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

Wednesday, March 05, 2014

OTP - March 2014: Russia denies calling shots in Ukraine’s Crimea standoff

Only Babe Ruth calls shots!

At a press conference for Kremlin-controlled media on Tuesday, Putin reiterated his position that Moscow has the right to use “all means” necessary to protect ethnic Russians and vital military assets in Ukraine, first among them the Black Sea fleet in the Crimean port of Sevastopol.

 

Bitter Mouse Posted: March 05, 2014 at 08:54 AM | 3254 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: lies, politics, war

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 12 of 33 pages ‹ First  < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >  Last ›
   1101. The Good Face Posted: March 12, 2014 at 04:13 PM (#4670505)
Neither have I rebutted the "argument" the world is flat, the moon is made of green cheese, or that the lizard people* secretly rule the world. I think it lovely that you continue to double down that North Korea is a democracy, and really hope you keep it up.


The difference is, NK has the necessary elements of a democracy. They have political parties, they have a body to which representatives are elected, there is voting to determine which members of said parties are elected to said body, etc. How is that not a democracy? Just because NK is an oppressive hellhole that treats its people horribly doesn't preclude it from being a democracy. If the argument is so wrong, it should be trivial for you to rebut it, but you CAN'T. So once again, we're left with you pointing and spluttering.
   1102. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 12, 2014 at 04:14 PM (#4670506)
Actual headline from The National Journal - Republican Wins Bellwether Florida Special Election.


I am shocked the MSM would ever overplay the results of a special election. Amazing.
   1103. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: March 12, 2014 at 04:16 PM (#4670509)
Obviously the village horse racers will think it's meaningful to their precious horse races.
   1104. Shredder Posted: March 12, 2014 at 04:18 PM (#4670512)
The actual data through February is showing that the Administration missed its mark. Are you expecting a big change in the last weeks?
It hardly matters, but I think the people enrolling in the later portions of the open enrollment period will skew younger. It's exactly what has been happening, exactly what everyone has expected to happen, and exactly what happened in Massachusetts. Furthermore, even with the missed projections (and even assuming things were worse than they actually are), it's still not "death spiral" bad (unless you disagree with Kaiser report, an argument that no one here has actually made). If you want to play the "What if they're wrong" game, that's fine I guess, but it doesn't add a whole heck of a lot to the debate.

Do you think the percentage of enrollees will be dramatically older in the last month of open enrollment? If so, what's your basis for this belief?
   1105. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 12, 2014 at 04:19 PM (#4670513)
They just had an election last week!

Didn't third generation dude win 100% of the vote? If that doesn't scream democracy I don't know what does.


Well as they say in North Korea, "You don't change horses in mid-stream."
   1106. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 12, 2014 at 04:20 PM (#4670516)
The difference is, NK has the necessary elements of a democracy.


Democracy.

government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.


Except for the fact that supreme power is vested in the third generation Supreme Leader.

What does Wikipedia have to say about North Korea?

Although the DPRK officially describes itself as a Juche Korean-style socialist republic[10] and elections are held, it is widely considered a dictatorship that has been described as totalitarian and Stalinist[19][2][20] with an elaborate cult of personality around the Kim family. The Workers' Party of Korea, led by a member of the ruling family,[20] holds de facto power in the state and leads the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland of which all political officers are required to be a member.[21] Juche, an ideology of self-reliance initiated by the country's first President, Kim Il-sung, became the official state ideology, replacing Marxism–Leninism, when the country adopted a new constitution in 1972.[22][23] In 2009, references to Communism (Chos?n'g?l: ????) were removed from the country's constitution.[24]

The means of production are owned by the state through state-run enterprises and collectivized farms, and most services such as healthcare, education, housing and food production are state funded or subsidized.[25]


In other news the moon is, in fact, NOT made of Green Cheese.

The Moon is a differentiated body: it has a geochemically distinct crust, mantle, and core. The Moon has a solid iron-rich inner core with a radius of 240 kilometers and a fluid outer core primarily made of liquid iron with a radius of roughly 300 kilometers. Around the core is a partially molten boundary layer with a radius of about 500 kilometers.[35] This structure is thought to have developed through the fractional crystallization of a global magma ocean shortly after the Moon's formation 4.5 billion years ago.[36] Crystallization of this magma ocean would have created a mafic mantle from the precipitation and sinking of the minerals olivine, clinopyroxene, and orthopyroxene; after about three-quarters of the magma ocean had crystallised, lower-density plagioclase minerals could form and float into a crust on top.[37] The final liquids to crystallise would have been initially sandwiched between the crust and mantle, with a high abundance of incompatible and heat-producing elements.[1] Consistent with this, geochemical mapping from orbit shows the crust is mostly anorthosite,[6] and moon rock samples of the flood lavas erupted on the surface from partial melting in the mantle confirm the mafic mantle composition, which is more iron rich than that of Earth.[1] Geophysical techniques suggest that the crust is on average ~50 km thick.[1]
   1107. Shredder Posted: March 12, 2014 at 04:22 PM (#4670517)
In other news the moon is, in fact, NOT made of Green Cheese.
Sure, if you believe everything on Wikipedia.
   1108. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 12, 2014 at 04:27 PM (#4670522)
Actual headline from The National Journal - Republican Wins Bellwether Florida Special Election.

I am shocked the MSM would ever overplay the results of a special election. Amazing.


And after the National Republican Congressional Committee chair specifically told them not to!
   1109. The Good Face Posted: March 12, 2014 at 04:30 PM (#4670526)
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.


NK's government claims they govern in the name of the people, just like USG does. Again, this is a difference in degree, not in kind.

So when did the US become a democracy? Surely you're not arguing the electoral system was "free" in the 18th or 19th centuries, or most of the 20th century?

Point being, all the criticisms you've leveled against NK can be leveled at USG's democracy as well.

The means of production are owned by the state through state-run enterprises and collectivized farms, and most services such as healthcare, education, housing and food production are state funded or subsidized.[25]


What's the problem? You've been trying to accomplish this through voting for decades.
   1110. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: March 12, 2014 at 04:32 PM (#4670532)
NK's government claims they govern in the name of the people, just like USG does.


"Claim" is where you're losing touch with reality.
   1111. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 12, 2014 at 04:38 PM (#4670537)
NK's government claims they govern in the name of the people, just like USG does. Again, this is a difference in degree, not in kind.


So find me a source with any credibility at all* that declares NK is a democracy. I can find many that declare the US a democracy and many that declare NK is not a democracy.

You can feel free to believe what you want - lord knows you believe some really dumb stuff - but here in reality, where the adults agree on some stuff, we pretty much all know NK is not a democracy, just like we know - even without holding a moon rock in our hand - that the moon is not made of green cheese.

* Sadly neither you nor North Korea are credible on the subject. Try the UN, or US State department, some other nations state department, the IMF, Vatican, someone.
   1112. The Good Face Posted: March 12, 2014 at 04:46 PM (#4670541)
So find me a source with any credibility at all* that declares NK is a democracy. I can find many that declare the US a democracy and many that declare NK is not a democracy.


So having failed to actually support your claims, you've descended not only to an appeal to authority, but limited it to an authority you approve of. Like I said, you're reduced to pointing and spluttering. If it's so obvious, so trivially easy to rebut, why can't you do it in your own words?

   1113. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 12, 2014 at 04:48 PM (#4670542)
Not sure what comes next. Many are speculating that Obama will waive the Individual Mandate penalties once the sign-up period ends.

Obama essentially already did. See #936.

***
The individual mandate, by requiring people purchase insurance, is a method to ensure there is no death spiral (if everyone gets insurance then the population can't be less healthy than expected, assuming competent actuaries), however lack of a mandate is not a sufficient condition for a death spiral.

The analysis I saw (which was posted on a thread back when) suggested given the numbers of people who had signed up back then, that there was no real threat of a death spiral. And more people have signed up in the meantime.

This is wishcasting of the highest order. If Obama & Co. truly believed Obamacare could survive without the individual mandate, they wouldn't have incurred a huge political (and electoral) cost by imposing one. And if Obamacare is doing even half as well as some here seem to believe, why does Obama keep delaying enforcement of so much of it? If things are so rosy, why has Obama punted enforcement of key aspects of his signature 2009 law until 2016?
   1114. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 12, 2014 at 05:01 PM (#4670552)
How is that not a democracy? Just because NK is an oppressive hellhole that treats its people horribly doesn't preclude it from being a democracy.


No, the fact that every one of the "necessary elements of a democracy" you mention are (in NK) a complete and utter sham is what precludes NK from being a democracy.
   1115. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 12, 2014 at 05:01 PM (#4670553)
So having failed to actually support your claims, you've descended not only to an appeal to authority, but limited it to an authority you approve of.


Did you read #1106? It lays out my case. You have failed to rebut any part of it. And I am not appealing to an authority, I am suggesting you are either insane or a moron and as proof of this there is no reasonable third party authority who agrees with you. If you can't find ANY authority in this whole world which agrees with you then perhaps your belief is yours alone. What you have is faith, a vision, and no amount of words, mine or otherwise will convince you otherwise.

But basically I don't want to convince you. Everyone else knows NK is not a democracy, and so having you rave on the corner that the lizard people are controlling our minds is a source of amusement for me. Please don't change your mind. I want to keep making fun of you and your North Korean Democracy Fairy.
   1116. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 12, 2014 at 05:04 PM (#4670557)
This is wishcasting of the highest order.


Backed up by a study. And as to all your "If..." I will throw a question back at you, so what?

Even if the worst case comes to pass*, so what? Describe what you think the next steps are. It does not lead to ACA being repealed. So where does it go?

* And it won't, but keep clapping.
   1117. CrosbyBird Posted: March 12, 2014 at 05:06 PM (#4670561)
So having failed to actually support your claims, you've descended not only to an appeal to authority, but limited it to an authority you approve of. Like I said, you're reduced to pointing and spluttering. If it's so obvious, so trivially easy to rebut, why can't you do it in your own words?

Fundamental to democracy is the idea that the people participate in the process of crafting the government. The people of North Korea have no choice of leaders, nor do they exert any political influence over the system that regulates their lives.

It would be reasonable to say that the United States government has elements of democracy, oligarchy, and plutocracy, and therefore isn't a true democracy. However, there are strong democratic elements within the system, and the people possess significant power to change things even if their power is not close to absolute.

Characterizing North Korea as a democracy is parody. It is like giving someone a transistor radio in a box labeled "MP3 player" and insisting that the exterior determines the contents.
   1118. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 12, 2014 at 05:09 PM (#4670564)
Many are speculating that Obama will waive the Individual Mandate penalties once the sign-up period ends.

Obama essentially already did. See #936.

Something more overt may be in order, given the Administration's history of ObamaCare exemptions, exceptions, waivers, postponements & delays. Obviously it's not something they want to talk about before the enrollment period ends, but the political types in the Administration, i.e., everyone, can't relish the idea of imposing a tax penalty on those [voters] who don't enroll.

   1119. Shredder Posted: March 12, 2014 at 05:09 PM (#4670566)
Hey look, Phil Klein wrote basically the same article he wrote three months ago (must be how he can pump so many out), only this time, he didn't mention the Kaiser report. Someone must have actually told him what was in it.
   1120. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 12, 2014 at 05:13 PM (#4670567)
It does not lead to ACA being repealed. So where does it go?

Major parts of it have already been repealed. The individual mandate for one. Obama repealed it.
   1121. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 12, 2014 at 05:18 PM (#4670570)
Backed up by a study. And as to all your "If..." I will throw a question back at you, so what?

Even if the worst case comes to pass*, so what? Describe what you think the next steps are. It does not lead to ACA being repealed. So where does it go?

The idea that it absolutely, positively, no-chance-in-the-world won't lead to repeal is more wishcasting.

Obamacare is already hugely unpopular — and most people still haven't been affected by it yet. When 2016 rolls around and major parts of Obamacare are (finally) due to be enforced, if the projections of Obamacare's impact on those segments of the insured are just as bad as they were for 2014, it's not remotely out of the question that Dems will join the GOP to repeal Obamacare. Hell, if 2014 goes as expected for the GOP, there might not even be any need for Dem votes. Obama, of course, could veto such legislation, but that could cripple the 2016 Dem nominee's chances.

If Bill and Hillary have to choose between possibly winning in 2016 and keeping Obamacare, does anyone think that discussion lasts longer than about half a second?
   1122. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 12, 2014 at 05:20 PM (#4670571)
Even if the worst case comes to pass*, so what? Describe what you think the next steps are. It does not lead to ACA being repealed. So where does it go?

This has been asked & answered. If ObamaCare premiums rise by too much, they won't be competitive even if that doesn't reach formal death spiral levels. We haven't even got to all the problems that will arise from the Employer Mandate, Cadillac Tax, and Medical Device Tax. The GOP will push legislation that allows pre-ObamaCare policies, and with a few more election losses, I'm not sure how many Democrats would oppose it, but that would be academic if they lose the White House. The idea that a bad law can't be repealed and replaced is lunacy - "it's a bad law but you're stuck with it" doesn't win elections.
   1123. The Good Face Posted: March 12, 2014 at 05:37 PM (#4670582)
No, the fact that every one of the "necessary elements of a democracy" you mention are (in NK) a complete and utter sham is what precludes NK from being a democracy.


Now we're getting closer to the point. NK democracy is almost certainly a "sham"; but you can level those same criticisms towards USG's democracy. The only difference is in degree, not in kind. They're both "democracies". One is just more pleasant to live in.
   1124. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 12, 2014 at 05:41 PM (#4670585)
Major parts of it have already been repealed. The individual mandate for one. Obama repealed it


Obama did what Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Ted Cruz could never do. I expect to see his invitation at CPAC next year!
   1125. JE (Jason) Posted: March 12, 2014 at 05:41 PM (#4670587)
Hey look, Phil Klein wrote basically the same article he wrote three months ago (must be how he can pump so many out), only this time, he didn't mention the Kaiser report. Someone must have actually told him what was in it.

Don't worry your pretty little head, Shredder: Next time I bump into Phil, I'll demand to know why he didn't label Kaiser's analysts as Obamacare cheerleaders.
   1126. JE (Jason) Posted: March 12, 2014 at 05:48 PM (#4670591)
Here are a couple of more ancillary benefits of the "interim" nuclear deal with Iran: Hamas and Iran admit increased cooperation and Gazans bombard southern Israel in massive rocket attack.

But alas, the settlements are to blame!

EDIT: At least No. 10 Downing Steet isn't buying that line: Cameron came to praise Israel, not bury it.
   1127. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 12, 2014 at 06:08 PM (#4670594)
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (Dem. Texas) declared on the House floor today that the Constitution was 400 years old:
“Maybe I should offer a good thanks to the distinguished members of the majority, the Republicans, my chairman and others, for giving us an opportunity to have a deliberative constitutional discussion that reinforces the sanctity of this nation and how well it is that we have lasted some 400 years, operating under a constitution that clearly defines what is constitutional and what is not,” she said.

I really feel old, since I spent the Bicentennial on the Mall in Washington, D.C. Seems like just yesterday.
   1128. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 12, 2014 at 06:09 PM (#4670595)
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (Dem. Texas) declared on the House floor today that the Constitution was 400 years old:


Regardless of party, politicians from Texas are required to be idiots. I think it's part of the state's 250-year-old constitution.
   1129. Greg K Posted: March 12, 2014 at 06:11 PM (#4670598)
I really feel old, since I spent the Bicentennial on the Mall in Washington, D.C. Seems like just yesterday.

I'd say she is referring to the Petition of Right...but that was only 386 years ago.
   1130. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 12, 2014 at 06:15 PM (#4670599)
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (Dem. Texas) declared on the House floor today that the Constitution was 400 years old:

Regardless of party, politicians from Texas are required to be idiots. I think it's a matter of law.


No, no, no, it's 400 Venusian years old, and if there were Venusians in Texas Government that would actually explain a great deal
   1131. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 12, 2014 at 06:19 PM (#4670600)
how well it is that we have lasted some 400 years


I think she intended for the 400 years to refer to Jamestown/Plymouth foundings approximately 400 years ago, but then screwed it up by implying that the Constitution was in effect all those years, or perhaps I'm being too charitable and she's merely an ignoramus, but the again many f not most of her Texas GOP colleagues believe the earth is 6000 years old and that God wrote the Constitution, so she's in good company.
   1132. JE (Jason) Posted: March 12, 2014 at 06:26 PM (#4670602)
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (Dem. Texas) declared on the House floor today that the Constitution was 400 years old:

That's pretty cute, Clapper. Although Jackson-Lee is by a sizable margin the worst boss on the Hill -- yes, even worse than Michele Bachmann -- the woman is a pretty smart cookie and I'll let this one slide.

However, all bets are off if she misspells R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
   1133. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 12, 2014 at 06:26 PM (#4670604)
I think she intended for the 400 years to refer to Jamestown/Plymouth foundings approximately 400 years ago, but then screwed it up by implying that the Constitution was in effect all those years, or perhaps I'm being too charitable and she's merely an ignoramus, but the again many f not most of her Texas GOP colleagues believe the earth is 6000 years old and that God wrote the Constitution, so she's in good company.

These are mass political parties.
   1134. zonk Posted: March 12, 2014 at 06:29 PM (#4670605)
Not that anyone actually cares about making the policy - or "health care"/"health care insurance"/"health care insurance access" -- work anymore, I guess...

But it's a bit ironic that during the Democratic primary - that was essentially the main difference between Obama's primary plan and Hillary's primary plan... They had debates on it. The interwebs - before the Obama/Clinton primary became a bit ugly - on the left debated it endlessly. Hillary's plan was essentially carrot and stick (make insurance accessible and affordable via subsidies, stricter limits on exclusionary policy loopholes from insurers, also incentive via subsidies business to offer coverage -- but also add penalties to the uninsured and businesses that don't cover) while Obama was all carrot (make insurance accessible and affordable via subsidies, stricter limits on exclusionary policy loopholes from insurers, also incentive via subsidies business to offer coverage -- and alone they will come).

What's more - while I cannot find McCain's old campaign website-- I do vaguely recall Obama somewhat "tweaking" McCain about the mandate (i.e., I remember at one point - maybe the first SOTU or a presser - Obama nodding to McCain and talking about "using any good idea" in discussing his decision to bless inclusion of a mandate).

Of course, the President doesn't get to write laws - so it's foolish to think any policy proposal from a Presidential campaign that involves anything more than simple nothings survives the sausage making factory... but -

It really ought to be noted that the primary reason the mandates were added were simply to balance the books for Medicare and Medicaid... Nobody -- no Republican candidate in the 2008 primary or 2012 primary -- has EVER suggested repealing EMTALA... Hell -- you can find plenty of instances where Republicans in office have said point blank "Every American does have access to health care... They can just go to the hospital."... but - without mentioning the fact that someone has to pay for it -- and that someone in our system is Medicare, via the the reimbursement escalators for charity care.

In order to realize the savings for Medicare -- you had to get rid of the charity care provisions/reimbursement upgrades...

In order to make it possible for our health insurance schema to continue to carry individuals who were no longer profitable because either preexisting conditions or risk levels exceeded what the insurer would get in premiums -- you had to add more revenue (in the form of healthy individuals) to the rolls.

I mean... who actually WANTS to buy health insurance? I don't even want to pay for car insurance -- I've had exactly one moving violation in 20 years and I've been in exactly ONE accident, where I wasn't even at fault -- I'd much prefer to pocket the ~$1000 a year.

The free market faeries simply are not going to take flight with ill-thought out, short-sighted, and unrealistic ideas like letting insurers cross state lines. Healthcare everywhere - in every country is complex, expensive, and pretty big issue.

Hell, at this point -- if the House GOP wants to pass an ACA fix that simply strips out all of the mandates (but without touching the popular goodies)... go for it. Just sign a pledge to put the budget implications into the same bucket as the DoD budget and Medicare itself. Who knows... maybe it actually WOULD work so long as the guiderails and subsidies were in place that open up access. The CBO and numbers guys don't think so, but numbers guys can be wrong.
   1135. steagles Posted: March 12, 2014 at 06:33 PM (#4670608)
Obamacare is already hugely unpopular — and most people still haven't been affected by it yet.

i think you've just summed up this whole issue better than anyone else could have. but probably not in the way you think.
   1136. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 12, 2014 at 06:33 PM (#4670609)
Of course, the President doesn't get to write laws

He's written the health care law. For the executive branch to delay the individual mandate indefinitely on its whim, either the law was very poorly written (*), or the executive branch has acted extra-legally.

(*) It's absolutely shocking that the Supreme Court case had that much fanfare and there was seemingly nothing about it indicating the unfettered discretion the exeutive branch had to simply do away with the core issue of the case. What was all the hullabaloo about?
   1137. zonk Posted: March 12, 2014 at 06:36 PM (#4670613)
My enduring memory of Jackson-Lee is that she probably gave Bud Selig the hardest time about 15-20 years ago when MLB was talking contraction or maybe it was around a strike..I wish I could dig up the hearings... Anyway, there was some hullaballo in Congress about taking away MLB's antitrust exemption.

I mean, it was a standard Congressional grandstanding event -- and one of those rare ones where everyone gets to take shots at the most convenient punching bags -- but I remember taping it (yeah - it was that long ago) on C-SPAN and being tickled listening to her threaten, belittle, and mock Bud Selig. Everyone got their shots in -- but hers were the best.
   1138. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 12, 2014 at 06:37 PM (#4670614)
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (Dem. Texas) declared on the House floor today that the Constitution was 400 years old:

This is the same woman who, on a visit to NASA, asked if the Mars Rover would be visiting the area where U.S. astronauts planted the flag.
   1139. zonk Posted: March 12, 2014 at 06:40 PM (#4670617)

He's written the health care law. For the executive branch to delay the individual mandate indefinitely on its whim, either the law was very poorly written (*), or the executive branch has acted extra-legally.


Most places where the legislative branch writes statutory language saying "The Secretary [perform some action]" -- you give the executive branch a ton of room to maneuver. Even when if write it as "The Secretary shall" -- but the specific provision is predicated on another provision happening where the Secretary "will", "may", etc -- there's plenty of perfectly legal ways to deal with it.

It's really not unlike a ton of other laws... Statutes are guideposts - the regulations are expected to do the details... and anything not specifically nailed down is a "detail".

   1140. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 12, 2014 at 06:42 PM (#4670619)
It's really not unlike a ton of other laws... Statutes are guideposts - the regulations are expected to do the details... and anything not specifically nailed down is a "detail".

Obamacare was signed into law in 2009. Those "details" should have been nailed down long before 2013 (or 2014, or 2016, or whenever Obama decides Obamacare is ready for prime time).
   1141. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 12, 2014 at 06:43 PM (#4670622)
Most places where the legislative branch writes statutory language saying "The Secretary [perform some action]" -- you give the executive branch a ton of room to maneuver. Even when if write it as "The Secretary shall" -- but the specific provision is predicated on another provision happening where the Secretary "will", "may", etc -- there's plenty of perfectly legal ways to deal with it.

It's really not unlike a ton of other laws... Statutes are guideposts - the regulations are expected to do the details... and anything not specifically nailed down is a "detail".


I know all this; I've worked in one of the branches.

The power to do away with a critical component of the law typically isn't left to the executive branch. Define it, or refine it, maybe. Eliminate it, no. I suppose they've just "postponed it," but the law never should have let them do that, other than in some kind of emergency.

Obamacare is a patchwork mess at this point. Unsupportable.
   1142. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 12, 2014 at 06:44 PM (#4670623)
The individual mandate should have had language saying something like "These provisions shall become effective on January 1, 2014." Who knows, maybe it did.
   1143. Mefisto Posted: March 12, 2014 at 07:19 PM (#4670630)
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (Dem. Texas) declared on the House floor today that the Constitution was 400 years


I think 1131 gets it right. Congresscritters say an infinite number of stupid things. No need to try to make the number larger.
   1144. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 12, 2014 at 07:29 PM (#4670634)
It's really not unlike a ton of other laws... Statutes are guideposts - the regulations are expected to do the details... and anything not specifically nailed down is a "detail".

Let's see if this remains the standard by which a future GOP administration is judged. Like changing the Filibuster Rule, Democrats may regret the day they signed on to such a broad interpretation of executive branch authority.
   1145. zonk Posted: March 12, 2014 at 07:31 PM (#4670635)
The individual mandate should have had language saying something like "These provisions shall become effective on January 1, 2014." Who knows, maybe it did.


I'd have to go back and look - but I think the discussion was had before and my recollection is that it's a "Secretary shall by"... but I have a vague recollection it's tied to multiple actions by the Treasury Secratary, Labor Secretary and HHS Secretary -- including some reporting on something or other. I might be mistaken... but my memory is that indeed - the 'mandate' is binding... but it's actually the language around the enforcement of penalties that are more hazy. I think the same was true of the employer mandate -- the mandate is statutorily sound, but the enforcement of penalties is hazy... so basically, the delays are actually just a matter of not meting out the penalties.

I recall reading - way back before Obama and the ACA - about other nations' moves into universal health programs, which looked at all sorts of solutions... public, private, mixed, etc... and they ALL had problems in the rollout. That's inevitable... However, in each case - the problems got sorted out much faster than was thought possible. Now - the political dynamics in other countries were different - I mean, you had left and right, but you really had no side saying "get rid of it all"... so that's one thing, I guess. Just googled a bit for it - cannot find the article - but I distinctly remember Taiwan, for example, fearing that 6 months in their entire health care system was going to collapse... it didn't... there were first year budgetary overruns, strikes/threats of strikes by providers... and there were some tweaks... but it was ingrained and functional in pretty short order.

Frankly, I think if I were in charge, I don't think I would have waived anything -

I'd have --

1) Play OFFENSE in the courts... One thing plenty of folks have noted is that an awful lot of states - and there was a lot of room to maneuver that were left to the states - simply ignored the law right up until SCOTUS ruled, and even then, kept tossing hail mary's. We're not talking about simply failing to implement state exchanges -- we're talking about legitimately not doing things that the states HAD to do, regardless of whether they ran their own exchanges or let the Feds do it. Every state has some manner of insurance statutory and regulatory system -- and the providers and insurers within a lot of those states simply were not getting any answers about relatively non-hot button things, but things that they had to report. I'd have had the DOJ all over their asses -- it's one thing to file suit against a law you don't like... Quite another to just practice nullification by inaction.

2) Perhaps loosen some of the penalties via regulation, but keep them in place.

3) Move more aggressively with federalizing -- I mean, the big idea here was to give the states a lot of power... States that took advantage of this - like Kentucky - are doing well. Some states that tried to take advantage, but through incompetence or whatever - failed, aren't doing so well. Others - again - simply practiced nullification by inaction.... They didn't apply for waivers... They didn't answer the basic question on whether the state would handle certain things that they had the option to handle... They just held their breath in a hissy fit. I'd have started federalizing the programs the minute I got a whiff of a state deciding to do the "hold my breath till I turn blue" route... Yeah - it would have probably meant cost overruns... and Yeah - it would have probably led to howls about the states actually NOT being left to implement... but you weren't going to win either way -- might as well have prepared for what became increasingly evident pretty early on.

   1146. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 12, 2014 at 08:08 PM (#4670647)
I'd have -- Play OFFENSE in the courts...I'd have had the DOJ all over their asses --

The Chicago Method doesn't work everywhere. The Feds have almost no authority to compel state officials to enforce federal laws or provide services. They can try to bribe/coerce them, like tying federal highway money to raising the drinking age, but that's not the issue with ObamaCare.
   1147. steagles Posted: March 12, 2014 at 08:13 PM (#4670650)
The Chicago Method doesn't work everywhere. The Feds have almost no authority to compel state officials to enforce federal laws or provide services. They can try to bribe/coerce them, like tying federal highway money to raising the drinking age, but that's not the issue with ObamaCare.
seriously? that's the one thing about obamacare that actually has been ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court.
   1148. steagles Posted: March 12, 2014 at 08:30 PM (#4670656)
Let's see if this remains the standard by which a future GOP administration is judged. Like changing the Filibuster Rule, Democrats may regret the day they signed on to such a broad interpretation of executive branch authority.
that's kind of disingenuous, don't you think? i mean, 2 months before the democratic-led senate voted to change senate filibuster rules so presidential appointments could actually get voted on, there was that whole thing about the republican-led house voting to change house-rules so they could shut down the government:

[As] Congress prepared for a government shutdown fight, House Republicans changed parliamentary rules so as to prevent any member of the House from being able to bring up for a vote the Senate version of a government funding bill.

House Republicans acknowledge that under a rarely used rule, if the Senate rejects a motion to go to conference to work out differences between the House and Senate on legislation – as Senate Democrats did - any House Member may be able move to concur with the Senate amendment, meaning they could bring the Senate legislation to the floor of the House for a vote.

Before the government shutdown, Republicans changed the rule to give that authority to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, or his designee for this legislation.
   1149. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 12, 2014 at 08:49 PM (#4670665)
that's kind of disingenuous, don't you think? i mean, 2 months before the democratic-led senate voted to change senate filibuster rules so presidential appointments could actually get voted on, there was that whole thing about the republican-led house voting to change house-rules . . .

The House has always changed its rules by majority vote, and has done so many times. Not so the Senate, which required a two-thirds vote - until Senate Democrats unilaterally changed the Filibuster Rule.
   1150. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: March 12, 2014 at 08:56 PM (#4670667)
I really feel old, since I spent the Bicentennial on the Mall in Washington, D.C. Seems like just yesterday.

I remember clearly what I was doing during the bicentennial. Not existing!
   1151. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: March 12, 2014 at 09:00 PM (#4670669)
I really feel old, since I spent the Bicentennial on the Mall in Washington, D.C. Seems like just yesterday.


I was right near the Mall on July 1, 1976, when the new building for the National Air and Space Museum opened. I think my family had the sense to stay out of DC on July 4, though.
   1152. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 12, 2014 at 09:06 PM (#4670670)
I was right near the Mall on July 1, 1976, when the new building for the National Air and Space Museum opened. I think my family had the sense to stay out of DC on July 4, though.

My ex-GF and I sold $4200 worth of camera film on that Bicentennial 4th of July**, from our vendor's booth in front of the American History Museum, which was also the first day of the DC Metro subway. I'm sure glad that I didn't stay at home that day. (smile)

**We were the only vendors on the Mall who were discounting our film rather than trying to play that "willing buyer/willing seller" crap and jacking up the prices. There's a lesson there that some business people seem to learn better than others.
   1153. Lassus Posted: March 12, 2014 at 09:25 PM (#4670674)
I remember pointing up at a bridge that was painted with the years on it in anticipation of the Bicentennial TWO years in advance and telling that to my mom. I was four. We spent the Bicentennial at the Oriskany Battlefield.
   1154. GregD Posted: March 12, 2014 at 09:31 PM (#4670676)
On the government and general welfare, it is tricky to pin down the early 1800s but from the very beginning Hamilton wrote that government power for the general welfare was essentially unlimited. In the context of the national bank. Jefferson thought otherwise and that fight endured.

No one suggested federal money for food or environmental regulation but that was because very one accepted state and local governments could do that and many had amazingly intrusive environmental regs and welfare provisions
   1155. Publius Publicola Posted: March 12, 2014 at 09:32 PM (#4670677)
The Feds have almost no authority to compel state officials to enforce federal laws or provide services.


WTF????? No authority? They have the Dept. of Justice. And if that doesn't work, they have the 101st Airborne. You have it exactly backwards. It's the states that have almost no authority to circumvent federal authority.

Thank god.
   1156. Howie Menckel Posted: March 12, 2014 at 09:39 PM (#4670678)

Fox News in a frenzy over some election, Florida I think, and I guess the R won because this is now a referendum on Obamacare. who has a well-reasoned link?
   1157. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 12, 2014 at 09:49 PM (#4670681)
The bicentennial summer was, in reality, the summer of Mark Fidrych.
   1158. Mefisto Posted: March 12, 2014 at 10:02 PM (#4670686)
WTF????? No authority? They have the Dept. of Justice. And if that doesn't work, they have the 101st Airborne. You have it exactly backwards. It's the states that have almost no authority to circumvent federal authority.


Clapper is basically right on this. The feds can't compel the states to spend money (generally speaking), which is the context here.
   1159. Publius Publicola Posted: March 12, 2014 at 10:05 PM (#4670688)
We spent the Bicentennial at the Oriskany Battlefield.


I stayed in Herkimer a few years before that, probably around 1971. It was the most depressing thing I ever saw. Little Falls was even worse. People couldn't even afford to fix the broken windows in their homes.
   1160. Sleepy supports unauthorized rambling Posted: March 12, 2014 at 10:14 PM (#4670690)
I am very much a conservative populist. I hate leftist secularism, but I hate accumulated wealth and the corruption it brings almost as much.


Say what you will about the state of democracy in North Korea, but they have pretty much managed to eliminate the corruption that comes with accumulated wealth.
   1161. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 12, 2014 at 10:15 PM (#4670691)
The individual mandate should have had language saying something like "These provisions shall become effective on January 1, 2014." Who knows, maybe it did.


26 U.S.C. 5000A(a) states:

An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month.


I have a hard time seeing how an executive can delay that without legislative approval, but I'm not an expert in administrative law.

I think its also a bit of a stretch to say it was completely repealed. To avoid the mandate, you must fill out paperwork showing your cancellation notice from the previous insurer. So those people who have just never been insured can't avoid the mandate.
   1162. Mefisto Posted: March 12, 2014 at 10:30 PM (#4670697)
That's a duty on the individual, not something the Executive can control. What the Executive can control is the enforcement of penalties for an individual's failure to comply. Executive discretion on such matters is well-recognized and long-standing.
   1163. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 12, 2014 at 10:32 PM (#4670698)

That's a duty on the individual, not something the Executive can control. What the Executive can control is the enforcement of penalties for an individual's failure to comply. Executive discretion on such matters is well-recognized and long-standing.


Isn't that a pretty dangerous precedent? What stops President Paul Ryan from saying "stand down" to the IRS on enforcing ACA in 2016?
   1164. Mefisto Posted: March 12, 2014 at 10:51 PM (#4670702)
Obama's actions (more properly "inactions) aren't meaningfully precedent at all. Presidents fail to enforce laws all the time; Obama didn't invent the practice. As I say, this is long-standing doctrine. The application of it to the ACA by Obama doesn't set any kind of precedent because it's a general doctrine and applies to all laws.

Philosophically, I'd like to make it obligatory on the Executive to enforce all laws. As a practical matter, that's pretty near impossible.
   1165. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 12, 2014 at 11:11 PM (#4670705)

LOL.

We all know why you didn't answer the second question in #1163.
   1166. SteveF Posted: March 12, 2014 at 11:40 PM (#4670709)
Forbes had a mildly interesting article on the issue of non-enforcement of Obamacare provisions.
   1167. tshipman Posted: March 13, 2014 at 12:31 AM (#4670718)
What stops President Paul Ryan from saying "stand down" to the IRS on enforcing ACA in 2016?


Bad press, mostly. But all the IRS can do to enforce it is to deduct the amount from any refund you would otherwise receive. I seem to remember that there's no real way for them to garnish your wages or provide any other level of enforcement.

The mandate was always a leaky sieve. That's the intent. It's just supposed to make people think they should get healthcare, not actually make it ruinous to do without. That's why the amounts are so low.
   1168. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 13, 2014 at 02:10 AM (#4670721)
The mandate was always a leaky sieve. That's the intent. It's just supposed to make people think they should get healthcare, not actually make it ruinous to do without. That's why the amounts are so low.

The amounts are so low because Dems figured an adverse-selection-related death spiral would, worst case, help them get single-payer. But that idea seems like a pipe dream now.
   1169. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 13, 2014 at 02:27 AM (#4670723)
Obamacare is coming for your tax penalty... at gunpoint!
   1170. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 13, 2014 at 03:46 AM (#4670727)
Although I personally don't really have a problem with the government making transfer payments to people, or otherwise providing for their immediate physical needs like food & shelter, your argument is really, really dumb. You're trying to make promoting into something it's not. Just deal with the facts on the ground; there are plenty of fine arguments to support your preferred policies that don't involve torturous misdefinitions of common words.


I have highlighted the meanings of the word "promote", which seem relevant here. But I would particularly like to draw your attention to point 5.

promote verb (promoted, promoting)
1 a to raise someone to a more senior position; b sport, especially football to transfer (a team) to a higher division or league.
2 to contribute to something
3 to work for the cause of something
4 to publicize; to try to boost the sales of (a product) by advertising.
5 to organize or finance (an undertaking).
6 chess to upgrade (a pawn that has reached the opponent's side of the board) to a higher rank. promotion noun. promotional adj.
   1171. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 13, 2014 at 03:48 AM (#4670728)
The difference is, NK has the necessary elements of a democracy. They have political parties, they have a body to which representatives are elected, there is voting to determine which members of said parties are elected to said body, etc. How is that not a democracy?

All necessary elements, except for the "free and fair" elections part. That's kind of a big one.
   1172. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 13, 2014 at 08:04 AM (#4670753)
All necessary elements, except for the "free and fair" elections part. That's kind of a big one.


Well and the fact that real power actually does not reside in those elected, so even if the election was fair no big deal. But you are missing the point. The official name of North Korea is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". See right there in the name, they use the word Democratic, so it must be a democracy*.

Case closed.

* Note: this is an actual Good Face argument. I am not just mocking it, he actually posted that because the word democracy was in the name it was a democracy. Best argument ever.
   1173. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 13, 2014 at 08:12 AM (#4670755)
All necessary elements, except for the "free and fair" elections part. That's kind of a big one.


Is not.
   1174. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 13, 2014 at 09:47 AM (#4670802)
WTF????? No authority? They have the Dept. of Justice. And if that doesn't work, they have the 101st Airborne. You have it exactly backwards. It's the states that have almost no authority to circumvent federal authority.

The Feds can't require the local sheriff to arrest counterfeiters or those that violate the federal drug laws. They can't make state officials do the Feds jobs. That's settled law, and different than obeying federal law, such as the civil rights acts, in the performance of their duties. One reason state healthcare exchanges aren't mandatory.
   1175. JE (Jason) Posted: March 13, 2014 at 10:05 AM (#4670819)
Politico: Florida loss exposes Democrats' disarray on Obamacare
Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) — one of the Senate’s most vulnerable incumbents — twice waved off a reporter’s questions. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), who will likely face GOP Rep. Cory Gardner in November, said he would prefer to answer a reporter’s question by phone to offer a “coherent” response. But his aides did not later make him available for an interview.

Democrats are concerned the health care law’s approval ratings won’t rebound by the time voters go to the polls in November. Even more significantly, they fear the law’s unpopularity — along with President Barack Obama’s flagging approval ratings — could keep Democrats home in November, according to conversations with several top lawmakers and aides.

Republicans seem to think they’ve struck political gold, but Democrats aren’t even sure how to interpret the loss. A veteran Democratic fundraiser called the loss a “double whammy,” hurting the party with major donors and energizing Republicans. Some senior members of the party say the defeat in a district President Barack Obama won twice means nothing, and Democrats should not fret. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who is likely to have a tight race in November, attributed Sink’s defeat to flood insurance legislation, which played a minor role compared to Jolly’s nearly singular focus on the health care law.

This all comes as Democrats and Republicans are gearing up for a brutal battle for control of Congress this fall. Jolly’s victory over Sink, while not a definitive measure of the political climate, is not a good sign for Obama’s party as voters head to the ballot box in less than eight months. Republicans are expected to make some gains in the midterms, but the results in Florida show Democrats could be facing stiffer headwinds than they thought in protecting their five-seat majority in the Senate and chipping away at Republican control of the House.

   1176. JE (Jason) Posted: March 13, 2014 at 10:17 AM (#4670828)
And I missed the most interesting paragraph from the article, perhaps because it's buried near the end:
It’s not only Democrats in red states who are using sharp language to criticize the law. Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon called his state’s health exchange an “unmitigated disaster” and said he’s worked to extend its enrollment deadline and has tried to prevent constituents from losing their current health care plans.
   1177. villageidiom Posted: March 13, 2014 at 10:31 AM (#4670840)
I have a hard time seeing how an executive can delay that without legislative approval, but I'm not an expert in administrative law.
I suppose the House can impeach Obama for abuse of authority in not enforcing ACA provisions, but it's going to be harder for them to reconcile "repeal ACA" with "impeach Obama because he won't give us ACA provisions we don't like" come re-election time.

I mean, I support enforcement of laws I don't like, and I'd understand the dichotomy of maintaining enforcement of existing law while working to change the law. I just see it as a political trap. It's hard to make a convincing argument to most voters that you're against certain provisions of the ACA if you're on the floor of the House making an argument that those provisions need to be enforced. That's even if you handle it better than John "I was for it before I was against it" Kerry.
   1178. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 13, 2014 at 10:48 AM (#4670860)
Oregon's exchange is an unmitigated disaster. OTOH, Kentucky's has been a huge success. The success or failure of the state-run exchanges doesn't seem to fit along red/blue lines.
   1179. GregD Posted: March 13, 2014 at 10:54 AM (#4670865)
Oregon's exchange is an unmitigated disaster. OTOH, Kentucky's has been a huge success. The success or failure of the state-run exchanges doesn't seem to fit along red/blue lines.
Beshear seems to have been very committed to making it work in KY and either he or people who work for him have been very savvy. He is, for whatever it's worth, a Democrat. So of course is the governor of Oregon; I know why they went so badly. And I do think the exchanges have done well in some states with Republican governors, so I agree with your general proposition that red/blue doesn't explain all that much about the exchanges.
   1180. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 13, 2014 at 10:58 AM (#4670874)
And I do think the exchanges have done well in some states with Republican governors, so I agree with your general proposition that red/blue doesn't explain all that much about the exchanges.


If a GOP Governor decides to set up an exchange it's in his interests to try to make it work, because if it's a disaster he's going to be blamed, and saying, "we'll see I knew all along it wasn't gonna work" is not going to be a good campaign rebuttal
   1181. GregD Posted: March 13, 2014 at 11:20 AM (#4670885)
Actually my prior statement was wrong. I think there is only one state with a Republican governor that runs a state exchange. Nevada. They're equivalent to Kentucky in meeting the five-month target and above Oregon but not above many other states. Even Kentucky looks bad relative to the other states, 45th of 51 entities. Rhode Island has done extremely well, but I don't know at this point how to classify Chafee, who was a former Republican elected as an independent who now has registered as a Democrat.

The states that have been above targets are NY, CT, RI, CO.
   1182. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 13, 2014 at 12:16 PM (#4670919)
Russia massing military troops at Ukraine border, as Putin's "backdown" continues apace.
   1183. GregD Posted: March 13, 2014 at 12:20 PM (#4670924)
Anyone post the Bloomberg poll on Obamacare? Think it came out yesterday but didn't see it here.

51% favor retaining with "small modifications," 13 % leave it intact, 34% repeal. 54% disapprove of Obama's handling of Obamacare, presumably the 34% repealers and another 20% from the "small modifications group." 34% sounds a bit low to me; generally you can get 40% to say Obamacare is "too liberal" (and another 10-15% saying it isn't liberal enough). But maybe some small subset of the people who call it "too liberal" also think it can be fixed easily? Or it's just poll variation/margin of error.

Karl Rove said Jolly fell behind early when Sink tied him to repeal and then won because he distanced himself from repeal and instead took the small modifications position without saying which small modifications they are.

Democrats have major balancing to do; it'll also be interesting to watch Republicans keep the repealers happy while avoiding being tagged as repealers themselves.
   1184. zonk Posted: March 13, 2014 at 12:37 PM (#4670937)
Anyone post the Bloomberg poll on Obamacare? Think it came out yesterday but didn't see it here.

51% favor retaining with "small modifications," 13 % leave it intact, 34% repeal. 54% disapprove of Obama's handling of Obamacare, presumably the 34% repealers and another 20% from the "small modifications group." 34% sounds a bit low to me; generally you can get 40% to say Obamacare is "too liberal" (and another 10-15% saying it isn't liberal enough). But maybe some small subset of the people who call it "too liberal" also think it can be fixed easily? Or it's just poll variation/margin of error.


Came here to post the very same thing...

Sure - it would be nice if it were 51% 'keep', 13% 'keep with small mods'.... but seriously -- 64% are opposed to anything beyond "Keep"/"Keep with small modifications".

I'm not going to dig into the Bloomberg polls' methodology, but that's an absolutely huge number for a supposed debacle that -- to hear some corners of this site and various politicos say it, majorities of Americans are wishing to just wholecloth repeal.
   1185. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 13, 2014 at 01:00 PM (#4670951)
The idea that it absolutely, positively, no-chance-in-the-world won't lead to repeal is more wishcasting.


Yes there is a tiny chance it is repealed. But the overwhelming probability is that it won't be. Starting with Obama won't let anything happen until 2016, repealing laws is really hard, and ACA is just not that unpopular in the "must repeal" sense.

If Bill and Hillary have to choose between possibly winning in 2016 and keeping Obamacare, does anyone think that discussion lasts longer than about half a second?


HRC is not going to have the option of choosing ACA or the presidency. That is not how elections work. And if HRC wins in 2016 (which I think likely) you really think the first task will be to repeal health care? After what happened during Bill's term trying to enact health care reform? That is some interesting idea, perhaps you should get your crayons out and write up a newsletter for me to subscribe to.

Heck I doubt ACA will even be an "A" topic in the general election for 2016. The electorate (not including the GOP base admittedly) has largely moved on, and will certainly have done so by 2016. I wager income inequality (including minimum wage) will be a bigger topic than health care reform in 2016.
   1186. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 13, 2014 at 01:02 PM (#4670955)
Yes there is a tiny chance it is repealed.

Big swaths of it have already been repealed.
   1187. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 13, 2014 at 01:05 PM (#4670957)
Actually my prior statement was wrong. I think there is only one state with a Republican governor that runs a state exchange. Nevada.


New Mexico and Idaho too. Utah has a dual federal-state model. I'm surprised NJ didn't set one up.
   1188. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 13, 2014 at 01:11 PM (#4670959)
Russia massing military troops at Ukraine border, as Putin's "backdown" continues apace.


That should really get the right-wing mancrush on Putin throbbing again. Sean Hannity is bursting at the seams with admiration for the manly fellow previously known as "Pootie Poot."
   1189. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 13, 2014 at 01:25 PM (#4670969)
Big swaths of it have already been repealed.


Incorrect. I don't know if much if any of the legislative language has been repealed. When Obama stopped deporting those Dream kids (I think that is what they were called) that did not suddenly repeal laws about immigration. You seem confused about what repeal means.

revoke or annul (a law or congressional act).


Almost none of the practical effects of ACA have been revoked or annulled. Covering adult children, max out of pocket limits, laws around specific coverage minimums, and how insurance companies can set those rates and so on are all completely intact. As are the taxes and subsidies, and the medicaid expansion.

A few nibbles around the edges, done admittedly for largely political reasons, is hardly "Big swaths of it have already been repealed". And besides if that is the case, if it is mostly gone, you should rejoice and can stop worrying about it. Why the obsession with something that is nearly gone anyway?
   1190. GregD Posted: March 13, 2014 at 01:37 PM (#4670977)
New Mexico and Idaho too. Utah has a dual federal-state model. I'm surprised NJ didn't set one up.
Why does the Times have New Mexico and Idaho both as on the federal exchange? New Mexico as the worst state on the fed exchange for hitting targets and Idaho as one of the best.
   1191. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 13, 2014 at 01:52 PM (#4670983)
I got my info from Obamacare facts. Are you saying their site doesn't work? Impossible!

This local paper says NM has a state exchange, but its limited to only small business sales, it won't do individual sales til next year, so maybe that's why the NYT has it as "federal" for now.
   1192. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 13, 2014 at 02:31 PM (#4670996)
Why the obsession with something that is nearly gone anyway?

I think everyone knows that answer to that question. HINT: It's a five letter word that rhymes with "Osama".
   1193. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 13, 2014 at 03:58 PM (#4671034)
Yo' mama? Noh drama?
   1194. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 13, 2014 at 04:06 PM (#4671040)
Rama-lama-alabama-ding-dong

Not rhyming, assonance. Stress on the first syllable.
   1195. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 13, 2014 at 04:38 PM (#4671070)
Who would have guessed - ObamaCare Enrollment Significantly Lower Than White House Figures:
The White House insists it doesn’t know how many people are fully enrolled in Obamacare but insurers say they’ve handed over enough data to show that the sign-up numbers are not as rosy as federal officials say.

The latest administration figures show that 4.2 million people have selected health plans in the new insurance markets. Insurance industry officials at four of the big national health plans tell POLITICO that about 15 to 20 percent people who have signed up have not yet paid their first monthly premium — the final step to get coverage.

And they’ve told the White House the same, insurance industry officials say. “They have a lot more information than they’re letting on,” one industry source said of the Obama administration. “They have real hard data about the percent that have paid … If they have not processed those yet and compiled the data, that is a choice they are making. But they have that data now.”

Is there any doubt that if the numbers on premium payment were favorable, they'd have been released?
   1196. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 13, 2014 at 05:15 PM (#4671099)
HRC is not going to have the option of choosing ACA or the presidency. That is not how elections work. And if HRC wins in 2016 (which I think likely) you really think the first task will be to repeal health care?

I didn't say anything about 2017. I talked about 2016, when Bill and Hillary will be trying to get elected.

Heck I doubt ACA will even be an "A" topic in the general election for 2016. The electorate (not including the GOP base admittedly) has largely moved on, and will certainly have done so by 2016. I wager income inequality (including minimum wage) will be a bigger topic than health care reform in 2016.

LOL. Utterly comical. You realize the biggest parts of Obamacare are now set to take effect right in the middle of the 2016 campaign, right?
   1197. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 13, 2014 at 05:41 PM (#4671124)
The electorate (not including the GOP base admittedly) has largely moved on . . .

Obvious wishcasting. In that Florida-13 election, the GOP candidate's message was almost entirely anti-ObamaCare, as well as focusing on Obama's Minimum Wage Economy. Neither of those issues are going to disappear.
   1198. steagles Posted: March 13, 2014 at 06:06 PM (#4671142)
LOL. Utterly comical. You realize the biggest parts of Obamacare are now set to take effect right in the middle of the 2016 campaign, right?
what are the biggest parts of obamacare again?
   1199. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 13, 2014 at 06:08 PM (#4671146)
Death panels. Duh.
   1200. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 13, 2014 at 06:15 PM (#4671151)
I didn't say anything about 2017. I talked about 2016, when Bill and Hillary will be trying to get elected.


And candidates are offered the option of getting elected in exchange for repealing laws how and when?

What you said makes no sense. HRC is not going to commit to repealing ACA. Fix it perhaps, but not repeal. Especially since huge parts of it already in place are hugely popular. How on earth would taking a GOP position help them get elected? That is just dumb.

And by the way I am also interested in what you think the biggest parts of ACA are.
Page 12 of 33 pages ‹ First  < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Piehole of David Wells
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogPosnanski: Money money money
(19 - 11:08am, Aug 28)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(5868 - 11:07am, Aug 28)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-28-2014
(7 - 10:58am, Aug 28)
Last: Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq.

NewsblogSimmons' run-saving stop
(15 - 10:54am, Aug 28)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogPassan: How macho baseball culture wants to ruin Yu Darvish's arm
(7 - 10:50am, Aug 28)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(723 - 10:41am, Aug 28)
Last: Juilin Sandar to Conkling Speedwell (Arjun)

NewsblogReports: The Astros may still be able to sign top pick Brady Aiken
(30 - 10:40am, Aug 28)
Last: billyshears

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-28-2014
(6 - 10:29am, Aug 28)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

NewsblogBrooklyn Cyclones, Nickelodeon to host '90s night
(18 - 10:26am, Aug 28)
Last: billyshears

NewsblogRoyals Walk Off; Ned Yost Complains About Attendance
(10 - 10:00am, Aug 28)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogJack White, Eddie Vedder, and Paul Simon take in a Seattle Mariners game
(33 - 9:58am, Aug 28)
Last: A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose)

NewsblogCameron: Next year really might be THE year, Cubs fans
(45 - 9:41am, Aug 28)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogC.J. Wilson on Spin Rate, Arm Angles and Exploiting Weaknesses
(17 - 9:39am, Aug 28)
Last: Juilin Sandar to Conkling Speedwell (Arjun)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - August 2014
(350 - 9:19am, Aug 28)
Last: Der-K and the statistical werewolves.

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-27-2014
(21 - 8:10am, Aug 28)
Last: RMc's desperate, often sordid world

Page rendered in 1.1122 seconds
53 querie(s) executed