring a supermajority to remove him and not spending so much money on elections every four years. The office becomes not quite like a federal judgeship where you serve for life. It's more like a California appellate judgeship where you infrequently stand for retention and generally nobody cares.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Interesting. I don't like our current system very much, other than the fact that we more or less vote on the candidates.

I'd be up for something new.

[Ghoulish Delight]

The Latest on Health Care Reform

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report, 12/17/09) - The United States Senate today unveiled details of its health care plan, tentatively called CompromiseCareTM:

Under CompromiseCareTM, people with no coverage will be allowed to keep their current plan.

Medicare will be extended to 55-year-olds as soon as they turn 65.

You will have access to cheap Canadian drugs if you live in Canada.

States whose names contain vowels will be allowed to opt out of the plan.

You get to choose which doctor you cannot afford to see.

You will not have to be pre-certified to qualify for cremation.

A patient will be considered "pre-existing" if he or she already exists.

You'll be free to choose between medications and heating fuel.

Patients can access quality health care if they can prove their name is "Lieberman."

You will have access to natural remedies, such as death.

[alphabassettgrrl]

::sigh::

Rumors about Medicare for all? I kind of like that idea.

[Alex]

All kidding aside about what is in the bill, I must say that I'm mostly on Nate Silver's side that it is better to take it and then start working on improving rather than any attempt to start over.

I am surprised by the number of people who seem to be surprised that "Democrat" does not 100% overlap with "Netroots Progressive".

[Ghoulish Delight]

Oh, I agree. And I never expected total reform to my liking to have come out of this first step. It's just that with the Democratic majority and general support of the public, it seemed like they were poised to take more than the absolute bare minimum step towards the end point of real, substantive reform. I expected things to slide back from the ambitious first drafts, but seeing them slide back this far is frustrating and does not bode well for the future pace of improvement.

[mousepod]

Bravo, sir. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m3MyjHM-a4)

[scaeagles]

General support of the public? Are you reading the same polls I'm reading?

56% oppose, 40% support (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform)

I think perhaps the issue is that many do not see this as a first step toward improvement.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Support has slipped as the process has dragged on and the bill has been compromised into nothingness. But yes, I maintain that when the process started it had the general support of the public.

ETA: That's also a poll that measures support for this specific plan, not support for reform in general. Different question.

[scaeagles]

Oh, I agree that in general people want reform. I want reform. But nothing even close to what is being offered.

[BarTopDancer]

Oh, I agree that in general people want reform. I want reform. But nothing even close to what is being offered.

What kind of reform do you want? What's your solution?

[scaeagles]

This has been asked of me many, many times. I like many of the things discussed on the Heritage Foundation. The ideas are not all unique to them. They include opening insurance options across state lines to increase competition, medical savings accounts, tort reform, and other ideas.

[JWBear]

In other words, pretty much business as usual. Those who can afford insurance get medical treatment; those that can't are SOL.

[Prudence]

Frankly, the option most people want is the one that will keep everyone else from getting "free" care (because the masses are obviously a bunch of freeloaders and wouldn't be sick in the first place if they were decent human beings who had earned God's favor) but be available for them to take advantage of if they need it (because they have made valuable contributions to society and their illnesses are merely Job-like trials that God uses to test the loyalty of His favorites, and therefore actually a sign of decent, God-fearing living.)

[Alex]

One thing to keep in mind is that not all of the opposition to the current proposal is not because it is too progressive. Some significant portion of that opposition is from people who feel it is not progressive enough.

So the question would be how many of those people would oppose the plan when the choice is "this or nothing" as opposed to "this compared to your ideal."

[scaeagles]

That is exactly right, Alex. That's why Bush's approval rating was so low - he had lost the conservatives too. This is why Obama's approval rating is crashing. He's losing the far left (and a large portion of the independents).

Howard Dean said he'd vote no on the current bill. Olberman said he'd rather go to jail than do some of the things in the current plan (being forced to purchase insurance from an insurance company).

But the dems are desperate to try to pass anything so they can claim a victory - it is the same as the republicans trying to block everything so they can do the same.

[Alex]

Yes, by my point is that much of that opposition from the left is essentially meaningless as it'll evaporate (though obviously not all of it) in the face of the status quo.

I haven't heard the Olbermann quote, but if that's accurate it's pretty stupid since he's already buying insurance from an insurance company and nobody is making him.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I haven't heard the Olbermann quote, but if that's accurate it's pretty stupid since he's already buying insurance from an insurance company and nobody is making him.
Well, I share some reservations with him about a Massachusets-style solution, where everyone is required to buy insurance, else face a penalty from the government, which I assume is what he's referring to. But then, as is well known around here, my ideal endpoint is to see private insurance phased out entirely, so that's no real surprise.

[Alex]

That's fine, but saying he'd go to jail before buying private insurance is stupid when he's already buying private insurance.

I can see an objection to being forced by the government to buy a private product but then he's not going to jail over car insurance (I know he doesn't drive so I don't know if he personally buys any, but then he wouldn't qualify for any version of the public option that's been discussed either since he has employer provided insurance so both are purely hypothetical for him).

[Ghoulish Delight]

That's fine, but saying he'd go to jail before buying private insurance is stupid when he's already buying private insurance.I don't see any stupidity in differentiating between choosing to buy private insurance vs. being required to under penalty of law. Whether he'd stand buy his word and refuse his employer-provided insurance and risk said penalty by not buying any insurance should such a provision be enacted remains to be seen, and will likely turn out to be hyperbole. But I don't think currently paying, by choice, for private insurance disqualifies someone from being opposed to being legally required to buy it.

[Alex]

But on what principal does he differentiate it from car insurance or other instances of government mandating purchases of private insurance without provision of a publicly managed option? I guess I just find the hyperbole stupid, and the principal on which he is apparently standing empty since a week ago when he thought the Medicare buy-in was part of it he was ok with me being forced to buy health insurance from private companies under penalty of law (he, being 50 now would have been nearly ready to qualify by the time things kicked in).

And I guess I see his stupidity more in his "all or nothing" approach to it. Everybody knew when all of this started that a public option was almost certainly an impossible achievement. Yes, for negotiating reasons you have to start there but it was never realistic. And sticking out the lower lip and stomping around and gnashing the teeth just looks stupid (to me).

And the nonsensical fixation on going through reconciliation just strikes me as more fantasy. Somehow they've decided that the 20% benefit is more important than the 80% benefit and so are willing to sacrifice the latter to get the former, assuming it even worked enough to get the latter.

I just can't help but be reminded of how much Ted Kennedy came to regret scuttling the deal that was reached on health care reform 30 years ago because it didn't get him everything he wanted soon enough. I've not yet seen any of the left opposition make a compelling case for how the proposal is worse than the status quo, simply that it lacks important parts of what they want.

I agree that cost containment is important (and apparently the far left argument is that the uninsured should only get health care if it can be provided cheaply enough). I also agree it is important to make sure that everybody has access health care. Personally, I think having the latter will create pressures making the former much more likely. And getting both at the same time just stacks too many interests against the entirety.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I agree that wanting to toss the whole thing out over the issue is dumb, and the way he stated his disapproval is dumb. Won't argue that.

As for the difference between this and auto insurance, among other things, in some sense there IS a public option for auto insurance - public transit. There's also the fact that the mandate for auto insurance is about making sure you don't fvck someone else over (except for no-fault states, the requirement is that carry insurance that covers the other person's car, not your own), as opposed to covering yourself, so there's a different set of reasoning for it. And, most importantly, auto insurance companies make business decisions that might mean that some individual might, in service of increasing some exec's pocket change, not be allowed to drive their car, while medical insurance companies make those same business decisions at risk of costing people their lives. So I think there's some more justification for being rather opposed to something that bolsters that system and stands to continue to reward them for making those business decisions.

But yes, Olberman's reported stance is a bit of dramatic hyperbole, and I am definitely in favor of doing SOMETHING to get more people covered as opposed to doing nothing. I just don't think that forcing people to pay for insurance, when the whole point is that they can't afford insurance to begin with, makes a lot of sense.

[Alex]

But that last sentence will be true with any version of the public option discussed as well.

Public or private it requires people who can't afford insurance now (or choose not to) to buy insurance and then offers subsidies to those who can't afford. The difference with a public option (potentially) is that you'd subsidies would be cheaper if the plan really is cheaper than private insurance but that doesn't really have much to do with affordability on the consumer end.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Fair enough, I'll concede that. I suppose my opposition does fall back on my distaste for people profiting from the business of figuring out how not to cover people's medical bills. So at least with public option/single payer, people aren't being forced to contribute to those profits.

That said, I still support that over nothing because, theoretically, getting EVERYONE into the insurance pool will help spread costs around and reduce cost of insurance for everyone. Theoretically. But I still consider it purely a baby step.

[Gemini Cricket]

Obama's in town again.
That only means one thing.
I sent out 2 letters to the editor this time. One to each of the major papers here.
Let's see if they publish at least one of them like last time.
I got a call from one saying that they're 99% sure they will publish my letter.
That's awesome.
I hope he reads it.
I wrote about how DADT and DOMA are still around and that he should refrain from making any new year's resolutions for 2010, seeing as how he can't keep his campaign promises why bother with resolutions for the new year?

:evil:

[alphabassettgrrl]

Nice, cricket! I hope they get published and that he reads 'em, too.

[Gemini Cricket]

I just Alex'ed someone who was sending out bad info via email.

Someone sent me (and about 100 people) a spam email about an upside-down US flag at Montebello High School. The email was misleading and was about an incident that happened in 2006 (but it made it sound like it just happened and was happening on a regular basis). I sent a Reply All to everyone with a link to the snopes.com article about the incident.

The email itself smelled racist and was incorrect about a couple of things, so I told everyone to do their research before getting into a tizzy and running outside, naked waving their tallywhackers around saying, 'The sky is falling, the sky is falling!'

:D

[Alex]

Yay me.

[Gemini Cricket]

Yay me.
Although deep inside I feel like I did the right thing, the person who sent me the email hates me now. He left me a ranky stank voicemail. I think it was the Reply All thing that did it. Ugh. Oy vey. Well, the deed is done. Not much I can do now.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Although deep inside I feel like I did the right thing, the person who sent me the email hates me now. He left me a ranky stank voicemail. I think it was the Reply All thing that did it. Ugh. Oy vey. Well, the deed is done. Not much I can do now.
Eh, if he's forwarding that email, he sounds like one of those flag-idolaters who aren't much worth your time anyway.

[Gemini Cricket]

Eh, if he's forwarding that email, he sounds like one of those flag-idolaters who aren't much worth your time anyway.
Ghoulish Johnson is right! Thanks, GD.

I think this is one of those times where I'm supposed to be telling myself 'It ain't you, let it go' but my people pleasing side is telling me 'But someone HATES you. You need to fix that!'
:D

[JWBear]

If they hate you, then they are stupid. And there ain't no way to fix stupid.

[Snowflake]

Obama's in town again.
That only means one thing.
I sent out 2 letters to the editor this time. One to each of the major papers here.
Let's see if they publish at least one of them like last time.
I got a call from one saying that they're 99% sure they will publish my letter.
That's awesome.
I hope he reads it.
I wrote about how DADT and DOMA are still around and that he should refrain from making any new year's resolutions for 2010, seeing as how he can't keep his campaign promises why bother with resolutions for the new year?

:evil:

Not evil, VGCM

[Moonliner]

Although deep inside I feel like I did the right thing, the person who sent me the email hates me now. He left me a ranky stank voicemail. I think it was the Reply All thing that did it. Ugh. Oy vey. Well, the deed is done. Not much I can do now.

If he's pissed you did a reply-all suggest he learns what the BCC line in his email client is for.

If he's pissed that you make him look like a ninny, a bit of introspection on his part is in order.



Have you received any comments from the recipients you emailed?

[Gemini Cricket]

Have you received any comments from the recipients you emailed?
Two "Out of Office" replies and three "Right on, Brad!" emails.
:)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Eh, the two "Out of Office" sound like the type of people who take more vacations than you, not much worth your time anyway. Pricks.

[Alex]

'But someone HATES you. You need to fix that!'

Getting over this impulse is the next vital step in your question to flawlessly Alex someone.

[Ghoulish Delight]

"Flawlessly Alexing someone" sounds like something that should have been addressed at the Geneva Convention.

[Gemini Cricket]

Eh, the two "Out of Office" sound like the type of people who take more vacations than you, not much worth your time anyway. Pricks.
Ghoulish Johnson is right! Those pricks!

Getting over this impulse is the next vital step in your question to flawlessly Alex someone.
But "Alexing" could mean a number of things. For instance, if I said I Alexed at the last camping trip, it would mean that in the evenings I slept on the ground under my car sans sleeping bag.
Colon Capital "d"

[Betty]

It's a LoT meme - to Alex someone. I like it!

And GC, I know what you mean about being a people pleaser. I too struggle with that.

[Alex]

But "Alexing" could mean a number of things. For instance, if I said I Alexed at the last camping trip, it would mean that in the evenings I slept on the ground under my car sans sleeping bag.
Colon Capital "d"

But see, even doing that requires not particularly caring what other people think about you. Or I would have been hectored into sleeping inside something.

And I thought I used a sleeping bag. I know I did have bedding of some sort. And sleeping under my car is very logical. If I'm under (or more sleeping really close to) my car nobody else will accidentally run me over and camp ground parking spaces are generally relatively smooth and level.

[Gemini Cricket]

It's a LoT meme - to Alex someone. I like it!

And GC, I know what you mean about being a people pleaser. I too struggle with that.
It's kinda hard to deal with sometimes.
I blame it on my upbringing. My dad was a cop and made it clear to everyone that he made no mistakes whatsoever. And both parents were the model Catholic couple at their church. So, lots of times, all eyes were on us (at least on Sundays) to act like pristine Precious Moments figurines without flaws.

[Gemini Cricket]

And I thought I used a sleeping bag. I know I did have bedding of some sort. And sleeping under my car is very logical. If I'm under (or more sleeping really close to) my car nobody else will accidentally run me over and camp ground parking spaces are generally relatively smooth and level.
Except your car leaks. You walked around the campsite with a black oil mustache all day. No one told you.

I wonder if Lani has the occasional panic attack when backing out from the garage or driveway during your nap times.

That reminds me, I love Lani Tenigma.

[Gemini Cricket]

Zoinks!

The Star Bulletin in Honolulu printed my Letter to the Editor.
:)


President should not make more promises

During his vacation here, I'm hoping that Mr. Obama doesn't make any New Year's resolutions for 2010. I mean, the Defense of Marriage Act and "don't ask, don't tell" still exist, despite his campaign promises to get rid of them. So, why make any new promises, Mr. President? I'm old-fashioned. I'm a man of my word. I don't go back on mine, if I make anyone a promise. I wish more politicians had integrity like that.

Brad _______
KailuaSource (http://www.starbulletin.com/editorials/letters/20091230_Letters_to_the_Editor.html)

[cirquelover]

I just Alex'ed someone who was sending out bad info via email.

Someone sent me (and about 100 people) a spam email about an upside-down US flag at Montebello High School. The email was misleading and was about an incident that happened in 2006 (but it made it sound like it just happened and was happening on a regular basis). I sent a Reply All to everyone with a link to the snopes.com article about the incident.

The email itself smelled racist and was incorrect about a couple of things, so I told everyone to do their research before getting into a tizzy and running outside, naked waving their tallywhackers around saying, 'The sky is falling, the sky is falling!'

:D

I just recently did the same thing to someone. My racist, bigot of an Aunt sent out this scathing email and she made the mistake of including me on it. So like GC, I replied to all with a link to Snopes. Wow is she pissed at me, not that I care, but at least everyone on her list can see the truth. She even wrote back to me saying that Snopes is just a bunch of BS and that she was still right, oy!! At least the others have a new place to look up some of the crap that she sends out. My Mom isn't mad either, she even giggled a little and said she was proud of me for standing up to her because no one else will. Needless to say I'm not on my Aunts email list anymore:evil:

[alphabassettgrrl]

My Mom isn't mad either, she even giggled a little and said she was proud of me for standing up to her because no one else will. Needless to say I'm not on my Aunts email list anymore:evil:


So it works out for everybody!!!

[BarTopDancer]

We don't expect you to catch everything, but we expect you to catch the exact same thing. I <3 John Stewart (http://tinyurl.com/yglhycm)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Hindsight is 20/20.

I wonder how many warnings intelligence agencies get that never amount to anything.

[Alex]

I know he was going for comedy but two of the things that I was suprised to see mentioned was that he had bought a one-way ticket. That was the early report but I believe it has been shown to be the case that he bought a round-trip ticket.

The other thing is that he paid cash. The problem with that is in Nigeria (and many African countries) paying cash is the norm as access to credit is limited and fraud is rampant.

[BarTopDancer]

Hindsight is 20/20. But all the signs were there, including his own father voicing concerns and other countries revoking travel visas.

[Ghoulish Delight]

It is fiction to imagine that intelligence agencies can sort out every single possible scenario, warning, plea, threat, etc. and know ahead of time with accuracy who is and isn't going to turn out to be acting on those warnings on any given day. They have limited resources and have to make judgment calls as to what seems the most likely.

After the fact, everything is crystal clear. With a definite endpoint, the path there is obvious. But that's an illusion. Like I said, I would be willing to bet the intelligence community has stacks of testimonials from dozens of people's family members warning them of radical rantings or whatever. It's only AFTER one of them actually does anything that their particular warning suddenly stands out from the crowd as "an obvious sign".

Does, "I'm worried he's starting to become radical" really sound like a pressing warning that would indicate cause for concern in the short term? Does someone who seeming just began to explore "radicalization" with no previous history really seem like someone "obviously" about to blow up a plane? Not to me it doesn't.

I'm sick of people trying to sell the myth that if we just "fix" our intelligence agencies, we'll be safe. As long as due process and freedom remain ideals here (and perhaps even afterwards), there is no 100% "fix" for the problem. And only in hindsight will the particular signs and warning for that particular person seem "obvious", while hundreds of others with various combinations of those same "obvious" signs will continue to be impossible to sort out from each other until one of them actually tries to act.

[Alex]

And interesting byproduct is that this will probably be viewed as a greater intelligence and security failure since it failed than if he'd been successful in crashing the plane.

[Ghoulish Delight]

How do you figure? Is your theory that if he had crashed the plane, politicians and pundits would be less willing to blame it on failed intelligence, which would have the side effect of making the people who are the targets of that blame party to the murders?

[Alex]

1. We wouldn't know all the details we know now.

2. The details learned would have come out over a longer period of time and with less certainty. It would be quite a while before it was even a certainty there'd been a bomb, how it was snuck in, etc.

I guess a better way to have phrased it is that if he'd been successful the response likely would be less hysterical and less specific.

Similarly, if Richard Reid had been successful we'd probably still be able to wear our shoes through security.

[wendybeth]

Time had a rather simplistic essay about this subject this week, but I liked the gist of it, which was that we need to stop worrying about 'intelligence failures' and the apparent inability of the government to afford us complete safety, and focus on the obvious: fellow civvies stopped Reid and this guy, and we need to recognize that ultimately the solution lies in ourselves. Stop waiting around like sheep for the farmer dude to come and kill the wolves, and do the deed ourselves. Be aware, and don't be afraid to take action when and where you need to. I realize the government doesn't like this mode of thinking- they might spout concerns of vigilantism, etc, but really- they just want us to need them. Thank God the survival instinct usually kicks in and people seem to be able to get real when they need to, but I know there have been instances where people have remained inactive while waiting in vain for the Calvary to swoop in. (Katrina, etc).

[Betty]

Have any of you read The Hunger Games?

Got it for my teenage daughter - it's a 3 book series (I'm on book 2).

It's an interesting sci-fy look into the future where, after famine, flood and war, the US is now called Panem and the Capitol city rules ruthlessly over the other districts to prevent an uprising. They put on the Hunger Games every year - it's a reality show where children fight to the death.

Great books. Easy reading. And with a fair amount of things to think about polically in addition to the whole reality show entertainment at the expense of others.

[Alex]

Have not heard of it before this.

Try out Battle Royale if you want kids fighting to the death. It is a Japanese novel/movie where, to deal with ruffianism every year a school is selected and all the students dumped into an only-one-can-survive (and explicitly detailed) free-for-all.

Probably not appropriate for a young teenager, though (if you're of the opinion there can be a book inappropriate for kids).

[alphabassettgrrl]

Time had a rather simplistic essay about this subject this week, but I liked the gist of it, which was that we need to stop worrying about 'intelligence failures' and the apparent inability of the government to afford us complete safety, and focus on the obvious: fellow civvies stopped Reid and this guy, and we need to recognize that ultimately the solution lies in ourselves. Stop waiting around like sheep for the farmer dude to come and kill the wolves, and do the deed ourselves. Be aware, and don't be afraid to take action when and where you need to. I realize the government doesn't like this mode of thinking- they might spout concerns of vigilantism, etc, but really- they just want us to need them. Thank God the survival instinct usually kicks in and people seem to be able to get real when they need to, but I know there have been instances where people have remained inactive while waiting in vain for the Calvary to swoop in. (Katrina, etc).

Yeah. This.

[Ghoulish Delight]

**** yeah, John Oliver (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-5-2010/even-better-than-the-real-thing)

"They were children! They were all fvking children! It was a 'better, simpler time' because they were all 6 years old. For children, the world is always a happy, uncomplicated place."

[alphabassettgrrl]

I'm liking John Oliver more and more. He was on NPR the other day and he was funny there, too.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Go listen to The Bugle from Times Online.

[scaeagles]

Tuesday and Wednesday of next week are going to be very, very interesting.

The special election to fill the Senate seat in Massachusetts vacated by Ted Kennedy is Tuesday, and the spin starts on Wednesday.

There is a real chance that the dems lose the seat. Brown (the republican) has huge momentum, going from down 31 two months ago to up four in polls yesterday.

If Brown wins, I cannot WAIT to hear the spin that comes from the democrat party. It will have to be mighty creative. Even if Brown loses and it is close, that has to signal some significant danger to the dems for November 2010.

And Coakley is a complete idiot. She said (http://www.wten.com/Global/story.asp?S=11825054)she opposes sending troops to Afghanistan because the terrorists are gone.

[flippyshark]

And Coakley is a complete idiot. She said (http://www.wten.com/Global/story.asp?S=11825054)she opposes sending troops to Afghanistan because the terrorists are gone.

It sounds to me like she said something slightly different. She supported going into Afghanistan when we were targeting al Qaeda. Now that al Qaeda has moved elsewhere (according to her), she is all for pursuing them to wherever they have run. She never said Afghanistan is terrorist-free. I don't know if she's right about al Qaeda, but I agree that they should have been our focus for a long long time now. (They are the ones who actually attacked us.)

I don't have an opinion about what we should do in Afghanistan. I don't know if they want the Taliban removed. I don't know what our chances of success there are, or even what success there means. So, I can't comment on that end of the equation. But I do remember a brief time when the whole world was united against al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and I often wonder why we are still so far away from finishing that initial fight.

The unending rhetorical battle about the "War On Terror" is a useless one, with limitless empty phrases easily hurled at whoever you don't agree with. It also seems to cast everyone in a harsh binary all-good or all-bad way that just doesn't lead to much reason or understanding.

And on the other matter, is there any response from the dems that would not seem like spin to you, sca? (And really, if your side wins, will you really care? Don't you WANT dems to say and do dumb things? Heaven knows the dems had no end of joy watching repubs in the aftermath of the last election. It's not noble or grand, but it's unavoidable.) Also, I don't get the predictive criticism. Why demonize your opponent in advance? Why not wait until they actually do something?

[scaeagles]

What in there was demonizing the opponent? Politics is spin and both sides do it.

She said:

"I think we have done what we are going to be able to do in Afghanistan. I think that we should plan an exit strategy. Yes. I'm not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that. They're gone. They're not there anymore."

She is either saying that terrorists aren't there anymore or that the Taliban isn't there anymore. While the Taliban may not be in power, they are definitely still there.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Every intelligence report has said that there are fewer than 100 active Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan, and NONE of the Al Qaeda leadership. They've moved on to Pakistan and other places. Obama mentioned it several times in his speech about the troops increase. The generals on the ground have mentioned it. To try to paint it as if she is talking about anything other than that fact, which no one has disputed is a fact, is being utterly obtuse.

[flippyshark]

What in there was demonizing the opponent? Politics is spin and both sides do it.



Undoubtedly, but you have made a point of saying that the dems will spin if they lose. What would constitute non-spin in your mind? Who knows? Maybe they will be gracious. (And by they, I mean her opponent and his staff, those actively in the race - what other pundits and commentators do is less important - and you are right - spin is their product.) I have seen democrats and republicans lose gracefully and concede without vituperation before. What do you gain by predicting they won't? (If you were just predicting that the media will spin, I retract my comments - of course they will, both sides, but who cares?)

And as GD said, Coakley's comments, in full, seemed clear to me to be about al Qaeda. If that is what she meant, I agree with her. If what she meant was your interpretation, yes, that's inane. I'm pretty sure she isn't that dumb.

[flippyshark]

On a reread, I may have mistaken your post. I thought you meant Brown would spin, which I find fairly unlikely, actually. (at least, not on Wednesday.) Losers usually wait a while before saying much. You seem to be talking more about widespread party spin - I assume you mean that a dem loss would spark lots of "Hey, we're not really in trouble" response. Sure, that's probably true. and there are significant risks for democrats this year. Absolutely. (Oh, how my hard core liberal friends would deride my conciliatory tone :))

[Ghoulish Delight]

What in there was demonizing the opponent? Politics is spin and both sides do it.

She said:

"I think we have done what we are going to be able to do in Afghanistan. I think that we should plan an exit strategy. Yes. I'm not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that. They're gone. They're not there anymore."

She is either saying that terrorists aren't there anymore or that the Taliban isn't there anymore. While the Taliban may not be in power, they are definitely still there.

Every intelligence report has said that there are fewer than 100 active Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan, and NONE of the Al Qaeda leadership. They've moved on to Pakistan and other places. Obama mentioned it several times in his speech about the troops increase. The generals on the ground have mentioned it. To try to paint it as if she is talking about anything other than that fact, which no one has disputed is a fact, is being utterly obtuse.

I knew this felt familiar.

what's old is new (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showthread.php?p=297713#post297713)

Another case of ignoring the months and months of context that lead up to a statement so you can interpret it in the worst light possible.

[Alex]

And Coakley is a complete idiot. She said (http://www.wten.com/Global/story.asp?S=11825054)she opposes sending troops to Afghanistan because the terrorists are gone.

She may be an idiot. I know next to nothing about her.

But it is hard to see such a statement being all that harmful. It is, after all, the mainstream argument for opposition to expanding or continuing indefinitely the war in Afghanistan.

The argument being that hardly any of the terrorists we were initially after remain in Afghanistan and that to a large extent the terrorists that are now there are almost entirely engaging in terrorism because we are still there.

I disagree with it on balance (I don't disagree with the assessment but rather the result of pulling out) but it hardly strikes me as an unreasonable position to hold.

[scaeagles]

Even though I am not a baseball fan, at least I know Curt Schilling is not a Yankee's fan, as accused of being by Coakley as he was campaigning for Brown. not important, but humorous.

But you have to love Ed Schultz of MSNBC encouraging voter fraud (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/18/msnbcs_ed_schultz_id_cheat_to_keep_brown_from_winn ing.html).

I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are.

[flippyshark]

But you have to love Ed Schultz of MSNBC encouraging voter fraud (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/18/msnbcs_ed_schultz_id_cheat_to_keep_brown_from_winn ing.html).

Ugh - that's awful.

[Gemini Cricket]

So some news sources are already calling the Massachusetts race a done deal and it's going to go to Brown. Jon Stewart nailed it yet again last night on his show (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/19/jon-stewart-gets-fed-up-d_n_427917.html).

"If this lady loses, the health care reform bill that the beloved late senator considered his legacy, will die. And the reason it will die... is because if Coakley loses, Democrats will only have an 18 vote majority in the Senate, which is more than George W. Bush ever had in the Senate when did whatever the f*ck he wanted to."

"It's not that the Democrats are playing checkers and the Republicans are playing chess. It's that the Republicans are playing chess and the Democrats are in the nurse's office because once again they glued their balls to their thighs."

[scaeagles]

The spin has already started and it is enjoyable to watch. Coakley was indeed a horrible candidate. No doubt. Regardless, Brown made it very clear that electing him meant a vote against the health care legislation. And to win running with that as a major point in your campaign and to win in perhaps the most left leaning state in the union speaks mightily as to what the public in general thinks about the health care legislation.

Of course that is not all of it. The dems find themselves in the same position that the Republicans did with Bush. Conservatives couldn't stand how Bush and the republicans were playing to the center so they lost a lot of their base and still were unable to secure the center they wanted. Obama and the dems are trying to secure the center, which they are losing, and are losing their base as well.

[flippyshark]

The spin has already started and it is enjoyable to watch. Coakley was indeed a horrible candidate. No doubt. Regardless, Brown made it very clear that electing him meant a vote against the health care legislation. And to win running with that as a major point in your campaign and to win in perhaps the most left leaning state in the union speaks mightily as to what the public in general thinks about the health care legislation.

Of course that is not all of it. The dems find themselves in the same position that the Republicans did with Bush. Conservatives couldn't stand how Bush and the republicans were playing to the center so they lost a lot of their base and still were unable to secure the center they wanted. Obama and the dems are trying to secure the center, which they are losing, and are losing their base as well.

Is not your own post also spin?

Have the dems (in spinning) yet said anything about this election you found untrue or unfair? If so, specifics would mean more than just gloating. (Though I don't begrudge you the right to gloat. It's a fine LoT tradition.) I do agree that Coakley ended up being a weak candidate. On the other hand, I think that the center is all that Obama is actually holding onto. It's the progressive base that is feeling the most buyer's remorse. (And it goes without saying that he never had the conservative base. Maybe you mean he is losing the right-center? That could be. I'm not very in touch with that constituency.)

I don't know if Brown's victory really spells the end of the current health care bill or not. But let's say that the balance of the house and senate shift to the republicans later this year. If they truly have nothing other to offer than the status quo on health care, there is going to be hell to pay. (There is already increasing anger and frustration with MOR folks like me who work four or five part time jobs, have no benefits and cannot afford anything but the most useless of policies.) Can you guys fix it? Can anyone? I don't demand that anything be given to me for free, but you will never convince me that the current system is anything but unfair, broken and criminal.

There will be plenty to discuss, argue and bash our heads on desks about as this year goes on. Enjoy your tasty dish of win for the moment, sca.

[Gemini Cricket]

I can't help but sit back and just shrug. I feel underrepresented as a gay man and liberal by the Democratic Party. (Not that I would ever defect and become a Republican...) So when Obama gets slapped on the wrist by this loss, I can't help but go, 'If you had my back then I'd feel something for ya, Mr. President.'

[JWBear]

I would like to point out that lack of support for the current health care bill does not equal lack of support for any health care reform.

[scaeagles]

I agree with that, JW. I am not against any health care reform, but certainly am against what is presented at present.

Flippy, if you look at how dem candidates have been polling with independents, independents are moving toward the republican party. Obama and his agenda are alienating his base because it isn't leftist enough. He is alienating the center because he's playing the same political games he vowed he wouldn't play.

[JWBear]

I agree with that, JW. I am not against any health care reform, but certainly am against what is presented at present.


The funny thing is, so am I; but for very different reasons, I'm sure.

[scaeagles]

Most assuredly. Good lord knows I just want everyone to get sick and die. :)

[flippyshark]

He is alienating the center because he's playing the same political games he vowed he wouldn't play.

Sadly, that seems true. I'm inclined to give Obama as much benefit of the doubt as I can, but he's going to have to do quite a lot in the next three years to impress me. As it stands, one-term presidency seems likely.

At the same time, when Brown said that his victory wasn't a referendum on Obama, I think that's true. November, though ...

[Alex]

Now that's just slanderous hyperbole.

If you wanted people to get sick and die it would only be people without income, or with insufficient income, that you'd want to get sick and die.

Of course, you don't want people to get sick and die. However, if people do get sick you are accept that access to money or certain employment will be a key factor in their attempt to avoid death (or remediation of sickness).

But that's fine, since support of a free market (or mostly free market) health care system is one of pragmatism. That despite individual harm, it is does more good overall than the alternative.

At core, I'm ok with this as well. However, my view is that this will be on the losing side of history. So, since my core view is unlikely to prevail I'd rather have the best option of the other side rather than a mishmash of things that is likely to make things worse individually and collectively.

[sleepyjeff]

Just outlaw ALL Health insurance and watch the prices fall......(I know, I know, too easy;) )

[JWBear]

All hail our new corporate overlords! (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-overturns-campaign-finance-limits-corporations/story?id=9269776)

http://www.dane101.com/files/corporateamerica.jpg

[scaeagles]

I was exceptionally happy about portions of McCain/Feingold being overturned.

[JWBear]

Why?

[scaeagles]

I've long thought them to be unconstitutional. I view it as restrictive of free speech. It specifically banned groups from run ads mentioning specific candidates within 60 days of an election. They could be corporations, advocacy groups, me and my freakin' neighbor pooling our money, whatever. I think that's wrong.

[Gemini Cricket]

All hail our new corporate overlords! (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-overturns-campaign-finance-limits-corporations/story?id=9269776)

http://www.dane101.com/files/corporateamerica.jpg

You know, I've always felt they were our overlords anyway.

Big business owns the media... etc etc etc.



In related news, I have never been more disinterested in the news, politics and government in my whole life than I am at this very moment.

[Alex]

I too do not approve of McCain Feingold or any other limitations on my ability to participate in the political process by use of my own money.

I have no problem with saying that only human individuals are allowed to participate in the process and am fine with barring institutions from financial involvement. But if I want to put my entire salary and effort behind getting my convenience store clerk elected to the U.S. Senate I do believe that should be my right.

Haven't yet read the news to see what parts were overturned.

[flippyshark]

In related news, I have never been more disinterested in the news, politics and government in my whole life than I am at this very moment.

Then why'd ya click on this thread, huh? ;)

[Gemini Cricket]

Then why'd ya click on this thread, huh? ;)
To post what I wrote. Then I saw JW's flag picture. I often do not read everything in this thread.
:)

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm with Alex. Haven't seen details, but from what I've been hearing from the people who are happy about this decision, I disagree that it's a free speech issue. The Constitution protects individuals, not collective entities. Is the fact that corporations and unions don't have a vote in elections restricting their constitutional rights? I doubt anyone would say so, but restricting their speech is?

No law prevents individuals that are part of the entities from exercising their right to free speech. If the CEO of Enron wants to spend their money to run ads for a write in campaign for Cheney in 2012, they are free too and rightly should not be restricted. But I do not believe the same rights extend beyond the individual to collective entities like unions and corporations. Totally different ball of wax.

But either way, I look forward to the outcries from conservative Republicans about this sweeping, irresponsible abuse of power by a bunch of activist judges.

[JWBear]

But either way, I look forward to the outcries from conservative Republicans about this sweeping, irresponsible abuse of power by a bunch of activist judges.

You won't hear it.

[€uroMeinke]

Somehow when a collective is called a corporation its no longer communist

[scaeagles]

You won't find me ever saying overturning a law as unconstitutional is outside the purview of the SCOTUS. I think legislation from the bench comes in forms of a judge saying "yuou must rewrite the property tax distribution for schools in AZ because I don't think it's fair". That kind of crap.

Based on your interpratation of the first amendment, then GD, I suppose the government could ban churches. As long as people can worship within their own homes their rights aren't being infringed upon. As I read the first amendment, it says "Congress shall make NO law".

In all seriousness, though, would you view groups such as the NRA as different than a corporation?

[Alex]

I'll start to buy into that when corporations give up the legal benefits they have that individual people do not have (corporations exist solely to protect individuals from the possible negative consequences of their actions. They don't get to be a "person" only when it benefits would be my view.

Yes, corporations are essentially a collective of people (the shareholders) but the speech of a corporation is only secondarily a form of expression by those people as there is no requirement that the people speaking for the corporation be owners nor that they make any attempt to consult with the owners before making such expressions.

Heck, part of this suit (unsuccessful) was that corporations wanted to not have to report their involvement in the political process which would allow them to mask their speech from their owners.

Another consideration is that for most publicly traded corporations a significant portion of the "free speech" interest is held by non-Americans. Since when do they have a right to participation in our political process?

Mostly my objection (and I won't claim at this point it is based in constitutional reality, though the constitution has nothing to say about corporations, they are entirely legislative entities) is that when it comes to the "personhood" of corporations they seem to get to pick and choose how real that metaphor will be from situation to situation making for a form of "heads I win, tails you lose."

I do recognize that this creates a conflict. Why, for example, does the Tribune Company, a corporation, get to say whatever it wants about the political process at any time in the political process but Microsoft would not? It's a very valid point, but my gut feeling here is that this resolution to the question was in the wrong direction.

As for the NRA, since they are an incorporated organization I would say no, they're no different.

[JWBear]

Also... this ruling allows companies to contribute as much as they wish on an election, while you and I are still limited to $2400. How fair is that?

[Strangler Lewis]

Corporations are considered "persons" for purposes of the due process clause. I don't recall the specifics, but I believe that there was a fair amount of discussion of that very point when the 14th Amendment was ratified.

The First Amendment does not speak of whom it is protecting. It speaks of what may not be done. It is inconceivable that a content-based restriction on speech could be enforced against speech that comes from an organization but not against speech that comes from an individual.

I haven't read the decision. I assume it discusses whether or not the legislation was justified by a compelling state interest. One can conceive of such an interest. The antitrust laws bespeak the view that there can be a point where concentrations of power and wealth effectively freeze the game and, therefore, become anti-democratic. One can see the same potential with well-funded corporate speech.

[Alex]

Also... this ruling allows companies to contribute as much as they wish on an election, while you and I are still limited to $2400. How fair is that?

No, that's not right. Corporations are still limited like everybody else on direct contributions to candidates.

This just means they can spend as much of their corporate money as they want on their own political advocacy during certain periods before an election. You and I could already do that, if I had a billion dollars no law would prevent me from running my own commercials saying "Vote for Bob" so long as they were produced independently of Bob.

[Chernabog]

Olbermann's comments (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMTJ--JWJqM) on the issue were interesting -- of course, he takes it to his usual nth degree of histrionics but his heart is in the right place.

There's something fundamentally wrong (and this is my understanding, correct me if I am wrong) when the CEO of Walmart can donate a limited amount of $$ to a candidate, but Walmart itself can donate an unlimited amount to a candidate. In my book, that means that the candidate is thereby bought and beholden to Walmart. Walmart wants a piece of legislation passed? Walmart has bought that piece of legislation. Walmart doesn't want to pay for domestic partner benefits because they cost too dang much? Walmart starts paying for "those" politicians. Hallelujah, profits go up.

I've definitely read enough scifi where the corporation and the state are one and the same ("Snow Crash," anyone?). This seems to be one of those decisions which pushes things closer to that "fiction."

Edit: After reading Alex's post, , maybe one of my assertions isn't correct.. but still, let's face it, Walmart has a lot more money to run those commercials and "indirectly" donate to a candidate than even the CEO of Walmart.

[scaeagles]

What was prevented was something like the NRA saying "Senator Whozit has voted to take your gun rights away" within 60 days (maybe 30) of an election.

The NRA could run ads saying "support gun rights" but could not mention Senator Whozit.

[JWBear]

No, that's not right. Corporations are still limited like everybody else on direct contributions to candidates.

This just means they can spend as much of their corporate money as they want on their own political advocacy during certain periods before an election. You and I could already do that, if I had a billion dollars no law would prevent me from running my own commercials saying "Vote for Bob" so long as they were produced independently of Bob.

The effect is the same. How many average Americans would it take to be able to outspend the likes of Exxon/Mobil?

[scaeagles]

In my book, that means that the candidate is thereby bought and beholden to Walmart.

I disagree. Walmart might think that the policies supported by Candidate A are better for their business than the policies supported by Candidate B. The issue then comes down to the integrity of the candidate, not the money donated (or the commercial in support of the candidate....whatever type of donation it is). The candidate may have voted for a certain piece of legislation with or without what Walmart did. The problem is when the incumbant says "I want Walmart to support me, so even though I don't like this legislation, I will vote for it anyway.". If the incumbant votes against the legislation, Walmart should be allowed to run ads saying why the incumbant hasn't been good for the community or country or whatever.

The problem isn't the corporation. It is the politician.

[JWBear]

What was prevented was something like the NRA saying "Senator Whozit has voted to take your gun rights away" within 60 days (maybe 30) of an election.

The NRA could run ads saying "support gun rights" but could not mention Senator Whozit.

You keep focusing on orginizations like the NRA, thus missing the point. Corporations are the problem. Faceless, greed driven "persons" with no interest in the common good, and who are often partially foreign owned. This is the danger, not non-profits orginizations. Can the NRA or Sierra Club spend a billion dollars to elect a President or pack the Senate? How many mega-corps could? How about the King of Saudi Arabia being able to buy an American corporation and funnel billions through it to elect members of Congress? Does that thought still make you all warm and fuzzy about the SCOTUS's ruling?

[JWBear]

I disagree. Walmart might think that the policies supported by Candidate A are better for their business than the policies supported by Candidate B. The issue then comes down to the integrity of the candidate, not the money donated (or the commercial in support of the candidate....whatever type of donation it is). The candidate may have voted for a certain piece of legislation with or without what Walmart did. The problem is when the incumbant says "I want Walmart to support me, so even though I don't like this legislation, I will vote for it anyway.". If the incumbant votes against the legislation, Walmart should be allowed to run ads saying why the incumbant hasn't been good for the community or country or whatever.

The problem isn't the corporation. It is the politician.

How naive.

[Chernabog]

The problem isn't the corporation. It is the politician.

Well I think that is true in a vacuum. But the politician that simply votes his/her conscience, outside the political game and beholden to none is a creature that has gone the way of the jubjub bird.

[Alex]

The effect is the same. How many average Americans would it take to be able to outspend the likes of Exxon/Mobil?

A lot. But it would also take a lot to outspend George Soros (who problaby spends more on political advocacy than Exxon/Mobil). But I'm not particularly disagreeing with the general sentiment. Just correcting the incorrect statement you'd made.

It is worth pointing out that before yesterday corporations could already spend unlimited amounts on direct election advocacy. They just couldn't do it 30-days before an election or 60 days before a general. So it isn't like the status quo ante was a complete ban on corporate political speech.

I understand that it is very difficult to figure out how to draw a line in this arena, but I just have a gut feeling that it is not a good thing to extend the corporation=person metaphor beyond a very narrow reading. And political power is full of nearly infinite inequalities that are just as fundamentally unfair as access to cash.

[scaeagles]

How naive.

I don't think so. What power does the money (or whatever type donation) have over the politician except his desire to have more of it?

[Strangler Lewis]

Well I think that is true in a vacuum. But the politician that simply votes his/her conscience, outside the political game and beholden to none is a creature that has gone the way of the jubjub bird.

Indeed, the Constitution and numerous pieces of legislation rely on many "legislative facts" and assumptions about the world without bothering to define them or set them out. We know what life, liberty and property are without their being defined. Similarly, we know that our leaders lack integrity and devotion to the common good. Indeed, we fought a revolution over that.

Of course, if, in enacting the law, Congress had made a finding of fact that "the politician that simply votes his/her conscience, outside the political game and beholden to none is a creature that has gone the way of the jubjub bird," the law would certainly survive rational basis scrutiny.

[Chernabog]

Of course, if, in enacting the law, Congress had made a finding of fact that "the politician that simply votes his/her conscience, outside the political game and beholden to none is a creature that has gone the way of the jubjub bird," the law would certainly survive rational basis scrutiny.

LMAO..... I'd love to see THAT in the legislative notes ;)

Though I don't think ALL of our leaders "lack integrity and devotion to the common good" (at least, not now in 2010). I just think that they all play a political game (duh),they are all forced to compromise on their values to do so, and where their money comes from is a big part of that. Who doesn't want to help the people that helped them?

[Ghoulish Delight]

This may not be directly related but I heard this story yesterday and it, to me, speaks well to how allowing greater involvement of corporations in the political process is a threat to individual liberty (quite literally in this case). Our government is becoming more and more about protecting the healthy bottom line of corporate entities and less about protecting its citizens' rights and freedom.

Bail Burden Keeps U.S. Jails Stuffed With Inmates (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122725771)

[Alex]

Part of the risk when it comes to the distorting effect of money is not the money's influence on the politician (it is very much the case that you can rarely know if the money is finding a politician who already has friendly views or if the politician is finding friendly views that get money) but rather the inordinate influence on the messages heard by the voter.

For example, let's say Politician A is not corrupt but he holds political views that MegaCorp finds very satisfactory. Politician B is not corrupt but he holds political views that MegaCorp does not want to see in office but it is quite possible a majority of the consituents voting would approve of.

With its massively disproportionate spending ability, MegaCorp could make it so expensive to communicate through mass channels (TV, radio, print newspapers) that Politician B can not offord to be heard through these channels (or barely heard).

To me this is the stronger argument related to money in politics (and as mentioned before it is not one I entirely stand behind). Not that money corrupts politicians (it can, but I honestly think that for the most part it doesn't to a huge degree) but rather money -- or rather the massively disproportionate access to it -- distorts the debate. And that is what is massively harmful to the system.

[Betty]

Interesting read.

[Betty]

Seems that funding political campaigns is the source of the problem. Why not just give everyone running the same amount of money or time or whatever and not have them beholden to anyone?

[Alex]

The money in question is not money used for funding campaigns. No rules related to that have changed. The question is about money people spend, independently of the campaigning politicians.

To completely remove the impact of disparate access to cash you'd have to

A) Fund all campaigns equally through government grant.
B) Prohibit anybody other than the candidates from talking about the candidates.

Clearly B would be a violation of free speech. The question is whether corporations are entitled to that right of speech (the answer has gone from "yes, most of the time" to "yes").

[sleepyjeff]

Another solution would be to massively increase the number of members of congress.....imho the Founding Fathers did not want so few to represent so many......

[Alex]

While I agree with increasing the number of people in Congress (though that can't really be done in the Senate without a major constitutional overahaul) I don't know that this would be the case.

Currently one advantage to a person running for congress in the face of massive corporate spending is that the constituency is very large. If you can rally financial support from a couple thousand people you can go a long way towards negating the advantage of money. However, if you only have 40,000 people in your jurisdiction you're screwed.

Plus, part of the advantage of money here is in the fact that access to mass communication is essentially a zero sum game. In the Bay Area, there's only one set of TV stations, newspapers, and radio stations. If MegaCorp can dominate those channels in the face of demand from the current volume of politicians, tripling the number of politicians scrambling for that access will only make domination easier.

In other words, significantly increasing the number of office holders may decrease the value of a single "bought" congressman but it also would make it cheaper to "buy" a congressman.

[sleepyjeff]

In other words, significantly increasing the number of office holders may decrease the value of a single "bought" congressman but it also would make it cheaper to "buy" a congressman.

Fair enough, but the see-saw you describe isn't centered...IE, at some point, if enough members were to be added, the going rate would be lower than what most congresspersons would be willing to sacrifice their ideals for.

[Alex]

Again, I'm not so concerned about "buying" a congressman in terms of corrupting the person so that they begin voting the way you want to.

The "buying" I'm talking about is the power to make sure that a candidate can't get they're message out without your support. So even if no person sacrifices their ideals only the ones with massive corporate support can get there message out effectively and thus only they will generally get elected.

And that form of "buying" is only aided by adding more congressmen to the equation. At least until such time as the pool is so increased that a candidate can efficiently campaign through face-to-face, door-to-door communication and need not rely on mass distribution.

[sleepyjeff]

Again, I'm not so concerned about "buying" a congressman in terms of corrupting the person so that they begin voting the way you want to.

The "buying" I'm talking about is the power to make sure that a candidate can't get their message out without your support. So even if no person sacrifices their ideals only the ones with massive corporate support can get their message out effectively and thus only they will generally get elected.

And that form of "buying" is only aided by adding more congressmen to the equation. At least until such time as the pool is so increased that a candidate can efficiently campaign through face-to-face, door-to-door communication and need not rely on mass distribution.

Oh, I see. Yeah, I suppose you are right about that form of "buying".

[Alex]

I can not believe I homophoned "their" twice, two different ways, in one post.

Typing homophones is the most idiot-looking thing I do.