Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

So around the time when February job numbers will be released? So if the numbers are good they can try to offset it. But if the numbers are bad will they just hold the tape until later?

Good point. If the numbers are good - and all indicators say they will be - what's the point in releasing the tape? I doubt anyone will care by October or November.

I'd imagine there are more than a few conservative classmates of Obama's who could come to his defense over any (most likely heavily-edited) video

 

[RustyNails]

Can't Sandra sue Limbaugh for harassment and all that? He wouldn't have much to stand on..

Rush has been doing this for decades. He knows what constitutes defamation and what constitutes opinion. Look at his words carefully, and how he couched the terms "slut" and "prostitute". He prefaces them with definition of those words.

 

[TestOfTide]

Google it. It is public record.

Wow. I didn't think the dude was THAT untouchable.

 

[Something Wicked]

SO you are okay with people getting health care for free and not buying insurance like yourself?

I have insurance and I'm just warning that a lot of people aren't going to qualify for Obamacare, even though they may think they will. But, I can understand if some one is young, has a crappy job, and is struggling to pay for rent may want to risk being uninsured for a few years to save a few thousand bucks a year (not that I personally would do that). Obamacare simply makes that decision for such young people for them, while not having any meaningful benefit, since, the high premiums will likely be unaffected, or if like Mass, rise considerably.

 

[Chichikov]

Can't Sandra sue Limbaugh for harassment and all that? He wouldn't have much to stand on..

I don't think so, and I hope I'm right.
Yeah, Rush's an asshole, but not every problem need to have a legal solution.

 

[Oblivion]

Dunno if any of you read the Washington Monthly, but it just hasn't been the same since my pretend best friend, Steve Benen left to work with that Maddow broad.

 

[Chumly]

I have insurance and I'm just warning that a lot of people aren't going to qualify for Obamacare, even though they may think they will. But, I can understand if some one is young, has a crappy job, and is struggling to pay for rent may want to risk being uninsured for a few years to save a few thousand bucks a year (not that I personally would do that). Obamacare simply makes that decision for such young people for them, while not having any meaningful benefit, since, the high premiums will likely be unaffected, or if like Mass, rise considerably.

Thats what the reimbursement tiers are for so people that are making between 1-4x the poverty level are not spending more than 2-10% of their salary on health care premiums.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Wisconsin's voter ID law, the strictest in the nation, could mean that 220,000 potential voters would be unable to.

Well, that's basically what Republicans want. The law fulfills it's purpose.

 

[Chichikov]

I have insurance and I'm just warning that a lot of people aren't going to qualify for Obamacare, even though they may think they will. But, I can understand if some one is young, has a crappy job, and is struggling to pay for rent may want to risk being uninsured for a few years to save a few thousand bucks a year (not that I personally would do that). Obamacare simply makes that decision for such young people for them, while not having any meaningful benefit, since, the high premiums will likely be unaffected, or if like Mass, rise considerably.

You got to have a mandate if you want to stop the preexisting conditions clauses, otherwise, no one will get insurance until they got sick (and you can surely see why that system wouldn't work).

 

[NihonTiger90]

Mary Matalin just said on AC360 that Rush was right, it was good satire and the candidates repudiating his words should apologize to him. Wooooooow.

 

[speculawyer]

Mary Matalin just said on AC360 that Rush was right, it was good satire and the candidates repudiating his words should apologize to him. Wooooooow.

Maybe we just don't understand right-wing humor.

Maybe it is like that dog humor in Pixar's Up.

Dug: Hey, I know a joke! A squirrel walks up to a tree and says, "I forgot to store acorns for the winter and now I am dead." Ha! It is funny because the squirrel gets dead.

 

[Oblivion]

Argh, there are gonna be zero right wingers on Bill Maher's show tonight, and yet they have Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Blech. :x

 

[Chichikov]

Wow, Piers Morgan is just a terrible interviewer.
I've never actually watched his show before, and man, it's awful awful stuff.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Argh, there are gonna be zero right wingers on Bill Maher's show tonight, and yet they have Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Blech. :x

How can you dislike Tyson? Seriously?

 

[TestOfTide]

Argh, there are gonna be zero right wingers on Bill Maher's show tonight, and yet they have Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Blech. :x

That sucks. Would have been nice to have a roundtable discussion where you see Tyson calling out a republican for being anti-future.

Still, if it has Tyson, it's guaranteed to be entertaining nevertheless. Maher just needs to let go of his ego and not try and take over the conversation too much like he usually does.

 

[Tamanon]

How can you dislike Tyson? Seriously?

I think he's saying he doesn't want to watch an unbalanced panel, but will for Tyson.

 

[TestOfTide]

I have insurance and I'm just warning that a lot of people aren't going to qualify for Obamacare, even though they may think they will. But, I can understand if some one is young, has a crappy job, and is struggling to pay for rent may want to risk being uninsured for a few years to save a few thousand bucks a year (not that I personally would do that). Obamacare simply makes that decision for such young people for them, while not having any meaningful benefit, since, the high premiums will likely be unaffected, or if like Mass, rise considerably.

If i recall, it's only 5% of people in MA that are uninsured. There is a still an issue of people who are underinsured, but underinsured people would have been just as much of a problem without the healthcare mandate, in fact I'm almost certain that the commonwealth healthcare program in massachusetts helped reduce underinsurance as well.

What you will probably see in the US, once the entirety of the Affordable Care Act kicks in, is something similar.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Breitbart's tape will be of Obama seducing Sandra Fluke.

And by Obama and Sandra Fluke I mean their heads will be photoshopped into a porno.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Breitbart's tape will be of Obama seducing Sandra Fluke.

And by Obama and Sandra Fluke I mean their heads will be photoshopped into a porno.

Whatever the video is, I can't imagine anything he said in college (i.e. between the ages if 18-22 or so) could really affect him in any way.

 

[Cloudy]

I don't get the GOP. Obama is very beatable but they are firing up his base for him

 

[RustyNails]

There is no secret Obama tape which would doom his presidency forever. It's nothing more than wishful thinking of a rightwing miscreant that made it to public conscience, simply because of it's "what if" potent.

 

[happyfunball]

There is no secret Obama tape which would doom his presidency forever. It's nothing more than wishful thinking of a rightwing miscreant that made it to public conscience, simply because of it's "what if" potent.

Also, it's a worthless endeavor to try and portray him as some radical now. They failed to do this before the 2008 election and now that he has been president for 3 yrs without the country exploding, they have no hope of convincing anybody now but the crazies.

 

[Suikoguy]

Also, it's a worthless endeavor to try and portray him as some radical now. They failed to do this before the 2008 election and now that he has been president for 3 yrs without the country exploding, they have no hope of convincing anybody now but the crazies.

This is true. The radical Obama did not work then, and will be ever harder to convince of now. If they REALLY plan to try that, the damage will probably be worse to the GOP then the advantage.

 

[elrechazado]

Also, it's a worthless endeavor to try and portray him as some radical now. They failed to do this before the 2008 election and now that he has been president for 3 yrs without the country exploding, they have no hope of convincing anybody now but the crazies.

He's waiting for his second term where he can destroy the country with no repercussions.

 

[PantherLotus]

He's waiting for his second term where he can destroy the country with no repercussions.

What would the repercussions have been if he destroyed the country in his first term?

 

[elrechazado]

What would the repercussions have been if he destroyed the country in his first term?

Inability to be reelected to second country destroying term. Keep up.

 

[BotoxAgent]

This is true. The radical Obama did not work then, and will be ever harder to convince of now. If they REALLY plan to try that, the damage will probably be worse to the GOP then the advantage.

And they can't exactly pin him as a leftist idealogue who doesn't compromise or reach across the aisle, especially since it's known that he lost so much political capital doing just that. But the GOP will try anyway and pretend to run against a certain fictional Obama who doesn't exist except in their own paranoid delusion.

 

[ezekial45]

Pretty decent episode of Bill Maher tonight. He brought up a good point about liberals and Obama supporters being in the bubble just as much as conservatives when it comes to the General Election being blowout against the the GOP.

I didn't know that Obama was behind both Santorum and Romney in the polls for the swing states. It was quite sobering.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Pretty decent episode of Bill Maher tonight. He brought up a good point about liberals and Obama supporters being in the bubble just as much as conservatives when it comes to the General Election being blowout against the the GOP.

I didn't know that Obama was behind both Santorum and Romney in the polls for the swing states. It was quite sobering.

The "swing state polls" seem next to useless to me because they aggregate the states into one poll. The popular vote is always close. Obama won with a 100-electoral vote margin in 2008, he has to hold some combination of the swing states, not all of them.

 

[XMonkey]

I didn't know that Obama was behind both Santorum and Romney in the polls for the swing states. It was quite sobering.

Obama isn't even really campaigning. Wait until the GOP has a nominee and they start going at it before worrying much about polls right now.

 

[eBay Huckster]

I didn't know that Obama was behind both Santorum and Romney in the polls for the swing states

The only "swing state" I've seen showing polling like that since January 1 has been Iowa... by one pollster, after Republicans had just spent half a year constantly campaigning there (with no countering from the President).

 

[Oblivion]

I think he's saying he doesn't want to watch an unbalanced panel, but will for Tyson.

Bingo.


Also, was this the first Real Time episode ever where the mid-show guest Maher brought on was a right winger?

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

Ughh. Kirk Cameron on Piers Morgan. What an idiot.

 

[TestOfTide]

Bingo.


Also, was this the first Real Time episode ever where the mid-show guest Maher brought on was a right winger?

No. I think the panel where he had SE Cup on he had a republican politician on as the mid-show guest.

 

[Mortrialus]

As much as that fix is also a funny dig at him, the fact that he came back from the Dominican Republic with Viagra not prescribed to him is a bit more incriminating overall, considering the sex trade industry there.

Particularly the notoriously large underage sex trade industry there.

 

[mckmas8808]

I have insurance and I'm just warning that a lot of people aren't going to qualify for Obamacare, even though they may think they will. But, I can understand if some one is young, has a crappy job, and is struggling to pay for rent may want to risk being uninsured for a few years to save a few thousand bucks a year (not that I personally would do that). Obamacare simply makes that decision for such young people for them, while not having any meaningful benefit, since, the high premiums will likely be unaffected, or if like Mass, rise considerably.

Well this is just straight incorrect. Young people already have an advantage on the Affordable Care Act because they can stay on their parents plan until they are 26 years old. And some kids that have what insurance companies called "pre-existing conditions" like asthma will be able to get insurance now.

And in respect to the insurance premiums cost increasing in Mass since Romney's heath care bill past check this out.

REPORT: Massachusetts Premium Growth Declined After Passage Of Romneycare
By Igor Volsky on Feb 27, 2012 at 12:02 pm

Fred Bauer has poured over the new health care data in John F. Cogan’s, R. Glenn Hubbard’s, and Daniel P. Kessler’s “The Effect of Massachusetts’ Health Reform on Employer-Sponsored Insurance Premiums” report and points out that health care premiums in the Bay State have grown at a lower rate since the passage of Massachusetts’ signature health care law in 2006.
Relying on data “for average health-insurance premiums from the federally sponsored Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), this report suggested that, up until 2008, these reforms led to a relative increase in health-insurance premiums.” But new numbers through 2010 shows that “Massachusetts’ health-insurance premium growth declined relative to the nation as a whole in the years since Romneycare has been enacted“:


Increase in employer-sponsored family premiums 2002-2006: MA: 40%; US: 34.50%
Increase in employer-sponsored family premiums 2006-2010: MA: 19%; US: 22%

Increase in individual premiums 2002-2006: MA: 32.70%; US: 29.10%
Increase in individual premiums 2006-2010: MA: 21.70%; US: 20%


While it’s difficult to know how much of the decrease can be attributed to the Massachusetts law — which focused on expanding access rather than controlling costs — (versus decline in utilization as a result of the recession and other factors), the very fact that the law did not meet the doomsday scenario of critics and cause premiums to skyrocket is significant. (In fact, Massachusetts had the third-lowest average family premiums in New England by 2010, Bauer notes).

Ezra Klein notes that we may already be seeing a very similar trend with the Affordable Care Act, which grew out of the Massachusetts experience. The latest spending projections found a “$275 billion (5.6 percent) reduction [in health care spending] for 2020, compared with pre-reform estimates. Moreover, that projection represents a cumulative reduction of $1.7 trillion over the 10 years from 2011 to 2020.” The numbers suggest that providers may be becoming more efficient in preparation for the ACA’s reductions in Medicare reimbursements and updates.
​

###################

Why fight against the facts? Yes while the health care insurance in your state is still going up, it's going up at a slower rate overall relative to the whole country. And if you project it out to say 2015 (and without the ACA passing federally), Mass would probably blow the nation out the water when it comes to slowing premium increases.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

O'Reilly attacks Sandra Fluke today, same attacks as Rush just cleaner language

http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/02/437076/bill-oreilly-attacks-sandra-fluke/

“So let me get this straight, Ms. Fluke, and I ask this with all due respect, I am: You want me to give you my hard earned money so you can have sex.”

Santorum not eligible in 9 Ohio Districts = 18 Delegates he can never win.

http://nationaljournal.com/2012-pre...delegates-report-20120302?mrefid=election2012

Both Santorum and Romney have criticized the language of Rush and not really his remarks.

Ezra Klein continuing to talk about the high cost of American Healthcare (Very Good Read):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...-the-pricing/2012/02/28/gIQAtbhimR_story.html

But it is, in fact, key to understanding one of the most pressing problems facing our economy. In 2009, Americans spent $7,960 per person on health care. Our neighbors in Canada spent $4,808. The Germans spent $4,218. The French, $3,978. If we had the per-person costs of any of those countries, America’s deficits would vanish. Workers would have much more money in their pockets. Our economy would grow more quickly, as our exports would be more competitive.

Another strong argument for more government involvement in Healthcare.

“Other countries negotiate very aggressively with the providers and set rates that are much lower than we do,” Anderson says. They do this in one of two ways. In countries such as Canada and Britain, prices are set by the government. In others, such as Germany and Japan, they’re set by providers and insurers sitting in a room and coming to an agreement, with the government stepping in to set prices if they fail.

The result is that, unlike in other countries, sellers of health-care services in America have considerable power to set prices, and so they set them quite high. Two of the five most profitable industries in the United States — the pharmaceuticals industry and the medical device industry — sell health care. With margins of almost 20 percent, they beat out even the financial sector for sheer profitability.

 

[XMonkey]

Health care and the high cost of education are the biggest drags on our economy long term, imo. It's really sad that universal healthcare is pretty much a non-starter in this country.

 

[Skiptastic]

I don't get the GOP. Obama is very beatable but they are firing up his base for him

I'd want to see his numbers, but I would bet that Limbaugh does better when there's a Democrat in the White House or Democrats running Congress. That gives him plenty of reasons not to care whether he riles up Obama's base or not.

 

[Mortrialus]

O'Reilly attacks Sandra Fluke today, same attacks as Rush just cleaner language

Santorum not eligible in 9 Ohio Districts = 18 Delegates he can never win.

Both Santorum and Romney have criticized the language of Rush and not really his remarks.

I seriously don't get it. Why are so many republicans coming out against Fluke despite having clearly not listened to her testimony? Her testimony was specifically about how hormonal birth control has therapeutic effects for a variety of medical problems, specifically ovarian cysts.

 

[mckmas8808]

I seriously don't get it. Why are so many republicans coming out against Fluke despite having clearly not listened to her testimony? Her testimony was specifically about how hormonal birth control has therapeutic effects for a variety of medical problems, specifically ovarian cysts.

Because calling her a slut feels better. And it helps to make her look bad if you make this all about selling your body to men in the street than about therapeutic and health benefits that millions of women recognize about birth control.

It's exactly why the GOP had that all men panel a couple weeks ago. Why have women talk about a problem that mostly affects them and not men as much?

 

[TestOfTide]

So I am in a discussion with my dad regarding the whole contraceptive thing (because unlike my mom he is actually politically intelligent to some degree). I sent him a study that showed that unwanted pregnancies cost the government over 10 billion dollars each year, his response was this:

"The issue is not whether contraceptives are cost-effective. So are helmets for bicyclists and motorcyclists. The issue is who should pay for them. If in fact they reduce costs, then insurance companies will reduce the premiums for companies that make them available under their plans. But why is it necessary to mandate them? Under my [idea for a] plan, companies (such as [where my dad works] and the Boston College -- a Catholic affiliated institution -- would decide whether the lower insurance costs (if in fact it really is cost-effective) are worth it. In other words, if they choose not to have this as part of their insurance plans, then they will pay more (if in fact it really is cheaper to have them in the plans) and they will feel the pain of competition. Moreover, if employees have to pay for it themselves, then these companies will be less competitive in the market and will need to pay their employees more to work for them. Why are you afraid to trust the free market of competition?"

I already responded and said that:
- if the free market were trustworthy with healthcare the mandate wouldn't be necessary in the first place
- his own job isn't a good example because massachusetts has its own healthcare mandate with a similar policy on contraception
- the blunt amendment is the only thing that made it "not about contraception" in the sense that it opens a loophole for anyone responsible for provide health-care to deny whatever they choose while all the dialog done by BOTH sides has indicated that it IS about contraceptives.

Anything else I should add? I wanted to say that the ACA wouldn't allow insurance companies to increase cost based on risk (no matter how real said risk may be) but I wasn't sure about that point.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

So that was literally the only point she was making? About her friend not being able to afford the medicine and eventually having her ovaries removed? I had read about that part, but I assumed that she must have also talked about ''regular'' use of contraceptives given how Rush was calling her a slut and everything. That's sad that I assumed that just because this idiot was spouting his bull crap.

 

[Black Republican]

Poor PPP polls getting hated on once again by ron paul supporters over the washington caucus poll,heh

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

So I am in a discussion with my dad regarding the whole contraceptive thing (because unlike my mom he is actually politically intelligent to some degree). I sent him a study that showed that unwanted pregnancies cost the government over 10 billion dollars each year, his response was this:

"The issue is not whether contraceptives are cost-effective. So are helmets for bicyclists and motorcyclists. The issue is who should pay for them. If in fact they reduce costs, then insurance companies will reduce the premiums for companies that make them available under their plans. But why is it necessary to mandate them? Under my [idea for a] plan, companies (such as [where my dad works] and the Boston College -- a Catholic affiliated institution -- would decide whether the lower insurance costs (if in fact it really is cost-effective) are worth it. In other words, if they choose not to have this as part of their insurance plans, then they will pay more (if in fact it really is cheaper to have them in the plans) and they will feel the pain of competition. Moreover, if employees have to pay for it themselves, then these companies will be less competitive in the market and will need to pay their employees more to work for them. Why are you afraid to trust the free market of competition?"

I already responded and said that:
- if the free market were trustworthy with healthcare the mandate wouldn't be necessary in the first place
- his own job isn't a good example because massachusetts has its own healthcare mandate with a similar policy on contraception
- the blunt amendment is the only thing that made it "not about contraception" in the sense that it opens a loophole for anyone responsible for provide health-care to deny whatever they choose while all the dialog done by BOTH sides has indicated that it IS about contraceptives.

Anything else I should add? I wanted to say that the ACA wouldn't allow insurance companies to increase cost based on risk (no matter how real said risk may be) but I wasn't sure about that point.

Because trusting the free market to police itself gave insurance companies free reign to drop people on the basis of pre-existing conditions, impose lifetime caps on coverage for any and all conditions, and transform emergency rooms into primary care centers (which EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO HAS INSURANCE IS PAYING FOR - since the hospitals have to raise costs to protect themselves). The only way to bring costs down is to make everyone buy into the system, or else people with insurance will ALWAYS be paying for people without.

It's ironic that people are complaining about having to pay for other people, when that is exactly what happens when you have a country where 50 mil people don't have health insurance.

Also, the current debate about contraception, is ENTIRELY about contraception, and nothing else. Does anyone else remember the FIRST thing the GOP house tried to do when they won big in the november 2010 elections? After campaigning on jobs and the economy? The second they arrived in Washington they tried to defund Planned Parenthood.....

 

[Mortrialus]

So that was literally the only point she was making? About her friend not being able to afford the medicine and eventually having her ovaries removed? I had read about that part, but I assumed that she must have also talked about ''regular'' use of contraceptives given how Rush was calling her a slut and everything. That's sad that I assumed that just because this idiot was spouting his bull crap.

There were other points made, but her personal use of contraception wasn't one of them.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Poor PPP polls getting hated on once again by ron paul supporters over the washington caucus poll,heh

Isn't that today?

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

So I am in a discussion with my dad regarding the whole contraceptive thing (because unlike my mom he is actually politically intelligent to some degree). I sent him a study that showed that unwanted pregnancies cost the government over 10 billion dollars each year, his response was this:

"The issue is not whether contraceptives are cost-effective. So are helmets for bicyclists and motorcyclists. The issue is who should pay for them. If in fact they reduce costs, then insurance companies will reduce the premiums for companies that make them available under their plans. But why is it necessary to mandate them? Under my [idea for a] plan, companies (such as [where my dad works] and the Boston College -- a Catholic affiliated institution -- would decide whether the lower insurance costs (if in fact it really is cost-effective) are worth it. In other words, if they choose not to have this as part of their insurance plans, then they will pay more (if in fact it really is cheaper to have them in the plans) and they will feel the pain of competition. Moreover, if employees have to pay for it themselves, then these companies will be less competitive in the market and will need to pay their employees more to work for them. Why are you afraid to trust the free market of competition?"

I already responded and said that:
- if the free market were trustworthy with healthcare the mandate wouldn't be necessary in the first place
- his own job isn't a good example because massachusetts has its own healthcare mandate with a similar policy on contraception
- the blunt amendment is the only thing that made it "not about contraception" in the sense that it opens a loophole for anyone responsible for provide health-care to deny whatever they choose while all the dialog done by BOTH sides has indicated that it IS about contraceptives.

Anything else I should add? I wanted to say that the ACA wouldn't allow insurance companies to increase cost based on risk (no matter how real said risk may be) but I wasn't sure about that point.

I thought this wasn't about money, but the violation of moral religious standards with regards to protecting life from medical intervention. You are letting him frame the argument. His objection is that people who are against contraception on a moral level have to subsidize those who are not against it because everyone is pooled together. It's not about making the companies pay more money. Even if they did, they take that out of the employees' paychecks or are subsidize by the government itself through the employer healthcare tax credit (churches don't even pay taxes).

You should ask your dad why does the employer have more rights over what medical benefits their employees should have? The answer to that is related to the tax credit for employer provided healthcare. You should counter by saying we should decouple insurance from your employer and make it an individual tax credit for everyone. That way individuals can choose whatever coverage they like and not have to bow to another's view point on moral issues. If a Catholic doesn't want a plan with contraceptives, then they don't have to get one. It's up to them.

Basically, why do the employer's rights trump that of the employee's. You are arguing for more individual freedom, and he is arguing for more control of people's lives. Also, nothing is stopping those that do not want the coverage from turning it down. No one is forced to use contraceptives. They are just being made standard in all plans. The Blunt amendment is stupid in that an employer can strip anything he wants from his employees' medical plans on moral grounds. Say someone did not like the use of radiation therapy and took that option away from his employees. Someone gets cancer and is now not covered for it.

 

[Miletius]

Poor PPP polls getting hated on once again by ron paul supporters over the washington caucus poll,heh

Eh, PPP has straight up admitted that it's very difficult to caucus poll.

 

[RDreamer]

I seriously don't get it. Why are so many republicans coming out against Fluke despite having clearly not listened to her testimony? Her testimony was specifically about how hormonal birth control has therapeutic effects for a variety of medical problems, specifically ovarian cysts.

I've noticed this phenomenon a lot in the GOP. I'm not going to deny that Democrats do it as well, but I just haven't seen it as much. They create this fictional person or situation, and then rail against that as though that were the truth. They rile people up to get their pitchforks against an almost fictional character. It's how Obama became a socialist.