Obama

[Gemini Cricket]

Didn't know where to post this so I created a misc thread about Mr. Fierce Advocate.

Anyway, I thought this was pretty rad:
In a nod to his first home state, President Barack Obama will host the first-ever Hawaii-style luau on the White House lawn, complete with real Island cuisine, hula and music. The Thursday luau is pretty much all the Hawaii-born-and-raised president's idea—his revamping, of sorts, of the annual White House Congressional picnic for members of Congress and their families.Source (http://www.hawaiimagazine.com/blogs/hawaii_today/2009/6/23/Barack_Obama_White_House_Hawaii_luau_food)
:snap:

[JWBear]

And the Republican talking heads will find some excuse to slam him for it.

[Gemini Cricket]

And the Republican talking heads will find some excuse to slam him for it.
They'll accuse him of poi-ing around with terrorists.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

And the Republican talking heads will find some excuse to slam him for it.

Oh, all the talking heads will have apples in their mouths, so no one will hear a thing.

[Alex]

I expect PETA protests over the whole pig.

[Gemini Cricket]

The feminists will object to the scantily clad women dancing for Obama's pleasure.

The vegans and the vegetarians will object to them eating kalua pig.

The Monterey Bay Aquarium will object to him eating salmon in his lomi lomi salmon that are not from approved fish farms.

Racists will object to the Hawaiian music being played because the songs are not in god's language, English.

The Bible Belt loonies will say that Hawaiians deify pagan gods like Pele and will wonder if Obama does too.

The possibilities are endless.

:D

[scaeagles]

If PETA objected to him killing a fly, they'll object to the pig.

I have plenty of things to say about our President, but I'll let him finish 6 months. Mid July.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

"We're not gonna protest! We're not gonna protest!"

[lashbear]

If PETA objected to him killing a fly...
You're not kidding, are you. Seriously? OMG.

[JWBear]

Unfortunately, he's not. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hNw_VW9Dlp19RvvaxvSLo5TZRwSQD98SQ0606)

[scaeagles]

"We're not gonna protest! We're not gonna protest!"

Is that in reference to me? I certainly don't think I ever said any such thing.

[lashbear]

I hope they never find out he steps on ants, too !! :rolleyes:

[Moonliner]

I'm not sure about all this political discussion. I come here for invigorating discussions of Disney, Bacon, Sex and general Kevy bashing.

[innerSpaceman]

I'm confused by the title. Are we free to discuss Obama here, or just his lavish parties?

He's throwing a big gay party, too ... um, tomorrow (6/25) for the "big" gays, whoever they are, to commemorate the Stonewall 40th anniversary ... and hoping to molify all the LGBT outrage with a few free cocktails and snacks. Free drinks have always worked to loosen up the dollars before, so he's hoping this will restore the workings of the gAyTM.


Um, fat chance, President Fierce Advocate.

[Strangler Lewis]

If Nixon could target the big Jews, Obama can target the big gays.
I believe they would be David Geffen, Ellen, Rosie, Neil Patrick Harris and the fiercely private David Hyde Pierce. Oprah will probably be invited as well--just because she's Oprah.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Is that in reference to me? I certainly don't think I ever said any such thing.No, it's not all about you, Leo. :p

This is a reference to the fine film PCU, about protestors who protest everything. If you haven't seen it, I recommend it.

[Moonliner]

Is that in reference to me? I certainly don't think I ever said any such thing.

Oh please, like that's a valid defense.

[scaeagles]

No, it's not all about you, Leo. :p

This is a reference to the fine film PCU, about protestors who protest everything. If you haven't seen it, I recommend it.

Well, my egocentrist self aside, it was posted right after my post. :p

[Gemini Cricket]

President Barack Obama referenced prejudice against gays, Latinos, and Muslims in his first major address to an African-American audience Thursday night at the centennial celebration of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
Obama told the audience that there might be "a temptation among some to think that discrimination is no longer a problem in 2009."
"But make no mistake," he continued, "the pain of discrimination is still felt in America. By African-American women paid less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different color and gender. By Latinos made to feel unwelcome in their own country. By Muslim Americans viewed with suspicion for simply kneeling down to pray. By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights.
"On the 45th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, discrimination must not stand. Not on account of color or gender; how you worship or who you love. Prejudice has no place in the United States of America."Source (http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid98937.asp)

[Morrigoon]

Okay, now he just has to do something about it. He could start by stopping the firings in HIS army.

[Morrigoon]

This is a reference to the fine film PCU, about protestors who protest everything.
So they've been to my high school, have they?

[innerSpaceman]

Thanks for that, G.C. That was very moving.


Maybe not the fierce kind, but I'll grant that was clearlly some advocating.

[scaeagles]

Politician speak. Obama says much on many things and is a master of rhetoric.

[Strangler Lewis]

Politician speak. Obama says much on many things and is a master of rhetoric.

True, but in this area, given the choice between a politician who preaches compassion--but does nothing to implement it--and one who preaches cruelty--but does nothing to implement it--I'd choose the former because I do believe that the official tone that is set in the world does have some effect on how people behave.

[innerSpaceman]

Clinton was the same way. All good talk and rarely good action. But even good talk is ultra rare among U.S. Presidents. So I appreciate it ... while continuing to demand much more.



Um, so far, approaching the half-century mark, my demands have yet to be met. So I've learned to be just a little bit satisfied with the good talk.

Bully Pulpit and all that.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Talk is easy, but at least he talks the right stuff.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I finally remembered to post this:

The Obamameter (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/)

This is done by the St. Petersburg Times. What I find really interesting is what they're saying about gay issues. DADT (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/293/call-for-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-policy/), DOMA (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/294/support-repeal-of-the-defense-of-marriage-act/).

I guess they don't call it a promise broken unless he actually does the opposite. But they admit he took the language off his website...hmm.

Even if you count those as broken promises, the numbers are still surprisingly good. 32 promises kept, 10 compromises, 9 promises broken (incl DADT/DOMA), 10 stalled, 78 in the works.

Makes me wonder how the other presidents stacked up.

[alphabassettgrrl]

CP- that site is on my "check daily" set of bookmarks. Always interesting to watch his progress. I do wonder how previous presidents rank.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

So, I assume that all those here that are pissed at Obama about the gay rights stuff would disagree with the St. Petersburg Times on this?

Personally, I heard this story (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jTUXZ57-4A_UnsbDtQDPlUwZlbIQD99J2TQO0) today and was horrified, and it's not mentioned on the site, so I sent them an email. I'm unsure if it counts as a campaign promise though.

[innerSpaceman]

In other disappointing Obama news today: In a continuation of Bush policy, he's refusing to reveal which 18 Health Insurance Industry executives he met with to consult on health care policy. Gee, Dick Cheney and Energy executives much?

Lawsuit will proceed to get the records. Obama, you are really beginning to suck and be power-mad way earlier than I feared. Hahaha, his personal physicial of 18 years just came out against Obama's health plan and staunchly in favor of single-payer ... d'uh, like overwhelmly most Americans.

[Alex]

That's one I actally agree with Bush on and therefore don't mind if Obama does it too (though if he ever said he wouldn't that's not good).

[innerSpaceman]

Just curious - which? The signing statements -or- the privacy of meeting participants?

[Alex]

Both to a degree.

I don't generally have any problem with secrecy of meetings or who the president consults for advice.

On signing statements I'm somewhat indifferent as they're probably legally meaningless. My preference would be that when presented with a bill that the president feels contains unconstitutional provisions that they just veto it. But lacking that I have no problem with them saying "I think this part is unconstitutional so see you in court if you want it enforced." Then the courts decide and if the president doesn't act (assuming the court finds with Congress) then I would have huge problems.

To the extent that Bush and Obama (and all the presidents before them) limit their signing statements to general discussion or highlighting elements they feel create a constitutional conflict I don't have a problem. I feel that Bush regularly crossed that line from issues of constitutional conflict to issues of policy conflict. So far, to the extent that I've looked closely at them Obama's have remained squarely on issues constitutional powers and conflicts.

[innerSpaceman]

So did anyone catch Obama's big televised heath care pitch and press conference? I missed all but the tail end.

Was there anything wonderful and magical and beautiful??

[Chernabog]

Change...hope... hope... change change..... health care reform.

There, I just saved you from having to read a news article about it. ;)

[scaeagles]

I didn't watch it, but I wonder if he included the argument he's used previously that government run Medicare costs too much and is almost bankrupt so now we need an additional government run medical program to solve those problems.

[innerSpaceman]

From what I understand, he said single-payer is the only way to insure all Americans ... yet single-payer is not even being considered. :confused:

[Alex]

He has long been saying that if we were starting from scratch then single payer is the obvious way to go (whether you agree or not) but that we aren't starting from scratch and that it is a waste of time to chase something that is essentially impossible to achieve in a single step.

And he's right. Even if we go single payer on the coverage side it would be doomed to near immediate failure unless we also nationalize the care provision side (otherwise, what happens when the buyer is required to buy regardless of price? Prices go up, quickly). And that really is politically impossible in this country.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

The more I hear about this, the sadder I get....but that's always been the case when politics gets down to brass tacks. I just can't handle the compromises necessary to get things done, because then they will be done poorly.

I've been slowly shifting from the "optimistic" to the "warily optimistic" to the "just wary" crowd. There are ways to do this, and all of them involve gutting the current system. They are not willing to do that. Not good.

[Alex]

I'm not sure why there'd be disappointment in Obama not fighting for single payer health care. He never suggested that he would.

[innerSpaceman]

It's just that he has said over and again it's the best way to insure all Americans, but that it's politically impossible to achieve ... all the while assuring he's going to bring change to the way politics is done.

Of course, I don't believe that ... but it would be nice to see him try with his two big-ticket items.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Oh, I don't mean specifically Single Payer. I mean in a larger sense, I would like to see the entire insurance industry kicked out on its ass, and see employers lose the burden of paying for employee health care, which never made sense to begin with.

I'll be disappointed no matter what.

[flippyshark]

I'll be disappointed no matter what.

And I'll probably remained uninsured no matter what. *sigh*

[Betty]

I never really saw this as a big issue... then my husband went on disability and in a few days, we will no longer have insurance unless we pay for cobra which I don't think we can afford... because he's on disability... And we need it for him to remain on disability. What a catch-22.

We haven't been without health insurance for a long time... LONG time. Never used to seem like any big deal though but now it's really looming large and worries me. I think the kids can qualify for something through cal-something-or-other but I guess us adults will just have to die a slow death.

[Alex]

Just for the record, though he really shouldn't have said anything for political reasons, the police officer in the Louis Gates arrest really did behave stupidly. And Gates likely didn't do anything to help the situation as it escalated.

Everybody involved should probably just shut up and let it die. But answering (and then answering with his honest -- even if it was a pretty good summary of things -- view) was a silly misstep by Obama.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yeah, a bit of an pediaintradontal moment for Obama, there was just no reason for him to have said anything.

[innerSpaceman]

I disagree. I think it was the only honest moment in the entire news conference.

I don't mean to say Obama was lying, but it was so scripted, so refusal to go off message even to the point of evading questions. Slick and kinda sickening. (appropriate for a health care news conference, though, eh?)


With the "stupid" comment (in response to a direct question, btw), at least I felt he went off script and said what he really felt without regard to propriety. And since that disregard didn't extend to anything outrageous, I applaud it wholeheartedly.

And ya know what? We want to be all color-blind about it, but let's acknowledge (as he did) he's the first black president, and commenting on race issues in this country is more than appropriate, it's laudable.

He said he did not know all the facts ... but that, on the face of it, arresting a middle-aged black man on a break-in charge who has shown documentary evidence of residence is at the very least STUPID.


Yeah, the Cambridge Police Department is upset about it. They should be. The President of the United States called them on misconduct. Now go ahead and be petty about it, and complain about the messenger. Pfft. They roughed up the wrong black man this time. Bound to happen one time out of ten thousand.

[Alex]

Like I said, I pretty much agree completely with what he said. But politically it was stupid for him to say anything because it completely undercut the entire purpose of him having the press conference (which was bolstering his health care proposal) and giving the press the excuse they barely need to talk about anything other than boring policy skirmishes.

[scaeagles]

If I recall, he was arrested on disorderly conduct, not burglary or breaking and entering.

The police officer had left the home. Gates followed him out and continued shouting at him. I personally do not believe he behaved stupidly. He answered a call from someone in the neighborhood. He learned that Gates did indeed live there. He did not escalate the situation, and in fact was leaving. Gates chose to follow him out and continue his rantings. Gates was warned about disturbing the peace and being disorderly and continued. So he got arrested and was not mistreated whatsoever. In fact, they went in and retrieved his cane (which I find funny that he was complaining about needing when he apparently didn't use it to follow the officer out of the house), and even made sure his house was secured by someone Gates new from Harvard whom Gates approved to do it and said he was comfortable with.

I don't understand what was stupid about it at all. The individual acting stupidly was Gates, shouting racism at the very sign of an officer trying to do his job after answering a burglary call. All Gates had to do was stay in his house until the officer left and stop verbally assaulting him , which wasn't even a problem until it went outside.

[Alex]

Yelling at a policeman is not even close to "disorderly conduct." If the charge was so justifiable why were they dropped immediately?

Because it was a policeman upset about not being shown proper obeisance (and I don't attribute that to racism so much as bullying) and so proving who was the one with power. The police officer also apparently may have violated state law by not providing his name when requested (the policeman disputes this saying he did give his name).

I won't deny that Gates may have also behaved stupidly (since generally it is stupid to not show the proper groveling obeisance that many police officers expect). But that is a different type of stupidity.

[Strangler Lewis]

Yelling at a policeman is always stupid as a practical matter. However, the officer clearly behaved stupidly. Even if there was a technical basis for charging disorderly conduct, you can't tell me that every time a Harvard party gets a little loud, everybody gets arrested. Police officers have discretion in this matter. When Gates showed him his ID, he should have said, "Thank you, sir, just doing our duty, sorry for the misunderstanding." Then, if Gates still was upset and followed him out, he should have gotten into his car and left. Assuming that the officer is not a congenital asshole, one must suspect that he was following some sort of departmental policy to cure any mistake-and potential liability-by finding grounds to arrest the angry citizen.

[scaeagles]

While not a crime, I suppose, I think it is OK to yell at an officer, but to tell the officer that he'll "talk with his mama outside" and shout "this is what happens to black men in America" isn't just showing a lack of "proper groveling obeisance", it's being...stupid. I believe the officer did plenty to try to diffuse the situation and that Gates clearly wanted a confrontation. Again, that's not a crime, but everything I've read seems to point to the officer acting in a completely rational and controlled fashion, and Gates was completely the opposite.

[Alex]

Except that if you arrest people when no crime has been committed, you are...at a minimum, acting stupidly. Police don't get to arrest people just because they're annoyed by them.

The fact that he arrested someone you agree appears to have not been committing any crime or giving the officer reason to expect that he was committing a crime would suggest that while he wasn't ranting and raving, he was hardly acting in a completely rational and controlled manner.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, again, this is all detail I'm learning for the first time now - in this thread, in fact.

Two days ago, Obama very clearly said he did not know all the facts, but his initial reaction was based on what was reported so far was that the officer's actions were stupid.

Claiming they weren't so stupid based on later-known facts is 20/20 hindsight.


As for him not giving grist to the mill of media to ignore his health care stuff in favor of somethign juicy ... I suppose he could have flat-out refused to answer any non-healthcare questions. But after all the semi-ducking he did to other questions (not egregiously, just that queasy stay-on-message stuff), I was glad he answered this one directly and apparently with a little too much honesty.

[scaeagles]

I would suppose disorderly conduct is a judgement call on behalf of the officer. I guess I cannot say if a man acting like a lunatic screaming on his porch and refusing to quiet down when asked is disorderly conduct or not. One thing I haven't heard anyone who was on scene say, however, is that the arrest on disorderly was completely unjustified, and there were non-police people on scene. It is true that the charges were immediately dropped, but I do not know how frequently disorderly conduct charges are dropped post arrest on average.

[innerSpaceman]

I just hope your long-awaited Obama rant has better goods on him than this. ;)

[flippyshark]

I just hope your long-awaited Obama rant has better goods on him than this. ;)

Indeed. Especially now that Obama has phoned up the offended officer and offered to buy him a beer. Even at worst, this was a very minor faux-pas. The president spoke slightly out of turn because, by his own admission, he didn't have the facts. I agree it puts a dab of egg on his face, but big deal.

I for one am really hoping that Leo's upcoming rant is all about the birth certificate. (I kid because I love, Leo.)

[Gemini Cricket]

I think the charges were dropped because they were concerned about it turning into a firestorm in the media (Harvard professor and all, it is Cambridge, MA after all, there ain't much else in Cambridge except Harvard). Well, it did any way. But Gates turned it into a free for all by declaring it to be a race issue.

I think the officer acted appropriately. I think the Harvard professor wanted special treatment because he was a Harvard professor. What Gates should be concerned about is how he was racially profiled by his neighbors who called the cops.

I don't think Jim Crowley (Jesus, what a coincidence of a name, huh? JIM CROWley) should apologize. There is no evidence in his past that Crowley let racism taint his judgment in the past. He was called because someone was breaking into a house, which Gates was. Yes, it was his own house but he was breaking in nonetheless, what else is someone observing supposed to assume? Gates became unruly and disorderly, Crowley tried to explain but Gates wanted special treatment as a Harvard professor and didn't get it. Was Crowley just supposed to walk away and have this man continue disturbing the peace? Nope. The cop usually sticks around until the situation is resolved and everything calms down.

I think African Americans are unjustly targeted by some police officers in this country. I don't feel that that happened in this case.

[Chernabog]

I'm siding with the cop on this one.

When the President of the United States calls you stupid, based on facts that he does not have, is... well, stupid. The fact that the President of the United States does not understand why calling someone stupid (to the media, no less) is offensive, is... well, stupid. Especially when he knew the question was coming and had time to prepare his canned response. This was not an off-the-cuff exchange.

I was listening to a radio show this morning where people were outright nasty and vicious towards one of the hosts for even SUGGESTING that there was another side of the story than the Harvard Prof.'s.

The cops were investigating a break-in, to a place that had been broken into before. The Prof goes completely ballistic on them, and HE'S the one that first suggested this was race-based. I think it is patently unfair that this cop is now demonized as a racist and a bigot when this does not seem race-based as the actual facts come out.

[Gemini Cricket]

Obama just pulled one of his "I talked to them personally and now everything's okay" stunts. He personally called Crowley.
Source (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/24/officer.gates.arrest/index.html?iref=mpstoryview)

He did this to try and placate the GLBT community too. Like those gay rights advocates who keep coming out of the White House saying, 'Oh, I talked to the president and everything will be fine'. All this without anyone really knowing what he said or if he will actually do anything about the problem...

[scaeagles]

I just hope your long-awaited Obama rant has better goods on him than this. ;)

Oh, I don't see this as a big deal overall, except that I think it reveals a bit about him and his outlook on life....he admittedly did not know all the facts yet said the cop acted stupidly as his gut reaction.

I won't post the Obama rant until I have the time to thoughtfully put it together. I realize the suspense is building and I am am not intentionally making you wait. :)

[scaeagles]

I for one am really hoping that Leo's upcoming rant is all about the birth certificate. (I kid because I love, Leo.)

Who leaked the document? C'mon! 'Fess up!

(I only tease people I like as well, flippy, so i get it.)

[Chernabog]

Obama just pulled one of his "I talked to them personally and now everything's okay" stunts. He personally called Crowley.


Of course. Obama can buy over lots of people with a chat and a cocktail.

Q: "Why'd you call me stupid?"

A: "Change...hope..hope...change change. Martini?"

Q: "Um, sure. Thanks!"

:eek:

[Gemini Cricket]

It's like that episode of South Park where Kenny was dying in the hospital and the staff thought maybe he'd feel better in his final days by getting a personal visit from Madonna.

[Strangler Lewis]

I'm surprised to see you gay fellers gettin' all law and order and cop deferentialish. I submit that if the complaint from the neighbors had not been that a black man had been breaking into a house that he turned out to be renting, but that a gay man was seen molesting a young boy who turned out to be an adult midget--and everything else played out the same way, you'd be posting different things.

[Gemini Cricket]

I'm surprised to see you gay fellers gettin' all law and order and cop deferentialish. I submit that if the complaint from the neighbors had not been that a black man had been breaking into a house that he turned out to be renting, but that a gay man was seen molesting a young boy who turned out to be an adult midget--and everything else played out the same way, you'd be posting different things.
Not me. I'm from a cop family. I see things through their eyes a lot of times. It's not a fun job and is often dangerous. Not that I agree with cops all the time, but I do get to hear how hard a job it is dealing with people sometimes.

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, I hear that from a lot of CMs, too. Guess it's good they're not armed.

[Gemini Cricket]

Yeah, I hear that from a lot of CMs, too. Guess it's good they're not armed.
At the very least, the Frontierland CMs should be armed. It would match the theme.

[Strangler Lewis]

That's a good blurb to remember if you find yourself in the jury box on a criminal case.

But, seriously, no one should dispute what you said. In this case, however, the cop had the choice between calming the situation down by making a perhaps technically unnecessary apology and ensuring that he got the last word in a way that only the cop can. He chose the latter.

So what's your take on White night?

[Alex]

I have no issue with the police showing up. If the neighbors didn't recognize Gates I have no problem with them calling the police to say it looked like someone was breaking in.

But the fact is that the triggering event for being arrested was calling a policeman a racist and saying he'd talk to his mama. In Massachusetts "disorderly conduct" is conduct likely to incite violence or significant social disruption. A man shouting on his porch yelling at you is nowhere near such a thing.

This is simply a police officer annoyed by someone and so decided to show Gates who was boss with an arrest he knew would be dropped and the expectation that the person being arrested wouldn't feel he could do anything about it and even if he tried nobody would care. He got really unlucky in who he decided to do this to.

I in no way suggest that race had anything to do with it. It may have, it may have not (and Obama didn't say the police acted stupidly because they acted in a racist manner, he quite explicitly said otherwise). He didn't have all the facts to know if race was a factor. We've plenty of facts (and none of them have changed) to know that the policeman was chose poorly in how to behave.

That is the stupidity on the part of the policeman. Throwing his weight around with an arrest he knows isn't supported by the facts simply to say "bow down or learn a lesson" and playing the odds that he'll get away with it (as they certainly do 99% of the time such arrests are made).

The idea that it is ok to be arrested for simply yelling at a member of the police (and from your own front porch) is kind of scary.

[Alex]

And yes, being a policeman sucks a lot of the time. And it is frequently dangerous. And they serve a vital public need. This same cop may have saved 43 lives last week and had a bad day this week. None of this is to say he is the worst cop in the world or even a bad one overall.

But he was still simply throwing his weight around inappropriately.

[scaeagles]

I am not a huge fan of Chris Rock, but once he said something to the effect of "If you don't want to get beat up by the cops, then do what they tell you!". The requests made by the officer were not in the least unreasonable. All he asked was for the man to calm down and stop shouting in public.

How many times should he have been asked to calm down? Perhaps his bahavior might have been construed as having the potential to incite violence. An older black man on his front porch yelling about being harrassed by a racist cop might very well incite violence.

[innerSpaceman]

The idea that it is ok to be arrested for simply yelling at a member of the police (and from your own front porch) is kind of scary.

Yeah, but that's why an earlier poster mentioned it was stupid to yell at a policeman. Because we all know by now chances are they won't give a fig about the law or whether an arrest will stand, and that Alex's well put "bow down or learn a lesson" is the defacto law of this land.

And guess what? "Chances Are" goes to "Practically Guaranteed" if you're a black man. So go on and tell me this wasn't racist.

Sorry, but EVERY TIME a black man is arrested for such weaksauce alpha cop bullsh!t, it's bloody well racist.

[Gemini Cricket]

Alex, I don't know. Not giving an officer your ID when asked and telling him "you don't know who you're messing with" is pretty uncooperative. Presenting an ID to an officer is standard for anyone who is stopped by a cop. "Yeah, I'll speak to your mama outside" to a request to step out to the porch is pretty belligerent. Disorderly conduct is disorderly conduct.

[Alex]

How many times should he have been asked to calm down? Perhaps his bahavior might have been construed as having the potential to incite violence. An older black man on his front porch yelling about being harrassed by a racist cop might very well incite violence.

Yes, I'm sure the streets of Harvard's faculty housing would have burned, burned, burned.

Glad to see you're ok with police arresting you just because you've not been as polite as they'd like. And that doing so is simply completely rational behavior.

I agree with Chris Rock. If you don't to get arrested you should be prepared to all but tongue shine their shoes, regardless of why you're interacting with them (not because all cops are douches but because the ones who are don't wear signs). But that does not make it right for you to be arrested if you don't or smart for the police officers taking the gamble that they're doing it to someone lacking the connections to make something of it.

Sorry, but EVERY TIME a black man is arrested for such weaksauce alpha cop bullsh!t, it's bloody well racist.

Not necessarily. I knew plenty of white people who were arrested for talking back. Charges that were always dropped after being processed and allowing to stew for a while.

If there's obvious racism in this story it is that nobody would have cared if it weren't Louis Gates.

[innerSpaceman]

What is this about not giving the officer his I.D.? Isn't the gist of this story that he provided documentary evidence that he lived there? Kinda hard to do if that evidence, or some other, doesn't identity YOU.

So what gives? Does anybody really know what happened? Or are the details of this story changing constantly, or wildly different depending on who's giving them?

[Alex]

Not giving an officer your ID when asked and telling him "you don't know who you're messing with" is pretty uncooperative. Presenting an ID to an officer is standard for anyone who is stopped by a cop. "Yeah, I'll speak to your mama outside" to a request to step out to the porch is pretty belligerent. Disorderly conduct is disorderly conduct.

Yes, and that type of "disorderly conduct" is not illegal. As said above an actual charge of disorderly conduct in Massachusetts means likely to incite violence or social interruption. Not simply being loud and calling someone names (especially when doing so on your own property).

And Gates did provide ID proving who he was. He simply refused to come out onto the porch when initially asked (which, by law, he was not required to do unless he was being arrested). Generally, unless you are being arrested you are not legally required to provide identification to the police, though not doing so when asked certainly will ramp of the chances of getting a bull**** arrest of this nature.

[scaeagles]

The police report says that he had to be asked several time to produce his ID and some form of evidence that he lived there and was met with resistence for quite some time. His ID may not have been sufficient enough (I really don't know) as the address he was living at may not have been the address on his ID.

I don't think it has much to do with how polite he was, Alex. He was just as beligerent in the house as he was outside and for a much longer period of time. Also, he was not arrested for failure to provide ID (not that you said he was, but I want that to be clear based on your posting above).

By the way, there was an African American officer there who supports the arrest 100%.

[Alex]

Again, are you ok with police arresting you simply because you're rude to them? If you're walking down the street and pass a policeman walking the other way and greet him with "Have a nice day Officer Racist ****tard <oink> <oink>" is that sufficient grounds for him to haul you in for being disorderly?

Nothing in any version of the events contests that Gates provided sufficient evidence that they were in his residence (though they both agreed he refused to leave the house to do so) so why bend over backwards trying to imagine otherwise?

[Gemini Cricket]

But it wasn't just that Gates was yelling at Crowley and nothing else happened. There are other factors involved. If I were the police officer, I would be wondering why someone who has apparently done nothing wrong is acting out so much. Also, after showing the ID the cop should have left IF there was nothing more to the situation. But Gates kept going, yelling etc which is still disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct. I can't imagine a cop leaving a situation where the person he has interacted with is still yelling and screaming. That is an unresolved situation, imho.

[innerSpaceman]

How many times does Alex have to post what the legal definition of disorderly conduct is in Massachusetts?

He's the only one here who routinely researches things, so when he says what it is in Massachusetts, I believe he looked it up.


The guy wasn't charged with disturbing the peace. He was charged with disorderly conduct, a crime he was not guilty of, nor reasonably suspected of.



And not my business, but this no longer has anything whatsoever to do wtih Obama.

[Strangler Lewis]

Well, okay.

Obama should not have backed down.

Bush would not have backed down. He would have checked his gut, shot from the hip, stuck to his guns even when proven wrong (or wrongish), and his supporters would have admired him for it. Sadly, Obama briefly forgot that part of his mandate consists of being the least angry black man in America.

[Alex]

yelling etc which is still disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct

You said this before, but per Massachusetts law the behavior we all seem to agree happened is not disorderly conduct in the criminal sense (and thus the charges being dropped). Being obnoxious to a police officer is not criminal disorderly conduct. Refusing to provide identification when asked is not against the law. Refusing to come out of your own home when asked is not against the law. Calling police officers names is not against the law.

They're all very, very annoying for a police officer to have to deal with. But that also is not against the law.

Sure, Gates overreacting and being a douche (if he was -- they both claim the other one was overreacting and only one of those is obviously true) may raise suspicions that something else must be going on. But that also is not against the law and is not itself justification for an arrest.

Even in the most obnoxious version of Gates behavior nothing remotely illegal has been offered up to justify an arrest beyond "well, that's what happens when you annoy a cop."

[Alex]

He's the only one here who routinely researches things, so when he says what it is in Massachusetts, I believe he looked it up.

Here's a recap of the law on disorderly conduct in Massachusetts (http://volokh.com/posts/1248465451.shtml) from conservative law blog The Volokh Conspiracy (pretty much everything I've found give the same analysis but I figured I'd link to a group most likely to bend towards the police).

Of note that it has been rejected by the state supreme court that simply being loud and verbally abusive is not sufficient on free speech grounds. And it has been ruled several times by the state supreme court that lacking threats of violence simply shouting at the police and calling them names is not disorderly conduct.

[Gemini Cricket]

No, I hear what everyone is saying. I just think that the cop did the right thing. He erred on the side of caution.

[scaeagles]

OK...I can perhaps see, based upon that definition of Massachusetts disorderly conduct, that this guy should not have hauled him away.

However, I do not believe it was racially motivated in anyway.

And GC, I wonder, based on your post, what would happen if, say, he was so wound up he ended up harming himself or someone else. Granted, there is nothing to say in this situation he would have. But if he had not erred on the side of caution and something had happened, there would be cries of him not caring enough about an elderly black man to help him.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Nor did Obama.

[scaeagles]

I didn't say the guy was stupid, though....Obama did. I agree with GC that he erred on the side off caution. Stupid would have been to beat the hell out of the man or engage him in some form of shouting match.

[innerSpaceman]

No, I hear what everyone is saying. I just think that the cop did the right thing. He erred on the side of caution.

How is making an error the right thing?



And just what caution might you be referring to?




And yes, scaeagles, handcuffs are always a welcome assistance to an elderly black man.



You guys are really, really stretching.

[Gemini Cricket]

I think it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of thing. Which is why I don't think the officer should be disciplined harshly.

My problem with Obama's comment was stated in the comment itself. He said he didn't see all of the facts and yet he said the cop acted stupidly. Hey, I'm guilty of doing that all the time, but I'm just an internet mischief-maker and not the president.

[Alex]

However, I do not believe it was racially motivated in anyway.

That seems a leap of faith unwarranted by the story. I don't think it is necessary to explain the story but it is hardly outside the realm of precedent that police might treat a black man more harshly than othwlerwise.

But if he had not erred on the side of caution and something had happened, there would be cries of him not caring enough about an elderly black man to help him.

There might be such cries but then i'd argue they're wrong as well.

I'm perplexed at how arresting someone with no legal justification is erring on the side of caution and not simply an abuse of power. There are completely different recourses available if the lice feek you're unstable and pose a physical risk to yourself or others. Those channels were not used and nothing in the police record suggests they were considered. He was arrested for making a scene.

[Gemini Cricket]

How is making an error the right thing?



And just what caution might you be referring to?




And yes, scaeagles, handcuffs are always a welcome assistance to an elderly black man.

He said that he felt Gates was acting strangely. He still had a lot of suspicions about Gates and the way he was acting so he hauled him in. Cops always go into situations thinking of the worst case scenario that could or has happened. That's a good thing, imho. What if they arrested him and then found out it wasn't his house after all? I mean, we can 'what if' til we all turn blue (LoT is pretty blue in color already) but the possibility that something else might be going on was there.

I would have made the same error. In the same situation, I would have done the same thing.

Handcuffs are used for everybody. The handcuffs were not excessive.

[innerSpaceman]

I think it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of thing.

Damned if you don't? You think there would have been a stink about this if the officer had apologized, gotten into his patrol car and driven away?


That pretty much makes this a non-story. Obama would have never been asked about it. It would not have even made the Harvard Faculty Weekly Newsrag.


PuLease.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I didn't say the guy was stupid, though....Obama did. I agree with GC that he erred on the side off caution. Stupid would have been to beat the hell out of the man or engage him in some form of shouting match.No, he did not say the guy was stupid, he said he made a stupid decision.



My problem with Obama's comment was stated in the comment itself. He said he didn't see all of the facts and yet he said the cop acted stupidly. Hey, I'm guilty of doing that all the time, but I'm just an internet mischief-maker and not the president.
Again, not what he said. He said he didn't have all the facts to determine the stupid decision was racially motivated, but still felt it was a stupid decision, racially motivated or not.

[Alex]

That was typed on my phone. "lice feek" is "police feel"

[innerSpaceman]

Handcuffs are used for everybody. The handcuffs were not excessive.

Yes, GC, I use handcuffs on my grandchildren. Everyone loves them.


Whenever they sass me, on go the cuffs.


Gotta do it, they might hurt themselves or others.




What are you on about, really? Can you just say you're unbelievably biased and leave it at that?

[Gemini Cricket]

Again, not what he said. He said he didn't have all the facts to determine the stupid decision was racially motivated, but still felt it was a stupid decision, racially motivated or not.
I'm not pointing it out in regards to race or anything. Obama made a decision that the police acted stupidly without knowing everything about what happened.

[Gemini Cricket]

What are you on about, really? Can you just say you're unbelievably biased and leave it at that?
Because I don't see it that way. I'm not going to side with the police on every single situation. At this time, I agree with this policeman.

[scaeagles]

Oh, and I retract my statement about Obama not saying it was racially motivated. He didn't directly say it, but he certainly implied it when he added to his comments how there has been a history of police mistreating African americans and latinos.

And you're getting wrapped up in semantics. To say someone acted stupidly is to say they were stupid in what they did. So yes, I believe Obama called him stupid.

[Alex]

And nothing since has shown his assessment to be in error. So it would appear that while he may not have had all of the facts, he had enough to nail that one (though again I agree he shouldn't have said anything, but not because what he said was wrong).

Just for the record here is the transcript of the question and answer. He was specifically asked to comment on race relations as illuminated by the story.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Recently Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge. What does that incident say to you and what does it say about race relations in America?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I should say at the outset that "Skip" Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all the facts. What's been reported, though, is that the guy forgot his keys, jimmied his way to get into the house, there was a report called into the police station that there might be a burglary taking place -- so far, so good, right? I mean, if I was trying to jigger into -- well, I guess this is my house now so -- (laughter) -- it probably wouldn't happen. But let's say my old house in Chicago -- (laughter) -- here I'd get shot. (Laughter.)

But so far, so good. They're reporting -- the police are doing what they should. There's a call, they go investigate what happens. My understanding is at that point Professor Gates is already in his house. The police officer comes in, I'm sure there's some exchange of words, but my understanding is, is that Professor Gates then shows his ID to show that this is his house. And at that point, he gets arrested for disorderly conduct -- charges which are later dropped.

Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that, but I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge Police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact.

As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and Hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in this society. That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made.

And yet the fact of the matter is, is that this still haunts us. And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently and oftentime for no cause casts suspicion even when there is good cause. And that's why I think the more that we're working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody is going to be.

He says in there
- I don't know if this particular arrest was racially motivated, but
- this country has a long history of minorities being disproportionately impacted by just this sort of non-cause arrest so it even if it wasn't racially motivated in this case it is reasonable to understand why there'd be suspicion.

I have no problem with either part of that. So, you'll have to retract it again. He in no way implied that the arrest was racially motivated. He quite explicitly said that even if it wasn't it is understandable that some (such as Gates) would jump to that conclusion.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Because I don't see it that way. I'm not going to side with the police on every single situation. At this time, I agree with this policeman.
I'm still trying to ponder what "worst case scenario" he could possibly have been protecting against. He had on his hands an irate middle age college professor with mobility issues in/outside of his own home. Was he preventing the officer from leaving the scene? Was he threatening anyone, much less anyone other than the officer, with violence? He was ranting and raving and making a scene...that would have abruptly ended had the officer got in his car and left. Arresting him prevented nothing, except perhaps the officer losing some face. Arresting him was a stupid decision made because he couldn't think of anything better to do and probably was unwilling to just say, "Fine, whatever dude, here's my badge number go bitch at my boss for a while."

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Personally, I heard this story (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jTUXZ57-4A_UnsbDtQDPlUwZlbIQD99J2TQO0) today and was horrified, and it's not mentioned on the site, so I sent them an email. I'm unsure if it counts as a campaign promise though.They responded to me personally to let me know they had written this up on the site, and thanked me for the email. And what a writeup (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/516/no-signing-statements-nullify-instruction-congress/) it is!

For those that are interested in the issue of signing statements, I highly recommend you read the whole thing. Here's a bit of the promises he made:

"I will issue signing statements to address constitutional concerns only when it is appropriate to do so as a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities," the memo reads, adding later, “"I will strive to avoid the conclusion that any part of an enrolled bill is unconstitutional. In exercising my responsibility to determine whether a provision of an enrolled bill is unconstitutional, I will act with caution and restraint, based only on interpretations of the Constitution that are well-founded."

It’s important to note that Obama makes clear in both his campaign assertion and his official memo that he does not consider signing statements to be problematic in and of themselves. Rather, he argues, their use should be limited in scope and reach, clearly stating that President Bush went overboard.

Again, you should read the whole thing, but here's the article's conclusion:

Unlike Bush, Obama has not picked his battles on major issues such as the use of torture. Rather, he’s quibbled over the seating requirements for a commission that virtually no one's ever heard of (and stipulated to an advisory role rather than a binding role for Congress). He's laid down limits on what his subordinates will tell a panel that lacks any binding legislative power. And he's refused to let Congress dictate specific negotiating positions in foreign policy.

Indeed, Obama's statements were "conventional assertions of executive autonomy," rather than his own policy agenda, said John Woolley, a University of California-Santa Barbara political scientist who has studied presidential powers.

Obama's actions are "routine as far as how the signing statement had been used prior to the Bush II administration," added Christopher Kelley, a political scientist at Miami University of Ohio and a specialist in signing statements. "From this standpoint I have seen nothing that Obama has done that is out of the main, nor in violation of his promise."

Woolley agrees. "In terms of the things he objects to about legislation, Obama's statements are not really all that different from those of his predecessors" other than Bush. ... These statements are all precise examples of 'using signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives' -- exactly as he promised."

So for now, we find evidence on both sides. There have been the instances where Obama does seem to be exercising more presidential power than Congress would like and, in at least a couple of cases, crossing the line from his promise. But these are issues of power, over which the legislative and executive branch have long tussled. So for now, we're going to rate this one Compromise. But we'll be watching future signing statements to see if we should move the Obameter one way or the other.

http://www.tampabay.com/universal/politifact/rulings/obameter_compromise.gif

[innerSpaceman]

If we are able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.

His constitutuants should run him out of town on a rail.


No, anyone who next election votes for someone who boldly and publically states that the healthcare of all Americans should be based on defeating a political opponent as the prime considetion should be run out of all their towns on sharp rails of razorwire, while Demint himself should be tarred, feathered, and lit on fire.

[Alex]

I know the Gatesgate kerfluffler has mostly died down into media navel gazing but it is worthy in that finally Christopher Hitchens and I finally agree (http://www.slate.com/id/2223673/) on an issue that doesn't involve god or that lack thereof.

[innerSpaceman]

Isn't this sweet!? :)


Obama is having a PICNIC today on the White House lawn with Gates and the Cambridge Office who "stupidly" arrested him.

They are scheduled to eat mac and cheese at 12:40 pm, and sing kumbaya at 1:00 sharp.

[Frikitiki]

Obama is going to Martha's Vineyard in a few days, not too far away from Cambridge. Couldn't they visit him there and keep the cost down?

[innerSpaceman]

Less photo op, I suppose.

[Gemini Cricket]

I love these "Obama Surprises _____ with a Visit" news stories.

Obama surprises DNC crowd by showing up after Biden's speech.

Obama surprises press corps by showing up in their briefing room.

Obama surprises Stephen Colbert with a taped message ordering him to get his head shaved. (Although, I think this was all set up beforehand.)

Obama surprises troops with a visit to Iraq in April 09.

Helen Thomas got a surprise visit and cupcakes from Obama today to celebrate her birthday.

I'm waiting for: "Obama Surprises Hawaiian Local Boy, Wannabee Actor and Internet Mischief Maker by Helping Him Fill Super Big Gulp Cup with Ice at Local 7-11!"

lol
:D

[innerSpaceman]

It was Obama's birthday today, too. Which I think makes the Helen Thomas thing really cute.


He just turned 48.


I just turned 49. He's president of the United States. I'm .... well, not nearly as accomplished.


Le sigh.

[Gemini Cricket]

Le sigh.
Then again, there are unemployed 50 year olds who have never been to Disneyland and can't see what all the fuss is about...
:)

[Frikitiki]

It was Obama's birthday today, too. Which I think makes the Helen Thomas thing really cute.


He just turned 48.

I just turned 49. He's president of the United States. I'm .... well, not nearly as accomplished.

Le sigh.

But you haven't sold your soul and made all sorts of promises that other people will have to pay for.

So is that such a bad thing? I think not!

[Alex]

Obama surprises Stephen Colbert with a taped message ordering him to get his head shaved. (Although, I think this was all set up beforehand.)

Yes it was. In fact, Colbert was in the room with Obama when he taped his bit a couple weeks before Colbert left for Iraq. I can't find it from work but you can view the taping of it somewhere.

It was interesting to see what something like that in a president's day is like. Total time elapsed between him entering the room, greeting everybody, sitting, doing the copy, shaking hands, and existing the room was probably no more than five minutes.

And he has to do crap like that all day long.

[Ghoulish Delight]

My favorite part was when he had trouble reading the teleprompter and started shouting at people. "We'll, uh, do it, uh, live!"

[Gemini Cricket]

Jon Stewart takes on the health care town hall crazies. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/11/jon-stewart-vs-town-hall_n_256272.html)
Both clips are worth watching.

Seriously, I love this show more and more every episode.
:)

[wendybeth]

I love Jon Stewart. :)

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Quick aside - if you love The Daily Show, and have time on your commute for a podcast, I totally recommend The Bugle (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/the_bugle/), done by John Oliver of Daily Show fame reporting out of New York and the equally hilarious Andy Zaltzman reporting from London. Bonus points if you have soft spot for British humor, though I don't believe that's required to enjoy.

[scaeagles]

When is Stewart going to show the video (http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/june/barack_obama_on_sing.php) of Obama from 2003, talking about how he wants a single payer system and contrast it against what he says now about how he doesn't?

Obama's health care plans are the major portion of my upcoming (hopefully sooner rather than later) rant about Obama. Haven't had the time to do it right yet. Yeah, I'm sure you are all disappointed.

I think people are (rightfully) scared by his plans. I know I am.

[Alex]

Wait? You want Stewart to do that? But wouldn't highlighting that Obama's position has changed to where he no longer seems to be supporting a single payer health care system put lie to the various any reform people are saying that is exactly what is now being proposed (if they don't go even farther and claim that the current proposals seek a British style single-provider health care system)?

I'm all for Stewart pointing out how Obama's positions change and conflict with earlier positions. I'm just not sure the Republicans want them contrasted like that since they're current strategy is to present the 2003 statements as the current policy proposal.

[Alex]

I have had a question for you scaeagles, that I hope you (and any of the other Republican identified members here*) will answer.

Do have any doubts as to the citizenship of Barack Obama or whether he otherwise fails to meet the constitutional requirements for holding the office of President of the United States?



* Of course, anybody of any political persuasion can answer the question, I just haven't yet run into the non-Republican that would answer yes.

[innerSpaceman]

Since the "Three Amigos" summit just concluded, perhaps a better contrast would be his campaign pledge to revisit NAFTA in the First Year of his admnistration vs. now ... when he says, oh sorry, the global economic situation can't allow for that.


He's a well-spoken craven politician, but still a craven politician. Pfft, just like I always said. Yeah, well, thank goodness he's at least our first, ya know, colored president. ;)

[Alex]

Colored president? Is it 1973 again?

[innerSpaceman]

The by-now infamous Lindsey Lohan gaffe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv-6wjIb5So&feature=related).

[scaeagles]

Do have any doubts as to the citizenship of Barack Obama or whether he otherwise fails to meet the constitutional requirements for holding the office of President of the United States?

No, I have no doubts, and in fact cringe when it is brought up repeatedly. I have no doubt that were it an issue the Clintons would have proven it during the primaries. It is so ridiculous that I often wonder if Obama pays people to bring it up so that he can link all criticism to this wackiness.

As far as the video, I just think it shows Obama's inconsistencies in what he says on the issue. I do not believe his stance has changed, and there are other videos out there I have seen where Obama sys he wants to move toward that goal (single payer) but recognizes it won't be instantaneous, and that it will take perhaps 15 years to completely eliminate the employer provided health system.

The man is a politician with an agenda. This is fine in and of itself. Those who are elected typically are politicians with an agenda. He recognizes his ultimate goal is not achievable all at once, but I think is coming to realize this step he is taking is far too much for the populace to support.

[Alex]

The by-now infamous Lindsey Lohan gaffe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv-6wjIb5So&feature=related).

Ah. Apparently not infamous enough that I'd heard about it (or have completely forgotten if I did).

[Gemini Cricket]

I'm all for people voicing their displeasure with government at town hall meetings. But there is a way to do it. And not being composed is a bad way to do it. And when it seems that these people are doing this to simply prevent conversation from happening, then that's distressing to me as well. I mean, there was a guy who came to the Obama town hall meeting with a gun strapped to him. Source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/11/protester-with-gun-found_n_256614.html) I mean, hello?!

Yeah, people are upset about Obama being president and seem to be using this as their way of venting frustration. But you know what? Like I was told when Bush Jr. won twice, he won get over it. Our health care system as it stands now simply doesn't work. I'm all for trying something different.

[scaeagles]

Yet you (and others on the left) voiced (sometimes quite emphatically) their opposition and opposed his agenda on many fronts, as did Democrat leaders in the House and Senate. I realize Obama won, as do the people who are opposed to his health care plans, and we're not looking to have him drummed out of office. We are letting it be known we don't like what he is proposing. I see no problem with that. Yes, I see a problem with bringing a gun to where the President is - that's plain stupid.

Pelosi claims she sees demonstrators with swastikas (reality is there was one but that one had a circle with a line drawn through it). She says the protests at the town halls are Unamerican. The dem leadership claims these are organized by insurance and pharmaceutical companies. That's not what's going on. What's going on, for the most part, is the public finding out about the house bill and fearing it and voicing their opposition to a group of people who almost universally admit they haven't read the bill they were so anxious to vote on. The speed with which they believe it has to be passed to me shows they know that it will get only more and more unpopular as the voting public learns about what is in it.

You may be all for something different. Many people might be. But most (according to polls) are against this as the something different.

[Alex]

Ok, but half (or more) of the things people say they don't like about the proposals in congress aren't actually in the proposals in congress. These people may be against single payer or single provider (which aren't the same thing). They may be against forced euthenasia. They may encourage their congresscritter to keep the government's hands off Medicaire. But none of those things are in any of the proposals currently before congress.

I'm all for vigorous opposition. I just haven't seen a lot of opposition to ideas actually currently in play.



And I said the people involved were being assholes when they showed up at Bush speeches and tried to shout over him or the Code Pink people doing it at congressional hearings (or by forcing the evacuation of Christopher Hitchens or Ann Coulter from speeches they were giving). And showing up now intending to try and shout down everybody else is still being just as big an asshole.

The speed with which they believe it has to be passed to me shows they know that it will get only more and more unpopular as the voting public learns about what is in it.Or, possibly, they know that the more time there is to spread lies about what is in the bill the more of those things will stick in the popular imagination and torpedo the bill regardless of whatever is actually in it. And the sudden emphasis on reading bills line by line in their entirety is suspiciously disingenuous when I'm guessing that not a single Republican had read, in their entirety, the defense budget and "emergency" funding bills for fudning the Iraq war which any attempt to slow down was presented as thoroughly unpatriotic.

I agree they should be well briefed on the contents of bills (though I don't care if they've read it as that is frequently a purely meaningless thing to do). I just also think it would be good if the people criticizing a bill had more familiarity with it as well than just listening to Glenn Beck tell them what WorldNetDaily has told him is in it.

[JWBear]

Sorry Leo, but look at the pictures of the "protesters". Many of the signs they are carrying are anti-Obama sentiments - not against his policies, but against him. There have been quite a few that have compaired him to Hitler (and those were the "nice" ones) complete with swastikas.

Eventually, one of these people are going to do something violent. The GOP and the health insurance companies that are paying for these "protests" are playing with fire.

[sleepyjeff]

I have had a question for you scaeagles, that I hope you (and any of the other Republican identified members here*) will answer.

Do have any doubts as to the citizenship of Barack Obama or whether he otherwise fails to meet the constitutional requirements for holding the office of President of the United States?



http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter080509.php3

[BarTopDancer]

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter080509.php3

Because we all know that Ann Coulter is the most reliable source on the planet. I tried to read the article. I really did, but the rambling went off in so many directions that even my ADD brain couldn't keep up.

[innerSpaceman]

On the other hand, JW, I don't doubt that many Bush protestors were against him personally.


Before he even became president, his policies as Governor of Texas were enough to make me hate his guts As A Person.


So turnabout seems fair play. Even though many of the protestors used talking points from conservative websites bankrolled by the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries, that's fair play in America, too. If they were motivated by fear, and not by payola, that's fair play protesting in America.


It may be asinine, but it's fair play.

[scaeagles]

Don't tell me that it wasn't personal with Bush, JW. I thought it was particularly amusing when the left was saying how the portrayal of Obama as Heath Ledger's Joker was "mean spirited and dangerous", yet the same thing was done in portrayals of Bush.

And ISM, while I appreciate you sharing that sentiment, don't pretend many protesters on the left don't just take their talking points from liberal websites.

As far as who the pharmaceutical companies might be with....have you read this (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html?_r=2&hp)? Obama's been secretly dealing with them behind the scenes.

[innerSpaceman]

Could be. I'm sure I have a bias, and no offense meant to anyone here, but in my experience liberals and progressives tend to be better educated than conservatives and regressives - and thus often put talking points into their own words through a digested thought process rather than parroting them brainlessly.


Completely anecdotal. :p

[BarTopDancer]

Stephen Hawking likes his "Death Panel" Health Care. (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/erica/2009/08/stephen-hawking-likes-his-deat.php?ref=recdc)

Turns out that the world's best-known and most health-challenged physicist thinks that his single-payer health care system works just fine.

"I wouldn't be alive today if it weren't for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high quality treatment without which I would not have survived." ---Stephen Hawking, August 11, 2009

[Ghoulish Delight]

Could be. I'm sure I have a bias, and no offense meant to anyone here, but in my experience liberals and progressives tend to be better educated than conservatives and regressives - and thus often put talking points into their own words through a digested thought process rather than parroting them brainlessly.


Completely anecdotal. :p
I will say without hesitation that a large influence on the modern conservative culture has been anti-education and anti-intellectual sentiments. Demonstrated rather sublimely by this lament from Intelligent Design advocate, Rev. Ray Mummert, "We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." Intellectualism and education have been rebranded as "elitism", expertise as "agenda".

[Alex]

Yes, a large segment of the opposition to every president in my life (except for maybe the first Bush) has been extremely personal. It just swings back and forth.

And yes there is a machine behind the punditry of both sides. And the Democratic machine can be (or at least tries to be, in some areas the Republican machine is much better at maintaining message focus) just as stupid and deceptive as the Republican machine.

And yes, a lot of people believe a lot of stupid things. Just so we're clear that Ann Coulter saying that just means she's acknowledging that the birther movement is a stupid thing. And while it is all and well good to lay the initial birth certificate question as the feet of a Democrat is remains the case that at this point in time it is a right wing issue.

And yes, plenty of people on both sides find it to be the pinnacle of rhetoric to compare the hated opposition to Hitler or to simultaneously accuse the other side of fascist socialism or fascist free marketeers (as if both of those weren't oxymoronic).

And yes, even here these tendencies towards infantility make appearances.

And yes, it is just as moronic to say that the protesters are Nazis as it is for those those protesters to be equating anything Obama has suggested with Nazi-ism (though one of those bits of moronity are being put forward depending on whether your sign has a swastika or a swastika with a line through it).

And yes, it is just as stupid to say that Obama wants to kill old people as it is for the left to say that Republicans want to kill poor people.

So, if we can acknowledge that there's plenty of stupid to go around, how about we try to raise the bar a bit?

[JWBear]

On the other hand, JW, I don't doubt that many Bush protestors were against him personally.


Before he even became president, his policies as Governor of Texas were enough to make me hate his guts As A Person.


So turnabout seems fair play. Even though many of the protestors used talking points from conservative websites bankrolled by the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries, that's fair play in America, too. If they were motivated by fear, and not by payola, that's fair play protesting in America.


It may be asinine, but it's fair play.

Don't tell me that it wasn't personal with Bush, JW. I thought it was particularly amusing when the left was saying how the portrayal of Obama as Heath Ledger's Joker was "mean spirited and dangerous", yet the same thing was done in portrayals of Bush.

And ISM, while I appreciate you sharing that sentiment, don't pretend many protesters on the left don't just take their talking points from liberal websites.

As far as who the pharmaceutical companies might be with....have you read this (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html?_r=2&hp)? Obama's been secretly dealing with them behind the scenes.

I never said there wasn't bias against Bush, the man. I was just responding to the claim that the health care protesters had no bias against Obama himself.

[scaeagles]

I think the bar here is a whole ot higher than the bar...well....pretty much everywhere else on the internet.

We all have our passions and political leanings (except perhaps you, Alex) that make us feel better about the stupidity that goes on on our own particular sides of the aisle than the other, and make it easier to point out the stupidity on the other side. If we agree in sentiment it is easier to empathize with the stupid person than it is if we don't.

Back to "raising the bar" a bit....I can read certain portions of the 1018 page house health care bill and see where certain deductions can be made even if I didn't come to the same conclusion, and granted a lot of it is spin. I've come across a list of some 100 points about the bill and outrageous claims made, and some I can read that way and others I don't. Some I agree with. I think the major problem is that much of it is open to broad interpretation and some of it could lead to blatant abuse by the government.

Some fear insurance companies and drug companies. I fear the government more.

[flippyshark]

The drug and insurance companies are the devil I currently know and despise. I have no idea if a public option would be better, but I am personally, and literally, desperate for a change. I'm one of those slip-through-the-cracks cases - I work three or four part time jobs, have no coverage, and as of a couple of months ago, could no longer afford to carry myself. There is no question in my mind that the current system doesn't give a shyte if I cack it tomorrow (Am I really just supposed to just keep checking into the Emergency Room?- Am I really supposed to just shrug and accept that these are the breaks, and I deserve this for the poor choices I made earlier in life? Swell)

I'm SO ready for something different. My contributions to this topic would not be informed by impartiality and reason. I confess that I am worried and panicky. And not very hopeful either way the ball rolls. Those who support the status quo are welcome to try to talk me down.

[JWBear]

Some fear insurance companies and drug companies. I fear the government more.

There, in a nutshell, is the core of the disagreement between the two sides.

[innerSpaceman]

And the problem for Obama and, well, flippyshark (among so many others) is that most people have health insurance and ... whether it's because they've had no devastating illness or because their medical coverage experience has been genuinely good ... most people are perfectly content with their current insurance situation.

That doesn't bode well for a population being asked to change course, and feeling (quite understandably) they're being lied to when "assured" there will be no change to their situation while simultaneously insuring millions of new people and slashing costs.

Perhaps if Obama and his cadre would simply come clean and tell the American people that, yes, sacrifice will be needed to fix the system that he claims (with some justification) will bankrupt our nation. But he's not doing that. It comes off as dishonest. That breeds fear.


I suppose another way to handle it would be to, oh, slash the defense budget by, ya know, not waging war in Afghanistan ... but I won't hold my breath on that one either.


All in all, Obama's seeming disingenuous. And most people are happy with their current situation. It's a bad recipe for change.

[Alex]

Some fear insurance companies and drug companies. I fear the government more.

Ok, so where in the House bill (or any of the various competing bills on the table at the moment) would you be forced into the care of government instead of private insurance?

[BarTopDancer]

I'm one of those slip-through-the-cracks cases - I work three or four part time jobs, have no coverage, and as of a couple of months ago, could no longer afford to carry myself.

I'm currently one of the slip-through-the-cracks cases. I can't afford COBRA (even with the subsidization it's too much for this single income household). I certainly can't afford a policy on my self. I'm lucky that I'm healthy and my parents were willing, and able to take out a catastrophic policy on me.

Government health care isn't all bad, or inherently bad. Congress has "government health care" and they seem to love it. Military health care seems to work for the most part. MedicAid sucks, not sure about MediCare other than my dad doesn't have any issue with it.

Something has to change starting with "Pre-existing condition clauses". When I was laid off 2 years ago I was denied an inexpensive individual policy (couldn't afford COBRA that time either) because I took Zyrtec for allergies on a daily basis (this was before it was OTC). How many people who have been laid off and can't afford continuous coverage are now going to be facing insane insurance costs if/when they find a new job.

[wendybeth]

It may have been noted here already, but I'm too lazy to go back and look: We already subsidize health care. Indigent people who receive care at ER's, people who skip out or file bankruptcy on their bills....basically, all those who are unfortunate enough to not have health care or have sub-standard health care are subsidized by everyone else. We are overcharged by our providers and the hospitals because of their losses elsewhere. Our premiums are skyrocketing because of these reasons. One thing I find interesting is that the majority of my clients who bitch about national health care are on Medicare. What the hell do they think that is? :rolleyes:

A recent letter to our newspaper caught my eye- the writer asked when was the last time you saw riots or protests in Canada or Sweden or England that were against national health care?

[JWBear]

Canadians and Europeans love their "Socialized Health Care". They want nothing to do with our for-profit system. That should tell you something.

[scaeagles]

There are a few things that concern me, Alex, as far as me being "forced" onto the government program.

Page 16 of the bills is one of my concerns. Perhaps I am not reading it correctly, but it says (in part):

“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1” (the year the legislation becomes law).

As I read that, no new employee can be enrolled in a company insurance program after the beginning of the government program (I couldn't find any exceptions in that paragraph). Does that mean I am forced onto the new program? No, I suppose not, but that puts a burden on the company I work for to deal with two separate plans.

This is just one aspect of many that make it more likely that companies will opt for the government option. Does my company have to? I suppose not, but there are other aspects of the bill that makes it difficult for my company NOT to change to the government option. I don't really have time to go into it all, but hopefully I have answered your question.

I haven't even begun to list a small portion of what I don't like about the bill, from what it says to what can be implied or interpretted to what it will cost.

[Alex]

Congress has "government health care" and they seem to love it.

No they don't, they have traditional private insurance just like I do through my employer. Congressmen, though, as part of the largest employee pool in the United States (they have the same insurance options as all federal employees) just has the bargaining power to get relatively cheap rates.

The VA is our example of British-style government provided health care. Medicare is our big example of Canadian-style single-payer (but not government provided) health coverage.

The current proposals in Congress set up neither a single payer system nor government provided health care.

[Alex]

“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1” (the year the legislation becomes law).

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you actually read that yourself and it is just a coincidence that Sean Hannity talked about it in response to an IBD editorial that misrepresented it. It is pretty standard grandfathering boilerplate.

A few comments.

1) The bill does not outlaw private insurance.

2) That paragraph is talking about grandfathered insurance plans. The bill creates new rules and regulations around private insurance. Generally, when rules and regulations change (as currently happens all of the time) existing plans must be brought into compliance. This section is actually there as a bone to your fears. It is saying that existing plans at the time the bill is passed can continue as they currently are. So, as is the phrase, if you already have insurance and like it the way it is you get to keep it. Similarly, when laws were passed that mandated seat belts in automobiles existing cars did not have to be abandoned but all new cars had to have them. Under your reading of this, such a grandfathering rule for seat belts would mean you weren't allowed to buy any new privately manufactured cars.

3) However, any new coverage provided by privateinsurance companies must comply with the new rules and regulations. Just as currently happens all of the time. Again, private insurance is not eliminated, it is just required to comply with new regulations and rules, which they already have to do every day. So you are correct that employees could be on two different plans. That, however, is almost universally true already.

4) You say you read on and found no exceptions to this bar on new enrollment in grandfathered plans. The very next paragraph is an exception.

[scaeagles]

I am actually not able to listen to the radio at work (no reception) and streaming is forbidden.

Just FYI, I came across a list of items (some 100 that are "concerns" out there) in my research and have been investigating each of them. Many of them are wild spin and I can obviously see that. Some greatly concern me.

I did read on, and yes, I suppose adding a dependent to my existing policy is an exception, but my concern was specifially that a new employee could not be added to the existing employer offered plan. I hve a problem with that as it takes away the ability of the new employee to accept whichever it is they might want. I'm not trying to be difficult. Am I misunderstanding that in your opinion?

Why is it so great that the government will allow programs to be grandfathered? The very fact that grandfathering is an issue on existing plans means that the government sees something wrong with them and will not be allowing new similar plans in the future. The very next paragraph (after the dependent exception) also says the grandfathered plan cannot change any of the benefits. That seems to me to be a bit unrealistic and very restrictive. That says you can keep what you have as long as it doesn't change at all (a copay change, whatever). If it changes at all, you can't have it, and have to go with a government approved plan (public or private).

With your seatbelt analogy, I can put a new engine on my old seatbeltless car without having to abandon it because I've changed something about it. In the healthcare example, changing something about it means it does have to be abandoned.

[Ghoulish Delight]

It may have been noted here already, but I'm too lazy to go back and look: We already subsidize health care. I

Canadians and Europeans love their "Socialized Health Care". They want nothing to do with our for-profit system. That should tell you something.

I need to find it again but I recently saw an interesting set of comparative charts. It showed 3 statistics for a bunch of countries. 1) The percentage of the country's total medical spending that is spent by the government 2) The percentage of the country's GDP that total medical spending represented and 3) WHO's ranking of the country's medical care.

In regards to wendy's point, around 50% of total medical spending in this country is already done by the government. So the change being proposed is hardly the 180 degree philosophical shift for this country towards socialism poeple would like us to believe.

So most of the other countries shown had socialized systems where the government represents >80% of spending. The first thing I noticed was, among this list, the US was the ONLY country where total medical spending was >10% of GDP, which seems to rather put lie to the myth that socialized health care = runaway spending. Most were in the 7-8% range, the US is 15%.

Then there were the rankings. The US was something like #23. All but 2 of the countries on the list were ranked higher by WHO, which challenges the common argument that such systems mean worse care.

Just saying.

ETA: Aha, found it. And the US ranking was worse than I remembered, #37 http://thetoiletpaper.com/blog/2009/health-care-spending-in-developed-countries/

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I need to find it again but I recently saw an interesting set of comparative charts. It showed 3 statistics for a bunch of countries. 1) The percentage of the country's total medical spending that is spent by the government 2) The percentage of the country's GDP that total medical spending represented and 3) WHO's ranking of the country's medical care.

In regards to wendy's point, around 50% of total medical spending in this country is already done by the government. So the change being proposed is hardly the 180 degree philosophical shift for this country towards socialism poeple would like us to believe.

So most of the other countries shown had socialized systems where the government represents >80% of spending. The first thing I noticed was, among this list, the US was the ONLY country where total medical spending was >10% of GDP, which seems to rather put lie to the myth that socialized health care = runaway spending. Most were in the 7-8% range, the US is 15%.

Then there were the rankings. The US was something like #23. All but 2 of the countries on the list were ranked higher by WHO, which challenges the common argument that such systems mean worse care.

Just saying.

ETA: Aha, found it. And the US ranking was worse than I remembered, #37 http://thetoiletpaper.com/blog/2009/health-care-spending-in-developed-countries/Seeing the graph really hits it home. Much higher percent of our GDP than other nations and much worse results. Perhaps we should try to copy what works.

[Alex]

I did read on, and yes, I suppose adding a dependent to my existing policy is an exception, but my concern was specifially that a new employee could not be added to the existing employer offered plan. I hve a problem with that as it takes away the ability of the new employee to accept whichever it is they might want. I'm not trying to be difficult. Am I misunderstanding that in your opinion?

No, but that is generally the way grandfathering works. If have an old 5gpf toilet you can keep it but if you want to install a new toilet or do a significant remodel of your bathroom it has to be one that meets current requirements. If you have a public doorway that doesn't meet ADA requirements you (sometimes) can keep it, but if you do any remodeling to the doorway you have to bring it up to speed. If you have a smokestack that has emissions higher than the new standards you can keep it but if you make any changes at the plant you have to bring it up to code.

Why is it so great that the government will allow programs to be grandfathered? The very fact that grandfathering is an issue on existing plans means that the government sees something wrong with them and will not be allowing new similar plans in the future.

That's correct. I don't think it is great to allow grandfathering where not doing so would not create a huge expense (for example, requiring every existing toilet to be replaced immediately rather than in the course of regular replacement).

And when it comes to insurance regulation I believe it is very much not the standard to grandfather existing plans from new regulation. But the grandfathering clause is there because of people complaining that they'd be forced off of insurance that they're satisfied with.

So I'd say the complaints are trying to have cake and eat it too. It is evil of the government to force you into plans meeting new regulations but at the same time the fact that they'll let you keep your current plan if you want is a sign of how evil the new plans are?

That seems to me to be a bit unrealistic and very restrictive. That says you can keep what you have as long as it doesn't change at all (a copay change, whatever). If it changes at all, you can't have it, and have to go with a government approved plan (public or private).

You already have to go with a government approved plan. Insurance is right now a heavily regulated industry. Whatever insurance plan you currently have has been approved by government. If they make a change it has to comply with government approvals. Your government is constantly tweaking what is required for those approvals.

And the grandfathering clause is very restrictive. Such is generally the nature of grandfathering. If it wasn't then new regulations would simply be statement of ideals (especially if completely new entries could opt into the grandfather clause).

===

I need to correct something I've been saying since I misread this section the first time (I'm not really reading the bills in detail now because I don't yet know which of several possibilities will move forward).

The section about grandfathering applies only to individual insurance, not employment based health insurance. So, the bad thing that you've now said is grandfathering is not an issue for you (I'm assuming you get your insurance through employment). Employment based plans would have a 5-year grace period to comply with the new regulations.

So that is pretty standard as every time insurance regulations change now, the insurance companies change the plans (or they change the plans just because they view it in their business interest) and you have no say in the matter no matter how much you preferred the previous version.

Also, the hassle of your employer administering multiple plans due to grandfathering is definitely not an issue (though it wouldn't have really been an issue anyway).

====

Can you point me to your list of 100 things? I'd be interested in seeing what is on it?

Question: If you have confirmed for yourself that many of the things on the list are BS, how does that sway your default skepticism setting on the others you haven't checked? Do you start out assuming they're true until proven otherwise?

Finally, for anybody who cares to read primary sources here's a link (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf) to the Ways & Means Committee version of a health insurance bill and is the specific one we've been talking about here. Hopefully the 100 things list sticks to a single version for criticism (or at least is clear on which version they're criticizing at any given time).

[scaeagles]

Here (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2300451/posts) is a list similar to what I referenced. Not the one, but the one I had seen was forwarded to me by someone in my home email which I can't access at present. This one is much shorter (ends at page 494 for some reason).

Haven't gone through even close to all of them, just a few really. I read the page they are referring to, see if there is anything that could possibly be interpretted that way, and research as necessary.

Really, though, most of my personal research has been done at the Heritage Foundation site.

[JWBear]

Really, though, most of my personal research has been done at the Heritage Foundation site.

And we all know what a bastion of impartiality they are! :rolleyes:

[sleepyjeff]

And we all know what a bastion of impartiality they are! :rolleyes:

No less impartial than the World Health Organization whose numbers seem to go unchallenged around here;)

[innerSpaceman]

Um, Huh? I've been posting here a long time, and I don't recall there being any prevalence of World Health Organization numbers bandied about.


That said, what dirt do you have on that organization? I wasn't aware they had a reputation for inaccuracy. I'm sincerely curious. I don't know anything about them.

[sleepyjeff]

Um, Huh? I've been posting here a long time, and I don't recall there being any prevalence of World Health Organization numbers bandied about.


That said, what dirt do you have on that organization? I wasn't aware they had a reputation for inaccuracy. I'm sincerely curious. I don't know anything about them.

You can count on one hand the number of posts you would have to go back....World Health Organization = WHO.

[innerSpaceman]

ok, so what makes their numbers unreliable?

[Gn2Dlnd]

ok, so what makes their numbers unreliable?

What, don't you understand that for every fact presented there must be an equal and opposing "fact?" Don't you ever watch Fox News? Jeez.

[Alex]

Ok, here's some of my responses to the list of concerns scaeagles linked to (this gives me something to look at so if I'm going to research for my own learning I'll bore everybody).

Probably will get really long so I'll spoiler it. All responses are my own (unless I cite something else) and will contain my own errors.


Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the gov option!
Both sentences are completely untrue. It says that keeping your current plan (if you are self insured) is an option. If you don't want to keep your current plan you'll be able to change to any other plan you want. You do not have to purchase the public option established in Title 2 of the bill.

Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
I do not see anything on this page, or any nearby page, requiring audits of individual insurers. It does require that a demographic report be developed reporting on the nature of insurance, general features offered, risk of regulatory impacts, etc.

Now, it certainly may turn out that this information is gathered in the course of actual audits, but the bill says nothing about performing audits (at least not here).

Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
First of all, of course health care will be rationed. Health care is already rationed and there is no reason to expect that will change. All that might be changing is the basis on which it is rationed.

That said, I see nothing on page 29 that involves rationing. It does say that costsharing will be limited to $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a
family. But that is a cap on the cost to the individual or family, not a cap on the cost to the insurer. On page 27 it explicitly says that for those things required as part of an approved health care plan (whether public or privately sold):

...does not impose any annual or lifetime limit on coverage of covered health care items and services;

So, if it is covered, you may have a deductible or copay up to a certain amount but beyond that there is no cap.

Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)

Starting on this page the creation of a Health Benefits Advisory Committee is laid out. This board will have up to 26 members serving 3-year terms and will make recommendations about a couple of things.

1. What should be the minimal services covered by qualifying healthcare plans. Plans are, so far as I can tell, completely allowed to exceed those minimums to their heart's desire.

2. Cost sharing recommendations for the Health Insurance Exchange plans (a pool of plans made available for peole who are otherwise not insured. If you're receiving other insurance through your employer these plans aren't relevant to you.

Either way, the statement is inaccurate for a couple reasons. The committee only establishes the floor on coverage, not a ceiling. And it does not bar coverage for other services.

No appeals process is mentioned. But that is probably because the committee does not actually set policy. It is hard to imagine how you'd accommodate appealing a recommendation.

Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
But I thought just the previous item said that Health Benefits Advisory Committee would be in charge of that?

But yes, the bill does put someone in charge of managing the regulations contained within it. However, the same caveats apply to him as to the previous item. All that is defined for non-Exchange private health insurance is the minimum level of coverage required, the plans are free to exceed them all they want. So if coverage is denied in such a plan, it won't be because of a government bureaucrat (it may be in violation of the government bureaucrat but that burueacrat has no ability to declind coverage in a private health care plan).

Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
Not enough information for me here without a more thorough reading of the bill. PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/30/chain-email/no-free-health-care-illegal-immigrants-health-bill/), however, labels this claim as Pants on Fire. (I'm avoiding their detailed analysis of this list while I come to my own conclusions.)

Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
Well, every person is going to need some means of demonstrating their insurance coverage when using health services. This section lays out goals for electronifying and simplifying such issues.

But if a card were used it would be a national ID card in the same sense that your Social Security Card is. Which may not be good, but that horse is already out of the barn.

And I'm not clear on what the impact, if any, would on peopel using non-Exchange insurance plans.

Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.

Almost couldn't figure out what this was talking about. But the language in question seems to be:

enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice.

First of all, that section is talking about electronifying payments between health care providers and insurance companies, not between you and the health care company. Second, the automated part is reconcilation not remittance. Third, if they wanted to use the power (not that anything in this section suggests they do), the federal government already has all the information on my individual bank accounts and could take it.

Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
Extremely Misleading. Yes, there are subsidies for continuing existing health coverage for employer-based health plans between retirement at 55 and eligibility for other existing government health coverage.The fact that an employer may be a union has nothing to do with the program. It would be true of Wells Fargo and Microsoft employees as well.

Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
True to an extent, but as said previously, currently any health insurance offering must conform to government rules. That isn't new, only the rules would be changing.

If insurer's want to provide direct individual insurance they'll have to quality to participate in the Exhange. Today they have to quality in different ways. It should also be said that while all individual insurance would have to be part of the Exchange, other insurance (such as employer based) are not required to be part of the Exchange (though as is universal must be minimal government requirements).

Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
The bill does say that qualify Exchange plans will "provide for culturally and linguistically appropriate communication and health service."

I would certainly like more clarity on what that means. But it only means "illegal aliens" to the extent that one assumes that lacking facility with English means you are here illegally. I have a coworker who speaks very good English in general but when were were talking about my meat restrictions we had to go find a follow Chinese speaker to translate "mammal." I'd guess she also doesn't necessarily know the English worrds for her internal organs. Searching the word Aliens finds on page 143:

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.So at least in one program in the bill illegal immigrants are excluded.


So. That's the first twelve on the list. Of those, only one item is - in my opinion - a remotely accurate representation of what is in the bill. At what point does it become prudent to start assuming, lacking affirmative evidence otherwise, that the entire list is BS?

Now off to read if Politifact thinks I got anything wrong.

[sleepyjeff]

ok, so what makes their numbers unreliable?


They have Oman ranked number 8......that alone discounts the ranking in my book.

Much of their results are based on infant mortality....problem is they don't have a universal definition of infant mortality and instead allow each nation to define their own.....the US considers still borns against infant mortality; most other nations{especially the high ranking ones==surprise surprise===} don't.

Life expectancy, the US ranks 30.......but we are a nation of 300 plus million so really should not be compared to Monaco or Iceland.

Our Life expentancy is the highest in the world when compared to the 8 most populous Nations on Earth(and 2nd in the world when compared to the 10 most populous).

In short, the WHO numbers are not the problem, just their conclusions.

[scaeagles]

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[JWBear]

Life expectancy, the US ranks 30.......but we are a nation of 300 plus million so really should not be compared to Monaco or Iceland.

Our Life expentancy is the highest in the world when compared to the 8 most populous Nations on Earth(and 2nd in the world when compared to the 10 most populous).

I'm not seeing your reasoning here. Why would the population numbers make a difference if they are talking about statistical averages? Could you elaborate? (Or are you just going by what Bill O'Reilly had to say (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907270052)on the subject?)

[sleepyjeff]

I'm not seeing your reasoning here. Why would the population numbers make a difference if they are talking about statistical averages? Could you elaborate? (Or are you just going by what Bill O'Reilly had to say (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907270052)on the subject?)

Never saw that O'Reilly show.... but if you're comfortable saying we suck because two dozen tiny nations(whose combined pop. would maybe rival that of our three largest states) so be it.

:)

[JWBear]

Never saw that O'Reilly show.... but if you're comfortable saying we suck because two dozen tiny nations(whose combined pop. would maybe rival that of our three largest states) so be it.

:)

Again... What does the relative population totals have to do with the average life expectancy? If the average is, say, 75 - it would still be the average regardless if the population was 300 or 300,000,000.

[innerSpaceman]

I think he's saying, not to put words in his mouth, that because there are (very simple numbers) 10 people who live to be 100 v. 1,000,000 people who live to be 80, it's kind of unfair if those 10 centenniaries are each their own sovereign nation of one ... so that the nation with 1,000,000 people living to be 80 is ranked "11th."

[sleepyjeff]

Again... What does the relative population totals have to do with the average life expectancy? If the average is, say, 75 - it would still be the average regardless if the population was 300 or 300,000,000.



Yes, but how much of the worlds population is contained within the borders of the 8 most populous nations?

I guess what I am saying is there are far more people on this Earth that have a lower life expectancy than who have a greater one. A US citizen will find his or herself in the top 10 - 15 %....regardless how many "nations" have a higher life expect.

You could take the 200 longest living individuals on Earth and delcare each one a nation and then proclaim that the US is a lowly 230th.....still doesn't change the fact that most people would prefer to have medical care in the US than in their home country.

[sleepyjeff]

I think he's saying, not to put words in his mouth, that because there are (very simple numbers) 10 people who live to be 100 v. 1,000,000 people who live to be 80, it's kind of unfair if those 10 centenniaries are each their own sovereign nation of one ... so that the nation with 1,000,000 people living to be 80 is ranked "11th."

Something like that....yes.

[Alex]

Statistical outliers will be more common among smaller populations.

Using a baseball analogy, a batting average of .400 is more likely over 20 at bats than over 200. The best hitter in his baseball might rank way behind the guy who only played two weeks of the season.

That's why we need to know not only how the nimbers are different but also whether those differences a statistically significant. I'm guessing they probably are in this case.

But then there are confounding factors thay are hard to eliminate. West Virgina and Santa Clara county could have identical populations and identical healthcare systems and I suspect you'd still see statistically significant differences in many demographic measurements.

Finally_ of course_ there's the fact that correlation does not equal causation.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Quibbles over the validity/bias of WHO's rankings aside, I still find the "infographic" rather illuminating. You may not be able to unequivocally say that all of those nations' systems are "better" than the U.S., but clearly they are neither utter disasters leading to the ruination of their nations' health, nor giant money sinks with costs spiraling out of control.

[Alex]

That is true. What with rationing all of their elderly and infirm to death you'd expect that to harm the life expectency number.

[sleepyjeff]

Quibbles over the validity/bias of WHO's rankings aside, I still find the "infographic" rather illuminating. You may not be able to unequivocally say that all of those nations' systems are "better" than the U.S., but clearly they are neither utter disasters leading to the ruination of their nations' health, nor giant money sinks with costs spiraling out of control.

Fair enough.

[JWBear]

still doesn't change the fact that most people would prefer to have medical care in the US than in their home country.

Source?

[scaeagles]

I read something interesting today. Well, two things. My daughter recently had knee surgery. From the time the doctor ordered the MRI until her surgery, it was 3 weeks, 3 days. The MRI was was 2 days later, and the surgery could have been sooner, but we scheduled it for after school was out. I was curious as to how this might have played out in the UK.

In 2006, the average wait in the UK for an MRI was 7.5 weeks. That's the most recent data I could find. In May of 2009, there was an article with the UK happy that average wait times for surgery had dropped to just under 3 months. That means 19 weeks or so for the MRI and surgery. So instead of an early June surgery, she would have had in in late October, and therefore would be missing basically her entire basketball season (she still hasn't been cleared to play by her surgeon some 2.5 months later, but should be in another couple of weeks). That means late January, and the season ends in early February.

I realize that this isn't a life saving procedure, but it sure would suck if she missed her sophomore season because she couldn't get surgery in a timely fashion.

[Alex]

Not that my anecdotal evidence is compelling but I have yet to make a single friend outside of the United States who views the U.S. system as preferable (assuming, of course, that they're from a country with a functioning centralized single payer or single provider system).

Yes, a lot of them still want to move here despite that but they aren't coming for our shores singing about how the medicine will now be better for them.

[scaeagles]

I enjoyed this (http://www.classicalideals.com/HR3200.htm) piece by a Duke University professor named John David Lewis. One may not agree with his conclusions, but he sure lays out a lot of very valid concerns in a very logical way.

[Alex]

I realize that this isn't a life saving procedure, but it sure would suck if she missed her sophomore season because she couldn't get surgery in a timely fashion.

You'll be able to find all kinds of individual stats that show one advantage here or a disadvantage there. Helping the U.S. in these arguments is that our lack of a central health care system means that similar statistics are nearly impossible to find.

Here's a Business Week article (hardly a bastion of liberal tendencies) on wait times in the United States. Note that in L.A. they reported the wait time to even see an orthopedic surgeon as 43 days. And Americans are less likely to even seek medical treatment because of difficulty in seeing primary care physicians quickly.

But in the tradition of anecdotes, here's mine.

My then unemployed (and therefore uninsured) sister was 28 when she experienced a spontaneous pneumothorax requiring several weeks of hospitalization and eventually surgery on one of her lungs. She could not be scheduled for that surgery until she had coughed up a 10% down payment on the expected cost. Everybody involved knew that she would never be able to pay the other 90% but the decision was made to take whatever personal credit blow would result from defaulting on that debt in order to have surgery. Of course there was the matter of 10%.

What was 10% of a 2-hour surgery where they fudged the numbers to keep the cost as low as possible? $15,000. Which I paid out of pocket so my sister could continue to have two functioning lungs.

I'm out $15k. My sister is has destroyed credit. My mom suffered the humiliation of begging around for money. The hospital and doctors took a bath on their costs.

All becaue it turns out an otherwise pretty healthy (she's the only non-obese one in the family) 28 year old had a genetically unsound lung.

How would that have played out in the United Kingdom?

[scaeagles]

Of course we all have our own anecdotes. I could go into my surgeries (we haven't had a good sphincter story here in a long time), but I suppose that is pointless because the situations are completely different in that I had insurance and your sister obviously didn't.

I truly respect and admire what you did for your sister. That's what family is for. I have a friend (I coached his kid last year) who gave up a career as a professional athlete to donate a kidney to his sister (been out for two years, is in the process of attempting a comeback). However, stories like yours are the reason that something needs to be done. I am just not convinced that this is it. I am not from the school of "you don't like this idea? well tell me a better one". I have thoughts (many of which are founded in stuff I've read from the Heritage Foundation) but I don't suppose those are relevant to this conversation (as we are discussing this specific health care proposal).

[Alex]

I enjoyed this (http://www.classicalideals.com/HR3200.htm) piece by a Duke University professor named John David Lewis. One may not agree with his conclusions, but he sure lays out a lot of very valid concerns in a very logical way.

Well, he's certainly better at citing his issues. But the first one starts with a great big deception so I'm not hopeful the quality is going to be much better than the other list.

First, he completely fails to mention that the section he is concerned about has absolutely nothing to do with the new Health Care Exchange programs being established in the bill or new regulations required of private health insurance. The section he is quoting is an alteration to existing Medicare (really, why do I keep wanting to spell it Medicair?) coverage.

Second, while the section does indeed seek to create incentives for avoiding unnecessary hospital readmissions, the goal is not to deny coverage but to improve patient outcomes (here's (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cms.hhs.gov%2FHealthCareFinan cingReview%2Fdownloads%2F09SummerPg1.pdf&ei=gnCDSuecG4OIswO-tpSjAg&rct=j&q=medicare+exces+readmissions&usg=AFQjCNHQ_Bz6ILTfrZ5BglEU2jwdOseLeg) an article explaining the idea behind it). Essentially, the idea is that it encourages the hospital to get it right the first time.

Finally, the first section he quoted says pretty much exactly the opposite of what he is suggesting it says:

(ii) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN READMISSIONS.—For purposes of clause (i), with respect to a hospital, excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the Secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital.

That is not saying that certain readmissions will be barred. It is saying that for procedures and conditions where there does not exist a sufficient history for evaluating what would be excessive, such readmissions will not be counted towards the total.

Fourth, this does not result in rationing of care. A hospital accepting Medicare patients will still have to take them for as many readmissions as are needed, but if they are seeing returns at a level way beyond stastical norms the hospital may not be paid as much.

That said, after such a horrible start with his first item a quick glance through the rest and things appear a bit more reasonable and generally highlights legitimate issues appropriate as points of policy discussion. Though he does continue the trend of ignoring things that are already done and thus implying that they're somehow new.

[Alex]

Also, I would jsut like to say that "coughed up" in my sister's story was not an intentional pun. But I like it. Since she literally and figuratively couldn't have coughed it up.

[innerSpaceman]

I loved the "coughed up." Could have sworn it was cleverly intentional. Hmmm.

* * * *

Anectode time. I've basically liked my coverage. Because I never needed it till recently.


I'm not gonna bother to recall what kind of specialist is doing my throat-stretching procedures. It took 2 months to get an appointment with him. Nothing to do with insurance, just how busy his practice is. This is in Los Angeles, so I imagine it's both easier, and more difficult, to get in to see a doctor in this town.

But this is where my love of my insurance kicks in. I'm gonna have some giant tube with a funnel on the end shoved down my esophagus to stretch it. Oh, that's covered. But if I don't want to be wide awake during that procedure, that's up to me to pay for.

That's right, anethesia not covered. Oh, unless you go through a giant rigamorole appeals, begging, threatening process. Then it is. And I need the procedure done 3 times. Have to beg and plead, and threaten for the anethesia each and every time.


Don't get me started on my prescription drug plan. I think I'm going to have to start paying something out-of-pocket for a better one come next year. My doctor has me on over-the-counter meds because NONE of the half-dozen or so prescription drugs to treat my oh-so-rare condition of acid reflux are covered.


So yeah, I'd be one of theose people willing to roll the dice on something else. I've just put my toe in the water of more and more common use of health care as I ease into late middle-age ... and I'm unhappy enough to try something else.

[Alex]

More personal (and I mean more personal): My coverage at the time meant my total cost for my vasectomy was around $80. Back when I was uninsured in college an unneeded trip to the emergency room to be told I had a bad cold cost $1,200 total for 40 minutes of time.

And yet with what is supposedly very good dental insurance I spent almost $2,000 to get my wisdom teeth removed.

Though in the absence of comprehensive insurance/health care reform there is one law I'd get behind:

1. If you have insurance and use medical services that accept that insurance then all bills and negotiations should go through the insurance company. They can haggle about what will be covered and not and then the insurance company pays the doctor/hospital everything and seeks to collect the remainder from me. Lani needed a small procedure last year and insurance covered most of it but we received about 6,000 separate bills which we dutifully paid and then got refund checks on a third of them because the insurance company also paid them.

[flippyshark]

Lani needed a small procedure last year and insurance covered most of it but we received about 6,000 separate bills which we dutifully paid and then got refund checks on a third of them because the insurance company also paid them.

Been there (back when I had insurance) I think I'm still getting various bills for my hernia surgery from over a year ago.

[flippyshark]

Does this insurance discussion need its own thread? (It's not that much about Obama for the last few pages.) Don't care either way myself.

[scaeagles]

I'm not gonna bother to recall what kind of specialist is doing my throat-stretching procedures.

That would be a gastroenterologist. I had this done many times prior to my surgeries.

[innerSpaceman]

[Lucy Van Pelt] THAT'S IT!!!! [/Lucy Van Pelt]

[sleepyjeff]

Source?

WHO and The World Almanac population stats I suppose.

Assuming WHO is correct in at least their numbers and assuming that a higher life expectency is desireable then I how could most people not want to have US medical care over their own?

[JWBear]

WHO and The World Almanac population stats I suppose.

Assuming WHO is correct in at least their numbers and assuming that a higher life expectency is desireable then I how could most people not want to have US medical care over their own?

In other words, just your opinion and guess.

[sleepyjeff]

In other words, just your opinion and guess.

What part?

[JWBear]

Did you know that Obama is going to close all the banks on September 24th so he can replace all our money with a new "One World" currency? It must be true because a relative of mine got an email form somebody who heard Glenn Beck say so! :rolleyes:

[Andrew]

Did you know that Obama is going to close all the banks on September 24th so he can replace all our money with a new "One World" currency? It must be true because a relative of mine got an email form somebody who heard Glenn Beck say so! :rolleyes:
I heard somebody telling a confused (even more confused) version of that on the train home from the ballgame on Tuesday night. Happily after years of having a Disneyland AP I've completely overcome any temptation to strike up conversation and make corrections to random people near me.

[Gemini Cricket]

Bowing to Republican pressure, President Barack Obama's administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system. Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession probably would enrage Obama's liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.
Source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/16/sebelius-public-health-ca_n_260511.html)

[alphabassettgrrl]

Boo. So he spent a lot of energy and public goodwill in order to cave in the end. A public option was the only leverage for making change.

[Alex]

Personally, I don't care if there's a publicly managed plan. It much of the other stuff I think is important. But then, unless there is a desire to nationalize the entire health care industry rather than just mandating insurance I'm not particularly keen on government ownership.

That is, the key to me is to have the mandate, the solid floor put under what constitutes the minimal acceptable coverage, and penalties and assistance to meet it. If that's in place and successful then I think it is a relatively easy first step to introduce the idea of a public option again in a few years. And if it doesn't work out well then it wouldn't have any way.

[JWBear]

I'm so fvcking pissed at Obama right now... Mr President, it's called a spine. Get one!

[flippyshark]

Robert Gibbs says Not so fast. (http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/16/gibbs-white-house-still-supports-public-option/)

I'm going to cling to a tiny thread of optimism on this one. Fool's Paradise, that's where I'm living for a little while.

[scaeagles]

Obama is floating stuff all over the place. He is first, and foremost, a politician, concerned with his reelection and the reelection of his party. The polling data I've seen (and I'm sure they have their own polling data that shows the same) alienating the independents and a lot of people who have voted for him. Another poll I saw showed that he's dropped around 20 pts in job approval from when he first took office. His stimulus that wasn't stimulus was one thing, and this health care stuff is the other.

Now I suppose I'm with JW to an extent that he should do what he thinks is right regardless of the polls. But he doesn't want lose his vast majority in the house and senate as Clinton did (in the House anyway).

[Ghoulish Delight]

Obama let the conversation get away from him. He waited way too long to respond to the b.s. claims the Glenn Becks of the world were leveling against his plans, and his response was to cave rather than reject the b.s.

I voted for him because he's a calculating man who thinks about every step he takes. Unfortunately he's taken that too far in his attempts to make policy. He's underestimated the ability of the talking heads to make truth by shouting it quickly and loudly. He'd better figure out real soon how to react to that before those ideas take hold in the public conversation or else he will fail from here on out.

[scaeagles]

He let the conversation get away from him? How many press conferences and townhalls has he had on the issue?

There are certainly those talking heads in the media that carry his water. Andrea Mitchell, doing a "news" story on the health care debate said that the protesters may not know what is best for them. And he HAS had the opportunity to make his point with his own staged and controlled town hall meetings. People just don't believe him. It doesn't go over well when protesters are called "evil mongers" by Harry Reid, and Pelosi implied they were nazis. There is audio (perhaps video) of Pelosi saying in 2006 how she loved disrupters, but that was because she was on their side.

Granted, Pelosi and Reid are not Obama. But he needs to gain some control over them. I think they are damaging him. And like Bush, Obama is trying to play to all sides and will end up losing his base as well as the independents along the way.

[Ghoulish Delight]

He let the conversation get away from him? How many press conferences and townhalls has he had on the issue?
All way too late. By the time he was having them, there were already piles of lies out there that people were ready to stand up and shout angrily at him. I knew he'd lost the fight when he put out the pathetic request for people to send wrong-sounding things they'd heard to the white house email. They should have been out there hearing them for themselves and responding. By the time they were asking to be sent them, it was WAAAY too late.

And defend it as "freedom of speech" all you want, the fact is that the conservative movement has all but cornered the market on generating outrage and yelling half-truths and/or lies as an ends to a means. Conservative voices dominate the talk radio dial. And personally I'm glad that people who hold opinions closer to mine (liberals) simply aren't as good at that game. Liberals don't have the taste for the format the way conservatives to, to make a generalized statement. Just look at Keith Olbermann's ratings. He's undoubtedly just as skilled as O'Reilly or Beck, and I do find I agree with and am entertained by much of what he says. But he grew old for me very quickly and I don't think I'm alone. It just doesn't work for his potential audience, they don't buy into the outrage. But there are consequences to that, and I was hoping that Obama would find a way to inject his attitude of reason into the debate rather than just sit back and let it steamroll him like so many others before.

[alphabassettgrrl]

A mandate won't help me get insurance- I don't have insurance because I can't afford it. Forcing me to pay for it won't make it more affordable.

You want to mandate a low plan that has a set pricetag, we might have something. What I want (personally) is a plan that covers only the big stuff- that I couldn't handle on my own. Like cancer or a car wreck. I'll pay for the preventive stuff that's quick and easy.

What I fear is we will get a minimum plan that covers the cheap stuff and still leaves me holding the bag for something big, and that's the one they'll force me to buy.

This "mandating" buying of insurance is the part that has me most concerned. I *can't* and nobody seems to address that in the politician world. And there are a lot of people worse off than I am, who will be bankrupted by having to buy insurance they can't afford.

[Alex]

A mandate won't help me get insurance- I don't have insurance because I can't afford it. Forcing me to pay for it won't make it more affordable.

The bill includes not just a mandate, but if you can't afford it, methods for providing you credits that allow you to purchase it anyway.

You want to mandate a low plan that has a set pricetag, we might have something. What I want (personally) is a plan that covers only the big stuff- that I couldn't handle on my own. Like cancer or a car wreck. I'll pay for the preventive stuff that's quick and easy. Then you don't want the Democratic plan at all even if it does have a public option. All versions of the bill would essentially make such catastrophic coverage impossible.

What I fear is we will get a minimum plan that covers the cheap stuff and still leaves me holding the bag for something big, and that's the one they'll force me to buy. The main plan being considered requires coverage of all the small stuff, you can't be dropped when you get sick, and has a cap on personal expenditures within a year of $5,000 ($10,000 for a family). After those "deductibles" you're coverage is essentially 100% and unlimited.

This "mandating" buying of insurance is the part that has me most concerned. Well, the public option wouldn't help with that either. It wasn't to be free. And it wouldn't necessarily be a lot cheaper than current private insurance. That's why it includes affordability credits (if I'm remembering that part of the bill credits were on a sliding scale all the way up to 97% of cost).

[scaeagles]

And defend it as "freedom of speech" all you want, the fact is that the conservative movement has all but cornered the market on generating outrage and yelling half-truths and/or lies as an ends to a means. Conservative voices dominate the talk radio dial. And personally I'm glad that people who hold opinions closer to mine (liberals) simply aren't as good at that game.

I certainly do not agree with that premise, and would in fact proclaim the opposite when it comes to elected officials. Reid and Pelosi as the leaders of the dem majorities and excel at it.

I don't think it's an issue of not being as good at it, but I think most conservatives who listen to talk radio or other outlets are fed up with what they perceive as the liberal bias in the declared mainstream media.

I've watched Olberman and (liek O'Reilly, whio I've never had a taste for either) he just seems angry all the time.

As far as Obama injecting his voice of reason....he does whatever he thinks is politically expedient, as is common to politicians. Everything Obama says is planned (not that there's anything wrong with that), but he stays on script and when off of it I find him pretty amusing. Like when he was arguing for health care and proclaimed how (the non government companies) FedEx and UPS do well while the (government run) USPS has all the problems. When he is off script or cannot read the teleprompter, he is not so reasoned.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I've watched Olberman and (liek O'Reilly, whio I've never had a taste for either) he just seems angry all the time.
Yes, he is, which is why I think he's failing. His audience that agrees with him doesn't have the taste for the vitrol that the conservative audience does.

[BarTopDancer]

What I want (personally) is a plan that covers only the big stuff- that I couldn't handle on my own. Like cancer or a car wreck. I'll pay for the preventive stuff that's quick and easy.

I have a "catastrophic" policy through Blue Cross Anthem (http://www.anthem.com/ca/). I believe it's $70 a month (mom and dad graciously picked up the tab).

[Alex]

Out of curiosity, at what price point does catastrophe kick in?

[BarTopDancer]

Out of curiosity, at what price point does catastrophe kick in?

I think $10k - which while a lot of money it's not a "break the bank" amount when broken down into monthly payments.

[Gemini Cricket]

The Obama administration filed court papers Monday claiming a federal marriage law discriminates against gays, even as government lawyers continued to defend it. Justice Department lawyers are seeking to dismiss a suit brought by a gay California couple challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. The administration's response to the case has angered gay activists who see it as backtracking on campaign promises made by Barack Obama last year.
In court papers, the administration said it supports repeal of the law.

Source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/17/obama-administration-doma_n_260969.html)
I can't tell if Obama means it or if he's trying to distract the conservative wackos, give them something else to scream about instead of health care...

[JWBear]

Source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/17/obama-administration-doma_n_260969.html)
I can't tell if Obama means it or if he's trying to distract the conservative wackos, give them something else to scream about instead of health care...

Smart move. Give the media something new to obsess about; the astroturfers will be yesterday's news...

[Strangler Lewis]

Finally . . .

some grass roots support. (https://www.chiaobama.com/flare/next)

[Frikitiki]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEHHkoV2Fvk

[innerSpaceman]

Apparently, it will be announced today that Obama's going to speak at the Human Rights Campaign (gay rights organization) on the eve of the National Equality March (gay rights march in D.C.). He'd better have something substantial up his sleeve.






Gays assume, as our first, ya know, colored president, he's already got something substantial down his trouser leg.

[Deebs]

some grass roots support. (https://www.chiaobama.com/flare/next)

Heh.

Why do Chia pets never look like the person they're supposed to be?

[JWBear]

And yet, It reminds me of somebody; I just can't figure out who.

[Chernabog]

Gays assume, as our first, ya know, colored president, he's already got something substantial down his trouser leg.

The only thing I'm assuming is that he's thinking "MORE GAY $$ PLEEEZ!"

[Morrigoon]

Okay I admit I don't get it. Why is he getting the Nobel Peace Prize? I mean, his goals are great and all, and if he'd actually accomplished one of them, I might see my way to understanding why they're giving it to him. But what exactly has he done to earn it? Did I miss a major achievement amidst all the "Jon & Kate" news?

[Kevy Baby]

You have got to be kidding...

[Alex]

I would say it is primarily an award for not being George Bush.

It is hard to argue that it is justified by anything Obama has yet done. But then the Nobel Peace Prize committee doesn't exactly have a stellar record with their award and a pretty fluid definition.

[tod]

My feeling is that President Obama was the second choice, but the Nobel committee couldn't fork out $1.2 million and a gold medal to every one of the 66,882,230 Americans who voted for him.

This is obviously a tribute to the people of the United States for not replacing Little Boots with another bellicose dimwit. And yet another slap in the face to Little Boots. Good.

--t

[Alex]

On the plus side, I assume that Glenn Beck's head exploding will finally get him off the air.

[BarTopDancer]

I agree, it's an award for not being GWB or another war-monger.

I think it will cripple our efforts in the Middle East too - now he has to be a peace maker instead of a President in war-time.

[Strangler Lewis]

No, you must destroy the village in order to save it.

He can still do what he wants. Of course, they can rescind the award. I don't know if he'd have to give the money back, though.

If he wanted to look ballsy, he'd decline it.

[The Lovely Mrs. tod]

On the plus side, I assume that Glenn Beck's head exploding will finally get him off the air.
That alone is worth a million bucks.

I keep checking my e-mail, I can't wait to see what Michael Steele's letter says.

[3894]

I keep checking my e-mail, I can't wait to see what Michael Steele's letter says.

Well, the DNC has a response:

The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists -- the Taliban and Hamas this morning -- in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize. Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize -- an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride -- unless of course you are the Republican Party. The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It's no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore - it's an embarrassing label to claim."


Source is here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/obamas-nobel-prize-inspir_n_315167.html). Right now, I'm super-extra much enjoying being a yellow-dog Dem.

[Alex]

From a purely logistical point of view, what is the legality of the president accepting the cash portion of the prize (or even the medal assuming it has significant cash value)?

Presumably, Exxon would not have been able to create a "You're a Great Guy! Award" and giving the medal with $10 million cash prize to Dick Cheney while he was vice president.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Is the Nobel Committee peddling Range Rovers now? If your concern is that they're buying influence and favors, I'd like to know what product you thing they're selling. Peace? ZOMG!?!

[Alex]

No, I'm not at all worried that the Nobel Committee is buying influence.

That said, the laws regulating the acceptance of gifts, etc., don't necessarily make a judgment call on the intent of a gift. I know there are very strict rules on when and how the president himself can keep ceremonial gifts from other heads of state, for example, as opposed to them being the property of the United States. This is an award to Barack Obama the person, not Barack Obama representing the United States.

That said, the prize is given quite explicitly with a policy goal of highlighting the recipient and the recipient's efforts towards peace and to therefore hopefully help propel the recipient to success.

Certainly don't mean to suggest anything pernicious here, just curious what the rules are.

[3894]

From a purely logistical point of view, what is the legality of the president accepting the cash portion of the prize (or even the medal assuming it has significant cash value)?

The Swedish Nobel medal is the size of a largish drink coaster and solid gold. They also give out copies to members of the family; those are gold-plated. For the Norwegian Nobel Peace medal: In its original form, the medal was in 23 carat gold and weighed 192 grams; from 1980 on this was changed to 18 carats and 196 grams. Its diameter has always remained the same: 6.6 cms Source is here (http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/about_peaceprize/medal/).

[Gemini Cricket]

Feeling kinda mixed about him getting this award. Yes, he's more of a communicator than his predecessor but not being Bush isn't a good reason to give someone the Nobel Peace Prize.
I'm a fan of his but I'm underwhelmed by Obama so far.

[The Lovely Mrs. tod]

Michael Steele has surfaced.

The real question Americans are asking is, “What has President Obama actually accomplished?” It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. One thing is certain — President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.
I'll admit, when the hubby came into the bedroom this morning and waved that cup of coffee under my sleeping face and said "guess what?" my first reaction was "Say WHAT?" I was far from displeased but a bit puzzled. But then, it's not the Nobel Prize for Medicine either. It's subjective. I don't think it's going to add, or detract from what Obama already shows.

And, frankly, I think it's kinda cool. Things so seldom surprise me anymore.

[Strangler Lewis]

Sounds like the Republicans would like to see the Nobel Peace Prize given to a community organizer.

A what?

[innerSpaceman]

Um, I agree with everything in that quote by Michael Steele. That disturbs me.

[Alex]

If it's accurate that he hasn't, shouldn't the Republican be giving him an aware for not backing up rhetoric with concrete action?

After all, they don't want him to actually concretely accomplish any of his rhetoric.

[Frikitiki]

It's been suggested that they gave him the peace prize so that he'll feel pressured to not send more troops to Afghanistan.

I don't know what he did within the 2 weeks. Who knows maybe they gave it to him on just what he has espouses to do rather than what he's done.

[Alex]

He was nominated within two weeks of taking office. The decision was not made based on what he did up to that nomination deadline (not that this adds tons to the list of solid foreign policy accomplishments, but it's more substantial than "recovered from inaugural party hangovers.")

And considering how loose the nomination process is it wouldn't surprise me to learn that he'd been nominated last year too.

[The Lovely Mrs. tod]

I'm not sure why, Steele's letter strikes me sort of funny. The subject line is "Nobel Peace Prize for Awesomness" which would be something my 19 year old would espouse. Not only that, the flights of fancy I'm having about a Nobel Prize for Awesomeness are truly, well, awesome. I wish to nominate Mark Loretta.

I liked this part too:
Deborah, the Democrats and their international leftist allies want America made subservient to the agenda of global redistribution and control. And truly patriotic Americans like you and our Republican Party are the only thing standing in their way.

He even spelled my name right.

[innerSpaceman]

Hahaha, well with only 20% of Americans identifying as Republicans, get set to be mowed down as road kill as you stand in the way of the rest of us.

[SacTown Chronic]

Global redistribution?!?

*crosses fingers*

Please, oh please, send California to Italy!

[BarTopDancer]

I'm reading some reactions posted by AP (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iiB_kxhLSnHbdLTem5aYgIKJvsUAD9B7RBV80)

This one is classy:
"Under any circumstance an appropriate response is to say congratulations." — Gov. Tim Pawlenty, R-Minn.

It's sad that I had to look and was surprised it was by a Republican. I don't know anything about his politics but it's a small glimmer that not all Republican politicians have lost their manners and gone off the deep end.

[Alex]

He's a Republican, but a Minnesota one so not too far off to the right.

But you'll get a chance soon to learn about him as shortly after next year's midterm election he'll begin running for president.

[Andrew]

He likes to be called "T-Paw". No lie.

[BarTopDancer]

But you'll get a chance soon to learn about him as shortly after next year's midterm election he'll begin running for president.

That explains the classy remark.

[tod]

I'm reading some reactions posted by AP (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iiB_kxhLSnHbdLTem5aYgIKJvsUAD9B7RBV80)

This one is classy:

"Under any circumstance an appropriate response is to say congratulations." — Gov. Tim Pawlenty, R-Minn.

It's sad that I had to look and was surprised it was by a Republican. I don't know anything about his politics but it's a small glimmer that not all Republican politicians have lost their manners and gone off the deep end.

Pawlenty is not bound by blind partisanship. he has even appeared on Rachel Maddow's show once or twice.

--t

[Ghoulish Delight]

Ugh, thanks Nobel committee, more fodder for the folks who want to paint anyone who support Obama as a raving fan-boy.

I think Obama's acceptance speech said it all.

[flippyshark]

I think Obama's acceptance speech said it all.

You would think that, raving fan boy.

:)

[Gn2Dlnd]

I'll happily stand under the banner of raving fan-boy. Doesn't mean I won't vehemently disagree with things I don't like, i.e., Tomorrowland '97 SUX!

[3894]

Okay, this is a just in case Obama's speech tomorrow disappoints.Play video. NSFW (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8VZX4sHn-4)

Let's hope we don't need to use this.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Jon Stewart on Omaba & Don't Ask, Don't Tell (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-6-2009/the-gay-after-tomorrow)

[innerSpaceman]

Obama can sure speak a good speech. I got choked up a couple of times.



But there were also times I yelled at the screen. Enuf talk. Talk is cheap.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I'm reading some reactions posted by AP (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iiB_kxhLSnHbdLTem5aYgIKJvsUAD9B7RBV80)

This one is classy:


It's sad that I had to look and was surprised it was by a Republican. I don't know anything about his politics but it's a small glimmer that not all Republican politicians have lost their manners and gone off the deep end.

Pawlenty kind of goes back and forth. My mom sometimes likes him and other times I think she wants to take him out back and spank him. Sometimes he sounds rational and other times ya gotta wonder what was in his Kool-Aid.

The discussion I've been watching is that the Nobel prize is given for effort, not always for accomplishment. It seems this applies to diplomacy/ non science fields.

I'm not sure what I think about it. Not sure that Mr. O deserves the Nobel prize; sure he talks a great line, and he's working for peace and diplomacy, but I'm not sure it's Nobel material. And being nominated within two weeks? Not sure about that.