Support NeoGAF

[Incognito]

ENROLLED. Gold tier Blue Cross HMO for $606 for husband/wife age 32 (No premium assistance applied for). (Well, still have to pay my first premium, but whatevs). Very happy considering our meh Kaiser plan was 450ish just for me (her part was paid for by her work, she's planning to quit mid January)

ENJOY SUBSIDIZING THIS CANCER SURVIVOR'S HEALTHCARE, SUCKERS!!!!

Fucking A' awesome!

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Megyn Kelly is going to bring up the Santa/Jesus is white thing again on her show tonight. The spin here is going to be interesting.

Fox News does this same old song and dance every year.

 

[KingK]

ENROLLED. Gold tier Blue Cross HMO for $606 for husband/wife age 32 (No premium assistance applied for). (Well, still have to pay my first premium, but whatevs). Very happy considering our meh Kaiser plan was 450ish just for me (her part was paid for by her work, she's planning to quit mid January)

ENJOY SUBSIDIZING THIS CANCER SURVIVOR'S HEALTHCARE, SUCKERS!!!!

My mom is a cancer survivor too, and just got enrolled earlier in the week, I think with a Silver plan from Anthem. Way, way cheaper than what she's been paying.

 

[rocketknight]

God, socialism is so gross. What incentive will people have not to get cancer if we make it easier for them to get health insurance? This perversion of the market will not stand!

(Really happy to hear that, StopMakingSense and KingK!)

 

[Zona]

God, socialism is so gross. What incentive will people have not to get cancer if we make it easier for them to get health insurance? This perversion of the market will not stand!

(Really happy to hear that, StopMakingSense and KingK!)

Just like Supply Side Jesus wanted.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

the gubamint shutdown cost 24 billion, extending unemployement benefits would be 26 billion.

This source did more to confuse me about the numbers. It says "Independent forecasters estimate that the shutdown will lower fourth quarter real GDP growth by 0.2-0.6 percentage points, or $2-$6 billion in lost output." And then has a footnote stating that (if I'm interpreting this correctly) that costing us $6 billion in Q4 means we lost $24 billion over the fiscal year. But would that be true? I would imagine a lot of the negative effects of the shutdown would be isolated to the quarter in which it happened. I'm sure there are some far reaching effects that would be felt all year, or even longer, but I have a hard time believing we'd be hurt $6 billion quarter after quarter. Am I misreading something here?

 

[The Librarian]

Well, this is interesting.

John Podesta’s imminent arrival as a White House adviser may signal an even greater commitment by the Obama administration to fight inequality. This is already a White House priority — as evidenced again in Obama’s speech last week — and it is a priority of Podesta’s as well. On Monday, he wrote:

For the last three decades, the U.S. economy has been growing dramatically more unequal and less mobile by nearly every measure. The fact is that we don’t know nearly enough about what high inequality means for economic growth and stability. We need a better understanding of how inequality affects demand for goods and services and macroeconomic and financial imbalances. We are in the dark on whether and how inequality affects entrepreneurship, or whether it alters the effectiveness of our economic and political institutions, or how it affects individuals’ ability to access education and productively employ their skills and talents.​

For these reasons, he recently founded a new “research and grantmaking organization” called the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. WCEG’s focus is on the consequences of inequality — for economic growth, human capital and so on. But if the goal is combating income inequality, we need to understand its sources too. New research suggests that those sources are not simply economic but deeply political. And a key factor is none other than the filibuster itself.

In a recent paper, political scientists Peter Enns, Nathan Kelly, Jana Morgan, Thomas Volscho and Christopher Witko advance a simple hypothesis: The government could act to mitigate the economic and demographic factors that increase inequality, but the American political system’s separation of powers and checks and balance make it difficult to pass such policies. Instead, there is a bias toward the policy status quo — one that Enns and colleauges argue only worsens as inequality itself increases. One important source of status quo bias in American politics has been the de facto super-majority requirement in the Senate — the need sometimes to win the votes of (initially) two-thirds and (later) sixty Senators.

[...]

If the Obama administration’s goal is to reduce income inequality, this research shows just how difficult that will be. The roots of inequality derive, to some extent, from the very nature of American politics.​

Also, Van Hollen tells Greg Sarget the Democrats will withhold support for the farm bill unless UI benefits are extended.

 

[speculawyer]

Well, this is interesting.

Can't we just increase taxes on the rich a little bit and have some jobs programs to reduce inequality just a little bit. That way the rich get a teeny bit less, poor unemployed people get some money BY WORKING, the projects stimulate the economy, and we get some upgraded infrastructure.

Oh that's right . . . that would be 'socialism' (although it is not). Geez, can't we learn a lesson from places like Germany?

 

[Orbis Tabula]

It seems like they're talking about annualized figures, which is something financial reports often do. But I don't see the number $24 B anywhere else in that PDF, so I'm not sure where it came from if not that footnote.

Yeah, that's sort of what I'd gathered. So am I wrong in saying that the $24 billion figure is a little disingenuous when talking about the government shutdown? Because that's the conclusion I'm drawing. Which is both good to hear, and disappointing in that way that makes me feel really shitty for being disappointed.

 

[Oblivion]

It begins. Doctor decides to quit cause of Obamacare:

A Kentucky doctor who took out a local newspaper ad saying he was closing his practice “due to the policies of Obamacare” is shutting down his practice because of federal requirements to transfer from paper to electronic records.

Dr. Stephen Kiteck of Somerset, Ky., said the financial burden of electronic records is “too much of a burden to overcome” and that he didn’t want to “make a long-term investment” in his small medical practice. [...]

Kiteck said he is approaching retirement age, and that he and his office are “computer illiterate,” adding that he would need special training to add electronic records. He said it would be a financial burden and take “thousands of man hours or woman hours to get the records on the computer.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...ts-because-of-Obamacare-becomes-hero-to-right

ENROLLED. Gold tier Blue Cross HMO for $606 for husband/wife age 32 (No premium assistance applied for). (Well, still have to pay my first premium, but whatevs). Very happy considering our meh Kaiser plan was 450ish just for me (her part was paid for by her work, she's planning to quit mid January)

ENJOY SUBSIDIZING THIS CANCER SURVIVOR'S HEALTHCARE, SUCKERS!!!!

There's a special place in hell for people like you.

 

[Crisco]

Dr. Stephen Kiteck of Somerset, Ky., said the financial burden of electronic records is “too much of a burden to overcome” and that he didn’t want to “make a long-term investment” in his small medical practice. [...]

Good riddance, enjoy retirement you cheap asshole.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Zucker took the re-branding a bit too far

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Obama's America.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Beach Party

 

[Diablos]

lol @ Boehner calling out the Tea Party yesterday. I hope it ignites an internal GOP civil war.

"ARE YA KIDDIN ME???"

No gramps, they probably weren't. They're loons, remember. Your loons. A shame he didn't even begin to even so much as act like he is responsible for keeping the most extreme members of the House in line until, like... now.

 

[bonercop]

This source did more to confuse me about the numbers. It says "Independent forecasters estimate that the shutdown will lower fourth quarter real GDP growth by 0.2-0.6 percentage points, or $2-$6 billion in lost output." And then has a footnote stating that (if I'm interpreting this correctly) that costing us $6 billion in Q4 means we lost $24 billion over the fiscal year. But would that be true? I would imagine a lot of the negative effects of the shutdown would be isolated to the quarter in which it happened. I'm sure there are some far reaching effects that would be felt all year, or even longer, but I have a hard time believing we'd be hurt $6 billion quarter after quarter. Am I misreading something here?

That does sound rather dubious now that you mention it. I've seen the 24 billion figure lobbed around a lot elsewhere, though, and a quick google search tells me at least one ratings agency produced that figure.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Crossposting

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/12/...e-shooting-situation-at-arapahoe-high-school/

time for some gun laws

Spoiler

 

[PhoenixDark]

Crossposting

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/12/...e-shooting-situation-at-arapahoe-high-school/

time for some gun laws

Spoiler

Nope. I wish Obama would simply say "nothing will change until people making their voices heard. We mourn the dead and cry whenever these horrible events happen, yet nothing gets done. And nothing will get done until Washington is forced to. That force isn't going to come from me, it has to come from you, the voter."

I'm so tired of the idea that Obama has to "lead" on this issue. Sure, I think he botched the gun legislation last time by including automatic weapons, but I doubt the bill would have passed even without an AWB.

People don't care enough to change anything, therefore why should a president put on a show. I remember all the spin and Greg Sargent bullshit about Newtown being different, how gun legislation wasn't dangerous anymore, etc. Well guess what, after those democrats got wiped out in Colorado we won't see any meaningful gun laws anytime soon. People who support gun control do not vote on it exclusively, and therefore will always lose to gun advocates who ONLY vote on that issue.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I've said it once, I said it again. America made this bed, time for them to lay in it.

I'm cynical and jaded, because people want to continue to hold on to a right that had its roots in pseudo paranoia and racism.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Nope. I wish Obama would simply say "nothing will change until people making their voices heard. We mourn the dead and cry whenever these horrible events happen, yet nothing gets done. And nothing will get done until Washington is forced to. That force isn't going to come from me, it has to come from you, the voter."

I'm so tired of the idea that Obama has to "lead" on this issue. Sure, I think he botched the gun legislation last time by including automatic weapons, but I doubt the bill would have passed even without an AWB.

People don't care enough to change anything, therefore why should a president put on a show. I remember all the spin and Greg Sargent bullshit about Newtown being different, how gun legislation wasn't dangerous anymore, etc. Well guess what, after those democrats got wiped out in Colorado we won't see any meaningful gun laws anytime soon. People who support gun control do not vote on it exclusively, and therefore will always lose to gun advocates who ONLY vote on that issue.

This should be said about every issue. We're taught it in schools (however superficially), that activism is important but seem to forget it by the time it comes to voting when all political talk is driven by 'leaders,' 'agendas' and 'narrative'

Changing policy is a pretty easy thing to do in a democracy. You make the elected officials scared they will face consequences if they don't act. You can't rely on their good will or judgement

 

[KingK]

Nope. I wish Obama would simply say "nothing will change until people making their voices heard. We mourn the dead and cry whenever these horrible events happen, yet nothing gets done. And nothing will get done until Washington is forced to. That force isn't going to come from me, it has to come from you, the voter."

I'm so tired of the idea that Obama has to "lead" on this issue. Sure, I think he botched the gun legislation last time by including automatic weapons, but I doubt the bill would have passed even without an AWB.

People don't care enough to change anything, therefore why should a president put on a show. I remember all the spin and Greg Sargent bullshit about Newtown being different, how gun legislation wasn't dangerous anymore, etc. Well guess what, after those democrats got wiped out in Colorado we won't see any meaningful gun laws anytime soon. People who support gun control do not vote on it exclusively, and therefore will always lose to gun advocates who ONLY vote on that issue.

I don't understand why Obama doesn't just say exactly that. He should even bring up the Colorado state senators who were recalled and say "this is what I'm talking about. Brave people in Colorado actually took action and in response they lost their job. That's the message voters are sending to politicians right now, and if you truly want things to change this time, you need to send the message, because I'm not the one who gets to decide whether or not Congress keeps their jobs."

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Nope. I wish Obama would simply say "nothing will change until people making their voices heard. We mourn the dead and cry whenever these horrible events happen, yet nothing gets done. And nothing will get done until Washington is forced to. That force isn't going to come from me, it has to come from you, the voter."

I'm so tired of the idea that Obama has to "lead" on this issue. Sure, I think he botched the gun legislation last time by including automatic weapons, but I doubt the bill would have passed even without an AWB.

Oh no, I agree. My post was mainly tongue in cheek since it's clearly obvious nothing is ever going to be done about it.

Obama needs to come out and point out that whilst a majority of people want improved legislation the dumbass republicans they vote for are the reason why we can't have nice things.

 

[Oblivion]

If 20 dead White kids didn't change the country's opinions on guns, nothing will.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I don't understand why Obama doesn't just say exactly that. He should even bring up the Colorado state senators who were recalled and say "this is what I'm talking about. Brave people in Colorado actually took action and in response they lost their job. That's the message voters are sending to politicians right now, and if you truly want things to change this time, you need to send the message, because I'm not the one who gets to decide whether or not Congress keeps their jobs."

I'd love to see the Fox News spin and Faux outrage from the Right Wing.

 

[adg1034]

It begins. Doctor decides to quit cause of Obamacare:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...ts-because-of-Obamacare-becomes-hero-to-right

The best part? The electronic records requirement is due to the stimulus act (ARRA), not the ACA. Ah, ignorance.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Rich people complaining about not enough socialism in health care reform

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Rich people complaining about not enough socialism in health care reform

Stuck behind a paywall

 

[AndyD]

Rich people complaining about not enough socialism in health care reform

Not necessarily rich, but most above Medicaid ranges.

But it's an interesting issue. How is it different to not allow these "unions" to negotiate on behalf of their members vs. allowing businesses for their employees?

 

[Wilsongt]

What poor timing, but what an overstatement of the century.

Gun Lobby Uses Newtown Anniversary To Raise Money

Gun Owners of America, one of the most aggressive pro-gun lobbies in America, posted a message to its website on Friday celebrating its victories in the year since the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre and asking people to give money to its organization.

"Since the shooting last year, Gun Owners of America has spent thousands upon thousands of hours debating anti-gun spokesmen ... lobbying Congress ... and blanketing the airwaves with a hard-hitting, pro-gun message," the fundraising post on the website said.

The post came a day before the first anniversary of the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, which left 20 children and six school staffers dead. The fundraising call also cited the organization's spokesman Erich Pratt going "mano-a-mano with CNN's Piers Morgan" about gun control and gun violence.

It went on to describe an interview with MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell as a "firefight" that brought kudos to the group's Facebook page.

The post continued that over the past year it's become increasingly clear that Congress "hasn't fixed the underlying problems which turn many areas of our nation into soft targets for soft criminals."

"Our schools are still gun free zones…military personnell still can't carry firearms at work… and it's just a matter of time before another determined psycho steals a gun and goes on a rampage in a gun free zone."

These people...

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Those people need to live on their own [shitty] island away from the rest of us so they may live out their weird fantasies of everyone owning guns.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Those people need to live on their own [shitty] island away from the rest of us so they may live out their weird fantasies of everyone owning guns.

Alaska

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Not necessarily rich, but most above Medicaid ranges.

But it's an interesting issue. How is it different to not allow these "unions" to negotiate on behalf of their members vs. allowing businesses for their employees?

And above subsidies, should have used wealthy but I have a hard time believing

writers, opera singers, music teachers, photographers, doctors, lawyers

are struggling.

I don't want them to have higher premiums just though it was funny how they understand why they had it better, they were using socialized pools to subsidize themselves.

 

[Black Mamba]

Ladies & Gentleman, the ultra-conservative bubble fighting the very conservative.

LOL

 

[Wilsongt]

Ladies & Gentleman, the ultra-conservative bubble fighting the very conservative.

LOL

He's got that fox news spin.

 

[B-Dubs]

Ladies & Gentleman, the ultra-conservative bubble fighting the very conservative.

LOL

Dat bubble in a bubble

 

[Oblivion]

Rich people complaining about not enough socialism in health care reform

It says most of those people supported Obamacare so I can't really laugh at them. :/



Here's some pretty good news on the energy front:

Republican climate denial is extraordinarily frustrating. But the good news is that it matters less and less every day.

Here’s why: climate change is all about getting rid of fossil fuels as fast as possible, which is mostly about energy. But the energy ground is shifting under everyone’s feet. The truth is that a carbon-free future is getting more feasible at high speed.

For President Obama, this means he should not fear to set the EPA loose on carbon emitters, especially coal-fired power plants. Chances are that The Almighty Market will take them out soon anyway, putting them out of their misery. Despite Republicans’ feeble efforts to attack climate science, renewables are poised to take over the energy market. Here’s how:

1) The price of renewable energy is plummeting. Solar panels have shown the most staggering price decline: down 99% since the 70s, and down 60% since early 2011. Wind has been falling steadily as well, but not as fast.

2) U.S. renewable investment is skyrocketing. Here’s a representative fact: This year, the U.S. will probably beat Germany in total yearly installations. In some ways this isn’t so surprising — the U.S. is much larger, and German insolation is comparable to Alaska — but on the other hand, Germany has been a world leader in solar due to an extremely aggressive feed-in tariff policy. Here’s another: last year, nearly 10 percent of Texas’s electricity was generated by wind.

3) Renewables are nearly in a position to start edging out fossil fuels on electricity generation. Already, 329 coal-fired units aren’t competitive compared to natural gas. Solar is reaching “grid parity” (meaning, competitive without subsidies) in particularly sunny spots, and is projected to hit grid parity nearly everywhere by 2017. This is why coal export terminals keep failing — they’re likely money-losers. It’s worth remembering that carbon pollution is the greatest unpriced externality in history, so what this means is that renewables are actually dramatically cheaper than fossil fuels would be if they had to pay for the damage they are doing to the economy.

4) China is moving very aggressively on climate. China by itself could easily blow through the world’s carbon budget. But carbon pollution and related side effects are already at emergency levels there. Just for starters, unabated coal-fired electricity has polluted the bejesus out of its cities, and the resulting chronic disease is already causing millions of premature deaths. This is why the Chinese government just released a “blueprint” to start coordinating the country’s response — and when the Chinese government acts in concert, the results are dramatic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-gop-climate-denialism-matters-less-and-less/

Woo.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

They're both pandering douchenozzles. Whoever wins, Texas loses.

 

[RustyNails]

Has this been mentioned? Volcker Rule has been finalized

After three years, multiple missed deadlines, and at least 111 meetings between regulators and Wall Street groups (versus only twelve meetings with pro-reform groups), we finally have a final version of the Volcker Rule—and if properly enforced, it will change the business of banking for the better.

The Volcker Rule aims to ensure that banks that enjoy the backing of the federal government and the cushion of customer deposits do not get to make risky bets (or, in the language of the rule, “proprietary trades”). In other words, banks that have a taxpayer-provided parachute don’t get to BASE jump off of mountains for the thrill (and profit) of it.

It was a long path to get here: Senators Jeff Merkley and Carl Levin authored the law in 2010, as a part of the Dodd-Frank Act. Financial regulators were responsible for writing the final rule. A draft was published in 2011, and 18,000 comment letters were written, the vast majority by Wall Street interests. But reformers also wrote letters, including Americans for Financial Reform, Better Markets, Public Citizen and a letter from the group “Occupy the SEC” that I co-authored. Despite being vastly outnumbered, reformers made a real difference: the final rule rejected many of the additional exemptions banks wanted, and it is stronger than the draft in many key places.

Win: No Portfolio Hedging
..Not only is portfolio hedging gone, the hedging exemption overall has been significantly strengthened...

Win: Trading Desk
In the final rule, banks’ trading will be monitored at the level of an individual trading desk—which is common sense, since that is the level at which all trades are made....

Win: CEO Attestation
The final rule requires CEOs to attest that policies exist to ensure that there’s no proprietary trading....

Win: Documentation
Banks must now provide extensive documentation to regulators, including reporting lines, risk limits and the types of trades each desk will make. ...

Click the link to see what were toss-ups and losses. But good progress...I hope?

 

[Chichikov]

Has this been mentioned? Volcker Rule has been finalized

Click the link to see what were toss-ups and losses. But good progress...I hope?

It's good, i guess?
But at the end of the day , it doesn't really matter because the current mechanism of enforcement has been proven completely ineffective.
Banks are going to find away to go around this or devise new clever way to fleece money form the real economy and regulators will either be too slow, wouldn't care or slap them on the wrist when they caught.

Fuck that shit, we need glass-steagall back.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Good riddance, enjoy retirement you cheap asshole.

I worked at a dental office that had paper non-digital records, although it also had a lot of electronic stuff (X-rays, treatment plans). I don't even want to think about how big a pain in the ass it would be to transfer 2,000+ patients' records from paper to electronic on a short deadline.

I'd imagine the best way would have been to start early, back when the law was passed. Digitize records as patients come in for appointments, and basically go from there.

 

[Oblivion]

Slow day? Where the hell is everyone?

 

[Y2Kev]

I cannot wait for Christie to run for president and all the shit to come out on him. He is such a thug. It's going to be so glorious.

 

[Aylinato]

Slow day? Where the hell is everyone?

Probably all exhausted from finals

 

[Incognito]

Probably all exhausted from finals

Yes. 830 Saturday final here, just completed. As far as I'm concerned, the world can burn.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Probably all exhausted from finals

Basically.

 

[jamesinclair]

Probably all exhausted from finals

Be nice if any of you sheeple had a real job

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Can't we just increase taxes on the rich a little bit and have some jobs programs to reduce inequality just a little bit. That way the rich get a teeny bit less, poor unemployed people get some money BY WORKING, the projects stimulate the economy, and we get some upgraded infrastructure.

Oh that's right . . . that would be 'socialism' (although it is not). Geez, can't we learn a lesson from places like Germany?

It's primarily inflation, deficit reduction, and debt reduction concerns. Sprinkling in fiscal tightening w/ expansionary policies diverts attention away from the fact that growing the economy, upgrading infrastructure, and so on are not top priorities for US policymakers. It's political lip service with no corresponding fiscal policy. And the Germans are running economies into the ground with their politics.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Probably all exhausted from finals

I miss finals and being in school...

 

[PhoenixDark]

I cannot wait for Christie to run for president and all the shit to come out on him. He is such a thug. It's going to be so glorious.

Yup it's coming. And unlike most big candidates in the past, both parties have an incentive to take him down. No democrat wants to face him in a general election, and conservative republicans hate him. I expect quite a few leaks, and Drudge will gleefully run with them all.

I don't know whether he did anything wrong with this bridge thing, but it's an ugly "he said, he said" story that will be referenced in the future to question his temperament if he blows up during a debate. You can just tell Rand Paul is going to piss him off during a debate, and a conservative crowd in Iowa or NH won't be as receptive to the back hand insults NJ media/crowds laugh at. Christie has behaved well in past debates, but consider his opponents: a criminal governor everyone knew was fucked, and a boring candidate everyone knew was fucked. How will he deal with blatant trolls from Cruz or Paul's passive aggressive libertarian bullshit.

The thing that killed Perry's campaign wasn't him forgetting which government agencies he wanted to end, it was him calling those opposed to basic immigrant protections/benefits "heartless." He disrespected the majority of the conservative base. I think Christie is going to easily fall into that trap at a debate, on immigration or Obamacare (specifically the Medicaid expansion).

 

[The Librarian]

I miss finals and being in school...

You're a loony.