Support NeoGAF

[BertramCooper]

Speaking of Fiorina:

Reuters: Paid late, some ex-staffers of White House hopeful Fiorina won't sign on again

Politics has a well-known revolving door, with candidates often rehiring consultants, strategists and vendors as they move from one campaign to the next. But for Republican presidential contender Carly Fiorina, that might not be so easy.

Twelve of about 30 people who worked on Fiorina’s failed 2010 California Senate campaign, most speaking out for the first time, told Reuters they would not work for her again. Fiorina, once one of America's most powerful businesswomen, is now campaigning for the Republican nomination in 2016.

The reason: for more than four years, Fiorina - who has an estimated net worth of up to $120 million - didn’t pay them, a review of Federal Election Commission records shows.

 

[Rhomega Beta]

Fuckabee being Fuckabee.

and I’m talking now about the unabridged, unapologetic Gospel that is really God’s truth,"

Which version of the Bible is this, I wonder?

Anyway, in Chris Christie news, he's demanding the media apologize to him for giving Bridgegate more coverage than Hilary's private email account.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie says he deserves an apology from the media for its coverage of the George Washington Bridge scandal.

The potential Republican presidential contender told CNBC's "Squawk Box" Thursday that he's been held to a higher standard than Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

He said the politically-motivated lane closures near the bridge received far more coverage than Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

Three of Christie's former aides have been charged in the scheme, but Christie has long denied he knew about it and no evidence has emerged to suggest he didn't.

Christie also argued his party should nominate a candidate who's won difficult elections -- such as his election in New Jersey.

He says he'll likely announce his decision in June.

 

[RustyNails]

Which version of the Bible is this, I wonder?

Anyway, in Chris Christie news, he's demanding the media apologize to him for giving Bridgegate more coverage than Hilary's private email account.

Man the fact the he didn't announce his run in 2012 must be eating away his soul little by little. Egoistic fool.

 

[B-Dubs]

Which version of the Bible is this, I wonder?

Anyway, in Chris Christie news, he's demanding the media apologize to him for giving Bridgegate more coverage than Hilary's private email account.

What an utter moron, I hope someone flips on him soon so he can get booted out of office.

 

[Black Mamba]

Is it Debate Season, yet?

 

[Coriolanus]

Anyway, in Chris Christie news, he's demanding the media apologize to him for giving Bridgegate more coverage than Hilary's private email account.

...why would he bring bridgegate up again? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[BertramCooper]

Gee, I wonder how many people were killed as a direct result of Hillary Clinton taking work emails on a personal phone.

Aside from the ones she personally murdered in Benghazi, I mean.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Bloomberg did a focus group on the Democratic Primary with 10 potential Iowa voters. Halperin was on Morning Joe explaining the results this morning.

Most Democrats in the room did not care about the Clinton controversies. They had concerns of course but the take away with them was that they want to retain the White House and ultimately Clinton is the best person to do that.

Joe Scarborough however did his own Supreme Court analysis and said this: "if the Republicans lose the White House for the next 8 years, they lose the Supreme Court for a generation."

Republicans want to fall in love, Democrats are falling in line. The irony is usually its the opposite every cycle.

Take away from the Republican voters was they dont want another bush and a Clinton Vs Bush is scary. They also dont want a candidate who can appeal to Women or minorities.

 

[Black Mamba]

L

O

L

 

[explodet]

L

O

L

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

 

[RustyNails]

Ok how do we go about drafting Chris Murphy for 2016

 

[PhoenixDark]

L

O

L

Speaking of which, what's the WH plan for when the SC 5-4's this in favor of chaos?

 

[Poodlestrike]

L

O

L

He's not wrong tho

 

[ivysaur12]

L

O

L

I'm cry laughing.

Speaking of which, what's the WH plan for when the SC 5-4's this in favor of chaos?

Well, first, I'm dubious that'll be the outcome going off of oral arguments, and second, what can they do besides strong arm states into setting up exchanges?

 

[Black Mamba]

Speaking of which, what's the WH plan for when the SC 5-4's this in favor of chaos?

I don't think they can have a plan. Kind of outside their abilities at that point, unless they simply ignore the SCOTUS.

 

[Fenderputty]

Speaking of which, what's the WH plan for when the SC 5-4's this in favor of chaos?

How long of a stay do they grant? Maybe if it's 10 years the black man and following women will be out of the POTUS and the GOP will have a climate that can cooperate with, finally.

 

[Oblivion]

L

O

L

Speaking of which, Jon Chait made a good point the other day. I was mainly If the SC rules in favor of King, this won't just effect people who had subsidies, but could throw a state's entire health insurance system into chaos. It's one thing to reject helping a group of (presumed) Democrats, but when this effects your entire state and all Republicans on insurance as well? That's a pretty good motivator to do something...

 

[ivysaur12]

John Barrasso spoke after Murphy, though I'm not sure if he understands how insurance works (apologies for the C-SPAN capitalized transcript):

WHEN WE'RE SEEING HEADLINE AFTER HEADLINE ABOUT OBAMACARE PLAN PREMIUMS INCREASING AGAIN ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. NOW REMEMBER WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID. HE SAID IF YOU LIKE YOUR PLAN, YOU CAN KEEP YOUR PLAN. IF YOU LIKE YOUR DOCTOR, YOU CAN KEEP YOUR DOCTOR. AND HE SAID PREMIUMS WOULD GO DOWN BY $2,500 FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR. WELL, WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS PREMIUMS GO UP ACROSS THE COUNTRY. AND NOW MY COLLEAGUE FROM CONNECTICUT SAYS IN SPITE OF ALL THE MONEY BEING SPENT ON THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH CARE LAW, PREMIUMS ARE STILL GOING UP. IN HIS HOME STATE OF CONNECTICUT, THEY'RE GOING UP AND THEY'RE GOING UP ACROSS THE COUNTRY. THERE'S A HEADLINE IN THE "CONNECTICUT MIRROR." "INSURERS SEEK RATE HIKES FOR 2006 OBAMACARE PLANS." THAT'S IN CONNECTICUT. I HEARD MY COLLEAGUE TALK ABOUT THE UPCOMING SUPREME COURT CASE OF KING VS. BURWELL. THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT CASE, HE SAID THAT THE REPUBLICANS DIDN'T HAVE A PLAN. WHERE'S THE PRESIDENT'S PLAN? HE'S THE GUY THAT MADE THIS MESS. THIS IS THE PRESIDENT'S LAW. THIS IS THE LAW THAT THE DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR. THERE'S THAT OLD SIGN IN THE POTTERY BARN, IF YOU BREAK IT, YOU BOUGHT IT. THE PRESIDENT BROKE THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN THIS COUNTRY. AND IF THE SUPREME COURT RULES, THE SUPREME COURT RULES THAT HE HAS ACTED ILLEGALLY, HE'S THE ONE THAT MADE THE MESS. HE'S THE ONE THAT CREATED THE PROBLEM. AND WHEN MY COLLEAGUE FROM CONNECTICUT SAYS WHERE'S THE PLAN OF THE REPUBLICANS, I SAY WHERE'S THE PRESIDENT'S PLAN? IT'S INTERESTING THE PRESIDENT DOES HAVE A PLAN TO PROTECT THE INSURANCE COMPANY BUT HE HAS NO PLANS TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS. HE HAS A BUILT-IN PLAN FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANIES SO THAT WHEN THEY WROTE THE POLICIES THIS YEAR, THERE WAS A DECISION MADE BY THE WHITE HOUSE THAT THOSE POLICIES COULD BE CANCELED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES IF THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE PRESIDENT ACTED ILLEGALLY. BUT YET, THERE IS NO PATH, NO SAFE PATH FOR THOSE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS WHO THOUGHT THEY WERE OBEYING THE LAW IF THE COURT RULES, AS THE WAY I BELIEVE THEY SHOULD BASED ON THE READING OF THE LAW. SO OF COURSE PEOPLE AROUND THE COUNTRY ARE VERY CONCERNED WHEN THEY SEE ONCE AGAIN THE INSURANCE THAT THEY'RE MANDATED TO BUY BY PRESIDENT OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS, THE INSURANCE THEY'RE MANDATED TO BUY BY THE HEALTH CARE LAW, IS GOING TO BE EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE NEXT YEAR THAN THIS YEAR. IN CONNECTICUT, FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THIS ARTICLE, "INSURANCE COMPANIES SELLING HEALTH PLANS THROUGH THE STATE'S HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGES ARE SEEKING TO RAISE RATES NEXT YEAR." IT GOES ON TO SAY THAT DESPITE THE CARRIER'S PROJECTED INCREASE FOR COSTS, CITING RAISING CLAIMS EXPENSES, A PLANNED PRODUCTION IN PROTECTION AGAINST -- A PLANNED REDUCTION IN PROTECTION AGAINST HIGH-COST CLAIMS -- WHY? IT SAYS FROM A TEMPORARY FEDERAL PROGRAM INTENDED TO PROVIDE STABILITY FOR INSURERS -- PROVIDE STABILITY FOR INSURERS -- DURING THE INITIAL YEARS OF THE PLAN, OF THE HEALTH CARE LAW. THIS WAS THE BAILOUT OF THE INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS BUILT INTO THE HEALTH CARE LAW TO GET THEM TO GO ALONG. IT SAYS THE RATE FILINGS ARE PROPOSALS, NOT ACTUAL CHANGES. PROPOSALS, NOT CHANGES. SAID THE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT WILL NOT ANALYZE THE PROPOSALS AND ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENTS. THIS IS THE CONNECTICUT INSURANCE DEPARTMENT. WELL, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN CONNECTICUT FILED COMMENTS, AND I HAVE THEM, MR. PRESIDENT, TO SHARE WITH YOU AND SHARE WITH OUR LISTENERS TODAY. AND THESE ARE THE CONSTITUENTS OF THE SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT, WHO COMES HERE TO THE FLOOR AND MEET AS IT IS. THIS GOES ON AND SAYS "I WAS UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS WAS TO BE A-- AFFORDABLE. WITH AFF CONNECTICUT, WAS TO BE AFFORDABLE. NOTHING BUT A BURDE HE SAYS "I WAS HAPPY WITH MY PREVIOUS PLAN." WEREN'T SO MANY AMERICANS HAPPY WITH THEIR PREVIOUS PLAN BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, WHO TOLD THEM IF THEY LIKED IT THEY COULD KEEP IT, WELL, THAT'S WHY THERE'S SO MUCH DISAPPOINTMENT OUT THERE. AND THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT WAS CALLED THE LIE OF THE Y ELIMINATED AS OF JANUARY 1, 2015. MY HEALTH CARE HE SAYS WENT UP $100 FOR LESS COVERAGE. AND DEMOCRATS WONDER WHY THIS HEALTH CARE LAW ISN'T POPULAR. ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY PEOPLE ARE PAYING MORE, GETTING LESS, AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE CLUELESS AS TO WHY THIS IS SO UNPOPULAR. PLEASE DON'T CONSTITUENTS WRITING IN TO THE CONNECTICUT INSURANCE DEPARTMENT PUBLIC COMMENT. HERE'S ANOTHER: PLEASE, NO RATE INCREASE. I CAN'T AFFORD THE INSURANCE NOW, IT GOES ON. I PAY $594 A MONTH FOR MYSELF, A 60-YEAR-OLD FEMALE IN RELATIVELY GOOD HEALTH. AND THEN THE NEXT LINE: I HAVE A $5,500 DEDUCTIBLE. I CAN'T AFFORD TO HAVE SOME TESTING DONE BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNT. WE HEARD THE SENATOR COME TO THE FLOOR AND SAY ALL THESE PEOPLE HAVE INSURANCE. THIS PERSON FIGURES, SHE HAS INSURANCE BUT IT IS OF NO VALUE TO HER WHATSOEVER WITH HER $5,500 DEDUCTIBLE. CAN'T AFFORD TO HAVE TESTING BECAUSE OF THE DEDUCTIBLE. SHE SAYS "IT WAS BAD ENOUGH THAT WE HAVE THE BIG SECURITY BREACH AND WE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT OUR PERSONAL INFORMATION BEING STOLEN IN THE YEARS TO COME, AND YOU WANT TO INCREASE OUR RATES." THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING HAPPENING ACROSS THE COUNTRY. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING HAPPENING IN CONNECTICUT. AND THAT'S WHAT THE PUBLIC IS TELLING THE CONNECTICUT INSURANCE DEPARTMENT DEALING WITH THESE PROPOSED RATE INCREASES. THERE'S ANOTHER: I'M WRITING YOU REGARDING THE RATE INCREASE FILING PARTICULARLY THE HEALTH INSURANCE FILINGS IN GENERAL. I'M AN INDIVIDUAL BUYER WHO DOESN'T QUALIFY FOR FEDERAL SUBSIDIES DUE TO MY INCOME LEVEL. I'VE BEEN BUYING MY FAMILY PLAN SINCE BEFORE THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT HAD BEEN PASSED AND IMPLEMENTED. " I HAD INSURANCE, DOESN'T QUALIFY FOR A SUBSIDY. SINCE IS THEN, SINCE THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WAS PASSED BY THE FAMILY PLAN IN CONNECTICUT, HAS BECOME ALMOST FINANCIALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO DO, AS IT HAS BECOME A REAL FINANCIAL BURDEN FOR ME. CURRENTLY, I'M PAYING SOME 22% OF MY FEDERAL A.G.I. FOR A HIGH DEDUCTIBLE. FAMILY DEDUCTIBLE RATE, $11,000. $11,000. NOW, THE SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT MAY SAY HEY, GREAT, THIS PERSON HAS INSURANCE. INSURANCE THEY CAN'T AFFORD, THEY CAN'T USE BECAUSE OF THE DEDUCTIBLE. IT SAYS AS YOU ARE CERTAINLY WELL AWARE BEFORE THE PASSING OF THE CARE ACT, MY PREMIUM FOR HEALTH CARE WAS MUCH MORE AFFORDABLE. WHY IS IT? WELL, IT'S BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT DECIDED HE WANTED TO TRANSFER MONEY FROM ONE GROUP TO ANOTHER, AND THIS INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD INSURANCE THAT HE LIKED, FAMILY LIKED WORKED FOR THEM, THEY COULD AFFORD, NOW CANNOT AFFORD, CANNOT USE BECAUSE OF THE DEDUCTIBLE. THEY'RE STILL INSURED, SO I GUESS THE PRESIDENT -- THE SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT WOULD CALL THAT A BIG WIN FOR ONE OF HIS CONSTITUENTS WHO IS CLEARLY BEING HURT. NOW HERE'S ANOTHER ONE THAT'S COME IN FROM CONNECTICUT. ARE YOU NUTS, THIS PERSON SAYS. THIS CANNOT GO ON. MY AFFORDABLE -- AND AFFORDABLE IS IN QUOTES -- INSURANCE HAS ALREADY INCREASED $200 A MONTH AND NOW YOU WANT MORE? MY INCOME DOESN'T EVEN INCREASE THIS MUCH. PAYING THE PENALTY FOR NO INSURANCE IS A BETTER OPTION THAN THIS. DO NOT INCREASE. LEARN HOW TO LIVE WITHIN YOUR MEANS LIKE THE REST OF US. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN -- IS THERE A SURPRISE THAT THIS CONTINUES TO BE A VERY UNPOPULAR LAW? SHOULD IT SURPRISE? IT SURPRISES THE DEMOCRATS, OBVIOUSLY, WHEN THEY SEE THAT IN POLL AFTER POLL, MONTH AFTER MONTH, THE HEALTH CARE LAW IS MORE UNPOPULAR THAN IT IS POPULAR, AND THE REASON IS PEOPLE DON'T SEE IT AS A GOOD DEAL FOR THEM. THEY FEEL IN TERMS OF THEIR OWN HEALTH, THEIR OWN FAMILIES, THEIR OWN COMMUNITIES THIS HEALTH CARE LAW HAS BEEN A BURDEN ON THEM AND IN THEIR LIFE AND IMPACTED THEM AS A FAMILY. THERE'S ANOTHER ONE FROM CONNECTICUT. THE A.C.A. RAISED OUR HEALTH INSURANCE EXPENSE, BOTH PREMIUMS AND DEDUCTIBLES, BY 67% FOR SIMPLE COVERAGE. 67% FOR SIMILAR COVERAGE. REMEMBER, THE PRESIDENT TOLD A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WHAT THEY HAD COVERAGE ON WASN'T ANY GOOD. WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE PRESIDENT. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN GOOD ENOUGH FOR THAT FAMILY BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE PRESIDENT. SO THEY HAD TO BUY AND FOR SIMILAR COVERAGE PREMIUMS AND DEDUCTIBLES UP 67%. PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THIS ADDITIONAL INCREASE. THE PERSON SAYS THEY WOULD BE FINE WITH THEIR OLD POLICY BUT THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED TO KEEP IT BECAUSE OF THE HEALTH CARE LAW. MR. PRESIDENT, I COULD GO ON AND ON AND ON. IT'S ASTONISHING TO SEE WHAT WE'RE HEARING FROM THE CONNECTICUT INSURANCE DEPARTMENT WITH A RESPONSE WHEN THEY WERE ASKED AND PUT OUT THE FILINGS OF THEIR REQUESTS FOR HIGHER RATES. IT'S JUST INTERESTING. ONE NOR FROM SOUTH BERRY, CONNECTICUT. THE ALLEGED PURPOSE OF THIS SCHOOL AND THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT -- ALLEGED PURPOSE. FIRST NANCY PELOSI YOU HAVE TO PASS IT BEFORE YOU FIND OUT WHAT'S IN IT. THE ALLEGED PURPOSE WAS TO GET AND KEEP HEALTH CARE COSTS UNDER CONTROL. THE PERSON GOES ON FROM SOUTH BERRY, CONNECTICUT. NOW MY SUBSIDIZED MONTHLY PREMIUM IS MORE THAN DOUBLE. THE SUBSIDIZED PREMIUM IS MORE THAN DOUBLE WHAT I PAID BEFORE BEING FORCED INTO THE POOL. IT SAID IF THE A.C.A. IS A FAILURE, THEN WHY AM I BEING PENALIZED? PEOPLE ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY BELIEVE THEY ARE PERSONALLY BEING PENALIZED BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE OF THE OBAMA HEALTH CARE PLAN AND THIS ADMINISTRATION WHO CHOSE TO, WITH ONE PARTY AND ONE PARTY ALONE, FORCE A VERY EXPENSIVE,

He sort of... didn't really grasp the article. Or healthcare. Or subsidies. Or Murphy's point?:

http://ctmirror.org/2015/05/07/insu...plans-but-expect-members-health-to-stabilize/

Insurance companies selling health plans through the state’s health insurance exchange are seeking to raise rates next year, with average increases between 2 percent and nearly 14 percent.

But the companies’ rate proposals, made public by the Connecticut Insurance Department Thursday, suggest that, although the companies anticipate higher expenses overall in 2016, they are also expecting the medical needs of those newly insured under the federal health law to stabilize.

Because Obamacare required that insurers cover anyone who wanted to buy a plan, regardless of medical history, insurers anticipated an influx of customers in 2014 who had been uninsured and would have “pent-up” medical needs that would require significant care — and expense — in their first year of coverage. The carriers indicated they don't expect those higher-than-usual needs to continue into 2016.

The health of those newly insured under the health law — and its impact on insurance costs — has been a major question since Obamacare passed. This is the first year that rate proposals have been based on the claims experience of plans sold through the exchanges to customers regardless of medical history, and the two largest exchange carriers proposed rate hikes lower than those they requested last year.

In addition, at least one company expects to gain younger members next year. ConnectiCare Benefits Inc. reported that its 2015 customers are younger than the year before, and anticipates a slightly younger population in 2016.

Despite that, the carriers projected increased costs, citing rising claims expenses and a planned reduction in protection against high-cost claims from a temporary federal program intended to provide stability for insurers during the initial years of the health law.


The rate filings are proposals, not actual changes. The insurance department will now analyze the proposals, accept public comments and issue decisions on whether the rate changes can go forward. The department could approve the rates as proposed, allow lower increases or deny any increase. Any changes allowed by the department would take effect in January 2016.

For people who buy plans through the state’s exchange, Access Health CT, and use federal subsidies to discount their premiums, any rate changes won’t be reflected directly in their bills. That’s because the subsidies are set to ensure that people don’t pay more than a certain percentage of their income for coverage. Although the prices people getting subsidies pay for coverage can vary from year to year for the same plan, those variations are not directly tied to rate changes in the specific plans.

ConnectiCare Benefits Inc., which has the most Access Health customers, requested the lowest average rate increase, 2 percent, although the actual rate change requested varies by plan. The company reported that it expects the overall health of its members to stabilize in 2016 compared to 2014, when previously uninsured people with pent-up medical needs joined the plans.

The highest average increase was requested by HealthyCT, which has some of the lowest rates on the exchange this year. HealthyCT, which began selling plans in 2014, began with some of the highest-cost plans in 2014, then lowered rates this year. For 2016, it requested an average increase of 13.96 percent for its plans sold on and off the exchange.

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield requested an average increase of 6.7 percent for all of its individual-market plans sold in Connecticut — those sold through Access Health and outside the exchange. The company cited an anticipated increase in medical claims costs in 2016, and mentioned the cost of Sovaldi and other costly Hepatitis C drugs. But the company also reported that it no longer expected higher medical costs from pent-up demand of newly insured customers.

UnitedHealthcare, which began offering plans through the exchange this year, requested an average increase of 12.4 percent. Unlike the other companies, its rates were not based on its post-Obamacare individual market experience in Connecticut, since it did not offer exchange plans to individuals in 2014.

It's too bad that this is the first time that healthcare premiums have ever gone up in the history of the universe. Thanks, Obama :-(

 

[Jzero]

 

[Metaphoreus]

No way, he doesn't deserve it. The only reason he "succeeded" was because everyone had gone home and didn't want to vote that late, knowing they had more time. If he had done it at a time when it actually mattered he'd get his W, but he didn't so he doesn't. If this were the first time he had a fake-filibuster then I might agree but it isn't. He's done this shit before. The guy's more about optics than doing things that matter.

You are really invested in not saying anything nice about Rand Paul.

 

[B-Dubs]

You are really invested in not saying anything nice about Rand Paul.

If he actually filibustered it, even for 10 seconds I'd give it to him but he didn't. I just don't care for his two faced bullshit.

 

[Black Mamba]

John Barrasso spoke after Murphy, though I'm not sure if he understands how insurance works (apologies for the C-SPAN capitalized transcript):



He sort of... didn't really grasp the article. Or healthcare. Or subsidies. Or Murphy's point?:

http://ctmirror.org/2015/05/07/insu...plans-but-expect-members-health-to-stabilize/



It's too bad that this is the first time that healthcare premiums have ever gone up in the history of the universe. Thanks, Obama :-(

But there is a plan by Obama. It's called fix the drafting error, should the SCOTUS rule there was one. It would take one sentence.

 

[thepotatoman]

Speaking of which, what's the WH plan for when the SC 5-4's this in favor of chaos?

It's extremely simple. Their plan is to pass a simple bill to fix the typo by explicitly making it possible to give the federal exchange the ability to hand out subsidies. That republicans might refuse is the republican's problem, not democrats when it comes to selling the best plan to address the problem. There might even be a chance that they'd win just on that and republicans give in, if they can win the messaging war that republicans are trying to sabotage our health care system, and republicans start losing heavily in polling, especially with 2016 coming up.

Republicans would want to repeal the whole thing and replace it without really saying what they'd replace it with. Individually they might be able to point to plans on various websites, but as a whole they'd be very confused as to what the republican party's official replacement would look like.

 

[BertramCooper]

So how long will it take for Mike Huckabee to remove the Duggars' plugs from the main page of his campaign website?

 

[Farmboy]

[Kaine or Warner] makes more sense than picking Castro. VA going blue means Republicans need to take just about everything else(Florida, Ohio, Colorado or Wisconsin, Nevada or Iowa) should Democrats have VA on lockdown.

How are Kaine and Warner better picks than Castro? I get that they might be able to deliver VA (while Castro obviously can't deliver TX), but if Castro boosts Hispanic turnout even a few percentage points in a couple of battleground states, it's check and mate. I also feel he brings more balance to the ticket. Certainly age-wise.

 

[Aaron Strife]

How are Kaine and Warner better picks than Castro? I get that they might be able to deliver VA (while Castro obviously can't deliver TX), but if Castro boosts Hispanic turnout even a few percentage points in a couple of battleground states, it's check and mate. I also feel he brings more balance to the ticket. Certainly age-wise.

Kaine would be the safe pick as he's a more tested politician than Castro is. While I've been rooting for Castro I know there's more of a possibility that he could blow it on the national level than someone who's been as involved with national politics as Kaine has been for years.

I would say Castro as VP would either be really good or potentially disastrous, whereas Kaine would just be a solid choice.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Castro is no Sarah Palin. He fits the competency test so he passes in my book. He wont be ready day one but he is certainly qualified to be Vice-President and President if need be. No one is truly ready to be President. I argue Hillary is the best prepared we've had in generations since Eisenhower.

The only downside would be his attachment to the Obama admin if things go south next summer or perceived inexperience. If Dan Quayle of all people can become VP(I know he was a Senator), Castro can.

Castro is coy and Clinton will certainly vet other prospects but I will be shocked next July 2016 if he isnt on that announcement stage.

The other downside is this article http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/18/hillary-s-unqualified-top-vp-choice.html

 

[thepotatoman]

Kaine would be the safe pick as he's a more tested politician than Castro is. While I've been rooting for Castro I know there's more of a possibility that he could blow it on the national level than someone who's been as involved with national politics as Kaine has been for years.

I would say Castro as VP would either be really good or potentially disastrous, whereas Kaine would just be a solid choice.

Which would you rather build up a resume for in order to run for president in 2024?

 

[kingkitty]

Julian Castro didn't have that much power as mayor, and only had a year or two in the HUD thing. He can't even rely on being a good speaker. He's too fresh for my taste. I hope Hillary picks someone else.

Julian should follow his brother's path and be a congressional rep. I don't see any other option for his political future as long as he's based in Texas.

 

[pigeon]

Speaking of which, what's the WH plan for when the SC 5-4's this in favor of chaos?

Run on it?

I mean, if SCOTUS kills the subsidies, then the outcome is that Obamacare continues to work perfectly -- in all the states that set up exchanges. In all the states that didn't, i.e. all the states with Republican governments, everything goes straight to hell.

So basically the White House can just say "well, maybe you should set up an exchange, then."

 

[NeoXChaos]

Run on it?

I mean, if SCOTUS kills the subsidies, then the outcome is that Obamacare continues to work perfectly -- in all the states that set up exchanges. In all the states that didn't, i.e. all the states with Republican governments, everything goes straight to hell.

So basically the White House can just say "well, maybe you should set up an exchange, then."

Jindal will NEVER set up an exchange here. Vitter wont either.

 

[sc0la]

I don't even see why the Supreme Court is reviewing this. What is the constitutional question?

The subsidies are constitutional, that isn't even the question. And regardless of the error in the text, the dissemination of subsidies whether or not the state set up an exchange would've legal.

If it's just a typo, and whether the subsidies are legal in the way it's written, why not simply declined to hear it or kicked it bam to a lower court.

Edit: also if it says exchanges set up by the state. The federal government is "the state", it's just not A state

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I don't even see why the Supreme Court is reviewing this. What is the constitutional question?

The subsidies are constitutional, that isn't even the question. And regardless of the error in the text, the dissemination of subsidies whether or not the state set up an exchange would've legal.

If it's just a typo, and whether the subsidies are legal in the way it's written, why not simply declined to hear it or kicked it bam to a lower court.

Edit: also if it says exchanges set up by the state. The federal government is "the state", it's just not A state

the court doesn't just answer constitutional questions

 

[Diablos]

I'm smelling less confidence about the SCOUTS voting against King in here.

:\

Here's something to make us feel better, I guess

The CEOs of MemorialCare Health System, Ochsner Medical Center and Cook County Health and Hospitals each agreed about the likely outcome of King v. Burwell, although their perspectives differed about healthcare legislation under a newly elected president in 2017.

As part of the Becker's Hospital Review 6th Annual Meeting in Chicago, Tucker Carlson, moderator and Fox News correspondent, posed some questions about the outcome of the Supreme Court case and what healthcare legislation may come up under a new president in 2017.

Participants:

Barry Arbuckle, PhD, president and CEO of MemorialCare Health System in Long Beach, Calif. Dr. Arbuckle leads the six-hospital system that includes a health plan, two medical groups and several outpatient, imaging and surgery centers.

Robert Wolterman, CEO of Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans. Mr Wolterman leads the 473-bed flagship facility of Ochsner, a system that includes 1,100 employed physicians and 13 hospitals. Ten years ago, Ochsner was a one-hospital system.

John Jay Shannon, MD, CEO of Cook County Health & Hospitals in Chicago. Dr. Shannon leads the safety-net health system for Chicago and suburban Cook County. The system includes two hospitals, 16 community clinics, the largest HIV center in the Midwest and a Medicaid managed care plan called CountyCare, which covers approximately 180,000 lives and is the second-largest Medicaid managed care plan in the Chicago area.

Thoughts on the outcome of King v. Burwell

Dr. Barry Arbuckle: "I'd be shocked if the government lost the case. I think it'll be a 6-3 vote, not even a 5-4. Chief Justice John Roberts had the opportunity last time to interfere with the ACA, and he didn't. If I'm wrong, I think it'll take about 24 hours for states using the exchange to call up their attorney generals to say they will outsource the exchange."

Robert Wolterman: "I think [the lawsuit] is irrelevant as well. I think the button's been pushed on the rocket and it's been launched. I agree with Barry: Regardless of that decision, I don't see much of an impact or much of a change on what is already happening and how systems have already reacted."

Dr. John Jay Shannon: "I have to agree. We talked a lot about things not working right, but if you look at the numbers of 14 million to 18 million more Americans who weren't insured three years ago having insurance now, while that's not a magic solution it is an absolutely minimal requirement and a step in the right direction. I don't think the president or HHS administrator is being coy when they say they don't have a plan B. It is inconceivable to have a plan B."

It was moderated by a Fox News tool, even.

http://www.beckershospitalreview.co...ng-v-burwell-decision-healthcare-in-2017.html

 

[sangreal]

So josh duggar, one of the kids on 19 kids and countin, molested his siblings apparently. That in of itself isn't really news since that family is obviously screwed up but the thing is, he was executive director of the anti-gay family research council. He has since resigned but it will be interesting to see how this plays out since most of the gop clown car has sucked up to him publicly in the past

 

[B-Dubs]

I'm smelling less confidence about the SCOUTS voting against King in here.

:\

Here's something to make us feel better, I guess



It was moderated by a Fox News tool, even.

http://www.beckershospitalreview.co...ng-v-burwell-decision-healthcare-in-2017.html

I agree with them, if Roberts wanted to kill the ACA the time for that was during the last case. Roberts is obsessed with the court's reputation and trying to keep it intact, what does he think would happen to that reputation if the court kicked however many millions of Americans off their health insurance? Not only that but only a pedant or an ideologue would buy into the argument being put forth in King.

 

[pigeon]

I don't even see why the Supreme Court is reviewing this. What is the constitutional question?

The subsidies are constitutional, that isn't even the question. And regardless of the error in the text, the dissemination of subsidies whether or not the state set up an exchange would've legal.

If it's just a typo, and whether the subsidies are legal in the way it's written, why not simply declined to hear it or kicked it bam to a lower court.

Edit: also if it says exchanges set up by the state. The federal government is "the state", it's just not A state

There was a circuit split.

I still expect SCOTUS to uphold the law. Diablos, don't let PD troll you, or it's going to be a long year.

 

[thepotatoman]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...bout_hillary_clinton_with_bernie_sanders.html

Sanders has some damn good message discipline. Wolf Blitzer first tries to get him to fight with Hillary, and then tries to get him to fight with Republicans, and then Hillary again, and every time he was able to move above the petty politics to say what he thinks we should do, and asks for the american people to agree with him, not the democrats or the republicans.

And while Sanders tries to end the stigma about talking about taxing the rich, Hillary is trying to end the stigma about talking about our opiate problems, treating addicts with jail time instead of help. I really hope Democrats as a whole start pounding the actual problems and possible solutions to these problems, instead of getting too distracted with the other side.

We've gotten ourselves into a position where proposing solutions to problems is almost unheard of, and that makes the pro government party look real bad. On the other side you have the anti-government Republicans, who will always benefit from a negative campaign, because anything that appears to be disfunction just proves their case for government being bad and that we need less government.

For an example of what not to do, look at Sherrod Brown attacking Obama for disrespecting Warren, turning the debate into petty bickering about nothing, which media loves, but only hurts the cause Brown was trying to promote.

 

[Oblivion]

I agree with them, if Roberts wanted to kill the ACA the time for that was during the last case. Roberts is obsessed with the court's reputation and trying to keep it intact, what does he think would happen to that reputation if the court kicked however many millions of Americans off their health insurance? Not only that but only a pedant or an ideologue would buy into the argument being put forth in King.

It still leaves open the question of why the hell would the SC take on this idiotic case to begin with? If Roberts wanted to protect the reputation of the court, he could have done so in a much easier fashion by ignoring this moronic lawsuit entirely and not waste everyones time.

 

[ivysaur12]

I'm smelling less confidence about the SCOUTS voting against King in here.

:\

Here's something to make us feel better, I guess



It was moderated by a Fox News tool, even.

http://www.beckershospitalreview.co...ng-v-burwell-decision-healthcare-in-2017.html

Why are you listening to PD tho

It still leaves open the question of why the hell would the SC take on this idiotic case to begin with? If Roberts wanted to protect the reputation of the court, he could have done so in a much easier fashion by ignoring this moronic lawsuit entirely and not waste everyones time.

Circuit split (yes, I know that the DC case then went to be review en banc) + 4 votes for cert + dunno, a sense of finality?

 

[Black Mamba]

It still leaves open the question of why the hell would the SC take on this idiotic case to begin with? If Roberts wanted to protect the reputation of the court, he could have done so in a much easier fashion by ignoring this moronic lawsuit entirely and not waste everyones time.

uh, Roberts may have voted not to take the case. In fact, the 4 liberals might have taken a case to fuck Scalia's constitutional bullshit.

Roberts and/or Kennedy are forced to take their position, thus undermining Scalia.

It only takes 4 justices to hear a case. Any 4. We have no idea who voted and if the gov't wins, I'd bet money the 4 liberals voted to hear it.

 

[Oblivion]

uh, Roberts may have voted not to take the case. In fact, the 4 liberals might have taken a case to fuck Scalia's constitutional bullshit.

Roberts and/or Kennedy are forced to take their position, thus undermining Scalia.

It only takes 4 justices to hear a case. Any 4. We have no idea who voted and if the gov't wins, I'd bet money the 4 liberals voted to hear it.

Wait, it only takes 4 justices to accept a case?

 

[Chichikov]

Hmmm, the GMO thread is going better than I've expected. I mean sure, there's a couple of people advocating limiting the world's population through famine, but it's GAF, famine defense force is to be expected.

 

[thepotatoman]

uh, Roberts may have voted not to take the case. In fact, the 4 liberals might have taken a case to fuck Scalia's constitutional bullshit.

Roberts and/or Kennedy are forced to take their position, thus undermining Scalia.

It only takes 4 justices to hear a case. Any 4. We have no idea who voted and if the gov't wins, I'd bet money the 4 liberals voted to hear it.

Unlikely. There's far too much at risk if it backfires with so little to gain. Even with a win, a Roberts style decision could easily open up president Jeb to read it however he wants, and a Kennedy decision could ingrain this new state coercion thing further into law.

Most likely, the 4 conservatives thought they could convince Roberts to change his mind.

Even in the opinion of the 4th circuit, written by a Clinton nominee, it was conceded that the literal reading of the bill favored the plaintiffs, and the government "only slightly" had the stronger position. And if Roberts blocked the mandate before, the only alternative left for health reform would be a medicare for all plan. A block now on a technicality still allows for the replacement to have a preexisting condition/insurance mandate solution tied to much more conservative surroundings.

 

[Diablos]

uh, Roberts may have voted not to take the case. In fact, the 4 liberals might have taken a case to fuck Scalia's constitutional bullshit.

Roberts and/or Kennedy are forced to take their position, thus undermining Scalia.

It only takes 4 justices to hear a case. Any 4. We have no idea who voted and if the gov't wins, I'd bet money the 4 liberals voted to hear it.

There is no way all four liberals wanted to hear it. It was likely Kennedy, Scalia, Alito and Thomas. They're putting Roberts on the spot. I can't see any one liberal justice siding with the conservatives. They're smart enough to know there's far too much risk involved; a decision to help get to four justices in order to take on such a poor excuse for a lawsuit would NOT be calculated, it would be moronic from where they're sitting.

Honestly, that you would even think this makes me wonder if you are kind of just telling yourself (with your fingers crossed) that it was the liberals, in their infinite wisdom, who took up the case so that you can support an idea that King will be going down in flames.

It still leaves open the question of why the hell would the SC take on this idiotic case to begin with? If Roberts wanted to protect the reputation of the court, he could have done so in a much easier fashion by ignoring this moronic lawsuit entirely and not waste everyones time.

Because perhaps...

A block now on a technicality still allows for the replacement to have a preexisting condition/insurance mandate solution tied to much more conservative surroundings.

If you think about it, a decision like that really does confirm what I've been thinking all along; Roberts is slowly but surely chipping away at parts of the law he doesn't like and all but forcing the GOP to replace these things with what a conservative think tank/GOP President wants.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

ug at that union thread.

the one thing I hate is the "protects bad workers" meme.

This isn't true. It protects due process for all. Bad workers can get fired, the union just makes sure management has to have a justified reason and can prove it.

Its like saying the bill of rights and due process protects criminals. No, it just makes sure the government has to has to prove things before depriving rights.

Hmmm, the GMO thread is going better than I've expected. I mean sure, there's a couple of people advocating limiting the world's population through famine, but it's GAF, famine defense force is to be expected.

let them eat cake

 

[PhoenixDark]

Eh, I'd have no problem crushing many police unions. And teacher unions. I can't think of two revered groups that do more damage on a daily basis.

 

[Diablos]

Eh, I'd have no problem crushing many police unions. And teacher unions. I can't think of two revered groups that do more damage on a daily basis.

On the other hand it's amazing that the majority of, say, office employees making less than $50k/year are actually turned off by the idea of a Union.

I just stop thinking about it because it's an idea that is so dead on arrival in the US, a very depressing fact.

 

[NeoXChaos]

ugh at that minimum wage and Wisconsin Food Stamp thread. Some people think limiting POTATOES of all things is a good food stamp restriction.

The very idea of "bootstraps" is frightening to me that so many believe in it. As well as the sense of entitlement and nasty attitude of helping your fellow man. Some of the responses are disgusting.

Nah, it becomes my business when I'm the one buying it for them. I'm totally okay with this.

I'm not arguing againt a minimum wage, I'm arguing againt minimum wage as a "livable wage".

If you're a 45 year old and you could easily be replaced by a teenager at your job, you're probably either mentally handicapped or you're a severe underachiever.

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

ugh at that minimum wage and Wisconsin Food Stamp thread. Some people think limiting POTATOES of all things is a good food stamp restriction.

The very idea of "bootstraps" is frightening to me that so many believe in it. As well as the sense of entitlement and nasty attitude of helping your fellow man. Some of the responses are disgusting.

The fact it bans even the most basic canned soup is insane. No potatoes, no spice or herbs, no ketchup and so. Just so many arbitrary fucking things in that list. No one should be supporting that.