Support NeoGAF

[Chichikov]

cannot unsee troy aikman.

Repeated head trauma have been known to cause libertarianism.

 

[benjipwns]

We just need to go to publically funded elections already. Jesus

You get X amount of money, TV stations are obligated to run an ad for each qualifying candidate in matching amounts each day (they're paid operating costs to air the ad by the state/city) and those ads have a fixed budget.

The election becomes much more fair - average joes can run against millionaires, you can't spray an area with PAC ads resulting in an arms race.

You get on the ballot with a minimum number of voters signing a petition to put you on the ballot, so the parties no longer run elections that re-elect themselves.

Maybe I'm just blowing hot air

Why would the two major parties want to do or allow any of this? What's in it for them?

 

[B-Dubs]

Why would the two major parties want to do or allow any of this? What's in it for them?

Nothing other than fairer elections, which is why it won't happen.

 

[East Lake]

I wonder how much money you'd have to spend to get public campaign finance rolling in some places. I know most of the wealthy don't want to spend their whole net worth, but if you had Soros money you could close your positions on a third of your assets and still spend more than the total spending in the 2012 election and still have like 18 billion left.

 

[Oblivion]

 

[Plinko]

This is so incredibly distasteful. Also, it makes absolutely no sense. The beams of light represent the buildings, not the number of people who died. It is deliberately misleading.

 

[Hitokage]

Hey, if he wants to claim that Benghazi is twice is bad as 9/11, let him. It's a self-defeating comparison.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

Libertarian Magazines know their market
(not my picture)

I love how the guy is dressed in a suit as if the average person who feels compelled to flip off their spouse and drink four loko and take bong hits is some highly professional free market capitalist.

It's as if the Libertarian party couldn't be any more transparent in their desire to appeal exclusively to young white males.

 

[Manarola]

We just need to go to publically funded elections already. Jesus

You get X amount of money, TV stations are obligated to run an ad for each qualifying candidate in matching amounts each day (they're paid operating costs to air the ad by the state/city) and those ads have a fixed budget.

The election becomes much more fair - average joes can run against millionaires, you can't spray an area with PAC ads resulting in an arms race.

You get on the ballot with a minimum number of voters signing a petition to put you on the ballot, so the parties no longer run elections that re-elect themselves.

Maybe I'm just blowing hot air

Another idea I heard about the other day is giving voters vouchers. Each voter gets a small - say, $100-200 - voucher and can donate it to the candidate or party of its choosing. It would level the playing field in terms of financing and politicians would have to do pander to the more moderate people in each party (since they make up the majority of the electorate). And it wouldn't affect any free speech issues

 

[Incognito]

Watching All In.

So the Kochs are now funneling ridiculous sums of money into local tax issues. We're screwed until we tackle these groups. The are cartoon villain level

Yep. They're all over the place. They started a group here in San Antonio to oppose the development of the Street Car.

 

[Particle Physicist]

So the right wing response to the new climate change report is to accuse the president of "scare tactics".

As soon as I read "White House releases report" I knew exactly what the response was going to be.

 

[Coriolanus]

Another idea I heard about the other day is giving voters vouchers. Each voter gets a small - say, $100-200 - voucher and can donate it to the candidate or party of its choosing. It would level the playing field in terms of financing and politicians would have to do pander to the more moderate people in each party (since they make up the majority of the electorate). And it wouldn't affect any free speech issues

While interesting, that would make the presidential elections cost about 20 billion dollars just then and there. Then there's the vouchers for municipal and state level.

Yes yes, federal money, MMT. I'm aware. My issue is that the proponent of such a measura would be trounced for reckless spending. Seems that it would be political suicide.

Hrm. Its actually just a form of early voting. Obviously you'll vote for the candidate to which you give money, so.. huh.

 

[Rhomega Beta]

Conservatives spend 3x more money attacking Republicans than Democrats. The Republican Civil War continues.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investi...ps-spend-fortune-attacking-republicans-n99861

Hard-line conservatives have become Democrats’ unwitting allies in the battle to control Congress.

Conservative groups have together spent nearly $3 attacking Republican candidates for every $1 spent slamming Democrats, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of federal independent expenditure disclosures.

In all, from Jan. 1 through Tuesday, identifiably conservative political action committees, super PACs and nonprofit groups have spent about $10 million attacking Republican congressional candidates in advertisements and other communications.

Identifiably liberal groups, meanwhile, have spent next to nothing attacking their own, instead spending millions of dollars either bashing Republican hopefuls or gushing about fellow Democrats through television, radio and Internet ads.

Such a dichotomy illustrates the persistent family feud between mainstream Republicans and their tea party-affiliated cousins, many of whom have forced GOP incumbents into bitter -- and expensive -- primary fights because they believe they’re not conservative enough.

It also provides a curious twist to the initially Republican-benefiting Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision of 2010, which led to the creation of super PACs and freed politically active nonprofit groups and union organizations to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to spend supporting or opposing political candidates.

During the 2010 midterm elections, conservative organizations hardly spent any money opposing Republican candidates, federal records from the first four months of that year indicate.

Tea party groups of today are unapologetic about their attacks on numerous Republican torchbearers. They say the candidates they support are bona fide conservatives better positioned to defeat Democrats in November’s general election.

Club for Growth Action, the super PAC arm of the Club for Growth, has so far invested $2 million into attacks on several incumbent Republicans, including Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss.; Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho; and Shane Osborn, a former Nebraska state treasurer who’s running for U.S. Senate.

Club for Growth Action seeks to involve itself in contests “we feel that our resources can make an impact on the outcome of the race,” spokesman Barney Keller said.

So far, tea party groups are off to a lousy start. Tea party-backed candidates failed Tuesday in a long-shot primary bid to unseat House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and win North Carolina’s U.S. Senate primary. But they still sought to find a silver lining.

“Whether we win or lose, the other side has had to campaign on our issues during these primaries,” said Russ Walker, national political director for FreedomWorks for America, which has this year spent more than $118,000 on advertisements and related expenditures primarily attacking Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Cochran. “Our ultimate goal is to pass policy that’s lowering taxes and making government smaller.”

Officially, Republican Party officials are floating above the fray, and per usual, not endorsing candidates in primaries.

“Voters in each congressional district know best as to who will make the best general election candidate,” National Republican Congressional Committee spokeswoman Andrea Bozek said.

GOP brass are, however, hardly thrilled with their midterm election lot, regardless of their early success repelling tea party challenges.

Three national-level party officials not authorized to speak on behalf of the party said they’re particularly concerned that protracted primary fights -- a la Mitt Romney in 2012 -- will hurt the party’s ultimate midterm congressional nominees by bleeding them of time and resources that could be better spent skewering Democrats.

One cited Cochran’s June 3 primary fight with state Sen. Chris McDaniel, who’s enjoyed heavy support from groups such as FreedomWorks for America and the Senate Conservatives Fund, as particularly troubling.

Democrats, for their part, are content to let conservatives continue to supply ammunition to its circular firing squad.

“Anytime you have people spending large amounts of money to attack their own, you have a smile on your face,” said Peter Fenn, president of Fenn Communications Group, whose many Democrat-supporting roles include working as a surrogate spokesman for the presidential campaigns of Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama. “You have what I like to call the cuckoo caucus going against hardened conservatives. It shows how extreme the Republican Party has become, and that helps Democrats.”

Said Matt Thornton, spokesman for Democrat-backing super PAC House Majority PAC: “Pass the popcorn. It’s indicative that the Republican Party is at war with itself… the longer they’re spending money against each other, the less time they’re spending against us.”

Mainstream conservative organizations are responding with big money of their own to parry tea party-affiliated groups’ offensives on established Republicans.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for example, has so far spent $1 million on attack ads targeting tea party challengers. This includes $500,000 against Cochran primary challenger McDaniel in Mississippi and $200,000 against attorney Bryan Smith, who’s battling incumbent Rep. Mike Simpson in Idaho.

The U.S. Chamber spent another $300,000 against attorney Woody White, who lost Tuesday to former state Sen. David Rouzer in North Carolina’s 7th Congressional District GOP primary.

It’s also spent another $3.6 million through early May on positive ads boosting the images of several GOP candidates, including those such as McConnell, Simpson and U.S. Sen. candidate Thom Tillis in North Carolina who faced, or are facing, competitive primaries.

Chamber officials didn’t respond to inquiries Wednesday. But spokeswoman Blair Latoff Holmes told the Center for Public Integrity recently that the U.S. Chamber would “support free enterprise candidates aggressively and early” and that such support “is predicated on where the candidates stand on a broad range of issues that are important to the business community.”

In the Cochran vs. McDaniel primary, a super PAC formed by Cochran supporters and calling itself Mississippi Conservatives has spent $600,000 on ads pummeling McDaniel.

The YG Network, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit led by a former deputy chief of staff to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., spent $50,000 on phone calls and mailers opposing White in the North Carolina.

Super PAC American Crossroads, founded in part by GOP strategist Karl Rove, has yet to launch negative attacks against Republicans. But it has involved itself in Republican intramurals spending more than $1.8 million on positive ads that mostly urged North Carolina Republicans to vote Tuesday for Tillis over his tea party rivals.

Tillis won handily, and now faces Sen. Kay Hagan, the Democratic incumbent who’s already enjoying significant air cover from the likes of liberal super PAC Senate Majority PAC, which didn’t wait for Tillis to win his primary and has already lit him up with more than $2.4 million in negative ads.

“We saw the need to boost the name ID of the candidates we support while also holding the Democrats accountable for their records,” American Crossroads spokesman Paul Lindsay said of his super PAC’s strategy.

In addition to these "independent expenditures" -- messages that overtly promote or oppose federal political candidate -- groups such as Koch brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity have sponsored a slew of so-called “issue ads” that mention federal-level politicians but don’t advocate for or against their election or defeat. Groups sponsoring issue ads aren’t required to disclose how much they cost or where they’re appearing, unless they’re run 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election.

While both liberal and conservative groups will eventually fight each other full time, expect the right to remain at odds with itself for some time yet.

Republicans’ contested U.S. Senate primary in Nebraska isn’t until May 13, and the Kentucky primary, featuring McConnell and opponent Matt Bevin, is May 20. The winner will face well-funded Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes.

And it won’t be until Sept. 9 until the final GOP congressional primaries are conducted.

One, in New Hampshire, features former U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass. Brown is in no way a tea party favorite. He faces accusations of carpetbagging and must fend off primary challenges from former U.S. Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., former state Sen. Jim Rubens and conservative activist Karen Testerman. The state of 1.3 million residents is already drawing super PAC interest.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yep. They're all over the place. They started a group here in San Antonio to oppose the development of the Street Car.

Absurd. Everything that dares raise taxes anywhere in the country comes under attack, the entire conservative movement is based around one thing, opposition to taxes and saving rich people money

Unemployment: might raise taxes
Deficit: Might raise taxes
Food Stamps: Might raise taxes
Voting Rights: The people might vote to raise taxes
ENDA: Might get sued, that's not cheap
Public Transport: might raise taxes
Carbon Tax: TAXES!!!

Why would the two major parties want to do or allow any of this? What's in it for them?

Why should this be a consideration? Political movements demanding things don't ask for permission. And it would allow the parties to compete in other areas that can't because of donor pressure. The GOP would be able to drop more radical things and the Dems could compete in red areas.

We just need to go to publically funded elections already. Jesus

You get X amount of money, TV stations are obligated to run an ad for each qualifying candidate in matching amounts each day (they're paid operating costs to air the ad by the state/city) and those ads have a fixed budget.

The election becomes much more fair - average joes can run against millionaires, you can't spray an area with PAC ads resulting in an arms race.

You get on the ballot with a minimum number of voters signing a petition to put you on the ballot, so the parties no longer run elections that re-elect themselves.

Maybe I'm just blowing hot air

Not a fan of completely publicly financed elections. I'd much rather regulate it and put caps on spending.

Another idea I heard about the other day is giving voters vouchers. Each voter gets a small - say, $100-200 - voucher and can donate it to the candidate or party of its choosing. It would level the playing field in terms of financing and politicians would have to do pander to the more moderate people in each party (since they make up the majority of the electorate). And it wouldn't affect any free speech issues

I've heard similar things. Also ideas like matching lower level donations at a 5-1, 6-1 ration below a certain amount. Meaning going after a $150 donation is better than going after a $1,000 one. There's a lot more people with $150.

 

[WayneMorse]

This is so incredibly distasteful. Also, it makes absolutely no sense. The beams of light represent the buildings, not the number of people who died. It is deliberately misleading.

OBAMA LIED PEOPLE CRIED

 

[Manarola]

While interesting, that would make the presidential elections cost about 20 billion dollars just then and there. Then there's the vouchers for municipal and state level.

Yes yes, federal money, MMT. I'm aware. My issue is that the proponent of such a measura would be trounced for reckless spending. Seems that it would be political suicide.

Hrm. Its actually just a form of early voting. Obviously you'll vote for the candidate to which you give money, so.. huh.

Any reform in this area would have to be broadly bipartisan otherwise it wouldn't work

 

[thepotatoman]

Not a fan of completely publicly financed elections. I'd much rather regulate it and put caps on spending.

Why? What do campaign donations possibly add to the democratic process?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Why? What do campaign donations possibly add to the democratic process?

democratic choice in funding. I mean I'd rather they fund tax credits which people can freely give (or not give) to the candidates they support.

We don't need to be giving to people who don't have support. There's also the question of ballot measures, issue ads, etc

 

[Coriolanus]

Any reform in this area would have to be broadly bipartisan otherwise it wouldn't work

I read that as "as long as the tea party exists, it will not happen,and even without it, it'll be highly unlikely".

 

[WayneMorse]

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/...e-sanders-iowa-democratic-fundraiser/8806969/

Sanders is heading to Iowa.

 

[Joe Molotov]

This is so incredibly distasteful. Also, it makes absolutely no sense. The beams of light represent the buildings, not the number of people who died. It is deliberately misleading.

You're expecting a Michael Ramirez cartoon to make sense?

 

[Chichikov]

Meanwhile, in Israel...

Don't worry John Kerry, you totally got this, peace is coming, I can feel it.

Happy independence/nakba day.

 

[RustyNails]

im pretty sure you can sum up bioshock 1's story as "fuck libertarians."

bioshock 1 was a good game

BioShock 1 was awesome. Infinite was too ridiculous for its own good. They seriously dropped the ball when it comes to feverish American patriotism. If you saw the reveal trailers you will see that it was actually focused on Teaparty like behavjor and mentality. Its plain as day that they pussied out and made the game about zany shit like MGS4.

 

[thezerofire]

BioShock 1 was awesome. Infinite was too ridiculous for its own good. They seriously dropped the ball when it comes to feverish American patriotism. If you saw the reveal trailers you will see that it was actually focused on Teaparty like behavjor and mentality. Its plain as day that they pussied out and made the game about zany shit like MGS4.

Also I didn't buy that the main character was super guilty over Wounded Knee and all that but had no problem blowing his way through hundreds of people in Columbia. Couldn't have put some stealth mechanics in or something? Columbia would have been a much cooler locale for Dishonored 2 imo

anyway....

 

[NYCmetsfan]

But reader comments got so out of hand, particularly on crime articles, that the Chicago Sun-Times temporarily shut down its comment boards last month. The worst comments tended to come from people who saw a Sun-Times crime article linked on the conservative Drudge Report Web site and flooded the paper’s site to offer their perspective, said Craig Newman, the Sun-Times’ managing editor. “The comments were scaring [readers] off,” he said. “People didn’t want to read the articles or dip into the comments because it was so vile.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...5d3-3bcd77cd4e11_story.html?wpisrc=nl_lunchln

 

[Hobbestetrician]

BioShock 1 was awesome. Infinite was too ridiculous for its own good. They seriously dropped the ball when it comes to feverish American patriotism. If you saw the reveal trailers you will see that it was actually focused on Teaparty like behavjor and mentality. Its plain as day that they pussied out and made the game about zany shit like MGS4.

Infinite decided to shit all over it's narrative by going with the "both sides are the same!" story. But that was only one of that game's problems.

 

[RustyNails]

Also I didn't buy that the main character was super guilty over Wounded Knee and all that but had no problem blowing his way through hundreds of people in Columbia. Couldn't have put some stealth mechanics in or something? Columbia would have been a much cooler locale for Dishonored 2 imo

anyway....

I am not too hung up on that. The gameplay itself was pretty cool. But its sad to see them pussy out of making commentary about our sometimes religipus, cult like behavior towards founding fathers, guns and constitution.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Typical spineless Democrats running away from Obama and his policies

Vulnerable Democrat Gives Stunningly Strong Defense of Obamacare at Hearing

"Last year in North Carolina, our state legislature and governor decided against expanding the state's Medicaid program," Hagan said as she started her questioning, "and as a result, about 500,000 people who would have qualified for coverage through Medicaid are not now able to do so."

"These are some of the most vulnerable in our society," she said, "who will continue to seek care in emergency rooms and then will leave chronic conditions unmanaged, which we know is detrimental to their health and the economy."

Obama's Arkansas Tornado Tour: Pryor Gets Political Boost in Red State

He asked for it. And anyone politically savvy enough to win two Senate elections must have decent reasons for doing something that seems so counterintuitive.

Mark Pryor is the only Democrat in the Arkansas congressional delegation and currently a clear-cut underdog to secure another term. That’s mainly because only about a third of the state’s voters approve of the job performance of President Barack Obama, even poorer numbers than his 2012 faring — the president lost Arkansas by 24 percentage points. In 2008, he lost to Sen. John McCain by a mere 20 points in the Natural State.

And yet it was at Pryor’s urging that Obama on Wednesday made his first trip to the state as president — a 150-minute foray that in reality was largely about midterm campaign politics, even though it was officially all about getting the first-responder-in-chief to put his own eyes on the South’s severe natural disasters.

In vulnerable senators watch: FLOTUS joining Landrieu in New Orleans for a veterans' event on Saturday

 

[RustyNails]

Infinite decided to shit all over it's narrative by going with the "both sides are the same!" story. But that was only one of that game's problems.

Well I dont want to argue salient points of communism over fascism. But i thought the game showed that revolutions are messy in good way. I think all political revolutions are messy.

 

[Wilsongt]

This is a topic that has been discussed before on GAF, but it's still a pretty shitty practice. Obviously some people abuse it, not but all. Either way, most low income people can't afford to take sick leave, so the only alternative is to work sick, or just don't get paid.

You want your employees to be at work, yet some employers don't provide health care for preventative care. You don't want your workers to come in sick, yet most half to because missing a single day at work could be the difference between missing a bill or something due to the paltry amount they earn. It really is a sad country we live in.

Advocates Back Paid Sick Leave, But Opponents Won't Cough It Up

If you've ever seen your waiter sneeze, you may have asked for a different server. If you've seen one sneeze repeatedly, you might wonder why he's still at work, serving tainted food.

See, most restaurant workers don't get paid when they stay home sick. But, some go to work anyway, when they've got the sniffles or worse, because they need the paycheck.

For labor advocates, that's a problem.

"The fact that we're forcing people to go to work sick is not something we want to do as a society," says Maryland state Rep. John Olszewski Jr., a Democrat. "We shouldn't put people in a situation where they're forced to make impossible choices between themselves and their work and their families."

Last month, New York City began requiring employers to provide paid sick days, joining the ranks of other cities such as Washington, Seattle and San Francisco.

But while several cities have been willing to impose such requirements, states have been more reluctant. Olzewski's bill attracted a majority of his fellow state House members as co-sponsors, but went nowhere this year.

Instead, a number of states — particularly in the South — have passed laws that block local governments from imposing sick day requirements on businesses.

"The problem I see with paid sick leave is not so much offering it, but the fact that it's mandated," says state Rep. Gail Lavielle, a Connecticut Republican. "It seems as though the state is determined to do everything it can to discourage businesses from coming here and staying here."

A big majority — 87 percent — enjoy that benefit among the top 25 percent of earners. Only 34 percent of those in the bottom 25 percent have the same privilege, to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Part-time workers are usually out of luck.

"Servers in restaurants and home health workers are the least likely to have paid sick time and the most likely to have contact with the public," says Vicki Shabo, vice president of the National Partnership for Women & Families.

This week, the Connecticut House approved changes to the law to simplify the ways companies tally up workers and their hours. It's only a tweak, says Rep. Lavielle.

No "intelligent employer" is going to tell workers to come in when they're sick, she says. That's bad for morale and also bad for productivity and retention.

But the law as written doesn't allow employers recourse if workers abuse the privilege, maxing out on "mental health days."

After Milwaukee voters approved a sick leave ordinance in 2008, the Wisconsin legislature passed a law prohibiting local governments from imposing such mandates. That move has since been copied by 10 other states.

The coalition against paid sick leave often includes the same trade associations that oppose minimum wage increases, making many of the same arguments about burdens on businesses. They say the existing local mandates have reduced profits and forced cuts to other benefits.

"The paid sick leave bill, in our opinion, would put thousands of jobs at risk and discourage businesses from coming to the city of Philadelphia," Michael Nutter , the city's mayor, said last year when he vetoed a paid sick day law.

People with sick leave benefits are more likely to take themselves and their children to see a doctor, Gonzalez says, rather than waiting until things get bad enough to demand emergency treatment.

"We have 6 million Californians who can't take a single hour of sick leave," she says. "The public health situation when workers go to work sick creates a dilemma for all of us."

 

[Wilsongt]

Double penetrated by my posts, but NPR has an article related to the one above, in terms of healthcare.

Employers Eye Moving Sickest Workers To Insurance Exchanges

Can corporations shift workers with high medical costs from the company health plan into online insurance exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act? Some employers are considering it, say benefits consultants.

"It's all over the marketplace," said , a managing partner at Hill, Chesson & Woody, a North Carolina benefits consulting firm. "Employers are inquiring about it, and brokers and consultants are advocating for it."

Health spending is driven largely by a few patients with chronic illnesses, such as diabetes, and those who need expensive treatments, such as organ transplants. Since most big corporations are self-insured, shifting even one high-cost worker out of the company plan could save the employer hundreds of thousands of dollars a year — while increasing the cost of claims absorbed by the marketplace policy by a similar amount.

And the health law might not prohibit it, opening a door to potential erosion of employer-based coverage.

"Such an employer-dumping strategy can promote the interests of both employers and employees by shifting health care expenses on to the public at large," wrote two University of Minnesota law professors in a 2011 paper that basically predicted the present interest. The authors were Amy Monahan and Daniel Schwarcz.

It's unclear how many companies, if any, have moved sicker workers to exchange coverage, which became available only in January. But even a few high-risk patients could add millions of dollars in costs to those plans. The costs could be passed on to customers in the form of higher premiums and to taxpayers in the form of higher subsidy expense.

Here's how it might work. The employer shrinks the hospital and doctor network to make the company plan unattractive to those with chronic illness. Or, the employer raises copayments for drugs needed by the chronically ill, also rendering the plan unattractive and perhaps nudging high-cost workers to look at other options.

At the same time, the employer offers to buy the targeted worker a high-benefit plan in the marketplaces. A so-called platinum plan could cost $6,000 or more a year for an individual. But that's still far less than the $300,000 a year that, say, a hemophilia patient might cost the company.

The employer might also give the worker a raise to buy the policy directly.

The employer saves money. The employee gets better coverage. And the health law's marketplace plan —required to accept all applicants at a fixed price during open enrollment periods — takes on the cost.

"The concept sounds to[o] easy to be true, but the ACA has set up the ability for employers and employees on a voluntary basis to choose a better plan in [the] Individual Marketplace and save a significant amount of money for both!" says promotional material from a company called Managed Exchange Solutions (MES). "MES works with [the] reinsurer, insurance carrier and other health management organizations to determine [the] most likely candidates for the program."

Consultant , based in Charlotte, N.C., produced the Managed Exchange Solutions pitch last year. But Matthew McQuide, a vice president with Benefit Controls, said the company ultimately decided not to offer the strategy to its clients.

"Though we believe it's legal" as long as employees agree to the change, "it's still gray," he said. "We just decided it wasn't something we wanted to promote."

Shifting high-risk workers out of employer plans is prohibited for other kinds of taxpayer-supported insurance.

For example, it's illegal to induce somebody who is working and over 65 to drop company coverage and rely entirely on the government Medicare program for seniors, said Amy Gordon, a benefits lawyer with McDermott Will & Emery. Similarly, employers who dumped high-cost patients into temporary high-risk pools established by the health law are required to repay those workers' claims to the pools.

"You would think there would be a similar type of provision under the Affordable Care Act" for plans sold through the marketplace portals, Gordon said. "But there currently is not."

Moving high-cost workers to a marketplace plan would not trigger penalties under the health law as long as an employer offered an affordable company-wide plan with minimum coverage, experts said. (Workers cannot use tax credits to help pay premiums for an exchange plan in such a case, either.)

Half a dozen benefits experts said they were unaware of specific instances of employers shifting high-cost workers to exchange plans. Spokesmen for AIDS United and the Hemophilia Federation of America, both advocating for patients with expensive, chronic conditions, said they didn't know of any, either.

But employers seem increasingly interested.

"I have gotten probably about half a dozen questions about it in the last month or so from our offices around the country," says Edward Fensholt, director of compliance for the Lockton Companies, a large insurance broker and benefits consultant. "They're passing on questions they're getting from their customers."

Still, Fensholt said, "We just don't think that's a good idea. That needs to be kind of an under-the-radar deal, and under-the-radar deals never work." Plus, he added, "it's bad public policy to push all these risks into the public exchange."

Hill, Chesson & Woody isn't recommending it either.

"Anytime you want to have a conversation with an employee in a secretive, one-off manner, that's never a good idea," Yates said. "Something smells bad about that."

As someone who suffers from three, although two are not very expensive and one is off putting for some employers, this is pretty shitty. That all might dollar.

 

[Metaphoreus]

We just need to go to publically funded elections already. Jesus

You get X amount of money, TV stations are obligated to run an ad for each qualifying candidate in matching amounts each day (they're paid operating costs to air the ad by the state/city) and those ads have a fixed budget.

The election becomes much more fair - average joes can run against millionaires, you can't spray an area with PAC ads resulting in an arms race.

You get on the ballot with a minimum number of voters signing a petition to put you on the ballot, so the parties no longer run elections that re-elect themselves.

Maybe I'm just blowing hot air

I don't have a problem with public funding for campaigns, so long as private funding remains available. The problem with exclusive public funding is that someone has to figure out who qualifies for the public funding. That "someone" will be part of the already-elected government (or an unelected part of the government beholden to the already-elected parts). So you can say "a minimum number of voters" signing a petition will be enough to get someone on the ballot, but that "minimum number" is subject to determination by incumbents.

I have three additional problems with your suggestions. First, outside spending on political ads shouldn't be limited, because restrictions on spending on speech are restrictions on speech. Second, TV stations shouldn't be required to run campaign ads if they don't want to. The First Amendment should protect their rights to refuse to run some or all campaign ads. Finally, just paying operating costs would be inadequate. The federal government, states, or cities that compel the presentation of political ads should be required under the Takings Clause to pay the full fair market value for the time used by such ads.

Why? What do campaign donations possibly add to the democratic process?

Campaign contributions contribute to the democratic process in a number of ways. First, they engage the contributors in the political campaign. Second, they enable challenges by candidates who might not satisfy whatever government-imposed standard would regulate exclusive public financing. This permits voters to be exposed to more political perspectives and to choose among more candidates.

But more importantly, democracy isn't the only political value in American government. Ours is not a totalitarian democracy, but a democracy hemmed in by individual rights. It isn't the exercise of those rights that must be justified in terms of democratic ideals, but democratic enactments that must be justified in the face of contrary rights.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...5d3-3bcd77cd4e11_story.html?wpisrc=nl_lunchln

Welcome to the Internet.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I have three additional problems with your suggestions. First, outside spending on political ads shouldn't be limited, because restrictions on spending on speech are restrictions on speech. Second, TV stations shouldn't be required to run campaign ads if they don't want to. The First Amendment should protect their rights to refuse to run some or all campaign ads. Finally, just paying operating costs would be inadequate. The federal government, states, or cities that compel the presentation of political ads should be required under the Takings Clause to pay the full fair market value for the time used by such ads.

1st bold, no. And I expect any future decision by the court to rectify this which probably won't reach it till after the conservative majority is gone.

2nd they're on the public airwaves. They want to exercise their rights they can do it on their private networks.

3rd again its not private property. Its the public airwaves and often the public space where ads are displayed and the clause says "just compensation" not market value. I am aware of court precedent which states this (and I'm sure you'll quote it), but I don't believe its always valid.

Campaign contributions contribute to the democratic process in a number of ways. First, they engage the contributors in the political campaign. Second, they enable challenges by candidates who might not satisfy whatever government-imposed standard would regulate exclusive public financing. This permits voters to be exposed to more political perspectives and to choose among more candidates.

Because other nations are limited in their political options?

But more importantly, democracy isn't the only political value in American government. Ours is not a totalitarian democracy, but a democracy hemmed in by individual rights. It isn't the exercise of those rights that must be justified in terms of democratic ideals, but democratic enactments that must be justified in the face of contrary rights.

You don't have a right to bribe politicians.

 

[AntoneM]

I don't have a problem with public funding for campaigns, so long as private funding remains available. The problem with exclusive public funding is that someone has to figure out who qualifies for the public funding. That "someone" will be part of the already-elected government (or an unelected part of the government beholden to the already-elected parts). So you can say "a minimum number of voters" signing a petition will be enough to get someone on the ballot, but that "minimum number" is subject to determination by incumbents.

I have three additional problems with your suggestions. First, outside spending on political ads shouldn't be limited, because restrictions on spending on speech are restrictions on speech. Second, TV stations shouldn't be required to run campaign ads if they don't want to. The First Amendment should protect their rights to refuse to run some or all campaign ads. Finally, just paying operating costs would be inadequate. The federal government, states, or cities that compel the presentation of political ads should be required under the Takings Clause to pay the full fair market value for the time used by such ads.



Campaign contributions contribute to the democratic process in a number of ways. First, they engage the contributors in the political campaign. Second, they enable challenges by candidates who might not satisfy whatever government-imposed standard would regulate exclusive public financing. This permits voters to be exposed to more political perspectives and to choose among more candidates.

But more importantly, democracy isn't the only political value in American government. Ours is not a totalitarian democracy, but a democracy hemmed in by individual rights. It isn't the exercise of those rights that must be justified in terms of democratic ideals, but democratic enactments that must be justified in the face of contrary rights.



Welcome to the Internet.

Once the networks pay full market value for the broadcast spectrum they run on, the governemt will pay full market value for airtime.

 

[Metaphoreus]

1st bold, no. And I expect any future decision by the court to rectify this which probably won't reach it till after the conservative majority is gone.

I don't doubt many liberals believe like this. They're wrong. Restrictions on spending on a thing are restrictions on the thing. So, if you restrict spending on speech, you restrict speech. If you restrict spending on abortion, you restrict abortion. And so on.

2nd they're on the public airwaves. They want to exercise their rights they can do it on their private networks.

They should be private airwaves. Scarcity of a resource is an idiotic rationale for making the resource public rather than private--at the very least where that resource cannot be consumed through use. It makes even less sense today, when an increasingly small proportion of content-consumers obtain their content through over-the-air broadcasters.

3rd again its not private property. Its the public airwaves and often the public space where ads are displayed and the clause says "just compensation" not market value. The constitution doesn't mandate that and that interpretation is an assertion of rich people to extract more money from the public than is justified.

You think the laws regarding just compensation mostly benefit the rich? It's usually the rich who want to take everything without paying for it!

Because other nations are limited in their political options?

I said no such thing.

You don't have a right to bribe politicians.

No, but limits on the right to make campaign contributions must be justified. Simply redefining every contribution as a bribe isn't good enough.

EDIT:

Once the networks pay full market value for the broadcast spectrum they run on, the governemt will pay full market value for airtime.

The networks aren't state actors attempting to take private property through eminent domain. The government, under the scenario envisioned, is.

 

[Oblivion]

Offered without comment:

ERIC BOLLING: There's one more piece to this. Don't forget that this was prior — prior — to Osama bin Laden being taken down, and the thought was, and the discussion was, is President Obama going into the re-election soft on terror or not? A lot of people were saying.... It was after?

DANA PERINO: Yeah, yeah, yeah. A year.

ERIC BOLLING: My bad, I take it back.

DANA PERINO: But a great point if it were true.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I don't doubt many liberals believe like this. They're wrong. Restrictions on spending on a thing are restrictions on the thing. So, if you restrict spending on speech, you restrict speech. If you restrict spending on abortion, you restrict abortion. And so on.

Restricting donations isn't restricting speech, its an absurd concept. Your other restrictions aren't the same thing. BUT, If your going to talk about it being equivalent to restricting money to be spent on a service or product meaning its restricting that product I think you've made quite clear how you view campaign fiance, the purchasing of politicians. Its money, not speech. How writing a check is equivalent to an endorsement and actual speech I will never know.

8/10 americans agree. You are the 20%.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/new-poll-americans-think-the-supreme-court-is-political-clos

They should be private airwaves. Scarcity of a resource is an idiotic rationale for making the resource public rather than private--at the very least where that resource cannot be consumed through use.

So rich people should be able to own the electromagnetic spectrum and prevent people from using it, ok.

You think the laws regarding just compensation mostly benefit the rich? It's usually the rich who want to take everything without paying for it!

Yes, they own most of the property. Poor people don't have much property to be compensate for. That clause was a way for rich landowners to make sure poor people couldn't take their land. To think otherwise is quite frankly weird.

I concede it sometimes helps middle class folks in select cases but not often.
[/QUOTE]

I said no such thing.

You implied it in saying donations open the debate up. So publicly fianced countries would there for have a closed off debate?

No, but limits on the right to make campaign contributions must be justified. Simply redefining every contribution as a bribe isn't good enough.

Which is why its not a ban on contributions but a limit. Its very clearly justified in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption.

 

[Aaron Strife]

 

[NYCmetsfan]

 

[alstein]

Gotta give Hagan credit on this, especially given how poorly ACA has been bungled in NC, making it super-unpopular here.

If she spoke up on this whole Comcast issue and pro community broadband/net neutrality, she wouldn't have to worry about my vote.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Restricting donations isn't restricting speech, its an absurd concept. Your other restrictions aren't the same thing. BUT, If your going to talk about it being equivalent to restricting money to be spent on a service or product meaning its restricting that product I think you've made quite clear how you view campaign fiance, the purchasing of politicians. Its money, not speech. How writing a check is equivalent to an endorsement and actual speech I will never know.

8/10 americans agree. You are the 20%.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/new-poll-americans-think-the-supreme-court-is-political-clos

Hold on a moment. At this point in the discussion, I'm not talking about campaign contributions, but about independent expenditures.

As for popular opinions regarding Citizens United, I have no problem recognizing that 80% of Americans are wrong and almost certainly misinformed. As I've said before, I've encountered very few online who even understood what Citizens United held, let alone the rationale for doing so.

EDIT: But regarding whether contributions are protected by the First Amendment, this is something I've come around on recently. Contributions represent a form of association between the contributor and the candidate. They also represent, to at least some extent, an endorsement of the person running for office or his ideas. Contributions may be an action, but they are a symbolic action. Ironically, mandatory disclosures make them more like speech in this way, because you can be certain that your contribution will be known to the public. That's not to say they can't be restricted, though, and I think the Supreme Court would be wrong to strike down all contribution limits. Though I disagree that all contributions are or should be treated as bribes, I agree that they can be used as such.

So rich people should be able to own the electromagnetic spectrum and prevent people from using it, ok.

Rich people, poor people, whomever. And the right to exclude is a fundamental attribute of property--it isn't as though this would be a novel invention. But how likely do you think an owner would be to "prevent people from using" the electromagnetic spectrum? No doubt the owner would use it him- or herself or lease it to someone who would use it.

Yes, they own most of the property. Poor people don't have much property to be compensate for. That clause was a way for rich landowners to make sure poor people couldn't take their land. To think otherwise is quite frankly weird.

I thought we were talking about the Court interpreting the phrase "just compensation" to require fair market value, rather than the phrase itself. And regardless of its historical origins, there's no doubt that today it protects the poor and rich just the same--and is more important to the politically disconnected poor (who aren't demanding to take somebody else's property) than the politically connected rich (who often do).

You implied it in saying donations open the debate up. So publicly fianced countries would there for have a closed off debate?

I said that it enabled "challenges by candidates who might not satisfy whatever government-imposed standard would regulate exclusive public financing," which "permits voters to be exposed to more political perspectives and to choose among more candidates." But that's not to say that in any given country without private financing, the "debate" is "closed off." That may be true, but I wouldn't want to make that assertion without empirical evidence to support it.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Hold on a moment. At this point in the discussion, I'm not talking about campaign contributions, but about independent expenditures.

As for popular opinions regarding Citizens United, I have no problem recognizing that 80% of Americans are wrong and almost certainly misinformed . As I've said before, I've encountered very few online who even understood what Citizens United held, let alone the rationale for doing so.

Besides your smugness about "understanding" something Americans don't (lawyers using their own language to come to their chosen conclusions doesn't make them right), the difference between independent and contributions is pretty much not real. Its an artificial construct that is an accounting tool. The function fundamentally the same. And even besides that the court has held that the congress has the right to limit both corruption and the appearance of corruption even under what I considers and what JPS now considers the horrible decision in Buckley v Valeo. The only way you come to the courts conclusion is ignorance, stupidity or malice.

EDIT: But regarding whether contributions are protected by the First Amendment, this is something I've come around on recently. Contributions represent a form of association between the contributor and the candidate. They also represent, to at least some extent, an endorsement of the person running for office or his ideas. Contributions may be an action, but they are a symbolic action. Ironically, mandatory disclosures make them more like speech in this way, because you can be certain that your contribution will be known to the public. That's not to say they can't be restricted, though, and I think the Supreme Court would be wrong to strike down all contribution limits. Though I disagree that all contributions are or should be treated as bribes, I agree that they can be used as such.

Why? Just like in Greece your pulling limits out of thin air with no basis. It doesn't follow and is based on personal opinion not law or facts.

The limits above what were in the BCRA are all bribes or have the appearance of bribes and should be regulated as such.

Rich people, poor people, whomever. And the right to exclude is a fundamental attribute of property--it isn't as though this would be a novel invention. But how likely do you think an owner would be to "prevent people from using" the electromagnetic spectrum? No doubt the owner would use it him- or herself or lease it to someone who would use it.

Your still endorsing the concept that a person should be be able to 'own' a state of energy and force others to pay to use it. Its absurd.

I thought we were talking about the Court interpreting the phrase "just compensation" to require fair market value, rather than the phrase itself. And regardless of its historical origins, there's no doubt that today it protects the poor and rich just the same--and is more important to the politically disconnected poor (who aren't demanding to take somebody else's property) than the politically connected rich (who often do).

It doesn't protect them the same. I don't know what world you live in. It at best maintains current divides

I said that it enabled "challenges by candidates who might not satisfy whatever government-imposed standard would regulate exclusive public financing," which "permits voters to be exposed to more political perspectives and to choose among more candidates." But that's not to say that in any given country without private financing, the "debate" is "closed off." That may be true, but I wouldn't want to make that assertion without empirical evidence to support it.

Youre saying the same thing and saying your not saying it. If it permits them to be "exposed to more" (how the heck does allowing people to flood the airwaves do this?) it follows that having those systems means having less options. Your inability to claim that is true in other countries which have such a system seems to me to point to you just making this assertion up.

 

[AndyD]

Tying health insurance to employment has never made any sense--as I understand, it's an artifact of a time when salaries were limited and employers had to offer health insurance as an alternate form of compensation. Why should health care be tied to your job any more than your car, home insurance, etc.?

In the long-term, freeing health insurance / health care from being provided by an employer is the right way to go.

Not to mention it is used as a tool to keep salaries low for some employers. You can't opt out of company insurance and get higher salary instead, it's a whole "pay package" approach.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Besides your smugness about "understanding" something Americans don't

I'm not being "smug." I'm being realistic. Most people don't understand the significance of Citizens United. I wish they did, and I wish they understood the rationale underlying the opinion. It would make the public debate around the decision much more thoughtful.

the difference between independent and contributions is pretty much not real. Its an artificial construct that is an accounting tool.

Of course it's real. It's the difference between giving money to a candidate and spending money to speak to others about the candidate. It's not just an "accounting" tool.

The only way you come to the courts conclusion is ignorance, stupidity or malice.

If those are the only options, I guess I'll go with malice.

Why? Just like in Greece your pulling limits out of thin air with no basis. It doesn't follow and is based on personal opinion not law or facts.

Well, that's just the nature of balancing tests.

The limits above what were in the BCRA are all bribes or have the appearance of bribes and should be regulated as such.

Nonsense. If a person gives a candidate more than the limits imposed, it isn't necessarily because the person intends to procure some personal benefit in exchange or even to influence the candidate's performance in office if elected. You're just redefining "bribe" to mean whatever you want it to mean, which isn't persuasive to me.

Your still endorsing the concept that a person should be be able to 'own' a state of energy and force others to pay to use it. Its absurd.

We let people own domain names and restrict their usage, don't we? Why treat radio frequencies differently?

It doesn't protect them the same. I don't know what world you live in. It at best maintains current divides

I don't understand this criticism. Must the law enhance the position of a poor person to protect him the same as it protects a rich person?

Youre saying the same thing and saying your not saying it. If it permits them to be "exposed to more" (how the heck does allowing people to flood the airwaves do this?) it follows that having those systems means having less options. Your inability to claim that is true in other countries which have such a system seems to me to point to you just making this assertion up.

Let's talk specifics. Which country that prohibits private campaign contributions in favor of public financing would you like me to consider?

 

[thepotatoman]

democratic choice in funding. I mean I'd rather they fund tax credits which people can freely give (or not give) to the candidates they support.

We don't need to be giving to people who don't have support. There's also the question of ballot measures, issue ads, etc

Ok, that's basically still public financing in my mind and is similar to what I was thinking as well. Just overturn Davis v FEC and put another millionaire amendment into the rules, and it's probably good to go.

No, but limits on the right to make campaign contributions must be justified. Simply redefining every contribution as a bribe isn't good enough.

It's justified by things like that report about how the government only truly listens to the donor class and doesn't give a crap about anything else.

As for popular opinions regarding Citizens United, I have no problem recognizing that 80% of Americans are wrong and almost certainly misinformed. As I've said before, I've encountered very few online who even understood what Citizens United held, let alone the rationale for doing so.

Alright, heres a simpler poll where 79% think campaign contributions should be limited:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163208/half-support-publicly-financed-federal-campaigns.aspx

This isn't about obscure intellectual courtroom details that few people fully grasp, but a fundamental belief that the amount of money one person has should not dictate the amount of influence one has on the political process. It doesn't take a genius to see that outcome leads to some people having more free speech than others based solely on what nonpolitical class they're in.

Free speech is all about protecting political ideas in a democracy loving society. Unless you're specifically targeting certain ideas, campaign finance limitations does not do anything to limit any democratic ideas. A rich person would have the same ability to promote any idea they want as a poor person can, and based on their idea's merits, they can still get their ideas on bigger and bigger podiums as they get more and more popular.

To say a rich person can use money to drown out a poor person's idea instead of using his own ideas is antithetical to free speech. If free speech was devised as a counter to the king of England using his political power to stop ideas he doesn't like, why shouldn't it also exist as a counter to the mega rich using their economic power to stop ideas they don't like? At least in concept, if not by constitutional law.

 

[RustyNails]

Hillary Clinton's State Dept refused to classify Boko Haram as a terrorist group. See what a monster she is, PD?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Hillary Clinton's State Dept refused to classify Boko Haram as a terrorist group. See what a monster she is, PD?

Benghazi is in africa, Boko Haram is in africa. Don't you see?!

 

[GaimeGuy]

Hold on a moment. At this point in the discussion, I'm not talking about campaign contributions, but about independent expenditures.

As for popular opinions regarding Citizens United, I have no problem recognizing that 80% of Americans are wrong and almost certainly misinformed. As I've said before, I've encountered very few online who even understood what Citizens United held, let alone the rationale for doing so.

EDIT: But regarding whether contributions are protected by the First Amendment, this is something I've come around on recently. Contributions represent a form of association between the contributor and the candidate. They also represent, to at least some extent, an endorsement of the person running for office or his ideas. Contributions may be an action, but they are a symbolic action. Ironically, mandatory disclosures make them more like speech in this way, because you can be certain that your contribution will be known to the public. That's not to say they can't be restricted, though, and I think the Supreme Court would be wrong to strike down all contribution limits. Though I disagree that all contributions are or should be treated as bribes, I agree that they can be used as such.



Rich people, poor people, whomever. And the right to exclude is a fundamental attribute of property--it isn't as though this would be a novel invention. But how likely do you think an owner would be to "prevent people from using" the electromagnetic spectrum? No doubt the owner would use it him- or herself or lease it to someone who would use it.



I thought we were talking about the Court interpreting the phrase "just compensation" to require fair market value, rather than the phrase itself. And regardless of its historical origins, there's no doubt that today it protects the poor and rich just the same--and is more important to the politically disconnected poor (who aren't demanding to take somebody else's property) than the politically connected rich (who often do).



I said that it enabled "challenges by candidates who might not satisfy whatever government-imposed standard would regulate exclusive public financing," which "permits voters to be exposed to more political perspectives and to choose among more candidates." But that's not to say that in any given country without private financing, the "debate" is "closed off." That may be true, but I wouldn't want to make that assertion without empirical evidence to support it.

There isn't much room for debate when a handfull of individuals can drown out the message of millions.

Using the analogy comparing money to speech... If we're standing next to each other, and I'm speaking with a normal voice, and you're using a megaphone, guess whose message is going to be heard?

The Koch brothers spent over $410 million dollars in the 2012 elections. The ten most politically active unions, representing 23 million people, spent $150 million.

When the "voice" (money) of 2 people is roughly equivalent to the organized voices of 60-70 million people, that's not a debate. That's not democracy. And that's not exposing people to more political perspectives. It's exposing people to the political perspectives of a handful of powerful individuals.

The act of donating money, or spending money, can be a form of expression, yes. But that doesn't mean we can't restrict how much is spent, what it's spent on, when it's spent, who spends, or what disclosures have to be made about the spending.

For instance, just because making noise is a form of expression doesn't mean we can't have laws against disturbing the peace

 

[Manarola]

There isn't much room for debate when a handfull of individuals can drown out the message of millions.

Using the analogy comparing money to speech... If we're standing next to each other, and I'm speaking with a normal voice, and you're using a megaphone, guess whose message is going to be heard?

The Koch brothers spent over $410 million dollars in the 2012 elections. The ten most politically active unions, representing 23 million people, spent $150 million.

When the "voice" (money) of 2 people is roughly equivalent to the organized voices of 60-70 million people, that's not a debate. That's not democracy. And that's not exposing people to more political perspectives. It's exposing people to the political perspectives of a handful of powerful individuals.

Do you really think the political perspective of unions - or more broadly, people who sympathize with their policies - are drowned out in today's society?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Do you really think the political perspective of unions - or more broadly, people who sympathize with their policies - are drowned out in today's society?

yes