Support NeoGAF

[cooljeanius]

Constitutional Patriots of Freedom and Liberty Act

The "Empowering 'We The People', The Equal Constitutional Patriots of Freedom and Liberty and Justice Under God" Act

("EWTPTECPOFALAJUGA" for short, because all legislation needs an acronym)

 

[Wilsongt]

American politics is absolutely disgusting right now. A complete three-ring circus. Nothing is being accomplished, a small handful of people are preventing any meaningful legislation and work from being done, and absolutely butt hurt representatives are turning minor things into faux scandals.

It really is enough to sort of make you want the entire thing to fail and collapse.

 

[adamsappel]

Just a quick subscription post, I keep forgetting where this is!

 

[PhoenixDark]

Obama should have been clearer about the consequences of the ACA, but in the end I'm not gonna shed a tear for anyone losing their current insurance plan in favor of a plan that meets basic care requirements.

What about people who cannot afford better care? That's a pretty ignorant position to hold. The law basically creates a donut hole for those who make too much to receive Medicaid or subsidies.

Thousands of people have been impacted by this, all while the website is fubar. It's not a joke or "sucks for you" moment.

 

[TheHeretic]

What about people who cannot afford better care? That's a pretty ignorant position to hold. The law basically creates a donut hole for those who make too much to receive Medicaid or subsidies.

Thousands of people have been impacted by this, all while the website is fubar. It's not a joke or "sucks for you" moment.

The principles behind the law aren't good. It wasn't a "republican plan", it's what the heritage foundation cooked up to offer a counter narrative Bill Clinton's healthcare plan. The healthcare system needs radical changes in its underlying structure to work, the fact that it's tied to employers is an artifact from the wage controls in the Second World War.

Obama basically lied about the details of his own law to make it more palatable to the public.

 

[mj1108]

I continue to struggle why the concept of "socialized medicine" is such a bad thing in the US.

Ironically the people who speak out the most against socialized medicine are currently enjoying Medicare.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

What about people who cannot afford better care? That's a pretty ignorant position to hold. The law basically creates a donut hole for those who make too much to receive Medicaid or subsidies.

Thousands of people have been impacted by this, all while the website is fubar. It's not a joke or "sucks for you" moment.

It's a real problem to be sure but it's also chapping my ass that conservatives are focusing on these stories without any real concern for making Obamacare (or anything other than the status quo) work better.

 

[Manmademan]

The principles behind the law aren't good. It wasn't a "republican plan", it's what the heritage foundation cooked up to offer a counter narrative Bill Clinton's healthcare plan. The healthcare system needs radical changes in its underlying structure to work , the fact that it's tied to employers is an artifact from the wage controls in the Second World War.

Obama basically lied about the details of his own law to make it more palatable to the public.

Isn't the entire point of the exchanges that negotiated rates and healthcare plans aren't tied to employers anymore? Its rendered COBRA completely irrelevant.

 

[RoninChaos]

but but da liburl media!!!!



lol

How has that ever caught traction? I've heard it all my life, but where did it come from and why has it permeated our culture?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Did someone say MORE House polls?

CA-31 Gary Miller 38 Democrat 46

IL-13 Rodney Davis 44 Democrat 42

MN-02 John Kline 40 Democrat 46

NJ-02 Frank LoBiondo 47 Democrat 38

NV-03 Joe Heck 45 Democrat 45

NY-11 Michael Grimm 46 Democrat 41

OH-14 David Joyce 37 Democrat 42

PA-08 Michael Fitzpatrick 46 Democrat 43

This is the second poll to have John Kline down by a significant margin, I'm gonna call it that he's going down in 2014. And Gary Miller has always been doomed. These are all seats Democrats would probably have to pick up to win the House so here's hoping the shenanigans don't stop.

In other news Wisconsin gov looking closer than it has before:

In head-to-head gov’s race, Gov. Scott Walker 47%, Dem challenger Mary Burke 45%

 

[RoninChaos]

The recent spat of articles about 'rate shock' are really frustrating me. It reflects the inability for much of the media to write about people outside their own social circles

These articles about how some people with really bad insurance plans before the law are now being forced into actual real insurance plans that cover things. They're not comparing overall costs but instead just looking at the monthly premiums and claiming Obama lied that costs would go down.

Look at this anecdote


The law is a failure because a family thinks paying 3.5% (instead of 1.5%) of their income is not affordable? That's a reason not to help millions of others? [Also who write an article claiming big problems with the law based around a single anecdote?]

Their concern trolling about mostly young healthy male white kids (at least this is what I read they are the largest category in this group so I could be wrong, I'm just trying to point out its the media writing about themselves not the wider public) who might have to pay a bit more (if they have the money to do so) is intentionally written to get these people to these very people to question signing up (Just like the website, they don't want to fix the possible problem). Lets ignore the fact millions of poor folk are now covered under medicaid, millions of sick people now will have coverage, out-of-pocket costs are capped, millions of kids are still on their parents plan, more things are covered in plans, etc. Nope the most important story to cover is that already relatively well-off people have to pay a tiny bit more. Everybody else is a non-story to the media.

I hate policy by anecdote.

I think you're going about this in a kind of oblivious manner. My wife and I make about as much as that couple that you mentioned. And if someone came up and said to us "You're going to have to extract 200 more a month to take care of something you don't want" I'd be irritated. Now, granted, most likely their actual insurance was shit. But still. I can understand being irritated that you have to spend more money that you feel you shouldn't have to.

Now, my wife and I deal with finances differently than a lot of couples I think, and with that said, I have spent the better part of the last few years helping out my mother financially. We are paycheck to paycheck between student loans, car payments, mortgage, my son's school, and cancer care for my mother. On paper, 80k seems like a lot of money, but after handling everything we have to, and after taxes, we're pay check to paycheck unfortunately. If we didn't have the added expense of my mother then we'd be okay, and that increase wouldn't phase us.

Point being, I can understand how a family could see an increase as an annoyance, and then be turned against the ACA because they weren't informed on how shitty their policy actually was. A lot of people aren't going to care that their insurance is better, they care about the bottom line. And that's the biggest uphill battle the ACA has, I think. There are tons of people who have shit insurance and don't realize it. And they're going to be enveloped by the rhetoric because, to them, it's a rate increase. DOesn't make it right, but I can understand.

This attitude of "Oh, well, I won't shed a tear over them, they'll find the money!" is a really shitty attitude to have because it ignores that there is a problem. One that isn't simple to solve either. But it's there. As Phoenix said, this law pretty much creates a donut hole, and if we had a functioning congress people would work to fix it. But instead we have a congress comprised of people who want the ACA to work and people who want it to be a scandal. Because of that the donut hole will likely go unplugged, people will be hurt because of it and the republicans will hold that up and scream "SEE?! GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WORK!"

 

[GaimeGuy]

So I responded to This article and I am absolutely shocked by the replies I'm reading. Yeah, I know, I know, but the right wing echo chamber seems to be out in full force, and I'm beginning to think that everything goes in one ear and out the other with these people...

The President does not directly oversee any non-military operation or federal program. Such tasks belong to cabinet members and their subordinates.

Most NSA programs, and the specific details identifying which individuals are being targetted by the NSA for sureveillance, operate on a "Need to Know" basis. That means that anyone within the NSA, or outside of the NSA, that is not involved in a particular operation, anyone who absolutely does not need to be aware of an operation, is not filled in on it. The Director of the NSA has access to all programs under NSA jurisdiction, but even the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (who DIRNSA reports to) is not filled in on a particular operation by the DIRNSA except on a need-to-know basis. And certainly, other defense Under Secretaries are left out of the loop, as are the people the Under Secretary for Intelligence answers to (First line manager is the Deputy Secretary of Defense. Second line manager is the Secretary of Defense. Third line manager is the President).

In other words, the president is the fourth-line manager of the Director of the NSA, who is the only person in the federal government that has unlimited access to all case records and programs under NSA jurisdiction.

Ignoring the gag orders and secrecy agreements in place for the NSA director, which most jobs, civilian or government, don't have:

How many of you fill in your fourth-line manager on your activities? I work in a fortune 100 company, and we have skip level meetings (that's a meeting with our second-line manager) once per year, just to check if we have any complaints or issues that we don't feel comfortable raising with our first line manager. The CEO of my company is, last I checked, my eighth line manager. Why should the CEO know about what I'm doing?

The President does not micromanage the government. He is the chief executive of an organization which is larger in scope than any corporation on the planet. Individual federal agencies are 4 or 5 levels down the organizational chart from him. Individual federal programs are even lower than that. Components of federal programs are further delgated down to teams and sub-components, each of which has their own leads.

None of the questions in this article matter. They're all distractions.

There is 1 upvote, 6 downvotes, and about a dozen replies, all of which say I'm wrong, or that Obama is being negligent, or that he's just a worthless community organizer.

These people... I can't... what do they think the President actually DOES?

 

[Wilsongt]

So I responded to This article and I am absolutely shocked by the replies I'm reading. Yeah, I know, I know, but the right wing echo chamber seems to be out in full force, and I'm beginning to think that everything goes in one ear and out the other with these people...



There is 1 upvote, 6 downvotes, and about a dozen replies, all of which say I'm wrong, or that Obama is being negligent, or that he's just a worthless community organizer.

These people... I can't... what do they think the President actually DOES?

Destroys economies. Puts hard working American out of jobs. Destroys healthcare. Spies on everyone.

 

[InsaneZero]

Destroys economies. Puts hard working American out of jobs. Destroys healthcare. Spies on everyone.

Don't forget adjusting gas prices.

 

[Wilsongt]

Don't forget adjusting gas prices.

And personally aborting babies.

 

[theprodigy]

And personally aborting babies.

no mention of an Islamic takeover yet
I am disappointed

 

[rocketknight]

Rand Paul plagirized Wikipedia's entry for the movie "Gattaca" for tonight's speech for Cuccineli

CLOWN SHOES CLOWN SHOES.

Ahahahaha. Fucking clowns, the lot of them. Who fucking rips off wikipedia to give a political speech!?

Amazing. Everyone, watch the Maddow video at the link. It's hilarious.

This is incredible.

 

[Sibylus]

Well, he is the Moozlim Guy Fawkes, hatching dem healthpowder plots.

I think this episode (merkelgate) just pissed off a bunch of lawmakers because they didn't know and feel lied to. Not a good think to do to the people who control your funding and legal authority.

They didn't learn a thing from the CIA's bungles, in that case

 

[Wilsongt]

Bad news for Kay Hagen.

GOP groups target Senate incumbents on health care

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Republican outside political group says it will spend more than $2 million in advertising in the coming weeks to tie Senate Democrats Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana to the health care overhaul.

Americans for Prosperity says it will spend $1.7 million in North Carolina and $500,000 in Louisiana during the next three weeks on television ads critical of the two Democrats facing re-election next year, with an additional amount on radio and web ads. Republicans have several candidates competing in the primary in both states.

Separately, a Republican super PAC says it plans to spend more than $300,000 on TV ads in Kentucky opposing Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. The Senate Conservatives Action ad says McConnell has let down Kentucky voters on the so-called "Obamacare" law. A group connected to the super PAC has endorsed businessman Matt Bevin in the Republican primary.

The ads show how President Barack Obama's health care overhaul could play a prominent role in next year's midterm elections, both in Republican primaries and in the general election. Republicans need to gain six seats in the Senate to regain control.

Matt Canter, deputy executive director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said it was "not a coincidence" that Americans for Prosperity, a group backed by the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, chose North Carolina and Louisiana to run its ads. "There's a sense that these races are getting away from the Republicans," he said.

Hagan and Landrieu are among the most vulnerable Senate Democrats in next year's elections but Republicans have yet to coalesce around a challenger. In North Carolina, the GOP field includes House Speaker Thom Tillis, Dr. Greg Brannon, the Rev. Mark Harris and Heather Grant. In Louisiana, Republicans seeking the seat include Rep. Bill Cassidy and retired Air Force colonel Rob Maness but other candidates may join the race.

In Kentucky, conservatives have criticized McConnell for not sufficiently opposing Obama on the health care overhaul and spending. McConnell's campaign said the outside Republican group was spending money against "the man responsible for leading the opposition to the law" and its approach could ensure that Obama has a Senate majority during his final two years.

Only in America would your head be on a chopping block for supporting the expansion on affordable healthcare.

 

[RoninChaos]

Bad news for Kay Hagen.

GOP groups target Senate incumbents on health care



Only in America would your head be on a chopping block for supporting the expansion on affordable healthcare.

Isn't the senate a democratic lock?

 

[Wilsongt]

Isn't the senate a democratic lock?

Not in the GOP Bubble (TM).

 

[Diablos]

Bad news for Kay Hagen.

GOP groups target Senate incumbents on health care



Only in America would your head be on a chopping block for supporting the expansion on affordable healthcare.

Red state Senators can't be liking this, even if they are generally 'Safe D'.

The sooner healthcare.gov gets fixed the better.

 

[Wilsongt]

Red state Senators can't be liking this, even if they are generally 'Safe D'.

The sooner healthcare.gov gets fixed the better.

That won't fix anything. Then the GOP will begin attacking the fact that people are losing health insurance they purchased on their own and not through their employeer. Then will complain about how much money this cost tax payers. Then ultimately will demand heads.

This shit is just going to get worse and worse.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Oh God.

Alan Grayson Smacks Obama on Drones: ‘It’s God Who Decides Who Lives and Dies’

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) appeared on CNN with anchor Brooke Baldwin on Tuesday to discuss his ongoing efforts to impose on President Barack Obama’s administration some oversight regarding drone strikes. Grayson said that it was not right that so many civilians have been killed “upon the command of one man.”

“We’re undertaking something that’s simply beyond anyone’s capability – trying to decide on the basis of what we see on a computer screen in the United States who lives and who dies 8,000 miles away in a foreign land,” Grayson said. “There’ve already been as many as 200 children – children – who’ve died through these drone attacks in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, and in Yemen.”

Baldwin showed Grayson a list of top terror suspects who have been incapacitated as a result of drone warfare. “What is the alternative?” she asked.


“The alternative is to rely on other countries to clean up their own messes instead of having us send our death equipment to the other side of the world to perform those acts for them,” Grayson replied.

Baldwin interrupted and reminded Grayson that Osama bin Laden was living in Pakistan under the protection of local Pakistani authorities. “Can we trust these other countries?” she asked.

“The alternative is to see staggering casualties among innocent people,” Grayson countered.

“Generally speaking, it’s god who decides who lives and who dies,” he concluded. “Unless you’re talking about drone attacks.”

Yes, because God was totally in the picture when boots were on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan as soldiers slaughtered innocent people there, too.

 

[Diablos]

That won't fix anything. Then the GOP will begin attacking the fact that people are losing health insurance they purchased on their own and not through their employeer. Then will complain about how much money this cost tax payers. Then ultimately will demand heads.

This shit is just going to get worse and worse.

Yeah, probably.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Yeah, probably.

Ultimately, success is the best revenge and the best overall strategy for just about everything. Many people were always going to be fucked by this law, and the administration fucked up by not admitting this. But IF the law works as planned, many more will benefit from it. The goal should be ensuring that happens, which means getting the website working and overcoming republican obstruction. It also means hoping states like NY and CA "run up the score" with overwhelmingly positive results. It also means highlighting states like Kentucky where the law (and its local website) is working great,

This is probably the most important major piece of legislation to come out of congress in decades. We can point out its similarities to Heritage ideas but ultimately this is all on liberals and democrats. If it fails, it'll have a long lasting negative impact on healthcare reform in this country. If it succeeds, it'll transform the country and lead to something better in the future.

Which is why I'm upset at how casually implementation was treated. This is a make or break issue. It's the type of thing a Bill Clinton would have been obsessing over for months, but I don't get the impression Obama was on anybody's ass in the final months of planning/implementation. A president does not micromanage much of anything, but with his legacy on the line...you would expect more urgency. The website failed days before launch and was having problems months ago. And as Jon Stewart said, saying you're bringing in the "best and the brightest" AFTER the fuck up is not reassuring. Why weren't they there before the fuck up, given the favors the administration can call in from Silicon Valley.

 

[AntoneM]

I think you're going about this in a kind of oblivious manner. My wife and I make about as much as that couple that you mentioned. And if someone came up and said to us "You're going to have to extract 200 more a month to take care of something you don't want" I'd be irritated. Now, granted, most likely their actual insurance was shit. But still. I can understand being irritated that you have to spend more money that you feel you shouldn't have to.

Now, my wife and I deal with finances differently than a lot of couples I think, and with that said, I have spent the better part of the last few years helping out my mother financially. We are paycheck to paycheck between student loans, car payments, mortgage, my son's school, and cancer care for my mother. On paper, 80k seems like a lot of money, but after handling everything we have to, and after taxes, we're pay check to paycheck unfortunately. If we didn't have the added expense of my mother then we'd be okay, and that increase wouldn't phase us.

Point being, I can understand how a family could see an increase as an annoyance, and then be turned against the ACA because they weren't informed on how shitty their policy actually was. A lot of people aren't going to care that their insurance is better, they care about the bottom line. And that's the biggest uphill battle the ACA has, I think. There are tons of people who have shit insurance and don't realize it. And they're going to be enveloped by the rhetoric because, to them, it's a rate increase. DOesn't make it right, but I can understand.

This attitude of "Oh, well, I won't shed a tear over them, they'll find the money!" is a really shitty attitude to have because it ignores that there is a problem. One that isn't simple to solve either. But it's there. As Phoenix said, this law pretty much creates a donut hole, and if we had a functioning congress people would work to fix it. But instead we have a congress comprised of people who want the ACA to work and people who want it to be a scandal. Because of that the donut hole will likely go unplugged, people will be hurt because of it and the republicans will hold that up and scream "SEE?! GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WORK!"

I was just wondering, do you claim your mother as a dependant and do you deduct her medical payments at tax time? You could be missing out on a lot of money.

 

[Mario]

As Phoenix said, this law pretty much creates a donut hole, and if we had a functioning congress people would work to fix it. But instead we have a congress comprised of people who want the ACA to work and people who want it to be a scandal. Because of that the donut hole will likely go unplugged, people will be hurt because of it and the republicans will hold that up and scream "SEE?! GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WORK!"

That's the criminal part of this whole thing. Republicans had the opportunity to make the ACA better for everyone.

If they put as much effort into trying to resolve the gaps, inconsistencies, and negative aspects and scrutinizing the rollout and implementation seriously as they have merely demonizing the law and wasting time with pointless grandstanding, then the US population and health care system would be in a much better place right now.

Can't let that half-caste Democrat get a "win" on his record though, so let's just keep trying to burn the whole thing down.

 

[Shadow Hog]

Typing of the Dead: Overkill looks like it's pretty good:

(Not my screen; ViewtifulJC posted it in the SonicGAF thread)

 

[Oblivion]

Was watching MSNBC this morning and there was much Diablosing going on about NBC's "smoking gun".

This coming from the channels that's ostensibly the Fox News of the left.


Your librul media, ladies and gentlemen.

edit: and why the hell were we on the second page?

 

[Black Mamba]

Where are the media stories about the uninsurable diabetic who just signed up for insurance?

Where are the media stories about the 28 year old working part time and struggling getting nearly free subsidized insurance?

Where are the media stories about the single mom with 3 kids working 2 jobs and getting her and her family on medicaid?


The media is focusing only on the negative and it's fucking bullshit. And half the negative they do gets it wrong in the first place.

 

[Diablos]

Ultimately, success is the best revenge and the best overall strategy for just about everything. Many people were always going to be fucked by this law, and the administration fucked up by not admitting this. But IF the law works as planned, many more will benefit from it. The goal should be ensuring that happens, which means getting the website working and overcoming republican obstruction. It also means hoping states like NY and CA "run up the score" with overwhelmingly positive results. It also means highlighting states like Kentucky where the law (and its local website) is working great,

This is probably the most important major piece of legislation to come out of congress in decades. We can point out its similarities to Heritage ideas but ultimately this is all on liberals and democrats. If it fails, it'll have a long lasting negative impact on healthcare reform in this country. If it succeeds, it'll transform the country and lead to something better in the future.

Which is why I'm upset at how casually implementation was treated. This is a make or break issue. It's the type of thing a Bill Clinton would have been obsessing over for months, but I don't get the impression Obama was on anybody's ass in the final months of planning/implementation. A president does not micromanage much of anything, but with his legacy on the line...you would expect more urgency. The website failed days before launch and was having problems months ago. And as Jon Stewart said, saying you're bringing in the "best and the brightest" AFTER the fuck up is not reassuring. Why weren't they there before the fuck up, given the favors the administration can call in from Silicon Valley.

Oh, I agree entirely, Obama fucked up big time on healthcare.gov's design and implementation. He could have easily got the 'best and brightest' beforehand. No reason why he shouldn't have.

Hard to know what Clinton would have done, lol. He rolled over after Hillary's plan failed and it took Obama to run with the GOP's 90's alternative and turn it into his own. So depending on how you look at it, Clinton barely tried

All in all I am for the first time really disappointed in Obama, not because of the law's flaws (the pros outweigh the cons) but with everything on the line, all the criticism he got over it, the fact that the driving force behind the 2010 wave next to Obama being black was this law -- and he didn't properly prepare for its rollout. They had three years. THREE YEARS. Democrats already paid a huge price for this law passing, and I believe it was worth it, but I thought that implied the White House would have been competent enough to prevent healthcare.gov from being such a disaster.

The media is now having a field day with all the perceived horrors of the law and that makes for bad PR. Democrats can't afford this shit next year with the Senate on the line.

edit: and why the hell were we on the second page?

Because US politics sucks and I have to say it burns you out. I remember being so optimistic in my early/mid 20's, satisfied after that, but over the past several years... just seeing a lot of Americans for who/what they really are and how the media capitalizes on every stupid fucking thing that barely has any merit just to create controversy -- it's all very depressing. You can get mad at the media for being so dishonest with their paranoid sensationalist streak but then again people fall for it. Ying and yang. Sad.

 

[Diablos]

Well, those stories are boring. This is just how the media works. Fuck up, and you're going to get pounced on. I'm sure the Obama administration knows this by now.

This is one of those times where I can't say I feel bad for Obama getting unnecessary blame -- the website failure opened a pandora's box of sorts... I feel bad for people who are going to be scared to get coverage over this, or for potential future political upsets based on diminishing this law.

Still, the state of US media in general is just dire. I am hoping at some point they will focus on the good that this law is doing.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The media pounces when they smell blood, and a narrative. And because of the horrible Obamacare roll out that narrative is almost entirely negative. So what do you expect them to report? If the law had gone into effect relatively smoothly I'd bet money we wouldn't be seeing so many negative stories. Instead we're in "ACA in disarray" mode for at least another month.

Insurance can be complicated, and the administration did themselves no favor by claiming everyone could keep their existing plan if they liked it; that's simply not true.

You can't expose your jaw and then complain you got punched.

 

[Diablos]

The media pounces when they smell blood, and a narrative. And because of the horrible Obamacare roll out that narrative is almost entirely negative. So what do you expect them to report? If the law had gone into effect relatively smoothly I'd bet money we wouldn't be seeing so many negative stories. Instead we're in "ACA in disarray" mode for at least another month.

Insurance can be complicated, and the administration did themselves no favor by claiming everyone could keep their existing plan if they liked it; that's simply not true.

You can't expose your jaw and then complain you got punched.

Yes. Still the commentary in the current OT Obamacare thread is disappointing. People are equating Obama being dishonest with the law now officially a government takeover etc. It's just ridiculous.

 

[gcubed]

The media pounces when they smell blood, and a narrative. And because of the horrible Obamacare roll out that narrative is almost entirely negative. So what do you expect them to report? If the law had gone into effect relatively smoothly I'd bet money we wouldn't be seeing so many negative stories. Instead we're in "ACA in disarray" mode for at least another month.

Insurance can be complicated, and the administration did themselves no favor by claiming everyone could keep their existing plan if they liked it; that's simply not true.

You can't expose your jaw and then complain you got punched.

true in technicalities but when you rely on nuance, you lose.

 

[Oblivion]

true in technicalities but when you rely on nuance, you lose.

To quote the Prophet Reagan (PBUH): If you're explaining, you're losing.


In other news:

A Nevada assemblyman came under fire Monday after a YouTube video surfaced in which he told a Republican gathering he would vote to allow slavery if that is what his constituents wanted him to do.

“If that’s what they wanted, I’d have to hold my nose … they’d probably have to hold a gun to my head, but yeah,” Assemblyman Jim Wheeler told members of the Storey County Republican Party at a meeting in August.

Realizing that he did an un-smart thing, he offers this "defense":

For his part, Wheeler published an explanation of sorts on his personal website, saying that his point was only that he’s inclined to support literally any position embraced by his constituents. It’s not that he endorses slavery, only that he would allow slavery if his constituents wanted him to.

After that, I'm guessing one of his staffers decided to modify his support for slavery a tad:

Wheeler then seemed to shift gears a bit, saying the exact opposite: “If my constituents wanted to do something as outlandish as bring back an abhorrent system, then I simply couldn’t represent them anymore. They would remove me from office, or I’d have to resign.”

In other words, he would and wouldn’t allow slavery, depending on the whims of voters in his area.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/nevada-republican-would-allow-slavery

 

[PhoenixDark]

Yes. Still the commentary in the current OT Obamacare thread is disappointing. People are equating Obama being dishonest with the law now officially a government takeover etc. It's just ridiculous.

Why is it disappointing? It's expected and deserved at this point. And liberals like Joan Walsh look pretty dumb trying to spin everything.

This is important, very fucking important in fact. And based on this roll out it's clear the administration wasn't ready and fucked up. Now they need to fix it or they'll end up giving republicans a life saver.

 

[Diablos]

Why is it disappointing? It's expected and deserved at this point. And liberals like Joan Walsh look pretty dumb trying to spin everything.

This is important, very fucking important in fact. And based on this roll out it's clear the administration wasn't ready and fucked up. Now they need to fix it or they'll end up giving republicans a life saver.

It's totally valid to harp on Obama for fucking up the implementation/rollout. I get that. I'm pissed about that. The spin isn't helping in most cases.

What makes no sense is to say "see, it's a government takeover because... ... ... healthcare.gov is glitching and some people are losing their insurance. Oh and Obama was dishonest a little bit. Yep. Total government takeover because of tech issues and bad PR."

 

[Avon Barksdale]

As a Black man, why do you hate Obama so much?

 

[Aaron Strife]

As a Black man, why do you hate Obama so much?

Because he wanted Hillary to win and voted for Rick Snyder out of spite

 

[Diablos]

Haha, at first I thought Avon was talking to me because I just posted in a thread about black people, and I didn't know what to say. Thankfully I realized it was meant for PD!

 

[Jooney]

As a Black man, why do you hate Obama so much?

Wait, so a black man can't be angry / not like / be critical of Obama, because he is black?

Sounds strangely familiar like the republican thinking on peddling people like Rubio to get minority votes.

 

[Diablos]

Wait, so a black man can't be angry / not like / be critical of Obama, because he is black?

Sounds strangely familiar like the republican thinking on peddling people like Rubio to get minority votes.

lol. Perhaps it is the way PD criticizes. Who the hell knows.

I think everyone just likes giving him a hard time.

 

[Joe Molotov]

Wait, so a black man can't be angry / not like / be critical of Obama, because he is black?

Sounds strangely familiar like the republican thinking on peddling people like Rubio to get minority votes.

But how do you explain that Rick Snyder vote, tho?

 

[theprodigy]

Wait, so a black man can't be angry / not like / be critical of Obama, because he is PD?

fixed

 

[B-Dubs]

To quote the Prophet Reagan (PBUH): If you're explaining, you're losing.


In other news:



Realizing that he did an un-smart thing, he offers this "defense":



After that, I'm guessing one of his staffers decided to modify his support for slavery a tad:



http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/nevada-republican-would-allow-slavery

That is prime daily show material if I've ever seen some, god damn what a fool.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Wait, so a black man can't be angry / not like / be critical of Obama, because he is black?

Sounds strangely familiar like the republican thinking on peddling people like Rubio to get minority votes.

I've heard many white and black liberals make the same argument, it's nothing new.

I voted for Obama twice and like how he runs some things, and I support the ACA. But I simply don't think he's a good president, or a leader. I get it, everyone disagrees with me and none of us will change our minds.

 

[Chumly]

Stuff like this is really starting to annoy me.

In the past month, the Obama administration has been subject to blistering criticism over its technological inability to set up working online insurance exchanges for Obamacare. The real scandal, however, is just starting to come to light—the cost of the program to young, healthy middle class people.

In California, premiums on middle class health plans are expected to jump by 30% in 2014.

I should be so lucky. I’m staring in the face of a 43 percent cost increase, for less comprehensive coverage than I have now.

Last month, I received a letter from my health insurance carrier informing me that my old catastrophic health plan was being eliminated and I was being funneled into the closest equivalent program under California’s Obamacare health exchange. Not only were my monthly premiums going up, but it appeared as if my insurance wouldn’t start covering my doctor visits until after I had spent all of my annual $4,500 deductible.

Shocked, I called the California Health Exchange information line, and was put on the phone with an extremely helpful representative named Mike. Right off the bat, he was able to take me through some of the fine print of my new “Silver” plan.

“You are able to see a doctor three times a year with a co-payment before your deductible kicks in,” he assured me.

Okay! Now we were getting somewhere. Maybe this plan wouldn’t be so bad after all. So what were the copays?

“$60 to see your doctor, $120 for urgent care and $500 for the emergency room.”

Come again? Under my old plan, I was eligible to see a doctor four times per year for a $30 co-pay.

Most importantly for me though, urgent care visits were also only $30. For a relatively healthy person like myself, urgent care meets my primary medical need—which is to see a doctor on demand when I need some antibiotics for an illness, and I can’t afford to wait around for an appointment with my regular doctor.

My urgent care clinic of choice charges $130 for a visit without insurance, which means my new insurance plan is virtually useless for my general medical needs.

Even worse, my new catastrophic protection was also inferior. My annual deductible jumped from $2,900 to $4,500.

Mike then informed me that if my income range were under $16,000, not only would my monthly premiums be subsidized, I would be eligible for a special “Silver” plan that would allow me to see a doctor whenever I want for a $3 co-pay.

I want nothing more than to provide care to the poor. And I don’t mind paying more to do so. But is it fair that I’m being priced out of medical care so that others can receive sterling care? Shouldn’t all plans be created equal?

So ive seen numerous articles similar to this all over the internet whether it be right wing crap or even cnn. I know this is yahoo but the article deliberately misleads people. He talks about the fine print of his "Silver" plan when in actuality he is listing off the benefits of the bronze plan. Gives a bunch of vague crap about his premiums increasing and misleading benefits and conveniently doesn't talk about the out of pocket max since its probably 10 grand lower than what he has now.

 

[Oblivion]

But how do you explain that Rick Snyder vote, tho?

PD has yet to explain this.

 

[makingmusic476]

Are insurance agencies really funneling people into the "closet equivalent" of their current plan?

The fuck? People should be shopping on the exchanges themselves for plans with the best value in their price range. The competition that comes with that is what will put downward pressure on premiums.

This circumvents that competition, and will only piss people off when they inevitably get screwed "because of Obamacare".

Convenient for the agencies, though.