bmags

guess what guys, many research says that the dropping was going to happen anyways - beginning in this decade, accelerating in the next, it's one of the reasons a lot of steps were created to help the individual market. Employer given health insurance was getting sicker.

the new mgmt, while not a complete waste of time, was in my opinion, a waste of my time.

then the individual market will become a lot more affordable, in no short part to this bill.

Acorn should change their name to the n-word so when it's shouted out we all know what they mean.

i thought they were pissed about medicaid. Either way, they won't win. Unless they can convince the courts that 200 years of judicial precedent has not happened, and it's just post marbury v. madison.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 07:50 PM) Is that Hickenlooper? He was a fantastic mayor. Or is the more recent mayor running? ah. s***. I have no idea. I have no idea what's going on anymore.

I guess I need convictions and illegal activities to show that an organization was illegal. The most illegal thing was the homeless people taking a check and not doing their jobs. No, mickey mouse was in fact, not voting. So all these "ACORN WAS DELIVERING THE ELECTION FOR OBAMA" was not based in any sort of fact. They are just a target in the same way the census is, the more minority voters that are whipped together to vote, the more democratic votes there tends to be.

animal collective is taking a break. hint at permanent break.

I don't know what you mean by wrong doing. Were homeless people just taking a paycheck without doing their job? Yes. Was the organization ever convicted of illegal activities despite a whole political scandal in the US attorneys office to try and push taking down ACORN? No. They were under a heavy microscope and never got taken down until a highly manipulated video, and in the investigation afterward, they said it was a highly manipulated video and no illegal activities were done. But some showed poor judgment. SO no.

I do too. I don't like Landreiu, Bayh, Nelsonx2, Lieberman, etc. At all. On the other hand, the alternatives would be even more obstructive than these 5, imo. So not much i can do.

well, they weren't convicted of any wrongdoing. Their money was stripped before any investigations were done in the immediate aftermath.

you did because it provided cover for a lot of the 55-60 dem. sen votes. If those were in, those 5 sens. wouldn't have voted for it, and it couldn't have passed. Political realities.

this is why i'm avoiding this thread. but i will just add this. O'Keefe was NOT dressed up like a pimp during the videos with employees. Should I really post the examples of these heavy edited tactics showing responses to questions that weren't asked?

Y2HH, again, we are dealing with political realities. It's hard enough to take on the insurance industry. Now take on big pharm at the same time. As I've stated numerous times and it hasn't stuck. Early on the bill contained provider level cost controls. And republicans huffed and puffed about how it hurts doctors and would be the end of the world. At the end of the bill, it's THERES NO PROVIDER COST CONTROLS. ANd while the argument before was "oh great now you are going to ruin any advancement in drugs since no technician will go into pharmaceuticals to cure stuff because they won't make any money if you let generics take over earlier" and now it's "Oh now they get a sweet heart deal!"

props to the stevie wonder title.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 05:55 PM) Campaigning on "you should lose your insurance" is probably not going to be a winning issue. I will say this as a caveat...since it is before 2014, i would guess not a substantial amount have gained insurance by then.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 05:51 PM) So, if the Republicans get the Congress and the WH back in 2012, do they just repeal the whole damn thing before most of the provisions have even gone into effect? My guess is this: "not bloody likely" Seriously, it's really hot right now, but in 2 years, they would be repealing really popular things.

yglesias.thinkprogress.org So, what do you think of this: "The End of Big Government Liberalism For the past 65-70 years—and especially for the past 30 years since the end of the civil rights argument—American politics has been dominated by controversy over the size and scope of the welfare state. Today, that argument is largely over with liberals having largely won. The size of the US public sector is still going to look low by international standards, but this will be a bit misleading since the way the structure of the Affordable Care Act works is to use public money and public regulation to leverage a lot of formally private money. In practice, the United States will still be a small government country compared to Sweden or Denmark or France (which combines Danish-style taxes with a below-the-waterline iceberg of hidden state-directed economic activity), but not compared to the United Kingdom or Spain. Due to the bill’s almost comically delayed implementation, for several years we’re still going to have a lot of political tussling over it. And even once it’s in place, the system will continue to be debated and tweaked for years to come. But over time, I think American politics will come to look quite different and we’ll look back on this day as a turning point. The crux of the matter is that progressive efforts to expand the size of the welfare state are basically done. There are big items still on the progressive agenda. But they don’t really involve substantial new expenditures. Instead, you’re looking at carbon pricing, financial regulatory reform, and immigration reform as the medium-term agenda. Most broadly, questions about how to boost growth, how to deliver public services effectively, and about the appropriate balance of social investment between children and the elderly will take center stage. This will probably lead to some realigning of political coalitions. Liberal proponents of reduced trade barriers and increased immigration flows will likely feel emboldened about pushing that agenda, since the policy environment is getting substantially more redistributive and does much more to mitigate risk. Advocates of things like more and better preschooling are going to find themselves competing for funds primarily with the claims made by seniors." After reading the comments, I think it's easy to misunderstand what he's saying. It's over, in the sense that, yes, government is going to be in health care. So yeah, I say in 20 years...it's basically done. Most every liberal program I wanted will have been implemented in some way or another.

no, i was asking jesus.

Oh. Well, I say if the denver mayor wins the Colo. gov race, then that's who you look at for the next dem pres. Ha, wouldn't it be funny if petraeus ran as a democrat. haha.ahhhh

Um, I think Obama realizes you don't want to tap any more people out of the senate. I really don't think it matters to replace Biden. I guess he could look for a southern personality, but f*** the south. They've had overrepresentation in the exec branch for too many years.

jesus, how old is he?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 23, 2010 -> 05:34 PM) Didn't think my statement warranted this, but whatever. Your posts seem to indicate that you believe any slight health ailment deserves/warrants a trip to the doctor, lest it become something serious. No, it didn't. But going back 2 pages you would've seen how incorrect that statement was. Sorry you feel so intimidated here, but here's a pro-tip, don't jump into something you haven't been following closely than make a B.S. statement like "you believe all of the doctors/pharmaceutical commercials" because it makes your argument easier. Does a group of people go to the doctor too much? yes. Does a whole bunch of people not go to the doctor at all because of intimidation/money? Yes, a huge portion. Specifically a portion called "men." It's one of the reasons we die earlier.

your dick, huh.

Um, it pays for itself in like 5 years. My uncle's had his on insurance...i assumed it was more widespread. That said, once i have $1000 to spend i'm going to take a lazer to both my eyes and then fly planes to save peoples lives. wolverines. edit: to clarify to ahb, my response would be that they would be saving money after 5 years by not shelling out for contacts/glasses/eye exams.