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

Thursday, April 03, 2014

OTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments

Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 03, 2014 at 01:59 PM | 4718 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: 7 million aca signees and counting, i-95 south, nc, politics

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 31 of 48 pages ‹ First  < 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 >  Last ›
   3001. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 26, 2014 at 02:47 PM (#4694791)
In case anyone is curious, Kevin 2.0 managed to edit the excerpt in #2989 to omit the GOP position on the Savannah dredging project. That's a pretty good indication that the facts might support the Republicans, and lo & behold, they do:
Georgia lawmakers say they went to great lengths to include special language in the omnibus spending bill passed in January that would allow workers to begin deepening the harbor, to 50 feet from 42, while Congress finished a major water projects bill that remains tied up in House-Senate negotiations. . . .

Advocates of the port work had expected no problem, given the administration’s strong backing and the project’s obvious benefits: jobs, trade and overall economic stimulus. They said they were blindsided when the work was not included in the president’s budget. “We gave him the authority in the omnibus bill, specific language that was to be used to allow the Corps of Engineers to sign agreements,” said Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia.

In a recent letter, the head of the Army Corps of Engineers told a Georgia lawmaker that while the provision in the omnibus bill was sufficient “as a legal matter” to allow the project to begin, administration policy prevented it because the project had grown in cost and scope since it was first considered in 1999.

So despite specific legislation that passed the Democratic Senate as well as the Republican House, the Administration is delaying the project. Would you know that from reading Kevin 2.0's excerpt? Same old Kevin, still playing fast & loose with the truth.
   3002. Publius Publicola Posted: April 26, 2014 at 02:58 PM (#4694801)
Apparently you haven't read the manual of the Federal Acquisition and Regulations. The USG is not allowed to be obligated for reimbursement of goods and services beyond what they can pay. Do you know what that means, Clapper? It means signing a contract to do work that will cost more than what USG has obligated is against the law.

And so the Obama Admin. is just being responsible. It's the Republicans who are being irresponsible by not obligating the necessary funds so that contracts can be signed and work can begin. Even Boehner is scolding his own party about it. But Team Red can't spend Fed. dollars in an election year and still be the party of small government.

Duh.

Same old Clapper. Always has the crimson blinders on.
   3003. McCoy Posted: April 26, 2014 at 03:09 PM (#4694808)
Andy,
Sent you an email. Looking for some prints.
   3004. zenbitz Posted: April 26, 2014 at 03:10 PM (#4694809)
As for birth control... IIRC the real objection Snapper to *promiscuity". Which OBVIOUSLY has no effect on the birth rate. For one, cheap, available birth control decouples (har har) it. For two, I am pretty sure that the probability of getting pregnant is more of a function of the number of attempts, rather than the number of partners.

   3005. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 26, 2014 at 03:44 PM (#4694834)
It means signing a contract to do work that will cost more than what USG has obligated is against the law.

Simply not true. In the except I cited, the Corps of Engineers explicitly stated they had the legal authority to go ahead, but the Obama Administration made a policy decision not to. Kevin 2.0 originally posted a misleading except, suggested it meant something different than what the full article said, and now tries to make the claim that the Federal Acquisition Regulations mandate that result. Not true, and, of course, if the GOP position - actually the position of many Georgians of both parties - was actually against the law there wouldn't have been any need for its glaring omission from the original post.
   3006. tshipman Posted: April 26, 2014 at 04:15 PM (#4694858)
TYC, I don't care enough to look into it in depth, but I would imagine that the administration is holding off either due to legal advice or for leverage on the stalled bill.

The GOP lawmakers appear to be the sole source for the article, a strong indicator that there might be more to the story.
   3007. Publius Publicola Posted: April 26, 2014 at 04:20 PM (#4694860)
TYC, before you dig yourself in any deeper, could you please review the FAR? You might save yourself from sounding like a bigger dumbass than you already are.
   3008. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 26, 2014 at 04:39 PM (#4694873)
TYC, I don't care enough to look into it in depth, but I would imagine that the administration is holding off either due to legal advice or for leverage on the stalled bill.

Well, there is the letter from the Corps of Engineers, which eliminates the "legal authority" issue. And if you RTFA, yes, it's pretty clear that leverage on other legislation is motivating the Obama Administration - not that one would know that from reading the misleading excerpt posted by Kevin 2.0.
   3009. Publius Publicola Posted: April 26, 2014 at 04:52 PM (#4694879)
It's pretty clear that leverage on other legislation is motivating the Obama Administration


Kind of rich you're complaining about this when you were stone-cold silent on red states not lifting a finger to enact ACA, YC. But again - crimson blinders.
   3010. Publius Publicola Posted: April 26, 2014 at 04:56 PM (#4694881)
And did you miss this part? :

House and Senate negotiators hope to reach a final deal after lawmakers return next week and start advancing the agreement toward passage. Given the current state of legislative affairs, it could become one of the most significant measures passed this year by a Congress characterized by low productivity and lower expectations.


So, you want the president to start work before Congress has finalized the bill? OK, just remember that the next time he does something else without congressional approval that you don't like.
   3011. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 26, 2014 at 05:19 PM (#4694891)
I encourage everyone to go back and read #2989 & RTFA, then reach your own conclusion as to whether Kevin 2.0's excerpt fairly reflects the actual article. Again, there is no question that there is legal authority to proceed. Congress passed specific legislation in January to do so. This is conceded by the Corps of Engineers:
In a recent letter, the head of the Army Corps of Engineers told a Georgia lawmaker that while the provision in the omnibus bill was sufficient “as a legal matter” to allow the project to begin, administration policy prevented it because the project had grown in cost and scope since it was first considered in 1999.

The quote from #3010 pertains to broader legislation, the Water Resources Development Act - not that Kevin 2.0 makes that clear, either - which isn't needed to begin the Savannah Dredging project. Those who RTFA will also note that even the Obama Administration doesn't make the claim that the Federal Acquisition Regulations prohibit the project going ahead. That is a fabrication that Kevin 2.0 came up with all by himself.
   3012. Publius Publicola Posted: April 26, 2014 at 05:31 PM (#4694900)
Clapper, have you ever heard of this little thing called "funding"? It's used to pay for the things the government wants to do. The army corp. of engineers does not have the authority to begin work on anything until they have the funding to do it.

So write your congressman a letter demanding he get to work on pushing through the final language on this bill so the president can sign it into law and the Savannah port work can begin.

Alternatively, you're a small government guy, right? Why don't the users of the port pay for its dredging? Why get wasteful government involved at all? You know what Reagan said about the most terrifying words in the English language: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help". Let's get these feds like the ACE off the dance floor and let the invisible hand of free enterprise take care of this problem. Without the feds in there mucking things up and slowing things down, the work will be finished in a snap of the fingers.
   3013. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 26, 2014 at 05:40 PM (#4694902)
The army corp. of engineers does not have the authority to begin work on anything until they have the funding to do it.

Not true:
In a recent letter, the head of the Army Corps of Engineers told a Georgia lawmaker that while the provision in the omnibus bill was sufficient “as a legal matter” to allow the project to begin, administration policy prevented it because the project had grown in cost and scope since it was first considered in 1999.

RTFA. Legislation was passed in January and signed by the President that allows the project to go forward. Everyone concedes this except Kevin 2.0 - he's making a claim that even the Obama Administration isn't making. There is no legal barrier, it's an Obama Administration policy choice.
   3014. Publius Publicola Posted: April 26, 2014 at 05:48 PM (#4694906)
Clapper, if I were you, I'd be extremely angry at all those RINO, neo-Marxist GOP legislators who are trying to bumrush this porkbarrel bill upon a president trying to exhibit a modicum of fiscal restraint.
   3015. Publius Publicola Posted: April 26, 2014 at 05:51 PM (#4694907)
RTFA.


And they key phrase is "as a legal matter". Where does it say anything about funding? You realize getting the necessary permits and legal clearances is different from acquiring funding, don't you?

Criminy, Clapper. Are you cognitively impaired or something? Or does language just confuse you?

   3016. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 26, 2014 at 06:00 PM (#4694909)
Clapper, if I were you, I'd be extremely angry at all those RINO, neo-Marxist GOP legislators who are trying to bumrush this porkbarrel bill upon a president trying to exhibit a modicum of fiscal restraint.

To be clear, I don't have any particular position on the Savannah Dredging project or its cost, although it probably needs to be done in light of the widening of the Panama Canal. I posted on the subject because Kevin 2.0 blatantly distorted the article he excerpted in a crude attempt to blame the GOP for delaying the project. RTFA. Here's the link again for those who don't want to go back a page. But you really ought to take a look at how Kevin 2.0 edited the excerpt he posted.
   3017. tshipman Posted: April 26, 2014 at 06:04 PM (#4694912)
Well, there is the letter from the Corps of Engineers, which eliminates the "legal authority" issue. And if you RTFA, yes, it's pretty clear that leverage on other legislation is motivating the Obama Administration - not that one would know that from reading the misleading excerpt posted by Kevin 2.0.


Army Corps of Engineers =/= White House Counsel.

And if Obama wants to use it for leverage ... so what? I don't exactly remember you getting upset about the House attempting to use default as leverage. If you compare the two, I think you'll find that the full faith and credit of the United States is a significantly more dangerous poker chip than the Savannah waterfront.
   3018. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 26, 2014 at 06:05 PM (#4694913)
#3015 is just making stuff up. The Head of the Corps of Engineers clearly states that they have the legal authority to begin - that means funds were appropriated. Again, Kevin 2.0 is making up stuff that even the Obama Administration isn't claiming. But Kevin making up stuff is standard operating procedure at BBTF. See Kevin 1.0.
   3019. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 26, 2014 at 06:10 PM (#4694915)
And if Obama wants to use it for leverage ... so what?

Well, the Administration isn't really hiding that they are doing that. My point is that Kevin 2.0 selectively excerpted and blatantly distorted the NYT article in a crude attempt to blame Republicans for delaying the Savannah Dredging Project. Even after being caught, he continues to do so.
   3020. Publius Publicola Posted: April 26, 2014 at 06:15 PM (#4694918)
The Head of the Corps of Engineers clearly states that they have the legal authority to begin - that means funds were appropriated.


It says in the article the final language in the bill hasn't been decided on and the dysfunctional HoR is the main culprit. They even quote Boehner. And if you think what the ACE said means what you think it means, then you need to go back and retake basic supervisor training.

Reading, and thinking, is fundamental, Clapper.
   3021. bobm Posted: April 26, 2014 at 06:19 PM (#4694919)
losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/04/25/florida-house-seeks-to-change-mlb-cuban-player-policy

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Major League Baseball would have to change its policy on Cuban players if the Miami Marlins and Tampa Bay Rays want a share of state money that would be set aside for professional sports stadiums under a bill the House passed Friday.

Los Angeles Dodgers’ outfielder Yasiel Puig’s dangerous escape from Cuba to Mexico was the inspiration for the conditions the bill places on baseball stadium construction money.

With the exception of Canada, residents of foreign nations can negotiate with all 30 baseball teams before signing a contract, but teams aren’t allowed to negotiate with Cuban players if they remain in that country because of the U.S. embargo of the communist island. And Cuban players are subject to the amateur draft if they come directly to the U.S., potentially costing them tens of millions of dollars. That’s why Cuban players seek to establish residency in a third country first, often at great risk.


   3022. tshipman Posted: April 26, 2014 at 06:23 PM (#4694922)
With the exception of Canada, residents of foreign nations can negotiate with all 30 baseball teams before signing a contract, but teams aren’t allowed to negotiate with Cuban players if they remain in that country because of the U.S. embargo of the communist island. And Cuban players are subject to the amateur draft if they come directly to the U.S., potentially costing them tens of millions of dollars. That’s why Cuban players seek to establish residency in a third country first, often at great risk.


I guess I'm on board with this. I mean, I would prefer that states don't give money for stadiums (for the obvious reasons). Anytime you have an obvious circumvention of the law that risks peoples life for no good reason, I think you should get that changed. Not my top legislative priority, but whatevs, there's a lot of time in the day.

Would be curious to hear Kehoskie's opinion, as he has a lot of expertise on the subject.

My point is that Kevin 2.0 selectively excerpted and blatantly distorted the NYT article in a crude attempt to blame Republicans for delaying the Savannah Dredging Project. Even after being caught, he continues to do so.


/shrug. Again, I find it hard to care about the issue. I agree that New-Kev is just as disagreeable as original recipe kevin.
   3023. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 26, 2014 at 06:26 PM (#4694923)
The Head of the Corps of Engineers clearly states that they have the legal authority to begin - that means funds were appropriated.

It says in the article the final language in the bill hasn't been decided on and the dysfunctional HoR is the main culprit. They even quote Boehner. And if you think what the RCE said means what you think it means, then you need to go back and retake basic supervisor training. Reading is fundamental, Clapper.

Again that is not true. Notice who is quoting the actual article, and who is just making stuff up? Here's the relevant part:
Georgia lawmakers say they went to great lengths to include special language in the omnibus spending bill passed in January that would allow workers to begin deepening the harbor, to 50 feet from 42, while Congress finished a major water projects bill that remains tied up in House-Senate negotiations.

Funds are available to begin the project. Period. Full stop. Even the Obama Administration concedes this.

And as for the Boehner "quote", Kevin 2.0 doesn't bother to mention that it refers to immigration legislation. Typical.
   3024. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 26, 2014 at 06:30 PM (#4694926)
With the exception of Canada, residents of foreign nations can negotiate with all 30 baseball teams before signing a contract

So why doesn't Canada bring an anti-trust case against MLB? They aren't bound by the Supreme Court.
   3025. Publius Publicola Posted: April 26, 2014 at 06:33 PM (#4694928)
Clapper, how many times are you going to cut and paste the same quote that doesn't say what you insist it is saying? Just give us a number so we can wait for the end and move on.
   3026. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 26, 2014 at 07:04 PM (#4694945)
how many times are you going to cut and paste the same quote that doesn't say what you insist it is saying? Just give us a number so we can wait for the end and move on.

The entire Georgia Congressional delegation, including the Democrats, agree with me. The funding authorization to begin the project was included in the Omnibus. What's so hard to understand? Even the Obama Administration concedes that point. Why is Kevin 2.0 pretending there is an issue as to the availability of funds to start the project? He's just making up stuff, totally unsourced.

I also note Kevin 2.0 makes no attempt to defend his blatantly misleading editing of the excerpt he originally posted.
   3027. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 26, 2014 at 07:07 PM (#4694946)
Would be curious to hear Kehoskie's opinion, as he has a lot of expertise on the subject.

I've always thought Cuban defectors, particularly those age ~21 or over, should be treated as free agents regardless of where they gain residency, but the proposed legislation would do nothing to reduce the influence of smugglers and is little more than political grandstanding. Cuban players need smugglers because the Cuban government doesn't allow them to leave freely for MLB, not because MLB's rules force them to use smugglers.
   3028. tshipman Posted: April 26, 2014 at 07:46 PM (#4694967)
I've always thought Cuban defectors, particularly those age ~21 or over, should be treated as free agents regardless of where they gain residency, but the proposed legislation would do nothing to reduce the influence of smugglers and is little more than political grandstanding. Cuban players need smugglers because the Cuban government doesn't allow them to leave freely for MLB, not because MLB's rules force them to use smugglers.


First, thank you for responding. I agree that it's silly to treat Cubans different depending on where they gain residency.

Second, the article claims that establishing residence in another country makes the process more dangerous than it has to be. I don't really understand how that works. It sounds like you're disagreeing above when you say that it doesn't reduce the influence of smugglers. Edit: Could you elaborate why that would be?

My preferred solution would be ending the embargo, but we don't seem any closer to that than ever, really.
   3029. Publius Publicola Posted: April 26, 2014 at 08:30 PM (#4694990)
My preferred solution would be ending the embargo, but we don't seem any closer to that than ever, really.


Fidel has to die first. Then it will happen rather quickly, I bet.
   3030. bobm Posted: April 26, 2014 at 08:35 PM (#4694994)
sports.yahoo.com/news/10-degrees--cuban-trafficking-grows-into-mlb-s-ugly-secret-034704407.html

One MLB official raised the possibility of eliminating the foreign-residency rule, which theoretically would eradicate organizations such as the Zetas from involving themselves with ballplayer smuggling. That, of course, presumes the U.S.-based criminals who partake of the human trafficking will be any less dangerous or harmful than those from other countries, a flimsy-at-best premise. Moreover, one source familiar with the Cuban-smuggling trade said getting into Mexico or Haiti is far easier than evading the U.S. Coast Guard, and that the risk of getting caught by authorities might keep the third countries as preferred destinations.

Another solution works in theory: If baseball were to lessen the money offered to Cuban players, it could likewise disincentivize the larger-scale criminal enterprises, which seek higher-margin business, from continued involvement in ballplayer smuggling. Already some players question why those in their prime years are granted free agency simply because they were born in Cuba. The union, on principle alone, would object to this idea – not just to tightening any free market but opening the Pandora's Box to an international draft – and the recompense it would demand in loosening the market elsewhere would make it either a non-starter or an exceedingly difficult compromise to strike.
   3031. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 26, 2014 at 09:13 PM (#4695016)
Guess there are still some problems after all - Parts Of ObamaCare Site Are Still Missing:
The Obamacare website may work for people buying insurance, but beneath the surface, HealthCare.gov is still missing massive, critical pieces — and the deadline for finishing them keeps slipping. As a result, the system’s “back end” is a tangle of technical workarounds moving billions of taxpayer dollars and consumer-paid premiums between the government and insurers. The parts under construction are essential for key functions such as accurately paying insurers. The longer they lag, experts say, the likelier they’ll trigger accounting problems that could leave the public on the hook for higher premium subsidies or health care costs.
. . .
Without a fully built and operational system, federal officials can’t determine how many of the 8 million Obamacare sign-ups announced last week will have actually paid their premiums. They won’t even know how many enrollment attempts were never completed. That, in turn, could affect the amount of money the government spends on premium subsidies. And once the system finally does all come on-line, the data delays could force a sharp revision in that celebrated 8 million figure.

Read the whole thing.
   3032. Publius Publicola Posted: April 26, 2014 at 09:26 PM (#4695024)
Read the whole thing.


Why, when we have you to read it for us.
   3033. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 26, 2014 at 09:27 PM (#4695026)
So there's still time for the good guy to ride in, at the last possible instant before disaster strikes, and re-re-re-re-tie Obamacare to the train tracks? My hero!
   3034. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 26, 2014 at 09:38 PM (#4695032)
Read the whole thing.

Done.

...the likelier... that could... it bolsters the Republican narrative... It seems like... It seems like... could affect... could force ...it could lead to... It may be... could unravel... I think there comes a point... it could expose... could ultimately decide... could make...

Eight coulds. One more could and they could field a baseball team.
   3035. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 26, 2014 at 09:42 PM (#4695035)
Read the whole thing.

You mean like this part?

Study questions Obamacare impact on canceled plans

Millions of the plans that were canceled because they did not meet Affordable Care Act requirements probably would have been canceled anyway — by the policyholders, a new study suggests.

Last fall, as cancellation letters arrived in mailboxes around the country, opponents of the law cited them as evidence that President Barack Obama lied to Americans when he promised, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”

But most individuals who lost plans probably would not have continued them even without the law, according to the study, which was published online Wednesday in Health Affairs. Its author questions whether those cancellations contributed much to the nation’s ranks of short-term uninsured.

The study looked at people who bought nongroup, or individual, insurance plans — a market that was relatively unstable even before Obamacare took effect. Between 2008 and 2011, fewer than half the people who started out with such coverage still had it after a year. And 80 percent of those who changed policies had a new plan within a year, usually through an employer, the study found.

Given this baseline, author Benjamin Sommers says, “the effects of the recent cancellations are not necessarily out of the norm.”

An estimated 10.8 million people had nongroup coverage in 2012, according to the Congressional Research Service. Based on his own findings, Sommers estimated that 6.2 million Americans leave nongroup coverage each year under typical circumstances. News reports that as many as 4.7 million adults had their policies canceled in 2013 “are likely capturing a great deal of the normal turnover in this market,” he concludes.





   3036. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 26, 2014 at 09:47 PM (#4695039)
HealthCare.gov is still missing massive, critical pieces — and the deadline for finishing them keeps slipping. As a result, the system’s “back end” is a tangle of technical workarounds


So pretty much like every IT system ever built.
   3037. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 26, 2014 at 09:53 PM (#4695042)
I have no interest in getting in between the Publius/Clapper slap fight, but I will point out that things like dredging riverways is the sort of infrastructure projects that we should totally be doing en masse.
   3038. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 26, 2014 at 10:37 PM (#4695071)
Read the whole thing.

You mean like this part?

Of course, the article that Andy cited was NOT part of the article I linked to, and it is misleading to suggest it was. Beyond that, Andy's article just indicates that the individual healthcare market is fairly volatile, as people move in & out of covered employment. Whether that remains as true in Obama's Minimum Wage Economy is uncertain, but there is no doubt that a portion of the individual market was stable, liked the plans they had, were promised by Obama that they could keep their plan, and had that promise broken. Trying to pretend otherwise isn't going to fool anyone, and I suspect it just makes it more likely that those who had their policies adversely affected will make their views known at the ballot box.
   3039. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 26, 2014 at 11:01 PM (#4695088)
Second, the article claims that establishing residence in another country makes the process more dangerous than it has to be. I don't really understand how that works. It sounds like you're disagreeing above when you say that it doesn't reduce the influence of smugglers. Edit: Could you elaborate why that would be?

As long as Cuba doesn't allow its players to leave freely for MLB, Cuban players will need smugglers, regardless of MLB's rules.

From the players' standpoint, being smuggled to Mexico or Haiti isn't inherently more dangerous than being smuggled to the U.S. It might actually be less dangerous in terms of the actual smuggling trip, since Mexico and Haiti don't have a heavy Coast Guard and naval presence that actively works to interdict smuggling boats, like the U.S. does.

From there, the smugglers are going to do whatever it is they need to do to get paid, whether they're operating in Mexico or in the U.S. The Puig story is getting all sorts of attention, but within the past decade, Cuban players were smuggled to the U.S. and handled not all that differently.

My preferred solution would be ending the embargo, but we don't seem any closer to that than ever, really.

Ending the embargo wouldn't change this situation much, either. The U.S. could end the embargo tomorrow, but the Cuban government still won't be allowing its players to leave freely for MLB. Japan doesn't have an embargo against Cuba, but we haven't seen Cuban players heading over to Japan en masse and then going back to Cuba in the offseason. (I know Frederich Cepeda is in Japan now, but he's a longtime loyalist who's being rewarded. There hasn't been a sea change in Cuba with regards to professional athletics.)
   3040. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 26, 2014 at 11:26 PM (#4695095)
Of course, the article that Andy cited was NOT part of the article I linked to, and it is misleading to suggest it was.

The article I linked to was the third of three articles on the same page you linked to, of which "your" article was the first. All three of them were routed through the same source: Politico, and the ultimate source for "my" article was this Health Affairs study.

But then I guess by "Read the whole thing", you meant "Read the whole thing I want you to read, but pay no attention to anything else on that page."

Trying to pretend otherwise isn't going to fool anyone, and I suspect it just makes it more likely that those who had their policies adversely affected will make their views known at the ballot box.

If you want to accuse that nonpartisan group of "pretending", I suggest you take it up with them. Being as how "your" side has spent countless millions of dollars trying to sabotage the ACA and scare people away from it, you may wind up with a strong electoral showing this time around, but the ACA isn't going anywhere, and in the long run the truth is going to outweigh all the scare stories.
   3041. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 26, 2014 at 11:40 PM (#4695101)
The article I linked to was the third of three articles on the same page you linked to, of which "your" article was the first.

Your article wasn't part of the path I took to the article I cited. It wasn't any part of the article that I excerpted and linked to. To say it was, which you did, suggests that I omitted significant information or mischaracterized the article I cited. You should know better.
   3042. tshipman Posted: April 26, 2014 at 11:43 PM (#4695105)
As long as Cuba doesn't allow its players to leave freely for MLB, Cuban players will need smugglers, regardless of MLB's rules.

From the players' standpoint, being smuggled to Mexico or Haiti isn't inherently more dangerous than being smuggled to the U.S. It might actually be less dangerous in terms of the actual smuggling trip, since Mexico and Haiti don't have a heavy Coast Guard and naval presence that actively works to interdict smuggling boats, like the U.S. does.

From there, the smugglers are going to do whatever it is they need to do to get paid, whether they're operating in Mexico or in the U.S. The Puig story is getting all sorts of attention, but within the past decade, Cuban players were smuggled to the U.S. and handled not all that differently.


Thanks, I didn't quite understand the point the article was trying to make. Sounds like there's little difference, really.

Ending the embargo wouldn't change this situation much, either. The U.S. could end the embargo tomorrow, but the Cuban government still won't be allowing its players to leave freely for MLB. Japan doesn't have an embargo against Cuba, but we haven't seen Cuban players heading over to Japan en masse and then going back to Cuba in the offseason. (I know Frederich Cepeda is in Japan now, but he's a longtime loyalist who's being rewarded. There hasn't been a sea change in Cuba with regards to professional athletics.)


Well, ending the embargo should reduce the danger--at the least, it's only a 90 mile boat ride vs. a longer one.
   3043. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 26, 2014 at 11:49 PM (#4695109)
Well, ending the embargo should reduce the danger--at the least, it's only a 90 mile boat ride vs. a longer one.

We could give political asylum to all Cubans who escape Cuba without doing anything about the embargo. The problem is that Cuba doesn't recognize its citizens right to leave, not the embargo.
   3044. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 26, 2014 at 11:56 PM (#4695114)
Thanks, I didn't quite understand the point the article was trying to make. Sounds like there's little difference, really.

It seems like the legislators believe the Zetas are more heavily involved than they really are. The reality is, the smuggling of Cuban players, whether they're smuggled to Mexico or Haiti or the U.S., is handled almost exclusively by Cuban-Americans — and these particular Cuban-Americans aren't humanitarians.

Well, ending the embargo should reduce the danger--at the least, it's only a 90 mile boat ride vs. a longer one.

Perhaps, but they'd still be heading toward the U.S. illegally. If the embargo was ended, it wouldn't suddenly become legal for boatloads of Cubans to travel by boat to the U.S., any more than it's legal for boatloads of Haitians or Mexicans to do the same.
   3045. zenbitz Posted: April 27, 2014 at 02:55 AM (#4695175)
I am in favor of most any policy that prevents the LA Dodgers from getting good Cuban baseballers.
   3046. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 27, 2014 at 05:26 AM (#4695180)
OK, condoms are widely available and way better than nothing. Great. Why not still make it easier (than it already is) for women to take more control over contraception and use it with more certainty? What's the downside in that? Even if you're big on chastity as a value, you have to recognize that there are lots of people who simply won't be chaste despite all possible rhetoric, persuasion, and/or shaming. So let them manage their reproductive lives with some planning and forethought.
If by "make it easier" you actually meant what Mark was pretending you meant -- eliminating the FDA -- I'd be all for it. But otherwise, it can't be made any easier.
   3047. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 27, 2014 at 05:30 AM (#4695181)
Krugman has always endorsed raising his own taxes, so you are lying again.
Again, people who think they ought to pay more in taxes write a check. What you mean is that he has endorsed raising other people's taxes.
   3048. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 27, 2014 at 05:36 AM (#4695182)
From the NY Daily News, on the real-estate - investor funded carriage horse opponents NYCLASS:

The FBI is investigating allegations that opponents of the carriage horse industry threatened to undermine Bill de Blasio’s chief rival in last year’s mayoral race, Christine Quinn, if she didn’t support their cause, the Daily News has learned.
I'm not clear on what "allegation" they would be "investigating" in that case. "Support our cause or we'll try to get your opponent elected" is called democracy. And hard to see how it would be the FBI's business in any case.
   3049. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 27, 2014 at 05:43 AM (#4695183)
Well, the Administration isn't really hiding that they are doing that. My point is that Kevin 2.0 selectively excerpted and blatantly distorted the NYT article in a crude attempt to blame Republicans for delaying the Savannah Dredging Project. Even after being caught, he continues to do so.
You can't blame him; he's just following what he learned at OCS.
   3050. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 27, 2014 at 05:46 AM (#4695184)
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Major League Baseball would have to change its policy on Cuban players if the Miami Marlins and Tampa Bay Rays want a share of state money that would be set aside for professional sports stadiums under a bill the House passed Friday.
What a terribly written article; it doesn't actually say what the bill does.
   3051. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 27, 2014 at 05:47 AM (#4695186)
So why doesn't Canada bring an anti-trust case against MLB? They aren't bound by the Supreme Court.
Because the existence of the Toronto Blue Jays is less important to MLB than the anti-trust exemption?
   3052. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 27, 2014 at 05:52 AM (#4695187)
Well, ending the embargo should reduce the danger--at the least, it's only a 90 mile boat ride vs. a longer one.
I don't understand what this means. Ending the embargo might be a good idea, but what does it have to do with this issue at all? The danger comes from two things: (1) players have to be smuggled out of Cuba, and (2) MLB rules say that if they come to the U.S., they're not free agents. Neither of those have anything to do with the embargo.
   3053. Publius Publicola Posted: April 27, 2014 at 07:42 AM (#4695190)
Your article wasn't part of the path I took to the article I cited. It wasn't any part of the article that I excerpted and linked to.


Of course it wasn't. You never check for countervailing information before you do your article and poll links. That's why you're so easily refuted all the time.
   3054. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 27, 2014 at 08:22 AM (#4695200)
The article I linked to was the third of three articles on the same page you linked to, of which "your" article was the first.

Your article wasn't part of the path I took to the article I cited. It wasn't any part of the article that I excerpted and linked to. To say it was, which you did, suggests that I omitted significant information or mischaracterized the article I cited. You should know better.


You didn't omit any part of the article that you wanted everyone to read, but you omitted to mention anything about the other article(s) that were right there on the same page, bolded for attention and fully accessible with one quick click.

Being as how "your" side has spent countless millions of dollars trying to sabotage the ACA and scare people away from it, you may wind up with a strong electoral showing this time around, but the ACA isn't going anywhere, and in the long run the truth is going to outweigh all the scare stories.

In reference to that point, here's a good example of what I'm talking about:

In Poorest States, Political Stigma Is Depressing Participation in Health Law

HUNTINGTON, W.Va. — Inside the sleek hillside headquarters of Valley Health Systems, built with a grant from the health care law, two employees played an advertisement they had helped produce to promote the law’s insurance coverage for young, working-class West Virginians.

The ads ran just over 100 times during the recent six-month enrollment period. But three conservative groups ran 12 times as many, to oppose the law and the local Democratic congressman who voted for it....

In the past week, 22 new television ads against the health care law and for Republican federal candidates ran in 14 states. Since last spring, 76 percent of the more than 38,000 Republican-sponsored television ads nationally, and 79 percent in West Virginia, have attacked the law, according to Kantar Media/CMAG, which tracks political advertising.

“Unless public opinion breaks decidedly in favor of the law or some other unexpected but powerful issue arises, Obamacare will remain the top issue in Republican House and Senate TV advertising for the duration of the cycle,” said Elizabeth Wilner, senior vice president at Kantar Media.

While the evidence that such ads, and the partisan climate generally, have hindered sign-ups consists mainly of anecdotes, nearly everyone interviewed in West Virginia volunteered some.

“The controversy about Obamacare does seem to have interfered with people’s ability to sort out the value of the marketplace for getting health insurance for themselves,” said Dr. James B. Becker, associate professor of the Marshall University School of Medicine and medical director of the state’s Medicaid program.

Other problems stymied the introduction of the law, notably the initially dysfunctional federal website. But the political polarization “complicates our efforts to enroll people and to educate people about the Affordable Care Act, there’s no question,” said Perry Bryant, head of the advocacy group West Virginians for Affordable Health Care, based in Charleston, the capital.

“Literally, people thought there would be chips embedded in their bodies if they signed up for Obamacare,” Mr. Bryant said....

Many of the uninsured were also deterred from participating by cultural factors: unfamiliarity with insurance, computer illiteracy, Appalachian isolation and, most of all, cost. But also at play was hostility to Mr. Obama.

“The president is definitely unpopular here,” said Jeremiah Samples, assistant to the secretary at the State Department of Health and Human Resources. “I would not discount it as a factor; I have heard folks discuss it.” He added, “There is perhaps a lot attributed to the A.C.A. that is not actuarially accurate.”

“I worry,” Mr. Samples said, “about people not understanding what their options are.”








   3055. Mefisto Posted: April 27, 2014 at 10:33 AM (#4695223)
people who think they ought to pay more in taxes write a check.


No, because that allows the deadbeats to freeride.
   3056. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 27, 2014 at 10:43 AM (#4695228)
Again, people who think they ought to pay more in taxes write a check. What you mean is that he has endorsed raising other people's taxes.


Man what is it with the free loading? You want a bunch of soft touch liberals to pay a whole pile of money into the system, make society better and then you can leech off the benefits without paying.

EDIT: And I got distracted and ended up freeloading on Mefisto. My bad.
   3057. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: April 27, 2014 at 11:01 AM (#4695235)

Man what is it with the free loading? You want a bunch of soft touch liberals to pay a whole pile of money into the system, make society better and then you can leech off the benefits without paying.


Ah, the typical progressofascist position. Basing the entire taxation system and system of laws on free rides is great -- until it's their personal money at risk.
   3058. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 27, 2014 at 11:09 AM (#4695239)
Man what is it with the free loading? You want a bunch of soft touch liberals to pay a whole pile of money into the system, make society better and then you can leech off the benefits without paying.

Yes, the people who are paying all the taxes, and don't want to pay more, are the free-riders. As opposed to all the people who don't pay, and get all the Gov't benefits, which you constantly want to increase.

There's definitely a problem in our system with the very rich exploiting flaws in corporate governance and tax policy. If you want to call Bill Gates and Warren Buffet free-riders, you're right. They've amassed 50+ billion in wealth and basically avoided paying taxes on any of it.

But the free-riders ain't the middle class and upper-middle class people paying 35-40% of their incomes in taxes.

   3059. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 27, 2014 at 11:10 AM (#4695240)
Ah, the typical progressofascist position. Basing the entire taxation system and system of laws on free rides is great -- until it's their personal money at risk.


Or you know democracy with garden variety taxation.
   3060. Mefisto Posted: April 27, 2014 at 11:14 AM (#4695243)
Yes, the people who are paying all the taxes, and don't want to pay more, are the free-riders.


I think you meant to say that the people making all the money don't want to pay more taxes. Or any taxes, in some cases.
   3061. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 27, 2014 at 11:18 AM (#4695246)
Yes, the people who are paying all the taxes, and don't want to pay more, are the free-riders. As opposed to all the people who don't pay, and get all the Gov't benefits, which you constantly want to increase.


Where did I say anything like that? Project much?

I believe in democracy and progressive taxation. And the while I appreciate your concern towards the well off statistics show the well off are doing way better than the poor and middle class in the last few decades despite you claim of ever increasing taxes and benefits for the lucky ducky poor.
   3062. formerly dp Posted: April 27, 2014 at 11:20 AM (#4695249)
Again, people who think they ought to pay more in taxes write a check.
Repeating the argument doesn't make it sound any less stupid than it was in the first go-around. Krugman's advocating a particular taxation structure. As an economist, he has a qualified opinion on the subject, divorced from his personal income situation. You know this, but are pretending otherwise for rhetorical purposes. It's not a particularly clever move on your part.
   3063. BDC Posted: April 27, 2014 at 11:45 AM (#4695253)
"Support our cause or we'll try to get your opponent elected" is called democracy

I wondered about that too. But the issue seems to be that a union funneled money through a supposedly non-partisan save-the-horses group, and it ended up being spent directly on an election campaign. There will always be a New York :)
   3064. Dr. Vaux Posted: April 27, 2014 at 12:05 PM (#4695265)
Many of the uninsured were also deterred from participating by cultural factors: unfamiliarity with insurance, computer illiteracy, Appalachian isolation and, most of all, cost.


Cost is a cultural factor? I would suggest that at this point in history, computer illiteracy is more of an economic factor than a cultural factor, too.
   3065. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 27, 2014 at 12:12 PM (#4695269)
I love how liberals all scramble when you point out their tax hypocrisy. You point out that Obama's approach to, e.g., the Ukraine is flawed, and you get a couple of responses. You point out that their do as I say, not as I do approach to government funding is hypocrisy in its purest form, and get fifty or a hundred of them rushing out of the woodwork to explain how trying to force other people to do what you won't voluntarily do yourself is really noble because purple monkey dishwasher.

(To be sure, my favorite argument is that a political philosophy based around the notion that creating freeriders is the purpose of government would try to use an argument about freeriding in support of their position.)
   3066. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 27, 2014 at 12:30 PM (#4695275)
explain how trying to force other people to do what you won't voluntarily do yourself is really noble


Not noble, just democracy. And it is not "other people" it is everyone. See everyone pays taxes according to a set of of laws voted on ... blah ... blah ... democracy.

   3067. BDC Posted: April 27, 2014 at 12:52 PM (#4695285)
The Mouse is right, this is just an objection to the existence of government (which is an OK argument to have sometimes, like when 19 and drunk in a dorm room :)

I pay taxes. Some people would like to devote even more of my taxes to paying for drone warfare than already goes there. Responding "If you love drones so much, militarist, go buy the CIA a couple" is not really to the point.
   3068. Mefisto Posted: April 27, 2014 at 12:56 PM (#4695289)
I love how liberals all scramble when you point out their tax hypocrisy.


I love the way you think "hypocrisy" is an argument instead of an ad hominem.

But the hypocrisy is all yours: if you don't want to pay taxes, move to someplace where you don't have to pay them and stop trying to free ride on the rest of us.
   3069. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 27, 2014 at 01:15 PM (#4695298)
You didn't omit any part of the article that you wanted everyone to read, but you omitted to mention anything about the other article(s) that were right there on the same page, bolded for attention and fully accessible with one quick click.

When did it become my job to scour the Internet looking for articles that might undermine my own positions, even if those positions aren't directly raised by the material I was posting? And why would such a "standard" apply to me when no one else here does that? Applying Andy's standard to his own post #3035, look what he "omitted" - Oregon Shuts Down State ObamaCare Exchange Without Signing Up A Single Customer:
As recently as 2013, Oregon was expected to have one of the best Obamacare exchanges in the country. But it never managed to get the website to work properly. Residents could not enroll in the Cover Oregon exchange on their own. They needed to use paper or get the help of an insurance broker.

Quite a "success" - $80M down the drain, no one signed up. Surprising that Andy wouldn't post that himself since there is a link to it on the page he cited in #3035, and he claims that there is some obligation to cite material dealing with the general topic even if it's irrelevant to the specific topic being cited. Of course, that's an idiotic "standard" which explains why he didn't follow it and no one else will either.
   3070. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 27, 2014 at 01:54 PM (#4695308)
I'm surprised it took you that long to link to the third article, since posting articles that favor only your position seems to be your full time "job". The difference is that unlike you, some of us aren't afraid of getting of news that doesn't bolster our own positions. I've never complained that you often seem to function as a press agent for the RNC, since many of the articles you post are definitely worth reading, even if I'd read most all of them already.

The funny thing is watching Republicans keep talking about repealing Obamacare while wanting to keep every major part except for the mandate. I don't know whether you fall into that quaint category, but it wouldn't surprise me.
   3071. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 27, 2014 at 02:22 PM (#4695321)
I'm surprised it took you that long to link to the third article, since posting articles that favor only your position seems to be your full time "job".

Please cite to the articles you've posted that disfavor your position. Please do the same for the other OTP regulars. No need to include me, I freely admit that I don't go out of my way to post items I disagree with, I just didn't realize I was the only one that did that. However, I'm pretty sure that is NOT the case.
   3072. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: April 27, 2014 at 02:24 PM (#4695323)
Please cite to the articles you've posted that disfavor your position. Please do the same for the other OTP regulars. No need to include me, I freely admit that I don't go out of my way to post items I disagree with, I just didn't realize I was the only one that did that. However, I'm pretty sure that is NOT the case.


I think it's that you post more articles than anyone else (I have no source for this claim, and also I'm including poll results), so it stands out more.
   3073. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 27, 2014 at 02:39 PM (#4695333)
I think it's that you post more articles than anyone else (I have no source for this claim, and also I'm including poll results), so it stands out more.

Well, that might be true (or close), but there are far more folks posting in this thread from a liberal or Democratic perspective, so I'm just bringing a bit of balance. I'm certainly not the only one allowed to post articles or polls, and I recall that others used to post poll results regularly when the polling favored the Democrats. Now that they [mostly] don't, those folks rarely post polls, and some whine about polls and articles simply because they don't like the message. I do see the occasional outlier poll of late favoring the Democrats is usually promptly posted, sometimes even taking me to task for not already having done so. LOL.
   3074. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: April 27, 2014 at 03:19 PM (#4695351)
Well, that might be true (or close), but there are far more folks posting in this thread from a liberal or Democratic perspective, so I'm just bringing a bit of balance.


I think the total post quantity is pretty close to 50/50. You, Joe, and David post a lot. But I'm not going to count posts or attempt to support my opinion, because it's more fun to just make unsupported assertions. 95% of the posters on this site agree with me!
   3075. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 27, 2014 at 04:21 PM (#4695373)
I'm surprised it took you that long to link to the third article, since posting articles that favor only your position seems to be your full time "job".

Please cite to the articles you've posted that disfavor your position.


I don't save threads, but I've posted numerous articles here over the years that give both sides of an issue. If I didn't post this one earlier, here's a good example of the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Looking at Costs and Risks, Many Skip Health Insurance

Or this one:

In Poorest States, Political Stigma Is Depressing Participation in Health Law

I've also said more than a few times that I'm glad you keep posting all articles that read like mirror images of the sort of DSSC pitches I get in my inbox, for the simple reason that some of them at least contain uncomfortable truths that liberals often like to sweep under the rug.

But I have to question who's more reality based: Democrats (including Obama) who recognize the flaws in the ACA and try to alter it to meet the problems that have arisen, while working towards the eventual goal of truly universal and affordable health care; or Republicans who dismiss any of the advances the law entails and vote over 50 times to try to repeal it, and have proven themselves time and again to be fundamentally hostile to the very idea of any such universal coverage---outside of emergency rooms, that is.
   3076. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 27, 2014 at 04:34 PM (#4695387)
Yes, the people who are paying all the taxes, and don't want to pay more, are the free-riders.

I think you meant to say that the people making all the money don't want to pay more taxes. Or any taxes, in some cases.


What a predictably hilarious conversation.

"My taxes should be higher."
"Well, then, go ahead and write a check."
"No, because then you'll be free-riding!!"

I don't know what's more comical -- this, or the idea that there are people in the US who lack "access to birth control."
   3077. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 27, 2014 at 04:34 PM (#4695388)
Democrats (including Obama) who recognize the flaws in the ACA and try to alter it to meet the problems that have arisen . . .

What changes or fixes does the Obama Administration propose going forward? What legislation has the Obama Administration endorsed? What new healthcare legislation has even received a hearing in the Democratic Senate? When did Harry Reid back off his vow to prevent any healthcare legislation from coming to the Senate floor? There is no "ObamaCare Fix", it's just a slogan. Surprised you fell for that.
   3078. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 27, 2014 at 04:59 PM (#4695406)
I'm talking about the executive orders Obama's given, deadlines he's extended, extra effort he's put into fixing the ###### up website. These are among the measures that have taken the ACA from the embarrassment of early October to where we are today, with the main impediments to further progress being the monkey wrench throwers on the state level.

Many of these measures were taken in direct answer to criticisms that were made upon the law's unveiling, because the point is fixing the law's faults, not pretending that everything was perfect. And I'm sure there'll be more such fixes down the road, because Rome wasn't built in a day.

Of course if you're talking about "new healthcare legislation" that guts the underpinnings of the ACA, it's going to take more than a few thousand Koch Brothers ads and one transient election cycle to do that. The Republicans aren't looking to fix the law; they're looking for unconditional surrender.



   3079. Mefisto Posted: April 27, 2014 at 05:04 PM (#4695410)
I don't know what's more comical


The most comical thing in this thread is the way you and DMN run away from actual arguments, patting yourselves on the back as you do so. Randian handshakes all around!
   3080. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 27, 2014 at 05:15 PM (#4695415)
The most comical thing in this thread is the way you and DMN run away from actual arguments,


That's just the problem - that these (apparently) are actual arguments. And given that they are not serious, they ought not be taken seriously.
   3081. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 27, 2014 at 05:18 PM (#4695420)
But the hypocrisy is all yours: if you don't want to pay taxes, move to someplace where you don't have to pay them and stop trying to free ride on the rest of us.
I don't think you understand the concept of free riding. I want to pay for what I use. (Not what others try to force on me -- if you gratuitously confer a gift on me, I don't owe you for it -- but what I actually choose to use.) Not wanting to have my money redistributed to others is not "free riding," nor is not wanting to pay for fake "benefits" like Obamacare that are actually detrimental.
   3082. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 27, 2014 at 05:18 PM (#4695421)
while working towards the eventual goal of truly universal and affordable health care

There is zero, zero chance of achieving that through increased Federal subsidies for Medicaid and Exchange plans. All that it's doing is feeding the beast of the current bloated health care system.

Obamacare is plain and simple a wealth transfer from the Middle and Upper Middle Classes to the Democrats preferred voters, with a few people with pre-existing conditions benefiting on the side.

If you want to provide health care for the poor and working class, fund health care for them. Don't expand a corrupt program like Medicaid, or saddle people with $10,000 deductible exchange plans they can't afford, and mostly won't benefit from.

If you wanted to help people with pre-existing conditions, why not just offer them a tax-credit to subsidize their coverage?
   3083. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 27, 2014 at 05:20 PM (#4695423)
I'm talking about the executive orders Obama's given, deadlines he's extended
Uh. extending deadlines so that the painful parts of Obamacare don't kick in until after the midterm elections is "fixing" Democrats' electoral chances, not Obamacare.
   3084. Mefisto Posted: April 27, 2014 at 06:01 PM (#4695452)
I want to pay for what I use.


Actually, you don't. You want to pay for only a subset of the things you do use, and you want the rest of us to supply those free to you. You're the very image of a free rider.

Not wanting to have my money redistributed to others is not "free riding,"


Actually, it is under some circumstances, including circumstances existing in our society. But as usual, you've dodged the point by trying to shift the dialogue. The issue is your insistence that others pay taxes when you don't. That's free riding.
   3085. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 27, 2014 at 06:29 PM (#4695473)
I've also said more than a few times that I'm glad you keep posting all articles that read like mirror images of the sort of DSSC pitches I get in my inbox, for the simple reason that some of them at least contain uncomfortable truths that liberals often like to sweep under the rug.

Well, then you'll really like this one. Remember Obama's boast that 35% of ObamaCare enrollees were under 35? Busted By The Fact Checker:
Why is that important? The “young invincibles” are considered a key to the health law’s success, since they are healthier and won’t require as much health care as older Americans. If the proportion of young and old enrollees was out of whack, insurance companies might feel compelled to boost premiums, which some analysts feared would lead to a cycle of even fewer younger adults and higher premiums. (There is also a dissenting viewpoint about the importance of this figure.)

But some readers cried foul, saying the president highlighted a misleading number in his news conference. The young invincibles are between the ages of 18 and 34 — and as White House “fact sheet” acknowledged, that figure is 28 percent. The 35 percent figures includes children under the age of 18.

Last summer, in background briefings for the media, the administration set an ambitious goal: 40 percent of the enrollees would be between the ages of 18 and 34. That added up to 2.7 million of the anticipated 7 million enrollees.

But the early numbers for Affordable Care Act were a bit grim, as reporters homed in on the percentage of enrollees between 18 and 34. In February, as the percentage edged up from 24 percent to 27 percent, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius touted what she called a “65 percent rate of growth.” (She was counting the increase in the raw number of young-invincible enrollees.) But the percentage stayed stuck at 27 percent in March.

So you can see why there might be some excitement about a figure of 35 percent, as it sounded rather close to the original 40 percent goal. Indeed, the 35 percent figure was first spread a few hours before the president’s remarks by state insurance commissioners, who had met privately with the president at the White House.

So, only 28% of ObamaCare enrollees were Young Invincibles, which is well short of the Administration's goal. Missing the mark by 30% has to have a negative effect on future ObamaCare costs. Anyone here still believe we will see that average savings of $2500 per family per year that Obama promised?
   3086. greenback calls it soccer Posted: April 27, 2014 at 06:38 PM (#4695478)
Obamacare is plain and simple...

I've come to the conclusion that any sentence that starts this way is not worth finishing. Crossfire-style rhetorical flourishes don't translate to message boards.
   3087. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 27, 2014 at 06:57 PM (#4695484)
Well, then you'll really like this one.

As I said, I'm glad you keep posting articles, but since we get the Post and the Times delivered in the print editions, I read that Kessler column right after breakfast. Since he's awarded many Pinocchios to Republicans on the ACA issue, I'm sure you'll also be posting those columns. (smile)
   3088. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 27, 2014 at 07:04 PM (#4695486)
Since he's awarded many Pinocchios to Republicans on the ACA issue,

I look around this board and I see nothing but untapped potential ....
   3089. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 27, 2014 at 07:09 PM (#4695490)
So, only 28% of ObamaCare enrollees were Young Invincibles, which is well short of the Administration's goal.

True, but two points. The recently announced sign-up numbers are only a small part of the overall total; the as-yet unrevealed state by state numbers will be better or worse. I wouldn't hitch my wagon to any of the numbers being touted and denounced at the moment.

And the initial "young invincibles" enrollment for Romneycare was 28.3% of the whole.
   3090. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 27, 2014 at 07:09 PM (#4695491)
Anyone here still believe we will see that average savings of $2500 per family per year that Obama promised?


They're already happening. The cost of exchange health care plans in New York are 50% of previous plans. Costs for family coverage are projected to be $2000 a month lower in 2014 than 2013.

####, linking's not working. Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/health/health-plan-cost-for-new-yorkers-set-to-fall-50.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
   3091. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 27, 2014 at 07:13 PM (#4695492)
So, only 28% of ObamaCare enrollees were Young Invincibles, which is well short of the Administration's goal. Missing the mark by 30% has to have a negative effect on future ObamaCare costs. Anyone here still believe we will see that average savings of $2500 per family per year that Obama promised?


Yes ACA did not meet the goal. Good thing that the various insurance execs have pretty much said that it doesn't look like the current mix of people who enrolled is going to be a problem.
   3092. tshipman Posted: April 27, 2014 at 07:15 PM (#4695493)
They're already happening. The cost of exchange health care plans in New York are 50% of previous plans. Costs for family coverage are projected to be $2000 a month lower in 2014 than 2013.


This is pretty much idiosyncratic and limited to the New York market, though. California is a better test, imo.

So, only 28% of ObamaCare enrollees were Young Invincibles, which is well short of the Administration's goal. Missing the mark by 30% has to have a negative effect on future ObamaCare costs.


Highly unlikely. As other people have said, what matters is that ACA came in at where Romneycare was at. It's quite likely that insurers did not use the 35% figure, and we can see evidence for this in comments made publicly by Aetna and other large companies.
   3093. Lassus Posted: April 27, 2014 at 07:15 PM (#4695494)
More because his name was listed last when I clicked here, I am curious of SBB's response to the modern liberal reaction to Donald Sterling.
   3094. bobm Posted: April 27, 2014 at 07:21 PM (#4695497)
[3090] That misrepresents the impact of any savings in NY State, but whatever.

FTFA:

Individuals buying health insurance on their own will see their premiums tumble next year in New York State as changes under the federal health care law take effect, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced on Wednesday. [...]

The new premium rates do not affect a majority of New Yorkers, who receive insurance through their employers, only those who must purchase it on their own. Because the cost of individual coverage has soared, only 17,000 New Yorkers currently buy insurance on their own. About 2.6 million are uninsured in New York State.[emphasis added]
   3095. robinred Posted: April 27, 2014 at 07:23 PM (#4695498)
SBB posted on the NBA Thread:

587. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 26, 2014 at 02:03 PM (#4694756)
Take his team away.
   3096. Lassus Posted: April 27, 2014 at 07:32 PM (#4695501)
Thanks, robin. I try not to go into the NBA thread. I feel like I might catch something.

Funny thing is, that's a more modern liberal position than I would hold by a long shot. I guess it's too much to expect, but I would have loved it if they just had refused to play. I can't see any legal or procedural right for taking away his team to work. Here, FINALLY, I feel like the market is the key. There, David, Dan, Ray, I'm on board in this instance.
   3097. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: April 27, 2014 at 07:41 PM (#4695503)
Thanks, robin. I try not to go into the NBA thread. I feel like I might catch something.
Playoff fever.
   3098. Lassus Posted: April 27, 2014 at 07:46 PM (#4695504)
Playoff fever.

I already have that - until mathematical impossibility - for the Mets.
   3099. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 27, 2014 at 08:01 PM (#4695507)
I am curious of SBB's response to the modern liberal reaction to Donald Sterling.

That would be noted liberal Democrat Donald Sterling, the owner of the LA Clippers?
   3100. Lassus Posted: April 27, 2014 at 08:09 PM (#4695509)
That would be noted liberal Democrat Donald Sterling, the owner of the LA Clippers?

Yes. And?
Page 31 of 48 pages ‹ First  < 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
dirk
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3522 - 6:58pm, Jul 29)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October

NewsblogTrader Jack? As Seattle's GM struggles to complete deals, some rival executives wonder | FOX Sports
(52 - 6:55pm, Jul 29)
Last: Yeaarrgghhhh

NewsblogValencia traded to Toronto
(10 - 6:54pm, Jul 29)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogMASN TV Contract Pits Selig vs Nationals vs Orioles
(12 - 6:48pm, Jul 29)
Last: Joey B.: posting for the kids of northeast Ohio

NewsblogWhich Players Will Be Most Affected by the Hall of Fame’s New Rules?
(4 - 6:48pm, Jul 29)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogHoward: David Ortiz shaping up to become first steroid era Teflon slugger
(18 - 6:37pm, Jul 29)
Last: 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people

Newsblog‘Caucasians’ T-shirt mocking Cleveland Indians becomes hot seller on reserves
(23 - 6:23pm, Jul 29)
Last: Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat

NewsblogABC News: ‘Capital Games’: How Congress Saved the Baseball Hall of Fame
(44 - 6:20pm, Jul 29)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogNewsweek: With Big Data, Moneyball Will Be on Steroids
(7 - 6:09pm, Jul 29)
Last: A New Leaf

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-29-2014
(44 - 6:08pm, Jul 29)
Last: philphan

NewsblogSickels: George McClellan, Dayton Moore, and the Kansas City Royals
(631 - 5:54pm, Jul 29)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogFull Count » Tim Kurkjian on MFB: ‘I’m going to say that Jon Lester is not going to be traded’
(29 - 5:36pm, Jul 29)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogGossage on Bonds, McGwire Hall hopes: ‘Are you f–king kidding?’
(156 - 5:36pm, Jul 29)
Last: BDC

NewsblogSOE: Minor League Manhood - A first-hand account of masculine sports culture run amok.
(3 - 5:35pm, Jul 29)
Last: ursus arctos

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(1008 - 4:41pm, Jul 29)
Last: Bitter Mouse

Page rendered in 0.9205 seconds
52 querie(s) executed