Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, November 02, 2013

[OT-P: November 2013] Home Who wants to make baseball bats in the Catskills — tax free?

Want to buy an office building right under the glow of Rochester’s iconic Eastman Kodak headquarters?

How about starting a business at Sullivan County Community College to develop the next generation of baseball bats? Or use 21,000 square feet of office for a high-tech incubator at Binghamton University?

They are among nearly 100 locations recently listed by the state as potential sites for tax-free zones being pushed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo to boost the upstate economy.

Cuomo officially launched the controversial program last week, and the state is starting with a sampling of sites around New York – mainly empty space on college campuses – to attract new businesses.

“In a tax-free environment, no one can match what New York has to offer,” Cuomo said in a news release Oct. 22. “Businesses that are looking to startup or expand, and most importantly create jobs, should look no further.”

The program allows businesses to pay no income, property or business taxes for 10 years if they locate near a college campus. Some higher-paid workers would have to pay income taxes after five years.

The initiative starts Jan. 1.

In the Hudson Valley, the state is marketing the 7,738 square-foot former president’s home at SUNY Purchase in Westchester County for redevelopment. Two other sites on the Purchase campus are being offered, including a former animal lab space.

Sullivan Community College in the Catskills said it is interested in a company to develop new baseball bats.

“These new technologies will enable the company to produce baseball bats which are superior to those currently available in the market through a unique and sustainable manufacturing process,” the state’s website said.

New politics thread. Still a little bit about baseball.

Tripon Posted: November 02, 2013 at 02:38 AM | 2319 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: otp

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 15 of 24 pages ‹ First  < 13 14 15 16 17 >  Last ›
   1401. Morty Causa Posted: November 13, 2013 at 12:47 PM (#4599383)
Morty, thanks for posting those links. I am bogged down with/behind on reading for a project right now, but have bookmarked them to go back to later.

You are very welcome. And, sure, I don't expect everyone to read everything I link. I'm just fascinated by it (just consider me a little boy with a cunning new toy), and by it's import, and I'm sharing my enthusiasm, but people can take it at their leisure, if at all. I'm really not trying to browbeat anyone. It does seem to be cutting edge stuff. What we know about evolution and modern/recent homo sapiens is changing almost as rapidly as technological change--some of it because technological change is informing us of things we didn't know.
   1402. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 13, 2013 at 12:58 PM (#4599390)
#1392 Mike Tyson, the gift that keeps giving. Thanks for the excerpt.


I've been hard on Tyson from a historical placement standpoint largely as a reaction to his overrating from some corners, but now that he's retired his complete lack of a filter makes him refreshing to listen to or read about. He's done awful things but I get the sense that he's fully aware of what an awful person he was and that he genuinely wishes he could be something better.
   1403. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: November 13, 2013 at 01:05 PM (#4599395)
Mike Tyson strikes me as a quite intelligent man. Nature never really had a chance against the poor nurture.
   1404. bobm Posted: November 13, 2013 at 01:07 PM (#4599397)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/us/some-state-insurance-exchanges-continue-to-battle-technical-problems.html
   1405. formerly dp Posted: November 13, 2013 at 01:07 PM (#4599398)
some of it because technological change is informing us of things we didn't know.
This is where I start to put the brakes on a bit-- there's a tight link between photography and phrenology (for example), and we know from past experiences that we're prone to conflate mediated images of the human with the human itself, as if the filtering technology itself is neutral and transparent. This has been discussed a bit with fMRI images, which have a visual aesthetics often intended more to dazzle than inform (the choice of colors used to represent brain activity, for example, can oversell the significance of a particular experiment). And this article (.pdf!) makes a similar point around the representation of atoms (well, not quite similar in conclusion, but similar in spirit).
   1406. Morty Causa Posted: November 13, 2013 at 01:11 PM (#4599402)
I do tend to be a bit suspicious of neuroscientific explanations for human behavior, because in the popularization of neuroscientific research, there's often a lot of overselling that goes on-- sometime the scientists are complicit in this, and other times it's the result of sensationalistic science journalism.

Yes. Just because you are a scientist who does things according to methods and protocols doesn't mean you aren't human--and of course science journalism is no different than other kinds--as we see here with politics and baseball.
   1407. Morty Causa Posted: November 13, 2013 at 01:18 PM (#4599410)
1405:

Well, yes, that's the way it is with technology--it's a double-edge sword. First, you have photography, then close behind is trick photography. The printing press may have been invented to impress us with literature of a noble and spiritual nature. Literary porn and violent accounts soon followed. The bow and arrow was great for killing game--you know, it might work on killing members of that tribe over there that has all the women. That's distortion in a gross, overweening way, but it devolves all the way down, as well as up.
   1408. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 13, 2013 at 01:35 PM (#4599421)

Yeah, but Obama said over and over that existing policies that people liked wouldn't be cancelled and that they'd be able to "keep" them. That was a disasterous lie/mistruth. All the passage does is give the economic reasons/justifications for the cancellations, which have nothing to do with the "if you like your insurance, you'll be able to keep it" falsehood.


The problem is "liked"... and defining "liked".... How many of these policies that people say that they "liked", they really only liked in the way that a magic rock you carry around keeps you safe from tiger and bear attacks?

I.e., I'm quite sure people very much liked cutthroat policies. Who doesn't like to pay what seems like a steal of a low price premium? But I'd wager one cannot really know whether you truly "like" your policy until you're faced with a medical issue of more than just a quick doctor visit and maybe a run-of-the-mill prescription situation.

That's how it was for me with a dental plan... Long before Obamacare, when I first decided to add (optional) dental coverage - I picked the cheapest plan possible... and it was cheap... very cheap... employing many thousand people, plus employer partial subsidy -- I was paying just a few bucks a month.

I would say that I very much "liked" my plan... until I had to get an emergency root canal.

Then I found out that the dentists in network were not at all as close to me as hoped, and that I couldn't see an oral surgeon (a crack tooth was impinging a nerve) until I got a referral from an in-network dentist. I was in the most exquisite pain I have EVER felt for nearly 2 days... I literally could not sleep, and it was two days before an in-network dentist could squeeze me in (and then, on an emergency weekend basis). But that wasn't the worst of it...

My insurance that I "liked" wasn't much -- if any -- better than a coupon... the emergency visits were full freight, no discount at all from the 'retail' price. They simply were not covered under my plan. Only one type of crown was covered - which was fine - but the 'discount' was literally like $100 off the $400 sticker price. I got another $100 off the dental 'work'. The pain reliever subscription was fortunately covered via my health plan at a pretty good rate... However, the dental care? Cost me a cool two grand... and would have been $2200 without insurance.

Post-incident, the plan that I "liked" wasn't actually such a great plan afterall. The truth was - it actually sucked, it was a complete ripoff. I thought I had done my homework, too -- read through all the fineprint, etc. However, if you've never faced a "dental emergency" -- how are you supposed to know how to price such things and extrapolate such coverage against the fine print?

Hey - I get it - people get all upset about the government telling them whats 'good for them'.... but I'm just saying - the plan standards and coverage minimums are not a bad thing. I get people being upset about losing what they think was such a good plan... but my bet is that people upset about losing a plan are more upset about losing what was a placebo... as in, a very cheap plan with poor coverage that they were just fortunate never to have to use.

   1409. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 13, 2013 at 01:36 PM (#4599425)
Yeah, but Obama said over and over that existing policies that people liked wouldn't be cancelled and that they'd be able to "keep" them.

Did he say that over and over, or did he say it once or twice and it get stuck on repeat on the cable channels? Honest question.

Seriously? How can one not know this but feel qualified to opine on political issues? Obama said "If you like it, you can keep it" throughout the 2008 campaign, during the fight in Congress over ObamaCare, and in the run-up to its implementation. Don't believe me, judge for yourself.
   1410. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 13, 2013 at 01:40 PM (#4599428)
Mike Tyson strikes me as a quite intelligent man. Nature never really had a chance against the poor nurture.


Cus D'Amato did the best he could but you're right, by that point Tyson had too many negative traits ingrained to be overcome. D'Amato knew, as many boxing trainers did, that in a sport that has historically drawn from the most violent and alienated underclasses that the key to regulating the behavior of fighters is to keep them cloistered in a fighting environment and mindset. D'Amato's death, and the absolutely pernicious and insidious presence of Don King, removed any external constraints on Tyson's behaviors and even encouraged many of the less savory ones (King, of course, being a convicted murderer and thug).

One of the things I always enjoyed about the young Tyson was his respect and appreciation for the history of boxing. Tyson was fortunate to not only be trained by a veteran trainer who knew and worked with many of the early greats of the sport, but also to have Jim Jacobs and Bill Cayton on his management team; between the two, they were responsible for creating (indeed, rescuing) the largest library of vintage boxing footage in history, including hundreds of fights which existed nowhere else outside of their collections. Listen to young Iron Mike expound on the virtues of Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, and others here while watching their efforts in the ring, it's quite compelling.

Interestingly, ESPN purchased the entire boxing footage library from the estates of Cayton/Jacobs but never published a full inventory and were only interested in showing the same handful of Joe Louis fights to compliment their "All Ali All the Time" historical boxing broadcasting. Who knows what ancient gems lay in their wicked fortress in Bristol, just beyond the grasp of historians?
   1411. tfbg9 Posted: November 13, 2013 at 01:51 PM (#4599435)
Cus D'Amato was Tyson's father, for all intents and purposes.
   1412. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 13, 2013 at 01:56 PM (#4599439)
How many of these policies that people say that they "liked", they really only liked in the way that a magic rock you carry around keeps you safe from tiger and bear attacks?

I don't think it will mitigate the damage done by Obama breaking his "Like it/Keep It" promise to say people are too stupid to know what's good for them but we're really doing them a favor by making it impossible for them to keep the insurance they want.

Furthermore, Zonk's dental anecdote is hardly compelling. Not everyone wants their health insurance to be a pre-payment for every possible medical expense. Many healthy people are willing to insure against major health problems/diseases and pay ordinary, affordable costs as they occur. Lots of people come out ahead that way, but ObamaCare makes it virtually impossible because those relatively healthy folks are needed to subsidize the expensive benefits going to others. Some here say that is a good policy, but that is not how ObamaCare was sold to the public & Congress.
   1413. Morty Causa Posted: November 13, 2013 at 02:02 PM (#4599443)
No, everyone wants their policy to cover everything and every contingency of everything. It's insurance companies who insist that everything can't be covered unless they can milk every last drop of turnip juice out of it.
   1414. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 13, 2013 at 02:05 PM (#4599446)
I don't believe you can just ignore the "If you like it, you can keep it" Presidential promise and say others will benefit. The law was sold based on that promise and a promised $2500 per family average yearly savings. If, as seems likely, neither promise is fulfilled, I wouldn't expect voters to say "Oh, well, at least some people got insurance for the first time". At least not enough of them.


I think Obama should ignore it in any substantive fashion. Political promises are worth the toilet paper I used this morning. The law is functioning as desired(no not the people are unhappy part, the actual health insurance parts), and if people don't like it and vote that way, well as a term limited politician I would like Obama to take one for the team as much as possible.

That isn't to say he should not continue to play politics. He should lie (shade the truth) and do all those political things politicians of all types do. They can offer up bogus "fixes" if they want, so long as they don't screw up ACA. Because people losing (well forcing Insurance companies to drop) their feeble plans is part of how it is supposed to work (promise or not).

Should he have made those promises? Yes. Because the GOP was lie central during the debates and being totally truthful while allowing your opponent to lie and distort your truth is a great way to get nothing done.

Should everything be done to both minimize the pain folks are feeling and the political fallout? Yes.

Should that be allowed to impact the overall thrust of ACA? No. Hell no. #### no.
   1415. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 13, 2013 at 02:11 PM (#4599451)
Shorter #1414: The end justifies the means; but just for Democrats.
   1416. BDC Posted: November 13, 2013 at 02:18 PM (#4599460)
we're prone to conflate mediated images of the human with the human itself, as if the filtering technology itself is neutral and transparent

Yes. Interest in neuroscientific approaches in the humanities, for instance, seems to run in cycles every couple of decades when a new technology or medium arises. The most recent wave might already have crested, but it's caused significant buzz in recent years. I may just be getting to the point of yelling at kids on my academic lawn, but I couldn't really see much in recent work except getting excited at the ways in which different areas light up in imaging media as people are reading poems or whatever. That's cool, but it seemed to explain nothing and contribute no new understanding of anything.
   1417. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: November 13, 2013 at 02:19 PM (#4599463)
It's not just a "political promise." The success of Obamacare depends on people buying insurance, which in turn depends on them being assured that the system they're being asked to buy into is well thought out and on the up-and-up. The laughably bad website and the phony "if you like it, you can keep it" both do grevious damage to the public acceptance that is of critical substantive importance.

This was extremely poorly handled by Obama, by any objective measurement.

--The Centrist
   1418. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: November 13, 2013 at 02:26 PM (#4599468)
Mike Tyson strikes me as a quite intelligent man. Nature never really had a chance against the poor nurture.

As a criminal defense lawyer, "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face" has proven quite a useful mantra.
   1419. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 13, 2013 at 02:29 PM (#4599471)
Shorter #1414: The end justifies the means; but just for Democrats.


Where do I say any of that applies only for dems? I am saying that if the GOP is lying up a storm on a complex subject why should the Dems be held to a standard that the GOP doesn't hold itself to? Politics is dirty business and this "promise" you hold out such hope for is BS (but not as big BS as Death Panels!).

both do grevious damage to the public acceptance that is of critical substantive importance.


That remains to be seen how large or long lasting the damage will be. It is not like halfway through 2014 Obama is going to pull the plug on his baby. It is going to be around through 2016 at least.

This was extremely poorly handled by Obama, by any objective measurement.


Well the law he wanted got passed, was declared constitutional and is in place to roll out fully. That is a pretty big objective measurement of success. Have there been problems? Sure.
   1420. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 13, 2013 at 02:38 PM (#4599475)
"Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face"


I always assumed that Tyson repeated that quote from someone else, but when I looked around every single reference says it was Tyson himself that first said it.

It's a fantastic line.
   1421. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 13, 2013 at 02:40 PM (#4599478)
I don't think it will mitigate the damage done by Obama breaking his "Like it/Keep It" promise to say people are too stupid to know what's good for them but we're really doing them a favor by making it impossible for them to keep the insurance they want.

Furthermore, Zonk's dental anecdote is hardly compelling. Not everyone wants their health insurance to be a pre-payment for every possible medical expense. Many healthy people are willing to insure against major health problems/diseases and pay ordinary, affordable costs as they occur. Lots of people come out ahead that way, but ObamaCare makes it virtually impossible because those relatively healthy folks are needed to subsidize the expensive benefits going to others. Some here say that is a good policy, but that is not how ObamaCare was sold to the public & Congress.


But the point isn't about "liking" it... it's whether liking it is real or a placebo affect. When I made the conscious decision to add dental coverage, after declining it previous years, it wasn't a matter of "I brush every day, I just want a cheap plan for maintenance purposes". I truly didn't know what sort of coverage I had until I had case to use it. Maybe the plan minimums are too high - but the statutory limits alone are reasonable, and while I'm not 100% current on the regs/community standards in an exacting way, hard for me to see them being completely unbelievable.

It's NOT that people are "too dumb"... it's that the fine print prior to the ACA combined with the near complete lack of standard plan minimums made it impossible for anyone except a risk modeler or actuary to figure out if their plan was any good... I mean, I work for a legal publisher... I like to think I'm a pretty smart guy... I didn't spend days upon days - but I did spend hours upon hours...

Insurers naturally want to make money. Generally, if you're undercutting -- by massive amounts -- competitor pricing, you're doing so by delivering poor quality... but certainly not advertising that. It's not like buying a pair of jeans - where, sure, you can get a $15 pair at wal-mart... and you know you're getting crappy quality, you know they'll fall apart sooner, you know they won't fit well... but you're making the conscious choice to buy cheap jeans because you don't care, and you've -- even if just subconsciously -- done the math that says $15 crap jeans are a better deal than $60 designer jeans. I don't think the same paradigm holds true.

Now... all that aside, you want to say it's a political problem? OK - that's a different thing, I think....
   1422. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 13, 2013 at 02:42 PM (#4599482)
Ignoring elections for a minute, those of you crowing about the Doom (Doom I say!) of ACA, what do you see legislatively happening with it? I keep hearing about how it will be a failure! What does that look like from a legislative standpoint?

The Democrats are not going to let it get wholesale repealed any time soon and the GOP is not going to let it get improved. Sure the GOP could try to chip away at pieces of it, but all the pieces are either really popular with the public (giving Dems cover to defend it) or really popular with Insurance companies (And Insurance has quite a lobbying arm, good luck trying to win over the Dems and Insurance).

Say doomsday hits and no one signs up for the exchanges except the few sickest people. I admit it is not ideal and has negative effects going forward, but it is not like that will drive a repeal of the "pre existing conditions" part of the law, or the medicaid expansion, or the medical device tax (far and away the most likely part of ACA to be killed, since no one will defend it, but who cares), or the young adult children being covered by parents policies part of the law, or the individual mandate part of the law.

All it will do is make the exchanges not very functional. Again, not ideal, but not the end of the world either. And that is the worst case.
   1423. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 13, 2013 at 02:46 PM (#4599485)
Or perhaps just to shorten/clarify 1421...

I think Clapper is either unintentionally or intentionally conflating/blurring health care with health insurance... I.e., just trying to rehash the whole mandate discussion from a different angle. If you're "healthy" and want to just the dice - that matter and your reaction is carved in stone with teh very existence of the mandate. The "keep your plan" matters not a wit.

Someone who bought a substantdard plan may pay more... but they're paying more to get a plan that will actually deliver the coverage that they presumably, but probably were not, getting under their old plan.
   1424. simpleton & childlike gef the talking mongoose Posted: November 13, 2013 at 02:54 PM (#4599490)
Politics is dirty business


Except that the participants are supposed to pretend to be polite to each other after the bell sounds, of course.

See? That's what I don't really get about what you were saying a few days ago. They can lie, cheat & steal till the cows come home, but heaven forbid they not (basically) curtsey properly, because that's when we clutch our pearls & wring our hands?

Color me confused.
   1425. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: November 13, 2013 at 02:59 PM (#4599499)
"Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face"

I always assumed that Tyson repeated that quote from someone else, but when I looked around every single reference says it was Tyson himself that first said it.


It's the same concept as an old military adage "No battle plan ever survived first contact with the enemy"
(Moltke the elder, not to be confused with his idiot son who screwed the pooch in 1914)
   1426. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: November 13, 2013 at 03:01 PM (#4599500)
what do you see legislatively happening with it?


unfortunately nothing for quite some time

It needs to be amended and tinkered with, but the GOP House isn't going to allow that.

   1427. starksy Posted: November 13, 2013 at 03:03 PM (#4599503)
but all the pieces are either really popular with the public (giving Dems cover to defend it) or really popular with Insurance companies (And Insurance has quite a lobbying arm, good luck trying to win over the Dems and Insurance).


Cite please; interested in seeing the public's reaction with a large part of ACA and not finding much newer than a month ago.

   1428. formerly dp Posted: November 13, 2013 at 03:07 PM (#4599506)
Yes. Interest in neuroscientific approaches in the humanities, for instance, seems to run in cycles every couple of decades when a new technology or medium arises.
BDC, do you have any thoughts on Hayles? Or on Digital Humanities in general?
I may just be getting to the point of yelling at kids on my academic lawn
In grad school, I was a kid yelling at the *adults* about this-- my favorite line from a panel I was on a few years back about using fMRIs in politics: "we could just do brain scans on candidates, and eliminate the need for elections altogether". Their thinking was that if we could identify 'altruistic' activity in the brain, we could predict which candidates would act in the best interests of their constituents. They had gotten huge grants for that project, and where shameless about how much money was available to researchers who followed in their footsteps. Around the same time, Wired ran an article about using fMRIs to tell who was 'cool' and 'uncool' based on their reactions to images of pop culture figures. Lots of money in writing uncashable checks...
   1429. Greg K Posted: November 13, 2013 at 03:08 PM (#4599508)
Where do I say any of that applies only for dems? I am saying that if the GOP is lying up a storm on a complex subject why should the Dems be held to a standard that the GOP doesn't hold itself to? Politics is dirty business and this "promise" you hold out such hope for is BS (but not as big BS as Death Panels!).

I was going to say, a more accurate summation of your post may come from the inestimable Charlie Kelly: "That's politics, #####!"
   1430. starksy Posted: November 13, 2013 at 03:10 PM (#4599514)
Anecdotally, my medical insurance went from $46 per paycheck to $66 per paycheck (just enrolled in benefits; healthy single male in StL). Haven't done a full comparison of the upgrades
   1431. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 13, 2013 at 03:17 PM (#4599522)
"Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face"

I always assumed that Tyson repeated that quote from someone else, but when I looked around every single reference says it was Tyson himself that first said it.



It's the same concept as an old military adage "No battle plan ever survived first contact with the enemy"


True.
The military one is on a grand scale, while Tyson's quote is on a personal scale and (obviously) much more relatable.
   1432. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 13, 2013 at 03:22 PM (#4599527)
I think Clapper is either unintentionally or intentionally conflating/blurring health care with health insurance...

I think the Democratic partisans here are scrambling to justify Obama breaking his repeated "Like It/Keep It" promises. All the talking points have been trotted out, but none are very believable or effective. I put "We did you a favor getting you out of a bad plan" in that category, since there are legitimate reasons people preferred the coverage they had. In many cases the new policies don't give them more, it gives other people more and lowers rates for others while raising them for the people who got their policies cancelled.

I'm a little surprised that so many here seem to believe that, even after apologizing, Obama can get away with doing nothing to redeem his promise. Seems like that will compound his problem - first he lied about people being able to keep their coverage and then he lies about fixing the problem? Recipe for disaster, IMHO.
   1433. GregD Posted: November 13, 2013 at 03:26 PM (#4599531)
There are perils right now for both sides. The Dem perils are obvious. But the Rep peril is what Weigel describes: if Rs pass a bill, Dems in the Senate are planning to substitute Landrieu's bill obligating insurance companies to keep people on board, perhaps permanently or perhaps for two years, and then send that to the House, where Rs would surely kill it but then be stuck with killing it.
   1434. Lassus Posted: November 13, 2013 at 03:27 PM (#4599532)
I think the Democratic partisans here are scrambling to justify Obama breaking his repeated "Like It/Keep It" promises.

Speaking as a Democratic partisan who agrees the ACA rollout has been a crap sundae, I never cared about this statement nor did I ever consider it a diamond-sharp ironclad promise. It sounded to me at the start like a general blanket bell-curve statement and that's how I took it. If people are pissed that they can't keep their shit insurance or are prepared to blame Obama for insurance scumbags using the free market to screw their ass to a wall, that in my own opinion is their problem.
   1435. BDC Posted: November 13, 2013 at 03:29 PM (#4599534)

BDC, do you have any thoughts on Hayles? Or on Digital Humanities in general?

dp., I haven't read any of Hayles's books since Chaos Bound, which is now a long time ago (c1990). I remember thinking that book was a very smart approach to literature. Hayles is akin, I know, with Donna Haraway and others who see the digital age as fundamentally altering humans relations to technology and bodies, but I'm not sure about that; that still sounds more like prediction than observation.

Digital Humanities is a various field. I've known people who were into digital texts and editions, and who've used data-mining techniques to study a given corpus of literature. I'm mildly interested in digital bibliography and problems of metadata and getting at information. (I maintain a web bibliography of baseball fiction, actually, but it really just emulates print bibliographies, and I've often wondered how to make it more dynamic while maintaining its transparency.)

What are your thoughts?
   1436. GregD Posted: November 13, 2013 at 03:36 PM (#4599543)
Can I ask a question on the promise?

Am I right that anyone who had a policy that didn't change substantially at the time that Obama made his promise can in fact keep the plan?

Anyone who bought a new plan since then wasn't grandfathered? And anyone who--by their action or the insurance company's--changed plans since then isn't covered?

I get that the latter category could be larger than expected, especially if insurance companies specifically gamed to break policies before ACA came in.
   1437. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 13, 2013 at 03:40 PM (#4599548)
. . . but all the pieces are either really popular with the public (giving Dems cover to defend it) or really popular with Insurance companies (And Insurance has quite a lobbying arm, good luck trying to win over the Dems and Insurance

This link has a compilation of the polling on ObamaCare. Those in Favor of ObamaCare currently trail those Opposed by 10.1%, and going back to the beginning of such polling (11/2009) those opposed have always outnumbered those in favor (see the 2nd chart which allows you to select the timeframe).
   1438. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 13, 2013 at 03:43 PM (#4599553)
I think the Democratic partisans here are scrambling to justify Obama breaking his repeated "Like It/Keep It" promises. All the talking points have been trotted out, but none are very believable or effective. I put "We did you a favor getting you out of a bad plan" in that category, since there are legitimate reasons people preferred the coverage they had. In many cases the new policies don't give them more, it gives other people more and lowers rates for others while raising them for the people who got their policies cancelled.

I'm a little surprised that so many here seem to believe that, even after apologizing, Obama can get away with doing nothing to redeem his promise. Seems like that will compound his problem - first he lied about people being able to keep their coverage and then he lies about fixing the problem? Recipe for disaster, IMHO.


Horse hockey.

"Insurance" is nothing like buying bread. It's not a matter of some bread is healthier than other bread, but hey - you bought bread, you're gonna eat and thus not starve.

I would challenge ANYONE -- go to it, Clapper -- under your current plan in effect right now, if you were diagnosed with a malignant Gastrointestinal Carcinoid Tumor (I literally just went the National Cancer Institute web site and randomly click on something from the A to Z cancer type list), what would your out of pockets costs be? What if - rather discovered at a checkup, you suddenly doubled over in pain at work and passed out - necessitating an ER trip, ambulance ride, etc? Then what would your costs be?

I would bet any amount of money that not a single person on this board -- and perhaps not more than a sprinkled thousands in the country -- could even come close to guessing.

People have insurance because they want to financially protect themselves against that unexpected - they want some manner of assurance that his great big unknown isn't going suddenly land on them and cost more than their house (and almost any battery of cancer treatments runs -- retail -- into the $100k+ range) and then some.

However, without rules that eliminate hidden caps, slice and dice coverage such even the cancer sufferer can be profitable until s/he's excised from coverage, without minimum standards -- how can anyone know whether their policy was any good?

Don't show me stories of people who saw a previous policy cancelled... Show me stories of people who had previous policies cancelled but actually had the medically tragic necessity to truly take that now cancelled previous coverage for real test drive who are unhappy. We're talking insurance coverage here... not insurance costs.

If you want me to say that Obama shouldn't have said what he said, and certainly in the exact words he used? Fine - sure, absolutely... saying what he said was a mistake... but if you're looking for to "admit" it's somehow a "bad thing" that our new insurance mandate comes with minimum coverage standards to make sure you aren't forced to buy crap coverage, well.. I'm sorry -- but that's loony tunes crazy.

Are you honestly suggesting that it is in any way a good idea to have an insurance mandate WITHOUT minimum coverage standards?
   1439. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 13, 2013 at 03:47 PM (#4599559)
Am I right that anyone who had a policy that didn't change substantially at the time that Obama made his promise can in fact keep the plan?

You're wrong on that because the Obama Administration wrote the Grandfather Rule so narrowly that it doesn't allow the normal year-to-year changes and tweaks that have always been part of health insurance process. You can't write the rule that way and credibly claim it is not your fault those policies were cancelled. If Obama wanted to keep his promise, the Administration would have written a broader Grandfather Rule.
   1440. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 13, 2013 at 03:55 PM (#4599568)
Can I ask a question on the promise?

Am I right that anyone who had a policy that didn't change substantially at the time that Obama made his promise can in fact keep the plan?


It's not about you and your policy -- it's about the policy itself. Obamacare mandates at a statutory level - a minimum coverage set. I'd have to go look it up, but the law itself mandates about 10 general sort of areas that must be included in coverage. It then also created a mechanism to develop plan norms and 'grade' plans as "gold", "silver", or "bronze". "Bronze" plans were the minimum to "count" as coverage under the individual mandate. Plans below the bronze level actually aren't illegal or anything... they simply wouldn't "count". As such, most insurers are canceling such plans since A) the insurers must be upfront about the fact that plans do not meet minimum coverage standards, and B)as a result of A, the plans would bleed policy holders to the point of being unsound offerings.

Anyone who bought a new plan since then wasn't grandfathered? And anyone who--by their action or the insurance company's--changed plans since then isn't covered?
This is the bill that -- unfortunately - some people (including some Democrats) are pushing... just a global grandfathering in of existing coverage. I think this is a huge mistake. The whole idea of this was schema was that (virtually) everyone would have insurance, and everyone's insurance would meet minimum standards such that you're going to be guaranteed a minimum level of coverage. You pull the minimum coverage thread -- I don't see how the individual mandate can survive... I suppose that perhaps you might see smaller numbers of medical bankruptcies, etc -- perhaps more people get in on the exchanges that guranatee minimum coverage, don't have spending caps, etc... but it's still badly weakening the whole point of a mandate where the coverage is provided by private insurers. I cannot see a way to grandfather in those plans that isn't going to cost a ton of money one way or another.


I get that the latter category could be larger than expected, especially if insurance companies specifically gamed to break policies before ACA came in.


The number is about 3%.... I'd have to dig up the table -- but Kaiser did an in-depth study and basically did an analysis of people already covered under various (non-Medicare/non-Medicaid) plans. Something like 3/4 of those covered will indeed "keep their plan" with no change to either costs nor coverage (though - the study was very careful to say that "no change to costs" essentially meant that the rate of annual rate increase would either be lower or about the same). The remaining 25% were broken into 4 categories (if memory serves).... I do remember quite clearly that the number of plans that would be cancelled because they could not be made workable under the ACA due to falling far too far below the minimum coverage standards was 3%.
   1441. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 13, 2013 at 03:56 PM (#4599570)
I would challenge ANYONE -- go to it, Clapper -- under your current plan in effect right now, if you were diagnosed with a malignant Gastrointestinal Carcinoid Tumor . . .

Apparently Zonk missed what I actually wrote. Many people were very happy with health insurance that covered anything comparable to what Zonk cited but they didn't need or want to have their dental bills covered. There were plenty of plans that covered all the serious stuff without fully covering every routine medical expense. It was similar to having auto insurance with a higher deductible. Should those be banned too because they don't do enough to subsidize bad drivers?
   1442. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 13, 2013 at 04:00 PM (#4599574)

Apparently Zonk missed what I actually wrote. Many people were very happy with health insurance that covered anything comparable to what Zonk cited but they didn't need or want to have their dental bills covered. There were plenty of plans that covered all the serious stuff without fully covering every routine medical expense. It was similar to having auto insurance with a higher deductible. Should those be banned too because they don't do enough to subsidize bad drivers?


You keep talking in these vagaries...

Really? You are telling me that big numbers of people made a conscious decision to buy substandard insurance coverage rather than simply thinking/hoping "Whew! I finally made it to the realm of the covered!"

Stop tossing vagaries at me... give me some real, honest to goodness plan definitions... give me some real examples of people 'happy' with this sort of minimum coverage who then had to use it and found it a good solution.
   1443. Ron J2 Posted: November 13, 2013 at 04:05 PM (#4599579)
#1438 You'd lose the bet. I'm a Canadian. I know what my medical costs will be. And because I've had the pleasure of an unscheduled ambulance ride I know what that'll cost me.

I know. You were talking to your fellow Americans, but what would this site be without petty literalness?
   1444. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 13, 2013 at 04:12 PM (#4599585)
Some official numbers have been released - only 27,000 people have signed up through the Healthcare.gov website. Even that may be overstating it somewhat since other articles have indicated that the Administration is counting people as "enrolled" when they select a plan even though they haven't paid for it yet. That's a bit like Amazon counting a sale when you put something in your shopping cart.
   1445. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 13, 2013 at 04:21 PM (#4599594)
Stop tossing vagaries at me... give me some real, honest to goodness plan definitions

It's fairly obvious that many were happy with the "higher deductible & co-pays, some exclusions/lower rates" policies since they chose to purchase such policies and are now complaining (loudly) that Obama's broken promise doesn't allow them to keep those policies. Sorry if that doesn't fit your preferred narrative.
   1446. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 13, 2013 at 04:24 PM (#4599598)
See? That's what I don't really get about what you were saying a few days ago. They can lie, cheat & steal till the cows come home, but heaven forbid they not (basically) curtsey properly, because that's when we clutch our pearls & wring our hands?


I am not saying lies are good. They are part of what happens, and there is a race to the bottom, such that when one side does it is is inevitable.

Once again though, I think that social norms are important. I am OK with Obama being called out for his "promise". It was and is BS. The fact that is was necessary BS means he now has to suck it up and take his lumps. He made the calculation that it was worth it.

What would make me "clutch my pearls" would be saying you can't criticize Obama. "Everyone lies in politics, it is meaningless. people who call out liar politicians are idiots." That is attacking the social norm that lies are bad.

That would be wrong. Politicians should be called out for lies. But sometimes the cost of being called out is worth it. What I am arguing against is the attack on the stigma of lies (or of being a jerk, or whatever), I am not arguing that such behavior should be applauded (or ignored).

In other words lies are bad. That doesn't mean no one should ever lie. It also doesn't mean because people sometimes lie that we should remove the stigma from lies.

And I am not willing to pretend that Obama was not full of it with his "promise", he was. Of course his lie is orders of magnitude lesser than the lies the GOP was telling about ACA also. Which makes his lie understandable, but still OK to criticize (though it has more juice is the critique is not being done by the same people whose pants were on fire during the same debate Obama was fibbing).
   1447. Monty Posted: November 13, 2013 at 04:25 PM (#4599599)
only 27,000 people have signed up through the Healthcare.gov website


That doesn't count the people who signed up through the websites run by individual states, so it's not as bad as it sounds. I mean, it's still pretty bad that only 106,000 people have signed up in total, but that's more than 27,000.
   1448. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 13, 2013 at 04:31 PM (#4599612)
This link has a compilation of the polling on ObamaCare. Those in Favor of ObamaCare currently trail those Opposed by 10.1%, and going back to the beginning of such polling (11/2009) those opposed have always outnumbered those in favor (see the 2nd chart which allows you to select the timeframe).


Oh good lord. You linked to polling for the bill as a whole. I said explicitly the pieces (and then listed some of them). If you look at polling for the individual pieces of the bill most of them are very popular. Being able to cover young adults - popular. Not being able to be denied because of pre-existing conditions - popular, and so on. The individual mandate is not popular, except with the insurance companies who would have fought ACA tooth and nail without it. With it they get guaranteed business and so are on board.

Cite please; interested in seeing the public's reaction with a large part of ACA and not finding much newer than a month ago.


I don't have cites for the parts. I could look, but I have work to do. If no one finds it I will look when I have time. But again I am talking the parts of the bill, looking at overall ACA popularity is NOT what I am talking about.
   1449. starksy Posted: November 13, 2013 at 04:38 PM (#4599617)
Cite please; interested in seeing the public's reaction with a large part of ACA and not finding much newer than a month ago.


I don't have cites for the parts. I could look, but I have work to do. If no one finds it I will look when I have time. But again I am talking the parts of the bill, looking at overall ACA popularity is NOT what I am talking about.


Alright; thanks. Will do some more checking
   1450. Der-K: downgraded to lurker Posted: November 13, 2013 at 04:38 PM (#4599619)
1436/Greg: Basically: yes.
   1451. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: November 13, 2013 at 05:05 PM (#4599646)
Yes. Interest in neuroscientific approaches in the humanities, for instance, seems to run in cycles every couple of decades when a new technology or medium arises

Everything you need to know about new technology.
   1452. Mefisto Posted: November 13, 2013 at 05:16 PM (#4599650)
It's fairly obvious that many were happy with the "higher deductible & co-pays, some exclusions/lower rates" policies since they chose to purchase such policies and are now complaining (loudly)


I don't actually care much about these folks. For one thing, there aren't very many of them. For another, most of them were being cheated by their insurance companies and didn't realize it. Their "happiness" was simple ignorance.
   1453. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 13, 2013 at 05:33 PM (#4599661)
It's fairly obvious that many were happy with the "higher deductible & co-pays, some exclusions/lower rates" policies since they chose to purchase such policies and are now complaining (loudly)


I don't actually care much about these folks. For one thing, there aren't very many of them. For another, most of them were being cheated by their insurance companies and didn't realize it. Their "happiness" was simple ignorance.

I care about them as a political problem, and the truth is that this is a problem of Obama's own making. The fact that relatively few people will see net increases in their premiums after the dust settles may be reassuring, as is the fact that greater numbers of people will see savings. But given what Democrats should have known by now about the Republican noise machine, it's as if the people who planned the political strategy of the ACA were preparing for a game against the Denver Broncos by concentrating on their defense against Matt Prater's field goals.

Since the Republicans are going to do absolutely nothing but try to further sabotage the ACA's implementation, Team Obama had better be working 24/7 to make healthcare.gov working smoothly before the current narrative achieves some sort of permanence. And once the website actually starts doing more than approving trickles of people at a time, they'd also better start accumulating several thousand stories to counter the stories of woe we've heard so far.
   1454. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 13, 2013 at 05:55 PM (#4599672)
The fact that relatively few people will see net increases in their premiums after the dust settles may be reassuring, as is the fact that greater numbers of people will see savings.

Have either of those "facts" been established as actual facts? I don't think so, and there has already been considerable hinting that ObamaCare will not come close to hitting the promised $2500 average family yearly savings. The Cadillac Tax has yet to kick in, too, so there is still the potential for a lot more sticker shock and people being unhappy about ObamaCare induced changes to their coverage.
   1455. Ron J2 Posted: November 13, 2013 at 05:56 PM (#4599673)
Rob Ford -- busy guy

474 page police report (partially redacted) released. Among the shocking revelations in the report is that City Hall staffers were required to change Ford's light bulbs.

Oh. Hookers and booze on city time, drunk driving allegations, but seriously that bit with the light bulbs ... Talk about throwing everything at the wall to see what will stick.
   1456. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 13, 2013 at 06:14 PM (#4599683)
That poll seems to indicate those sentiments are shared about equally by Democrats & Republicans, so I'm not so sure that it is such good news for Tram Blue. More importantly, the predictive power of Presidential Job Approval ratings for mid-term elections has been shown over many years; not so for any Congressional Job Approval Rating. Perhaps 2014 will be different, but I like the GOP chances if Obama is still at 39%.

As for me, I'll take a clear and growing lead in the generic congressional ballot...

Even the generic congressional poll isn't looking so good. Today's Quinnipiac Poll has a tie in the generic Congressional vote:
In just six weeks, Republicans have completely erased a 9-point deficit in a generic congressional ballot question and are now running even with Democrats. Thirty-nine percent of registered voters say they would vote for a Democrat in their district — and the same percentage say they would vote for a Republican — if elections for the U.S. House of Representatives were held today, according to numbers from a Quinnipiac poll released Wednesday.
   1457. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 13, 2013 at 08:10 PM (#4599750)
Hey YC (or others) - Do you have any comments on what you think the legislative future of ACA is? (See 1422).

I know you really want to make this an election issue and are tirelessly beating that horse, but outside of election results what do you think will happen? Because I don't think anything will happen. And if it means losing some seats in a couple elections in exchange for ACA then that is a trade I will make every time and twice on Sunday.

The voting rights act (and other similar laws) cost the Democrats plenty over the years and I sure don't regret it. Sometimes to govern you do the right thing even if you take a few lumps.
   1458. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 13, 2013 at 08:17 PM (#4599752)
The fact that relatively few people will see net increases in their premiums after the dust settles may be reassuring, as is the fact that greater numbers of people will see savings.

Have either of those "facts" been established as actual facts? I don't think so, and there has already been considerable hinting that ObamaCare will not come close to hitting the promised $2500 average family yearly savings.


"Average family" does not mean "every family", any more than the average baseball salary means that all ballplayers are making that.

And of course we don't yet know how the "winners" and the "losers" are going to sort out, but that Brookings study indicates that there are going to be a lot more of the former category.

The Cadillac Tax has yet to kick in, too, so there is still the potential for a lot more sticker shock and people being unhappy about ObamaCare induced changes to their coverage.

Could be, though that's certainly not what the Brookings study was indicating in terms of percentages of net winners and net losers. You seem to be going for some sort of 2nd inning mercy rule win on the basis of a one sided series of anecdotes and daily tracking polls, but we'll see what you're saying in March or July.
   1459. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: November 13, 2013 at 08:23 PM (#4599756)
   1460. BDC Posted: November 13, 2013 at 08:30 PM (#4599759)
City Hall staffers were required to change Ford's light bulbs

So that's what they're calling it these days.
   1461. Lassus Posted: November 13, 2013 at 09:12 PM (#4599773)
Good lord, Rickey, could you be any more emo?
   1462. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 13, 2013 at 09:15 PM (#4599774)
Hey YC (or others) - Do you have any comments on what you think the legislative future of ACA is?

The House will vote Friday on the Upton Amendment, which attempts to grandfather the plans cancelled under ObamaCare. Haven't had a chance to really look at it, so I encourage people to do their own research. All indications are that it will pass, and there was a flurry of articles today suggesting it may get a fair number of Democratic votes, especially if Obama doesn't announce any action to redeem his "Like It/Keep It" promise. This article suggests House Democrats are pretty close to fed up with the Administration's handling of the issue - House Democrats Frustration With ObamaCare Rollout Reaches Fever Pitch:
House Democrats emerged from a closed-door caucus meeting Wednesday morning worn thin from arguing with White House officials over the bumpy rollout of the Affordable Care Act.

One source in the room described Democratic lawmakers from across the political spectrum — from moderates in vulnerable districts to progressives in safe seats — as frustrated with the administration in equal measure.

They pushed David Simas, the White House deputy senior adviser for communications and strategy, to account for the glitches on the enrollment website and for President Barack Obama’s unfulfilled promise to Americans that if they liked their health insurance policies, they could keep them, regardless of what changes would be ushered in by the new health care law.

“I think in diplomatic terms we had a frank discussion,” Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., said. “I think there was a lot of frustration and in some cases anger vented towards the White House for their continued ham-fisted approach. It’s not just their credibility that’s on the line, but it’s our credibility.”

“Why can’t we call people who know how to do these things, who do it for corporate America, and say, ‘We have a website, fix it,’” said Rep. José E. Serrano, D-N.Y. “Maybe I’m being simplistic, but can’t we call Bill Gates up and say, ‘Take care of this?’ Or go to a college dorm and say, ‘You guys, you invented Yahoo, can you take care of this?’ “Don’t come here telling us it will be fixed by Nov. 30,” he continued, speaking of the White House.
   1463. Lassus Posted: November 13, 2013 at 09:24 PM (#4599781)
“Why can’t we call people who know how to do these things, who do it for corporate America, and say, ‘We have a website, fix it,’” said Rep. José E. Serrano, D-N.Y. “Maybe I’m being simplistic, but can’t we call Bill Gates up and say, ‘Take care of this?’ Or go to a college dorm and say, ‘You guys, you invented Yahoo, can you take care of this?’

FACEPALM
   1464. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 13, 2013 at 09:53 PM (#4599805)
“Why can’t we call people who know how to do these things, who do it for corporate America, and say, ‘We have a website, fix it,’” said Rep. José E. Serrano, D-N.Y. “Maybe I’m being simplistic, but can’t we call Bill Gates up and say, ‘Take care of this?’ Or go to a college dorm and say, ‘You guys, you invented Yahoo, can you take care of this?’

I appreciate the message, but Serrano might have chosen a better example than the company whose mail service is the 21st century version of the Ford Pinto.
   1465. CrosbyBird Posted: November 13, 2013 at 10:22 PM (#4599818)
So, under what conditions does evolution occur quickly, Morty?

Other examples of reasonably fast evolution:

-The Lenski experiment. It's amazing, but hard to sell how amazing on the average person because it's "just bacteria"

Lenski experiment (over 25 years of data and counting)

-The domesticated silver fox experiment. By doing nothing more than cross-breeding foxes that were selected for particular dog-like traits, bred two groups of foxes: one group is as domesticated as a dog and actually sold as pets, and the other group is highly aggressive. Even more amazing was how quickly the friendly foxes started to develop dog-like features such as a raised tail, changes in ovulation cycles, ear floppiness, and before-unseen coat patterns. This one in particular is incredible because for many years it had to be conducted in secret, since genetics was a government-banned science in the Soviet Union until the 1960s.

You may want a pet fox now.
   1466. Esoteric Posted: November 13, 2013 at 11:10 PM (#4599835)
I didn't come into this thread to talk about politics because I couldn't give a rip about discussing politics on Primer. I came into this thread to once again praise Yankee Redneck not only for his deep, fascinating knowledge of boxing, but also to thank him for the YouTube link to Mike Tyson discussing all-time boxing greats, which is totally compelling even for someone like me who knows nothing of the sport. Really does demonstrate how sharp Tyson actually is: his discussion of various fighters and their styles is truly great, and he adds in so much relevant historical background about each of them as well. His observations about Jack Dempsey are really quite riveting.

Thanks again, YR.

EDIT: Getting further into this documentary. Holy crap but is Tyson ever eloquent and thoughtful about the various fights he's watching with the host. Seriously people: I don't care about boxing, but this is still that fascinating.
   1467. Mefisto Posted: November 13, 2013 at 11:11 PM (#4599836)
The Upton bill stands no chance in the Senate. If it does pass the House, the Senate will substitute the Landrieu bill and send it back to the House. Which will then vote down the Landrieu bill on a party line vote. Net result: stalemate.
   1468. don't ask 57i66135; he wants to hang them all Posted: November 13, 2013 at 11:26 PM (#4599839)
This link has a compilation of the polling on ObamaCare. Those in Favor of ObamaCare currently trail those Opposed by 10.1%, and going back to the beginning of such polling (11/2009) those opposed have always outnumbered those in favor (see the 2nd chart which allows you to select the timeframe).
i would appreciate it very much if you would make at least some kind of an effort to acknowledge that there is a difference between policy and politics.
   1469. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 13, 2013 at 11:37 PM (#4599846)
Thanks again, YR.

YR is truly a font of boxing history, unparalleled dry wit, and baseball patriotism. One of the certified All-Stars of BTF.
   1470. don't ask 57i66135; he wants to hang them all Posted: November 13, 2013 at 11:44 PM (#4599847)
This link has a compilation of the polling on ObamaCare. Those in Favor of ObamaCare currently trail those Opposed by 10.1%, and going back to the beginning of such polling (11/2009) those opposed have always outnumbered those in favor (see the 2nd chart which allows you to select the timeframe).
i would appreciate it very much if you would make at least some kind of an effort to acknowledge that there is a difference between policy and politics.
actually, let me rephrase that:

i would appreciate it very much if everyone in this thread made a greater effort to not constantly conflate policy and politics as if they are the same thing and of equal importance.
   1471. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 14, 2013 at 12:06 AM (#4599854)
The Upton bill stands no chance in the Senate. If it does pass the House, the Senate will substitute the Landrieu bill and send it back to the House. Which will then vote down the Landrieu bill on a party line vote. Net result: stalemate.

The Senate outlook is uncertain. It's not clear that Senate Democrats will even get behind the Landrieu bill, and a lot of Democrats seem to be waiting for Obama's proposal to redeem his "Like It/Keep It" promise, although he's made no commitment to get that out before the House vote. Without a plausible proposal from Obama, the House will vote for the Upton Amendment with substantial votes from vulnerable Democrats. No telling what that will do to the Senate, and it's a very fluid situation that could be influenced by continued public opposition to ObamaCare. However, even if there were to be a stalemate, the GOP would have been in favor of the Keep Your Healthcare legislation while the Democrats were opposed. Not sure vulnerable Democrats want to be in that position, and there are signs that some are jumping ship.
   1472. BrianBrianson Posted: November 14, 2013 at 04:57 AM (#4599875)
The end justifies the means; but just for Democrats.


The ends would justify the means for Republicans if their ends wasn't a 360 million person 24/365 production of A Handmaid's Tale.
   1473. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 14, 2013 at 05:43 AM (#4599878)
You may want a pet fox now.


I've wanted to pet Samantha Fox since I hit puberty.
   1474. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 14, 2013 at 05:50 AM (#4599879)
But what does the Fox say?
   1475. formerly dp Posted: November 14, 2013 at 07:02 AM (#4599890)
dp., I haven't read any of Hayles's books since Chaos Bound, which is now a long time ago (c1990). I remember thinking that book was a very smart approach to literature. Hayles is akin, I know, with Donna Haraway and others who see the digital age as fundamentally altering humans relations to technology and bodies, but I'm not sure about that; that still sounds more like prediction than observation.
They've since backed off that claim a bit, or at least modified it to show how technology and the human body are *always* engaged in a mutually-constitutive relationship. Hayles' recent How We Think presents a really balanced look at the way digital tools are impacting student learning and cognitive development-- it resists the moral panic language and instead shows how these developments relate to older media transitions. And it's written from the vantage point of someone trying to work through the challenges of retaining what's good about traditional practices of teaching literature while embracing new pedagogical possibilities and techniques.
Digital Humanities is a various field. I've known people who were into digital texts and editions, and who've used data-mining techniques to study a given corpus of literature. I'm mildly interested in digital bibliography and problems of metadata and getting at information. (I maintain a web bibliography of baseball fiction, actually, but it really just emulates print bibliographies, and I've often wondered how to make it more dynamic while maintaining its transparency.)

What are your thoughts?
The type of work you describe in that first sentence can be really useful and productive. But there's a push in DH to learn, master, and build new digital tools; that often involves the displacement of other types of learning, simply because the more advanced digital tools (data visualization software, for example) take a while to get comfortable with. I depend on digital bibliographies, and the easily-searchable archives of books makes moving through these vast bibliographies really efficient. But I'm not building custom software or working with programers in my research the way that the folks dedicated to DH are. If you're midcareer, and you only have so many hours in a week to devote to research, learning a new tool can chew through those hours quickly, without leaving you much to show for it. I think this is the conundrum facing a lot of people considering making the jump. Tricky situation.
   1476. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 14, 2013 at 08:00 AM (#4599902)
Anecdotally, my medical insurance went from $46 per paycheck to $66 per paycheck


Don't you know, anecdotes don't mean #### to the people on here. Get back to us when you've done a fully randomized survey of a statistically significant number of residents of every sex, race, sexual orientation and socioeconomic status from each of the 50 states.
   1477. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 14, 2013 at 08:04 AM (#4599904)
from each of the 50 states


Excuse me, I would prefer worldwide. :)

I like anecdotes, but they are not proof.
   1478. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 14, 2013 at 08:19 AM (#4599907)
The Upton bill stands no chance in the Senate. If it does pass the House, the Senate will substitute the Landrieu bill and send it back to the House. Which will then vote down the Landrieu bill on a party line vote. Net result: stalemate.

The Senate outlook is uncertain. It's not clear that Senate Democrats will even get behind the Landrieu bill, and a lot of Democrats seem to be waiting for Obama's proposal to redeem his "Like It/Keep It" promise, although he's made no commitment to get that out before the House vote. Without a plausible proposal from Obama, the House will vote for the Upton Amendment with substantial votes from vulnerable Democrats. No telling what that will do to the Senate, and it's a very fluid situation that could be influenced by continued public opposition to ObamaCare. However, even if there were to be a stalemate, the GOP would have been in favor of the Keep Your Healthcare legislation while the Democrats were opposed. Not sure vulnerable Democrats want to be in that position, and there are signs that some are jumping ship.


Well, actually from a tactical political perspective... I think I have to agree with YC here...

I think it's a huge mistake, I think it undermines the fabric and point of the ACA to a significant degree, and I'm not even sure how it's feasible -- but similar proposals to the Upton bill are now percolating in the Senate, and not from the Manchins or Baucuses, but from the Merkleys and Feinsteins. Hence, I would put my money on something like this happening. In fact, I'm going to bet that it's near certain.

The reasons I think it's a mistake --

1) Perhaps it's not everyone, but I still firmly believe a very large chunk of people supposedly 'happy' with their cut-rate insurance are placebo happy... as in, they have "health insurance", but have been fortunate in not really needing it. The ACA's mandate is predicated on the idea that Americans will cease being driven into destitution over health care costs. I suppose those numbers still go down, but this is going to blunt the elimination of that problem.

2) As a corollary to 1) above -- people forget that a substantial part of the Medicare savings come from the elimination of the 'charity care' reimbursement escalators to providers. This was a big - but not widely known (even before the ACA) deal. The unfunded mandate of Reagan's 1980s EMTALA was eventually papered over by having Medicare cover the costs of treatments to non-Medicare beneficiaries that weren't paid (i.e., the uninsured who had zero hope of paying a $50k ER bill when they came in with a heart attack or whatever). Providers would submit these not directly to Medicare - but would track the cases and costs, and Medicare would in turn use an escalator equation to increase their reimbursment and "cover" those costs. The problem now -- the 'charity care' escalators are gone... we could eliminate them because, in theory, most everyone is now covered.... This is why minimum coverage standards were so important -- we were getting rid of these scenarios where the fine print would leave someone "covered" by insurance with a bill they could never afford (and would thus, declare bankruptcy, and leave the services unpaid). Now? Well... read the fine print on these plans to be 'grandfathered'.... many of them don't cover emergency services... Where is this money going to come from?

3) Another, separate problem... the law did not outlaw these low cost plans... It simply made them obsolete... How exactly do you pass a law that resurrects plans that PRIVATE INDUSTRIES are ending? Are you suggesting that the government should take over and fund these plans? Are you suggesting that the government should force Aetna, Humana, whomever to maintain plans that are going to become increasingly unprofitable (presumably - grandfathering/"keep your plan" means you wouldn't allow new enrollees).

I suppose I should look at the bright side... if the Upton bill means that the GOP is willing to actually work with the Democrats and WH to tinker with legislation that NO ONE thought was perfect, then this is a good thing. Honestly, if the GOP is willing to toss aside the dead-enders and work under the construct that Obamacare is not going away -- and as such, tinker and fix it, then great... Hell, I am honestly more interested in fixing the issues -- the GOP can even pretend it's the white knight fixing the dumb Democrat's program... so long as the program remains and remains as a program founded in the idea that health care is a right and that some significant manner of public financing, muscular regulatory oversight, and public, government programs are necessary to secure that right.
   1479. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 14, 2013 at 08:40 AM (#4599915)
Anecdotally, my medical insurance went from $46 per paycheck to $66 per paycheck



Don't you know, anecdotes don't mean #### to the people on here. Get back to us when you've done a fully randomized survey of a statistically significant number of residents of every sex, race, sexual orientation and socioeconomic status from each of the 50 states.


from each of the 50 states



Excuse me, I would prefer worldwide. :)

I like anecdotes, but they are not proof.


I'd also say that the anecdotes we're getting are not even complete anecdotes... I'm still in the midst of open enrollment - but it looks like I'll most likely be paying more (mainly because I had to go with "smoker"... though... now 6 weeks since my last cigarette! So next year, looking forward to selecting NON-smoker).

Take Romneycare -- it took time before we knew whether the program worked. As noted (only on liberal sites) -- Romneycare saw similarly anemic numbers during its first month of enrollment. Those numbers picked up. Early returns on Romneycare were the same vis a vis premiums -- OMG, there's no savings here!?!?

Well, check out the polls on Romneycare 5-10 years later.... It's well-liked and there is absolutely ZERO movement within the state to eliminate it.

What's more - what of the anecdotes/more granular data we're NOT seeing...

Want an Obamacare success story?

Look at Kentucky. KY is a poor state, a RED state, with a very high number of uninsured. However, what it did have was a Democratic governor that is far, far from any sort of liberal. Rather than play political games with Obamacare -- Steve Beshear charged full speed ahead with state level implementation, as Obamacare was designed to work best anyway. He implemented the Medicaid expansions.... and guess what... Kentucky Kynect has been a real success story. It's seeing large numbers of sign-ups (relative to uninsured), it's drawing praise nationally AND in-state... in fact -- I've even seen posts on conservative places like RedState calling conservatives living in Kentucky who HAVE signed up and say it's actually NOT a terrible thing "traitors", "RINOs", etc.

The story isn't new... if you want to destroy something - that's a pretty easy thing to do... But look at red state Kentucky - Obamacare can work... if you're at least willing to let it work rather than focus every ounce of energy on scoring political points off it.
   1480. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 14, 2013 at 08:44 AM (#4599920)
I suppose I should look at the bright side... if the Upton bill means that the GOP is willing to actually work with the Democrats and WH to tinker with legislation that NO ONE thought was perfect, then this is a good thing.


And here is the reason for my skepticism.

Obama is not going to let his bill get gutted and the GOP wants only to gut it. Not much common ground there. Folks were trying to fix ACA to help out clergy and the GOP gave them the Heisman.

Oh sure the GOP wants to play politics with it and help win elections*, but actually do something that does not directly undercut ACA? Voting for that is basically a call for an instant primary challenge from the right. Why on Earth would anyone in the GOP vote for that?

* This is not a shot, btw. Playing politics and winning elections is part and parcel with governing in a democracy.
   1481. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: November 14, 2013 at 08:55 AM (#4599931)
Our family plan has not changed notably.
   1482. BDC Posted: November 14, 2013 at 08:58 AM (#4599933)
dp, I will have to get reacquainted with Hayles's work.

If you're midcareer, and you only have so many hours in a week to devote to research, learning a new tool can chew through those hours quickly, without leaving you much to show for it

That's a great observation. Even the tools we now teach with, or use to do administrative tasks, change every couple of years. One now spends a significant, and growing, portion of one's time just learning new applications and platforms. (Not that academics is unique in this respect at all.) I wouldn't want to go back to paper-based research and teaching – nobody who really remembers typewriters and card catalogs would want to. But there is this to be said for a book or a piece of paper: no interface or instructions are needed to deal with it.

Some astonishing things are being done in the "DH." I was recently using materials from the American Life Histories collection of the LOC with my English-language class. The collection includes thousands and thousands of documents that used to reside in file boxes and are now accessible anywhere in fascinatingly "diplomatic" digitized versions that are of great interest even just for their visual form, let alone their content. Yet at the same time, the ability to produce these databases is outstripping the ability to access them. In key ways it's harder to get at a given document than it used to be with card catalogues or printed indexes: the arrangement of the database is a mess, and just to learn how to navigate it will cost you serious time and effort. The tradeoff is that you can read stuff from your tablet that you used to have to get on a Greyhound to Washington and ask a librarian for, of course :)

   1483. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 14, 2013 at 09:02 AM (#4599934)
The TPM anecdote...

It's an anecdote, an anecdote from a liberal, but the fact is -- TPM does employ 20 full-time employees. Josh Marshall actually IS a small-business owner in the truest sense of the word. Here's his experience as an employer that navigates Obamacare for purposes of negotiating a group plan for his employees...
   1484. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 14, 2013 at 09:03 AM (#4599936)
Just for the record, I'm against Obamacare for two reasons, and neither is because it is (supposedly) universal health care.

1) It doesn't have a hope of working as long as the insurance companies and pharma/medical industries are calling the shots
2) Its unconstitutional

Our medical system in Canada is a bit better off, because at least the hospitals are not under corporate control. Even so, our current system is failing because of the ridiculous price of pharmaceuticals (soon to increase since Harper signed the free trade deal with the EU) and medical equipment.

   1485. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: November 14, 2013 at 09:10 AM (#4599938)
The system probably won't work if people can keep these cut-rate policies. Everybody else will be subsidizing the shortfalls and everybody else's premiums will be higher as a result. All the parts of the system depend on the others; there's no way you can change a part this materially and have other parts not be affected.

Cluster8ck of historical magnitude by the Administration.
   1486. GregD Posted: November 14, 2013 at 09:20 AM (#4599941)
Just for the record, I'm against Obamacare for two reasons, and neither is because it is (supposedly) universal health care.

1) It doesn't have a hope of working as long as the insurance companies and pharma/medical industries are calling the shots
2) Its unconstitutional


If you're talking about ideal states, I too am against Obamacare as I am for government-run insurance, not for utilizing private insurers.

Since we compare policies to real-world outcomes, however, #1 feels unconvincing to me, since you say you are opposing Obamacare because pharm/medical are "calling the shots" but under the pre-Obamacare system, pharm/medical called the shots to an even greater degree than they do now. If that is your criteria, it seems odd to support the old way of doing things.

On #2, it is concretely constitutional since a conservative court ruled it so. In terms of whether it fits any one of 300 million different interpretations of what should be constitutional, there can be 300 million different answers to that. Since the Constitution, by definition, cannot concretely answer those questions, I think it's inherently unconvincing to say "this would be great but I consider it unconstitutional."
   1487. simpleton & childlike gef the talking mongoose Posted: November 14, 2013 at 09:26 AM (#4599944)
YR is truly a font of boxing history, unparalleled dry wit, and baseball patriotism. One of the certified All-Stars of BTF.


Although we do have it on good(-ish) authority that he's appallingly short. (Who's shorter, Mouse or YR?)

And if memory serves, he's from, or at least went to school in, Mississippi. Which I guess is actually to his credit, in that that's quite a shortcoming (no pun intended) to deal with.
   1488. simpleton & childlike gef the talking mongoose Posted: November 14, 2013 at 09:28 AM (#4599947)
I didn't come into this thread to talk about politics because I couldn't give a rip about discussing politics on Primer. I came into this thread to once again praise Yankee Redneck not only for his deep, fascinating knowledge of boxing, but also to thank him for the YouTube link to Mike Tyson discussing all-time boxing greats, which is totally compelling even for someone like me who knows nothing of the sport. Really does demonstrate how sharp Tyson actually is: his discussion of various fighters and their styles is truly great, and he adds in so much relevant historical background about each of them as well. His observations about Jack Dempsey are really quite riveting.


And I haven't given a rip about boxing since Ali's decline phase, back I guess when I was in high school ... but this sounds like very worthwhile watching. I'll have to give it a look at home, assuming I can stand to listen to Tyson's horrible voice, which makes Michael Jackson sound like Ted ####### Cassidy. Ugh.
   1489. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: November 14, 2013 at 09:34 AM (#4599953)
Obama's lie and the HHS bumbling play right into the hands of the Teapers and significanlty set back prospects for even better healthcare reform in the future. BP fastball down the middle for those buffoons, who can now say quite plausibly, "See what happened when we let the government get its hands on our health care? Told you so."

Obama needed to have anticpated this and moved heaven and earth to make the rollout efficient and effective. The cause of getting the stupid out of the system depended on him. He had literally years to get ready.

He failed miserably.
   1490. Howie Menckel Posted: November 14, 2013 at 09:46 AM (#4599961)

I'm a little surprised how many people think the "like it/keep it" issue is no big deal. I imagine Republicans said the same about "read my lips: NO NEW TAXES" from G Bush I - and I don't recall him repeating that one ad infinitum.

One could make an interesting theoretical argument defending both comments, and why \"#### happens." But they're still politically problematic, which I would think should be obvious.

   1491. Greg K Posted: November 14, 2013 at 09:47 AM (#4599964)
And I haven't given a rip about boxing since Ali's decline phase, back I guess when I was in high school ... but this sounds like very worthwhile watching. I'll have to give it a look at home, assuming I can stand to listen to Tyson's horrible voice, which makes Michael Jackson sound like Ted ####### Cassidy. Ugh.

I'm going to second Esoteric on the Tyson link. Don't know boxing at all, but a riveting watch.

Also of note, not sure if the idea of domesticated foxes is wonderful or troubling, but I suppose it's better than being hunted.
   1492. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 14, 2013 at 09:47 AM (#4599965)
Take Romneycare -- it took time before we knew whether the program worked. As noted (only on liberal sites) -- Romneycare saw similarly anemic numbers during its first month of enrollment. Those numbers picked up. Early returns on Romneycare were the same vis a vis premiums -- OMG, there's no savings here!?!?

Well, check out the polls on Romneycare 5-10 years later.... It's well-liked and there is absolutely ZERO movement within the state to eliminate it.

What's more - what of the anecdotes/more granular data we're NOT seeing...

Want an Obamacare success story?

Look at Kentucky. KY is a poor state, a RED state, with a very high number of uninsured. However, what it did have was a Democratic governor that is far, far from any sort of liberal. Rather than play political games with Obamacare -- Steve Beshear charged full speed ahead with state level implementation, as Obamacare was designed to work best anyway. He implemented the Medicaid expansions.... and guess what... Kentucky Kynect has been a real success story. It's seeing large numbers of sign-ups (relative to uninsured), it's drawing praise nationally AND in-state... in fact -- I've even seen posts on conservative places like RedState calling conservatives living in Kentucky who HAVE signed up and say it's actually NOT a terrible thing "traitors", "RINOs", etc.

The story isn't new... if you want to destroy something - that's a pretty easy thing to do... But look at red state Kentucky - Obamacare can work... IF you're at least willing to let it work rather than focus every ounce of energy on scoring political points off it.


QFT. All the Republicans give a #### about is sabotage.

-------------------------------------------

Our medical system in Canada is a bit better off, because at least the hospitals are not under corporate control. Even so, our current system is failing because of the ridiculous price of pharmaceuticals (soon to increase since Harper signed the free trade deal with the EU) and medical equipment.

Funny, because I've been buying my prescription eyedrops for years from Canada's Universal Drug Store, with no insurance, and I've been saving hundreds of dollars a year over what those prescriptions would cost on the cheapest U.S. website. I could have saved even more, but I've always insisted on the Canadian-produced product, rather than those made in Turkey or India.

-------------------------------------------

Obama's lie and the HHS bumbling play right into the hands of the Teapers and significanlty set back prospects for even better healthcare reform in the future. BP fastball down the middle for those buffoons, who can now say quite plausibly, "See what happened when we let the government get its hands on our health care? Told you so."

You're seeing the truth of that statement more and more every day. They've nearly put themselves in the political equivalent of zugzwang.

   1493. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 14, 2013 at 09:52 AM (#4599971)

I'm a little surprised how many people think the "like it/keep it" issue is no big deal. I imagine Republicans said the same about "read my lips: NO NEW TAXES" from G Bush I - and I don't recall him repeating that one ad infinitum.


Well, Obama has the advantage of not being up for reelection... and while I remain a rock solid supporter, I'm not going to pitch a fit if congressional dems running for office toss him under the bus during their campaigns, should it come to that.

Call it a quibble, I guess -- but there's also a qualitative difference... i.e., "NO {as in absolutely none} new taxes" was followed by an across-the-board tax increase that hit everyone... while "like it/keep it" was followed by the reality of the overwhelming 90something percent majority of you will keep your plan, but an extremely small number of you percentage wise will be squeezed out by the details.

...I guess I would also add... Did Bush I lose in '92 because of the read my lips -- or -- did he lose because the economy was sputtering and he was running against the politically gifted "man from Hope", whose campaign team quite smartly spent the entire campaign pounding the economy? Read my lips didn't help - but I think Bush I loses in 92 even if he never says that/never signs the tax bill.
   1494. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 14, 2013 at 09:55 AM (#4599977)
I'm a little surprised how many people think the "like it/keep it" issue is no big deal. I imagine Republicans said the same about "read my lips: NO NEW TAXES" from G Bush I - and I don't recall him repeating that one ad infinitum.

One could make an interesting theoretical argument defending both comments, and why "#### happens." But they're still politically problematic, which I would think should be obvious.


The only "defense" I can think of is to try to look at the long range view, when the dust settles and people realize that the numbers who benefit from Obamacare far surpass the numbers who don't like being told to scrap their placebo policies**. Unfortunately, this perspective works only as long as you don't start thinking about what Keynes said about the long run.

**As zonk and others have noted repeatedly, how many of those policies actually cover medical catastrophes? And how many of them are ever renewed at all at the same rates once they're actually used to pay for anything substantive?
   1495. Mefisto Posted: November 14, 2013 at 09:55 AM (#4599978)
similar proposals to the Upton bill are now percolating in the Senate, and not from the Manchins or Baucuses, but from the Merkleys and Feinsteins.


I believe there's some confusion here. Feinstein is a co-sponsor of the Landrieu bill and I believe Merkley is too. Her bill DOES solve the problem. What's clever is that she allows people to keep their policies, but forces insurance companies to disclose (a) the existence of cheaper alternatives; and (b) the exact provisions of the ACA which require non-renewal of the policy (rather than make general references, many of which are false).

Upton's bill is a giveaway to the insurance companies because it allows them to continue ripping off consumers with no consequences, and it undermines the ACA. Obama is very unlikely to agree to it.

As for the politics, the Dems now can say that they have a solution (Landrieu) and the House is blocking it.
   1496. GregD Posted: November 14, 2013 at 09:56 AM (#4599979)
Obama's lie and the HHS bumbling play right into the hands of the Teapers and significanlty set back prospects for even better healthcare reform in the future. BP fastball down the middle for those buffoons, who can now say quite plausibly, "See what happened when we let the government get its hands on our health care? Told you so."


Things should be handled better because they should be handled better. Period.

But the rest of what you're saying sounds totally unconvincing to me. "Set back prospects for even better healthcare in the future"? How? Support for "even better healthcare" was at absolute zero in the Republican caucus before any of this happened. Prior to summer of 2010, there were thoughts that it was going to be possible to tinker, but the turn in those primaries scared--understandably--100% of Republicans from that position. Since then, the only prospect for changes, then as now, was for the system coming on board and creating a dynamic where it is the status quo and some people start to make different arguments. But that's always been a post-2014 and possibly post-2016 dynamic.

Given the odds of short-term fixes getting through Congress was zero, it seems strange to blame this for setting back prospects that didn't exist. How can you go below zero? The operating limit on improving the system legislatively since the summer of 2010 has been Republican primary voters and the Republican politicians who responded rationally to their turn out in 2010.

But there's nothing especially new or surprising about this dynamic. Republicans ran to destroy Social Security for a long time before they switched to fixing it. Same with Medicare. Same for that matter with Democrats and slavery, even in the North in 1864. No major reform has entered in to the political system with the other party embracing the let's tinker and fix this mode until it was so established that it couldn't imaginably go away.
   1497. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 14, 2013 at 10:01 AM (#4599986)
If that is your criteria, it seems odd to support the old way of doing things.


I don't support the old way of doing things at all, but I think the ACA effectively just adds another middleman to an already top heavy system.

Funny, because I've been buying my prescription eyedrops for years from Canada's Universal Drug Store, with no insurance, and I've been saving hundreds of dollars a year over what those prescriptions would cost on the cheapest U.S. website. I could have saved even more, but I've always insisted on the Canadian-produced product, rather than those made in Turkey or India.


Our drugs are certainly much cheaper than yours, but the CETA (FT agreement with the EU) will lengthen the patent protections big pharma enjoys, delaying the arrival of much cheaper generic versions.
   1498. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 14, 2013 at 10:03 AM (#4599991)
Obama needed to have anticpated this and moved heaven and earth to make the rollout efficient and effective. The cause of getting the stupid out of the system depended on him. He had literally years to get ready.


I am going to go out on a limb and suggest you have little or no experience with large complex IT projects. And hey I am willing to blame Obama, he is President. But many large IT projects have rollout issues and are screwed for months. And often times there is little or nothing the CEO, President, or whoever can do, and "obvious" fixes like throwing people at the problem or having them work 24x7 actually just make things worse.

Tiny anecdote. I have been working on some code the last week or so, and it was complex and just getting worse. Bugs all over and with every scope increase I had to go through the whole damn mess and add more crap. I finally was laying in bed and had a breakthrough that simplified everything. I ended up being able to throw away nearly half the crap I had written and with minor tweaks ended up with a much simpler code set - in just a few hours I was done with the whole thing.

If I were operating under high pressure, tight deadline, people above needing constant status updates I never would have made that breakthrough, I would have kept digging in the more complex "solution" fixing bug after bug and making "progress". I would have finished, likely early next week, but it would have been a mess and hard to support going forward.

Although we do have it on good(-ish) authority that he's appallingly short. (Who's shorter, Mouse or YR?)


I am 5'3", so a couple standard deviations below normal. I am always surprised when I see a male as short as me, a second of "wow that guy is short" followed by "hey, he is my height". Amusingly many of my friends forget just how short I am.
   1499. BDC Posted: November 14, 2013 at 10:05 AM (#4599994)
Did Bush I lose in '92 because of the read my lips -- or -- did he lose because the economy was sputtering and he was running against the politically gifted "man from Hope", whose campaign team quite smartly spent the entire campaign pounding the economy?

It remains a conundrum, because Bush 41 had very high approval ratings even after the trough of the 1990-91 recession (70% as high as Labor Day 1991). Growth was slow and sometimes stagnated, but it had resumed and 41 was still riding worldwide and domestic acclaim after the first Gulf War and the fall of the Iron Curtain. Probably one factor was that the glow of the international successes faded and the economy was still struggling, as you say.

I don't think the tax issue was a big one, though the deficit certainly was. Ross Perot intervened as a deficit hawk who was not particularly proto-Tea-Party on the topic of taxes, at least as I remember it. But he did insist on spending restraint, something Reagan had been unfamiliar with and Bush 41 perhaps even more so. Perot's entry certainly helped Bush lose, and had significant gravitational force on government spending and deficit reduction throughout the Clinton years. IOW, people would pay more taxes if they saw them used wisely, not squandered.
   1500. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: November 14, 2013 at 10:06 AM (#4599995)
"Set back prospects for even better healthcare in the future"? How?

Because the cause of reform isn't helped by the first swing at reform being bungled so badly.

This is controversial?
Page 15 of 24 pages ‹ First  < 13 14 15 16 17 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
There are a lot of good people in alt-Shooty
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogJack Morris, Alan Trammell elected to Hall | MLB.com
(55 - 12:50am, Dec 11)
Last: The Ghost of Logan Schafer

NewsblogRyan Thibs has his HOF Ballot Tracker Up and Running!
(332 - 12:49am, Dec 11)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogOT - 2017 NFL thread
(378 - 12:49am, Dec 11)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogAlan Trammell worthy of Cooperstown call
(44 - 12:36am, Dec 11)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogOTP 04 December 2017: Baseball group accused of ‘united front’ tactics
(1727 - 12:17am, Dec 11)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

Gonfalon CubsLooking to next year
(299 - 12:15am, Dec 11)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogThe Giancarlo Stanton Trade Shines a Light on the Sad Difference Between the Mets and Yankees
(27 - 11:53pm, Dec 10)
Last: Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb

Hall of Merit2018 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(316 - 10:45pm, Dec 10)
Last: Bleed the Freak

NewsblogYankees in talks on Giancarlo Stanton trade
(183 - 10:38pm, Dec 10)
Last: kwarren

NewsblogShohei Ohtani’s Value Has No Precedent | FiveThirtyEight
(26 - 10:34pm, Dec 10)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogShohei Ohtani agrees to deal with Angels | Los Angeles Angels
(59 - 9:37pm, Dec 10)
Last: PreservedFish

Hall of Merit2018 Hall of Merit Ballot
(18 - 8:37pm, Dec 10)
Last: Chris Fluit

NewsblogRosenthal: He’s 53 and hasn’t played in the majors since 2005, but Rafael Palmeiro is eyeing a comeback, and redemption – The Athletic
(94 - 8:07pm, Dec 10)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOT - NBA 2017-2018 Tip-off Thread
(1895 - 7:03pm, Dec 10)
Last: don't ask 57i66135; he wants to hang them all

NewsblogOT: Winter Soccer Thread
(288 - 1:16pm, Dec 10)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine

Page rendered in 0.8358 seconds
47 querie(s) executed