The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Solecismic]

Don't get me wrong. I think they did predict it, and I think they (correctly) thought it was a good thing that these substandard plans would get cancelled. My point is that it's important for them to point out the difference between what the ACA is mandating to be done and what the insurance companies are deciding to do as a reaction to the ACA.

Why substandard? My plan did what I wanted it to do. There's no evidence BCBS would simply fail to honor it. Nor is there evidence that it will fail to honor it next year under similar circumstances. I was also free to simply pay for the health care I consumed - no insurance at all.

Let's not pretend that Obamacare does anything for healthy self-employed people other than force us to pay more - some for services we should have the ability to opt out of, and some so that the same offer can be extended to older and/or sicker people. And complaining about that point seems kind of weird - it's like complaining that it's unfair for McDonald's to charge more for six Big Macs, five large orders of fries and a smoothie than it charges for a side salad and a coffee.

Those who are working for companies with more than 50 people and have insurance through these companies are largely insulated from this extra taxation - and let's not pretend, as well, that this isn't a form of taxation.

I realize there are a lot of proponents of Obamacare out there. It's hard to turn down something that's essentially free. It's also hard to feel negatively toward something that could benefit the poor when it doesn't impact you at all (those who already have insurance through an employer). But when the entire burden is placed on a smaller group, it's not too pleasant.

This was cleverly implemented for those of you who wanted it politically. Very few pieces of the law were brought in at first - so that only people with this "substandard" insurance were affected. Then in late 2013 - after Obama was safely re-elected, the bigger stuff hit. And, finally, after the midterms next year, at the start of 2015, the adjustments will hit and many of the grandfathered plans will be eliminated. I would not want to be a Democrat running in 2016.

[ISiddiqui]

Those who are working for companies with more than 50 people and have insurance through these companies are largely insulated from this extra taxation - and let's not pretend, as well, that this isn't a form of taxation.

Considering that the Supreme Court's argument - who is denying that it isn't taxation?

[Arles]

And if the Republicans really managed to prevent the debt limit deal, any consequences wouldn't really be their fault, because it would be the credit agencies and the debt holders who would be directly responsible.

And it was really the Iraqi insurgents that dragged out the Iraq war, not the U.S. military. If the insurgents didn't shoot at the military and stuff, then the job would have been done a lot faster.

This mindset kind of fills me with pessimism, the idea that the ACA will be great, as long as everyone, including its opponents, cooperate with it fully and always act in the policy's best interest. I'm actually going to just decide to assume that the brains behind the ACA don't share that mindset and actually did think it was worthwhile to consider concepts like capitalism and private industry, and possibly even the impact of entities that might not act so friendly to the plan.
I expect a similar Gomer Pyle-esque "Aww shucks, who could have anticipated that?" response when, after 2015, companies start kicking employees to the exchanges without giving them raises to makeup for their employer paid portion of benefits.

I see it now: "How were we supposed to know that employers weren't going to give $20 an hour factory workers a $9K per year raise to cover their $700 a month portion. I mean, that's just unfair that these people go from paying $300 a month out of pocket to now facing a $900 a month bill for similar coverage through the exchanges. But, no one could see this coming..."

[cartman]

I expect a similar Gomer Pyle-esque "Aww shucks, who could have anticipated that?" response when, after 2015, companies start kicking employees to the exchanges without giving them raises to makeup for their employer paid portion of benefits.

I see it now: "How were we supposed to know that employers weren't going to give $20 an hour factory workers a $9K per year raise to cover their $700 a month portion. I mean, that's just unfair that these people go from paying $300 a month out of pocket to now facing a $900 a month bill for similar coverage through the exchanges. But, no one could see this coming..."

You are aware then that the company would be missing out on a big tax break. The per-employee fine for not providing insurance is not tax deductible, but any employer contributions to an insurance premium are deductible.

Insurance companies don't want to lose clients either, so they will have more of an incentive to work with larger employers to keep them as clients.

[ISiddiqui]

Stop deflecting knee jerk talking points with facts!! :mad:

[molson]

Insurance companies don't want to lose clients either, so they will have more of an incentive to work with larger employers to keep them as clients.

You might be right, but these predictions don't carry a lot of weight because if they're wrong, capitalism was to blame, not the ACA.

[Arles]

You are aware then that the company would be missing out on a big tax break. The per-employee fine for not providing insurance is not tax deductible, but any employer contributions to an insurance premium are deductible.

Insurance companies don't want to lose clients either, so they will have more of an incentive to work with larger employers to keep them as clients.

Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/)
“The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” wrote the administration on page 34552. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their “grandfather status” and get canceled. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans—more than half the population—was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013.

Another 25 million people, according to the CBO, have “nongroup and other” forms of insurance; that is to say, they participate in the market for individually-purchased insurance. In this market, the administration projected that “40 to 67 percent” of individually-purchased plans would lose their Obamacare-sanctioned “grandfather status” and get canceled, solely due to the fact that there is a high turnover of participants and insurance arrangements in this market. (Plans purchased after March 23, 2010 do not benefit from the “grandfather” clause.) The real turnover rate would be higher, because plans can lose their grandfather status for a number of other reasons.

How many people are exposed to these problems? 60 percent of Americans have private-sector health insurance—precisely the number that Jay Carney dismissed. As to the number of people facing cancellations, 51 percent of the employer-based market plus 53.5 percent of the non-group market (the middle of the administration’s range) amounts to 93 million Americans.

Companies sweating Obamacare tax—and acting on it: Study (http://www.cnbc.com/id/100975973)
Mid- and large-sized companies overwhelmingly expect health-care costs to increase under Obamacare—and most are eyeing possible changes to their health insurance offerings because of a looming excise tax for pricier plans under the health-care reform law, a new survey of employers finds.

In fact, 40 percent of 420 companies surveyed by Towers Watson said they will be changing their insurance plans' designs in 2014 in light of the coming excise tax as well as to control employee-related health costs.

And nearly 60 percent of the companies view private health insurance exchanges as a possible way to control their health-care and administrative costs by shifting the work of insuring their workers off to those exchanges in the future.
Not all companies need all those tax breaks. Companies have been looking for a way to get out of the healthcare game for decades and these exchanges offer them cover to do so - esp when it's only a $2000 per worker a year fine to drop them. For most companies, that's about the cost of covering a worker for 2-3 months.

Employees (esp middle class) are going to be moving from their nice $300-$400 a month out-of-pocket plans they have now to exchanges that will cost around $800-$1200 a month for the same coverage. This is going to be devastating for many middle income families when it happens.

[ISiddiqui]

Sorry, I don't buy it. Most companies started offering health insurance, even though it cost them money to entice better employees. They may bluster about dropping employees to the exchanges, but they realize they'll have a competitive disadvantage to hiring workers.

And Employer Sponsored Plans have been losing their grandfathered status for 2 years now. This isn't something that just happened.

[Arles]

Stop deflecting knee jerk talking points with facts!! :mad:
I don't think anyone knows any "facts" moving forward. A lot of the facts we were told at the start have been false. The reality is that providing insurance to employees was a necessary evil for most major companies as many companies had just been doing it and you needed to provide them to "keep up with the Jones'" and retain people.

However, esp on the lower skilled jobs, it would be very attractive to pull coverage as it would save companies a ton of money and if enough companies did this they would still have access to a strong labor pull. I think higher paid jobs will keep coverage for a bit, but even those could eventually lose it. Remember, it's not just the cost - it's the cost of insuring with a plan that the ACA deems sufficient. I don't think people really understand the "unforseen consequences" that could be down the road because of this.

[Arles]

And Employer Sponsored Plans have been losing their grandfathered status for 2 years now. This isn't something that just happened.
But exchanges weren't an option 2 years ago. By providing companies an out to drop coverage, exchanges may end up costing a lot of people a lot of money. The key is if enough companies take the gamble on being able to find good workers without offering good insurance plans. I think that number is going to rise in 2014 and get even higher in 2015-16. Eventually, enough companies will decide to pay the fine and save the 7K+ per employee on providing good health coverage to make it not required to land good people.

One more key point often missed is that this is exactly what the ACA proponents want. The only way for this system to survive over time is if enough healthy people between the ages of 25 and 45 join up in these exchanges to defray the cost. If it's just people with pre-existing conditions, high risk applicants and lower income - the costs will be enormous. If the ACA proponents were honest, they would say that they hope all employee-provided coverage would go away to help lower the cost on the exchanges. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see legislation down the road to reduce the tax benefits companies get for covering employees.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't think people really understand the "unforseen consequences" that could be down the road because of this.

And on the other hand, you are making up unforseen consequences.

[Arles]

I guess we will see what happens going up to 2015. We have a few years before anything substantial happens either way.

[flere-imsaho]

Uh, the elimination of the pre-existing condition problem, and the ability to cover your kids up to age 26 were pretty substantial for a lot of people.

[Buccaneer]

Typical result in last night's election for a marginally Blue state. With a Democratic legislature and governor, the Dems crafted a very bad bill to fund education within an increase in income taxes. It wasn't so much how they proposed funding but the details of the bill were scary. Fortunately, the voters of the state overwhelmingly voted against it. In very blue Denver and Bounder counties, it was nearly split 50/50 (and trounced everywhere else). So most people saw through the Dems' charade of "it's for the kids". The Republicans are rightly seen as obstructionist do-nothings but it is much better to do nothing than to put a bad legislation into law.

[DaddyTorgo]

What was bad about the bill Bucc?

//genuinely curious - don't follow local ballot initiatives that closely

[ISiddiqui]

This is what I found:

Colorado bill vows education overhaul, but will voters raise taxes to fund it? - CSMonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2013/1104/Colorado-bill-vows-education-overhaul-but-will-voters-raise-taxes-to-fund-it)

Voters are being asked to approve a nearly $1 billion income tax increase that would fund a sweeping overhaul of public education in the state. Among other things, it would raise the per-pupil spending in the state, direct more money to districts with more at-risk students, expand preschool for at-risk kids and full-day kindergarten, give funding equity to charter schools, set aside $100 million for an innovation fund, and establish more transparency and accountability for how education dollars are spent.

It has attracted national attention and support from teachers unions, the US education secretary, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, as well as vocal opposition from Colorado Republicans and some groups who see it as an unnecessary and expensive new tax that won’t necessarily improve education.

One challenge for proponents of Amendment 66: It’s incredibly complex. The Colorado bill that it funds has actually already been passed by both houses of the Colorado legislature, and Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) has signed it, but the law will only take effect if voters also approve the ballot initiative on Tuesday. It would replace the state’s current flat-rate income tax with a new two-tiered system: The flat rate on taxable income below $75,000 would increase from 4.6 percent to 5 percent, and to 5.9 percent for taxable income above $75,000.

“The heart of it is that voters are agreeing to commit more of their income toward education,” says Dan Thatcher, senior policy specialist at the National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver. “But they’re also agreeing to this 141-page piece of legislation that enacts new school funding formulas. [Those formulas] have never had life breathed into them in this way…. This is unique that voters are voting statewide on what’s one of the most complicated components of state law.”

In most states, Mr. Thatcher notes, any school funding reform is usually accompanied by an infusion of new money, so that no districts lose money as a result of the new formula. But in Colorado, the state has to get voter approval, because of the restrictions that the state’s unusual Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) imposes on the legislature’s ability to raise revenue.

But Caldara and other critics also say that the measure doesn’t really deliver on the reforms it claims to promise, and say they aren’t convinced that the extra money will really go toward restoring art or gym classes rather than just backfilling the pension system.

“There’s nothing here that’s truly a reform,” says Caldara. “It’s just a billion-dollar tax increase every year, which is largely unaccountable.”

Proponents of Amendment 66 say that objection leaves them baffled, since the new law would give taxpayers more transparency, and assurances that money would actually go to education, than they’ve ever had before.

“If that’s their concern, they should be the strongest advocates for Amendment 66,” says Johnston. “If they defeat it, we go back to the old system that has no transparency, or accountability, or requirement that dollars be spent on education."

Under the new law there are much stricter controls that ensure that dollars follow students to the classroom and not just fill holes elsewhere in the budget.

It does seem to be complex, but I don't see anything in it that is really all that objectionable.

[Coffee Warlord]

and establish more transparency and accountability for how education dollars are spent.

How about you you do that FIRST, and see where the current tax dollars are going, before you try and get more out of people?

[DaddyTorgo]

Funding equity to charter schools sounds objectionable to me. Especially in a state like CO - I can see wacky cultish charter schools and shit popping up. Or Pentacostalist or stuff.

[ISiddiqui]

Pentecostalism is a perfectly legitimate church, FWIW.

Also, charter schools are created by the state - no religious charter schools could exist, IIRC.

[DaddyTorgo]

Pentecostalism is a perfectly legitimate church, FWIW.

Also, charter schools are created by the state - no religious charter schools could exist, IIRC.

Isn't it pentecostalism where they do the whole "speaking in tongues" rapture thing? If so, I stand by my characterization.

There have definitely been problems in other states with charter schools veering towards religious education - not sure if CO law protects better on that.

Above and beyond that though - charter schools are sketchy to me. I think there are good ones with altruistic motives, and then there others which are ways for the heads to line their own pockets. I don't think they should be funded by my tax dollars unless they're held to the same accountability standards (education & transparency wise) as public schools (which I think should be held to a higher standard than they are in this regard too by the way).

[ISiddiqui]

Isn't it pentecostalism where they do the whole "speaking in tongues" rapture thing? If so, I stand by my characterization.

Which millions and millions of adherents in the US and around the globe. Your ignorance is showing.

Above and beyond that though - charter schools are sketchy to me. I think there are good ones with altruistic motives, and then there others which are ways for the heads to line their own pockets. I don't think they should be funded by my tax dollars unless they're held to the same accountability standards (education & transparency wise) as public schools (which I think should be held to a higher standard than they are in this regard too by the way).

There is a reason why Democratic mayors like Cory Booker have been such avid supporters of charter schools. Its because they have revitalized education in inner cities when the public schools had been failing for so long.

[DaddyTorgo]

Which millions and millions of adherents in the US and around the globe. Your ignorance is showing.

I'm not ignorant. Far from it. Just because there are millions of adherents doesn't mean it's not on the fringe. You know there's millions of Moonies too right? Doesn't make them less weird. I know you've become pretty religious since your conversion, but it's okay to admit that there are "fringier" groups under your religious umbrella.


There is a reason why Democratic mayors like Cory Booker have been such avid supporters of charter schools. Its because they have revitalized education in inner cities when the public schools had been failing for so long.

I'm not saying I'm against all charter schools. I said there are good ones and there are bad ones, but the lack of accountability and some of the higher-profile cases of charter schools skimping on educational funds while administrators line their own pockets worries me, and I want there to be more stringent oversight and accountability for my tax dollars (in both public and charter schools I said). OMG...I'm a Democrat arguing for more stringent oversight - yes I am.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm not ignorant. Far from it. Just because there are millions of adherents doesn't mean it's not on the fringe. You know there's millions of Moonies too right? Doesn't make them less weird. I know you've become pretty religious since your conversion, but it's okay to admit that there are "fringier" groups under your religious umbrella.

270+ million worldwide. One of the fastest growing denominations in the world. 13 million in the US - second largest Protestant denomination in the country after Baptists. Like I said, it is speaking from ignorance if you consider a denomination that is so large and influential to be a "fringe" faith.

FTR, I don't consider speaking in tongues to be strange and I engage in the practice myself. It not exactly a surprising thing down in these red states (or even religious folk in your blue state).

[DaddyTorgo]

270+ million worldwide. One of the fastest growing denominations in the world. 13 million in the US - second largest Protestant denomination in the country after Baptists. Like I said, it is speaking from ignorance if you consider a denomination that is so large and influential to be a "fringe" faith.

FTR, I don't consider speaking in tongues to be strange and I engage in the practice myself. It not exactly a surprising thing down in these red states (or even religious folk in your blue state).

I consider it strange. I didn't realize you were a Pentacostalist though and it would hit so close to home for you. I'm sorry if I offended you. Obviously we feel differently about it, let's just leave it at that and save the "religion talk" for one of the periodic "religion" threads that pops up.

[Arles]

This is what I found:
It does seem to be complex, but I don't see anything in it that is really all that objectionable.
The problem is that its the same old education solution in this country: Throw more and more money into it without any kind of plan or accountability. There's a reason private schools educate kids to a better level and to half the cost of public schools - it's because they have accountability. A parent isn't going to keep paying to send a kid to a crap private school.

Come up with a plan and explain why you need the money. Heck, come up with the plan, pass it and then try to get incremental funding as you work through the steps in it. A lot of the initial reforms most states need don't cost a dime.

[ISiddiqui]

The problem is that its the same old education solution in this country: Throw more and more money into it without any kind of plan or accountability. There's a reason private schools educate kids to a better level and to half the cost of public schools - it's because they have accountability. A parent isn't going to keep paying to send a kid to a crap private school.

Come up with a plan and explain why you need the money. Heck, come up with the plan, pass it and then try to get incremental funding as you work through the steps in it. A lot of the initial reforms most states need don't cost a dime.

WTF?! The main problem it seems with the bill is that the PLAN is complex.

[ISiddiqui]

I consider it strange. I didn't realize you were a Pentacostalist though and it would hit so close to home for you. I'm sorry if I offended you. Obviously we feel differently about it, let's just leave it at that and save the "religion talk" for one of the periodic "religion" threads that pops up.

I consider myself Charismatic. However, it isn't due to my status that I was taken aback, it was the suggestion that something is a fringe belief when it is so prevalent. One of the things that tends to bother me is that sometimes atheists or mainline Protestants (of which I am one) don't seem to realize that some of the stuff they call 'fringe' has more adherents or people believing it than some of the stuff they consider mainstream.

[Arles]

WTF?! The main problem it seems with the bill is that the PLAN is complex.
It's complex in how it is drawn, but there isn't a clear path to results. Just because something is complex doesn't mean it has a good plan. Increasing the spending per pupil isn't the solution. Break it up into multiple phases beginning with the last piece in the bill "establish more transparency and accountability for how education dollars are spent".

Maybe after you see how money is spent, the solution might not be to just bump up the spending - it could be to completely change the spending paradigm altogether.

It's like a business going to a bank and saying "Well, I'm not sure what product I will make, how I will make it or how much I will sell it for. But can I have a low interest loan for $1 million to see if I can do it?" I don't fault the Colorado voters at all for voting that down. It's the job of the bill to convince people as to why they need $1 billion - not to just demand and say we are all anti-education if we don't agree.

[cartman]

The problem is that its the same old education solution in this country: Throw more and more money into it without any kind of plan or accountability. There's a reason private schools educate kids to a better level and to half the cost of public schools - it's because they have accountability. A parent isn't going to keep paying to send a kid to a crap private school.

Come up with a plan and explain why you need the money. Heck, come up with the plan, pass it and then try to get incremental funding as you work through the steps in it. A lot of the initial reforms most states need don't cost a dime.

Care to back this spending claim up? I can't find any references to private schools spending half the per-student amount of public schools.

Here's some figures I saw (this report seems to be widely referenced):

http://www.greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Baker_PvtFinance.pdf

Public schools spend, in dollars adjusted for both region and inflation, more than
Christian Association Schools (CAS) and Catholic schools, but less than Hebrew
or independent day schools: nearly $15,000 per pupil for independent schools,
over $12,000 for Hebrew schools, $7,743 for Catholic schools, and approximately
$5,727 for CAS. For public schools, the comparable average spending figure was
$8,402.

[DaddyTorgo]

I consider myself Charismatic. However, it isn't due to my status that I was taken aback, it was the suggestion that something is a fringe belief when it is so prevalent. One of the things that tends to bother me is that sometimes atheists or mainline Protestants (of which I am one) don't seem to realize that some of the stuff they call 'fringe' has more adherents or people believing it than some of the stuff they consider mainstream.

This is a discussion for another thread, so I'll not address it here.

[ISiddiqui]

Arles: I'm sorry, you said:

Throw more and more money into it without any kind of plan or accountability.

There is a Plan. Now you are shifting goalposts and saying it isn't a "good plan". I'm not sure you know what the exact plan is.

From the CS Monitor article:
Among other things, it would raise the per-pupil spending in the state, direct more money to districts with more at-risk students, expand preschool for at-risk kids and full-day kindergarten, give funding equity to charter schools, set aside $100 million for an innovation fund, and establish more transparency and accountability for how education dollars are spent.

That seems like a good outline of a plan to me. I'm sure the pages and pages of the bill go into more detail about it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Care to back this spending claim up? I can't find any references to private schools spending half the per-student amount of public schools.

Here's some figures I saw (this report seems to be widely referenced):

http://www.greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Baker_PvtFinance.pdf

I think by half he meant "nearly double." It's Arles-math again.

[Marc Vaughan]

Care to back this spending claim up? I can't find any references to private schools spending half the per-student amount of public schools.

Its also worth looking above just raw 'spending' and looking at the quality of education provided etc. - I know some 'private' schools in Florida which don't have many particularly qualified teachers at all and I'm sure their spending is 'cheap' in comparison to the public schools ... but I wouldn't send my kids there.

(as with Healthcare I think education is something its vital to invest money into for the good of society as a whole, it shouldn't be driven by a 'profit motive' in my opinion - not least because the entire concept of 'money' and 'profit' is a human created illusion .... yeah I know I'm a socialist hippy ;) )

[Arles]

Care to back this spending claim up? I can't find any references to private schools spending half the per-student amount of public schools.

Here's some figures I saw (this report seems to be widely referenced):

http://www.greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Baker_PvtFinance.pdf
There was a great article in the Washington Post a few years back that debunked this number:

We're often told that public schools are underfunded. In the District, the spending figure cited most commonly is $8,322 per child, but total spending is close to $25,000 per child -- on par with tuition at Sidwell Friends, the private school Chelsea Clinton attended in the 1990s.

What accounts for the nearly threefold difference in these numbers? The commonly cited figure counts only part of the local operating budget. To calculate total spending, we have to add up all sources of funding for education from kindergarten through 12th grade, excluding spending on charter schools and higher education. For the current school year, the local operating budget is $831 million, including relevant expenses such as the teacher retirement fund. The capital budget is $218 million. The District receives about $85.5 million in federal funding. And the D.C. Council contributes an extra $81 million. Divide all that by the 49,422 students enrolled (for the 2007-08 year) and you end up with about $24,600 per child.

For comparison, total per pupil spending at D.C. area private schools -- among the most upscale in the nation -- averages about $10,000 less. For most private schools, the difference is even greater.

The Real Cost Of Public Schools - Washington Post (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-04-06/news/36792859_1_private-schools-charter-schools-public-schools)

Here's another well-written breakdown of the real costs:
Real spending per pupil ranges from a low of nearly $12,000 in the Phoenix area schools to a high of nearly $27,000 in the New York metro area. The gap between real and reported per-pupil spending ranges from a low of 23 percent in the Chicago area to a high of 90 percent in the Los Angeles metro region.

To put public school spending in perspective, we compare it to estimated total expenditures in local private schools. We find that, in the areas studied, public schools are spending 93 percent more than the estimated median private school. Citizens drastically underestimate current per-student spending and are misled by official figures. Taxpayers cannot make informed decisions about public school funding unless they know how much districts currently spend. And with state budgets stretched thin, it is more crucial than ever to carefully allocate every tax dollar.

This paper therefore presents model legislation that would bring transparency to school district budgets and enable citizens and legislators to hold the K–12 public education system accountable.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa662.pdf

There was an actual study done here in Phoenix on this. They looked at three different districts (city, high and low income) and compared the actual costs for both public and private with the stated costs. Here's what they found:

Paradise Valley (City district): Actual Public - $12,312; Stated Public - $9,883; Actual Private - $6,770

Cave Creek (high income): Actual Public - $13,929; Stated Public - $9,024; Actual Private - $6,770

Deer Valley (City district): Actual Public - $9,365; Stated Public - $8,323; Actual Private - $6,770

So, on average, the cost to educate a child in the public school is about double what it costs for a private school. Also, Charter schools tend to be much better than public schools - I want to make that distinction clear as well.

[flere-imsaho]

There is a reason why Democratic mayors like Cory Booker have been such avid supporters of charter schools. Its because they have revitalized education in inner cities when the public schools had been failing for so long.

Revitalized in what way? Every study I've read indicates that charter schools' success is, at best, the same as public schools, when taken in aggregate. For instance: http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/MULTIPLE_CHOICE_CREDO.pdf

[cartman]

If you read the footnotes for the Cato study, they are using estimates for the private school costs, and not using the same fine-tooth comb they use on the public school costs.

Source: Cave Creek and Deer Valley budget information is from fiscal year 2008, and Paradise Valley budget information
is from fiscal year 2009. National Center for Education Studies (NCES) figures are from the most recent year
available, the 2005–2006 total expenditures per pupil. The stated public school expenditure is taken from figures posted
on the district website or budget documents if available, from state websites or documents if not available from the
district, or directly from district officials if not available to the public in print or on an official website. All budget figures
are in unadjusted dollars for the year in which the information was reported, as these unadjusted figures are what
reporters and officials use. Full citations for district calculations are detailed in Appendix A. The private school spending
figure is an estimate of FY2009 total spending per student based on NCES median highest private school tuition
for 2003–2004, updated for cost trends per year and inflation, increased by 25 percent to account for spending from
nontuition sources, and adjusted for relative per-capita income in the metro area.

[flere-imsaho]

When talking cost, bear in mind that private schools have no requirement to accept and educate children with learning disabilities, behavioral issues, poor English, no resources at home, etc....

Many charter schools can also self-select a "better" student population, as well, if they're set up as "magnets" or can otherwise have an application process.

[molson]

If you read the footnotes for the Cato study, they are using estimates for the private school costs, and not using the same fine-tooth comb they use on the public school costs.

Are private school budgets always publicly available?

[cartman]

Are private school budgets always publicly available?

No, they aren't, and that is why those weren't the "actual" costs as Arles made them out to be. Taking detailed local figures and then comparing to a national average isn't a real useful comparison.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm not sure how smart it is to base the cost-per-pupil for private schools primarily on tuition rates. Private schools tend to have endowments and healthy fundraising efforts that contribute to the yearly income side of their balance sheet.

If you look at websites for most private schools, you'll see a lot about financial aid, keeping tuition down, offering help with tuition, all of which indicates the actual cost-per-pupil is considerably more than tuition itself.

[JPhillips]

When talking cost, bear in mind that private schools have no requirement to accept and educate children with learning disabilities, behavioral issues, poor English, no resources at home, etc....

Many charter schools can also self-select a "better" student population, as well, if they're set up as "magnets" or can otherwise have an application process.

The Catholic school my daughter attends doesn't have a special ed program worth the name, little athletics spending, no gifted programming, a contracted band program, and no security.

[Butter]

Not to mention that here, if you want to attend a Catholic school and get an improved rate, you have to commit to attending church there and tithing a specific amount. And many of the private schools in my area are Catholic. So you can take that "average spending per pupil" and flush it straight down the toilet.

[Arles]

If you read the footnotes for the Cato study, they are using estimates for the private school costs, and not using the same fine-tooth comb they use on the public school costs.
Everyone uses estimates for private schools as they are not required to provide the individual numbers since it's private funding. Think of this, though, if it did cost private schools in AZ the $10K to $13K per student it costs the public schools, how would they stay in business? Most tuition for middle and elementary school is in the $5K to $8K range per year.

[cartman]

Everyone uses estimates for private schools as they are not required to provide the individual numbers since it's private funding. Think of this, though, if it did cost private schools in AZ the $10K to $13K per student it costs the public schools, how would they stay in business? Most tuition for middle and elementary school is in the $5K to $8K range per year.

The study I quoted used the IRS filings from the schools, which are categorized as non-profits, as well as a personnel survey the schools filled out which contained things like salary structure, class size, etc.

[ISiddiqui]

Revitalized in what way? Every study I've read indicates that charter schools' success is, at best, the same as public schools, when taken in aggregate. For instance: http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/MULTIPLE_CHOICE_CREDO.pdf

Interestingly enough, Stanford's CREDO had another study of New Jersey charters schools that said:

New Jersey Charter School Study Shows Gains In Newark Schools (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/new-jersey-charter-school_n_2197152.html)
Students in New Jersey charter schools perform better on average than those same students would in traditional public schools, according to a highly anticipated Stanford University study released Tuesday.

The New Jersey study, produced by economists at Stanford's Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO), found that 30 percent of New Jersey's charter schools had "significantly more positive learning gains" in reading than comparable public schools, while 11 percent had "significantly lower" gains in reading. It also found that 40 percent of charters saw higher math gains, and 13 percent performed worse in math. On average, the state's charter school students saw an additional two months of learning per year in reading, and an additional three months in math, compared to their public school peers.

[Arles]

The study I quoted used the IRS filings from the schools, which are categorized as non-profits, as well as a personnel survey the schools filled out which contained things like salary structure, class size, etc.
The fallacy of your sourced was using the public school cost of $8K per student. That isn't even close to the real cost. Read the two articles I posted and they explain why in very simple terms.

[cartman]

The fallacy of your sourced was using the public school cost of $8K per student. That isn't even close to the real cost. Read the two articles I posted and they explain why in very simple terms.

And the fallacy of yours is that it was comparing line items sources with an estimation.

[Arles]

And the fallacy of yours is that it was comparing line items sources with an estimation.
So what's your argument? Private schools in AZ don't cost the $6K estimate the study said - they instead cost over $13K? At worst, it's $7-8K or they wouldn't be in business.

[AENeuman]

The problem is that its the same old education solution in this country: Throw more and more money into it without any kind of plan or accountability. There's a reason private schools educate kids to a better level and to half the cost of public schools - it's because they have accountability. A parent isn't going to keep paying to send a kid to a crap private school.

Come up with a plan and explain why you need the money. Heck, come up with the plan, pass it and then try to get incremental funding as you work through the steps in it. A lot of the initial reforms most states need don't cost a dime.

What should be measured to determine if a school is accountable? Test scores? Attendance? Grades? 4-year college admittance?

The reason private schools are better is because they get to teach a FAR less diverse classroom. In way parents pay lots of money so their child can be surrounded by children just like them. Be that gender, intelligence or behavior.

A school with a very similar student body can create a matrix to determine success/accountability.

Charter schools are held accountable by the forces of the free market. If the output is not what the community desires, then it will not gain customers. A good charter school is one that identifies a need in community and fulfills it. Anything like ap classes, 4-year acceptance, sat scores, teacher ratio, counseling and support services.

Finally, when talking of public education we should really be dividing it into 2 categories: the bottom 20% who receive 80% of he funds and attention and the rest. Bills like the Colorado one think that the funding solution for the top 80% is the same for the bottom 20%, not true. Again, the goals of what is success for the bottom 20% has not even been determined. Certainty just getting them to graduate is not a useful, cost effective or realistic.

Sorry for the rant. On paternity leave, missing my classroom.

[Marc Vaughan]

Interestingly enough, Stanford's CREDO had another study of New Jersey charters schools that said:

Are 'charter schools' selective with regards to students? - what areas are they in and were these factors taken into account when judging performance.

(I ask because I've helped out at an inner city school in London once upon a time where 80% of the students couldn't speak English - that school would skew any table hugely for instance)

[Arles]

What should be measured to determine if a school is accountable? Test scores? Attendance? Grades? 4-year college admittance?
This is a great debate to have. I would say a combination of all factors you listed. How many kids that went to college felt prepared by their HS. How kids from a middle school fared in HS. Some form of test score performance is probably a useful factor and even how a school prepares kids not looking to go to a 4-year school for future jobs/professions. I think with all the smart people we have in the education system, we can come up with some way that gives us a clue on how a school is faring vs its peers.

The reason private schools are better is because they get to teach a FAR less diverse classroom. In way parents pay lots of money so their child can be surrounded by children just like them. Be that gender, intelligence or behavior.

A school with a very similar student body can create a matrix to determine success/accountability.
I'll go one step further and add the increased parental involvement. But, I agree on what you say - private schools often have kids and parents more dedicated to learning than public schools.

Charter schools are held accountable by the forces of the free market. If the output is not what the community desires, then it will not gain customers. A good charter school is one that identifies a need in community and fulfills it. Anything like ap classes, 4-year acceptance, sat scores, teacher ratio, counseling and support services.
I think Charter schools are a good idea and one that is better equipped to succeed than public schools.

Finally, when talking of public education we should really be dividing it into 2 categories: the bottom 20% who receive 80% of he funds and attention and the rest. Bills like the Colorado one think that the funding solution for the top 80% is the same for the bottom 20%, not true. Again, the goals of what is success for the bottom 20% has not even been determined. Certainty just getting them to graduate is not a useful, cost effective or realistic.
I honestly wonder if providing ever parent with a "tuition credit" they can use for any school in their area is the best long term solution. Then, they are basically paying tuition for the school (whether it is public or private or charter) and the poorer schools will start getting less students. This would also increase the parental involvement as they will be more accountable to their kids in ensuring they go to the best school.

[Marc Vaughan]

Everyone uses estimates for private schools as they are not required to provide the individual numbers since it's private funding. Think of this, though, if it did cost private schools in AZ the $10K to $13K per student it costs the public schools, how would they stay in business? Most tuition for middle and elementary school is in the $5K to $8K range per year.

Are there any figures on how much subsidized they are by the state? - I know private schools in Florida aggressively pursue state funding as the private school my sons attend has attempted to persuade me that both have ADHD* ... despite both being very good students academically ... the reason why, there is a McKay scholarship they get for students with disability such as that (and the rate of the scholarship can be far higher than their standard tuition charge).

*yes they can be lively at times, but err ... they're boys ... if they act up tell them to sit down and shut up or you'll tell their dad, that works a treat ;)

[Marc Vaughan]

I honestly wonder if providing ever parent with a "tuition credit" they can use for any school in their area is the best long term solution. Then, they are basically paying tuition for the school (whether it is public or private or charter) and the poorer schools will start getting less students. This would also increase the parental involvement as they will be more accountable to their kids in ensuring they go to the best school.

I think just allowing people in America to send their kids to the schools they want to would be a big improvement over the current situation in Florida where you're assigned schools and sometimes randomly reassigned schools after your kid has started at another one.

(its this random 'reassignment' which made us put our boys into private school as we wanted them to have a consistent peer group to build relationships with)

PS - Was strange to me when I moved here that you couldn't just pick a school for your kid to attend - thats how it works in England, you look at all the schools you want to and so long as they have space you send your kid to the one you like best ... at one point my wife and I were driving our eldest 25 miles down the road when she was little because we liked a village school in the middle of nowhere.

[bhlloy]

That's interesting Marc, because it certainly didn't work that way for me growing up (we had to move to get into a better school catchment area and even then, as someone who didn't go to the feeder primary schools I wasn't guaranteed a place)

Wonder if that's a local area thing or if it's changed in the last 15 years?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'll take a crack at one or two of these if you don't mind.

I think just allowing people in America to send their kids to the schools they want to would be a big improvement over the current situation in Florida where you're assigned schools and sometimes randomly reassigned schools after your kid has started at another one.

Is that "randomly reassigned" between school years or during? The former is fairly common, especially in areas with population shifts up or down. Another trigger can be the addition of a new school/the closure of a school. That sets the maps up to be redrawn more often than not.

If it's during the year -- like a week or two into the school year -- then it's not entirely unheard of but it's not at all common. It'll happen once in a great while somewhere if the enrollment numbers are horribly off versus projections.

PS - Was strange to me when I moved here that you couldn't just pick a school for your kid to attend - thats how it works in England, you look at all the schools you want to and so long as they have space you send your kid to the one you like best ... at one point my wife and I were driving our eldest 25 miles down the road when she was little because we liked a village school in the middle of nowhere.

Question, cause I sure as hell don't know: is there school-operated mass transportation for most public schools in the UK? That's a primary reason against school choice in the U.S., and there's still an enormous number of students that rely on school busing to get them to/from.

[Arles]

Are there any figures on how much subsidized they are by the state? - I know private schools in Florida aggressively pursue state funding as the private school my sons attend has attempted to persuade me that both have ADHD* ... despite both being very good students academically ... the reason why, there is a McKay scholarship they get for students with disability such as that (and the rate of the scholarship can be far higher than their standard tuition charge).

*yes they can be lively at times, but err ... they're boys ... if they act up tell them to sit down and shut up or you'll tell their dad, that works a treat ;)
There are a ton of scholarship options for private schools. I don't know the numbers, but I do know that there are tuition credits available in some states to help with tuition for lower income people.

[Galaxy]

The problem is that its the same old education solution in this country: Throw more and more money into it without any kind of plan or accountability. There's a reason private schools educate kids to a better level and to half the cost of public schools - it's because they have accountability. A parent isn't going to keep paying to send a kid to a crap private school.

Come up with a plan and explain why you need the money. Heck, come up with the plan, pass it and then try to get incremental funding as you work through the steps in it. A lot of the initial reforms most states need don't cost a dime.

The U.S. already spends more money per-pupil than any other country, but still crappy results. Let's get real: Crappy parents, or parents who shouldn't be having children, and expect others to do their jobs for them, and kids who don't get a crap about education. Until you fix that problem, throwing more money at education is foolish.

[AENeuman]

The U.S. already spends more money per-pupil than any other country, but still crappy results. Let's get real: Crappy parents, or parents who shouldn't be having children, and expect others to do their jobs for them, and kids who don't get a crap about education. Until you fix that problem, throwing more money at education is foolish.

Don't the other countries have crappy parents and kids who don't want to be in school? Are you saying the us has the worst parents and least motivated kids?

Also, who is really hurt by your solution of no money until bad kids and parents are eliminated? Certainly not the bad kids and parents.

I bet there is a strong correlation between the amount of subsidized maternity leave and free pre-k schooling and a successful k-12 educational system. If that's so, the costs may be the same as us, just the results are vastly different.

[flere-imsaho]

Think of this, though, if it did cost private schools in AZ the $10K to $13K per student it costs the public schools, how would they stay in business? Most tuition for middle and elementary school is in the $5K to $8K range per year.

Fundraising. Virtually every private school has at least one fundraiser (also called "development" or "advancement" in the trade). Prestigious private schools often have a whole staff devoted to this. Some can build up quite sizeable endowments. (http://www.boardingschoolreview.com/largest_endowments/sort/1)

Interestingly enough, Stanford's CREDO had another study of New Jersey charters schools that said:

New Jersey Charter School Study Shows Gains In Newark Schools (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/new-jersey-charter-school_n_2197152.html)

Thanks for the link! Good food for thought.

[flere-imsaho]

Question, cause I sure as hell don't know: is there school-operated mass transportation for most public schools in the UK? That's a primary reason against school choice in the U.S., and there's still an enormous number of students that rely on school busing to get them to/from.

When I lived in the UK I never saw an actual school bus. All the kids seemed to either walk or take regular mass transportation (which is more comprehensive than it is in the U.S.) to school.

[bhlloy]

Yeah, we all took regular transportation to high school (although they had to put on special buses after school to keep us away from the regular customers, it was still the local bus company and we paid regular fares) although again, that was 15 years ago. Can't comment on whether that's still the case.

[Marc Vaughan]

That's interesting Marc, because it certainly didn't work that way for me growing up (we had to move to get into a better school catchment area and even then, as someone who didn't go to the feeder primary schools I wasn't guaranteed a place)

Wonder if that's a local area thing or if it's changed in the last 15 years?

I don't know as a kid I lived in the middle of nowhere so there wasn't any choice in the sticks (I had to take a bus for 20 minutes to reach the only High School in the area) - at that time I'd never even considered that it was possible to go to a school other than the 'local' one ... but then I was a kid at that point not a parent. It had been that way ever since I'd had kids until I emigrated.

You're correct that there is/was a 'priority system' which graduated according to various quite sensible items - I think first was: (1) local + siblings in school already, (2) siblings in school already, (3) local, (4) everyone else ... which I think is perfectly fine and sensible - obviously the better schools in an area are frequently harder to get into ... we had to wait several months to get my daughter into one of the local schools we liked (commuting her to another school in the meantime) but that was about it - we did live in a small town (Royston) in the 'country' though rather than in a city.

Its entirely possible that the schools in your area were 'full' and as such you'd get a slot in your assigned one but have to wait for a space to open if you wanted to attend another (quite sensible really and generally they do open up if parents wait - people move fairly frequently these days).

[Marc Vaughan]

When I lived in the UK I never saw an actual school bus. All the kids seemed to either walk or take regular mass transportation (which is more comprehensive than it is in the U.S.) to school.

It depends on the area - I grew up in a rural county and we had school busses (contracted local companies - my dad did it for a while as he owned a taxi company for several years) because it was quite a trek to the 'local' schools (my village only had a very small primary school for young kids and for middle/high school we had to commute to a larger village/town).

[Marc Vaughan]

Is that "randomly reassigned" between school years or during? The former is fairly common, especially in areas with population shifts up or down. Another trigger can be the addition of a new school/the closure of a school. That sets the maps up to be redrawn more often than not.
If it's during the year -- like a week or two into the school year -- then it's not entirely unheard of but it's not at all common. It'll happen once in a great while somewhere if the enrollment numbers are horribly off versus projections.
In our case it was at the end of a year - but thats no consolation to a child who is settled in the current school and has a nice group of friends he's settled with.

(especially as in the case of my boys both had speech impediments and so changing schools was more traumatic than it might be for all kids)

Question, cause I sure as hell don't know: is there school-operated mass transportation for most public schools in the UK? That's a primary reason against school choice in the U.S., and there's still an enormous number of students that rely on school busing to get them to/from.
We've never used the school bus system in the US and weren't at that time - we only live a couple of miles from the school in question and so weren't eligible and were reassigned to a worse school further away (about 5-6 miles down the road).

It was at that point we went private.

(the UK does have school busses in some situation, if they're available you're welcome to use them - if not then get your own kid to school, they've got legs/cycles or you've got cars/public transport so sort it out as an adult ...)

[JonInMiddleGA]

In our case it was at the end of a year - but thats no consolation to a child who is settled in the current school and has a nice group of friends he's settled with.

{counts} Let's see here, 3 schools in 4 years for mine (PreK-3rd grade at one, 4th & 5th at another, 6th thru present at another) ... I think it's just become such a commonplace thing at this point (due to a mobile society, the divorce rate, etc) that I have a tougher time seeing it as the trauma that those with different experiences might have.

To be honest, we've made a point of emphasizing that K-12 relationships are pretty temporary things from a very early age -- even if you don't move, roughly half the kindergarten class in a small private (or public) school won't be there for HS graduation.

(the UK does have school busses in some situation, if they're available you're welcome to use them - if not then get your own kid to school, they've got legs/cycles or you've got cars/public transport so sort it out as an adult ...)

Thanks, I truly had not the slightest idea one way or the other

It's probably worth noting here somewhere that I grew up in an area where it was 10-15 miles or more to the nearest school for a lot of students, and there's large swaths across Georgia that are the same way still today. Options outside of traditional school buses become pretty limited (i.e. virtually non-existent) unless you want to have the kids dropped off at 530a or 6a when the parent(s) goes to work.

[cuervo72]

To be honest, we've made a point of emphasizing that K-12 relationships are pretty temporary things from a very early age -- even if you don't move, roughly half the kindergarten class in a small private (or public) school won't be there for HS graduation.

My kids have learned this early by necessity - living near Ft. Detrick a large portion of the kids are military, and they were constantly being swapped out in elementary school. Middle school has bee a little more stable (brings in areas a little further from the fort), but it's still there.

I think there's something to be said for keeping a routine though of getting on the same bus, going to the same school, seeing the same teachers and administrators, etc. though.

When I was in elementary school they reworked the boundaries after 4th grade, and about half the school population changed. That really messed with relationships. A lot of friends shifted, new kids came in that had established friendships, and some established dynamics changed as well (new cool kids meshing with the old cool kids, etc).

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think there's something to be said for keeping a routine though of getting on the same bus, going to the same school, seeing the same teachers and administrators, etc. though.

Thinking on this a bit more (while noting what diverse sidetracks the Obama thread can take sometimes) ...

re: same school -- the normal minimum today would be, what, 3 schools (physical buildings) in 13-14 years? Primary/Elementary, then Middle, then High. Right? And if the physical location changes, the bus sometimes changes best I can figure (depending upon whether the buses are mixed ages/schools or single-destination routes)

re: same teachers -- how many repeat teachers do kids see prior to HS? 1, maybe 2, at the middle school level, still only maybe 1-3 in HS? And I figure it's even less than that when you get to larger schools than I've dealt with.

I guess my point -- if I have one -- is that I question how much stability really exists under even the best of circumstances. That just doesn't seem to be how the world works, just doesn't seem like a realistic expectation for parents (or students) to have at this point.

Sure, there's examples of just the opposite, I'm doubtful about how commonplace they are I guess.

[cartman]

re: same teachers -- how many repeat teachers do kids see prior to HS? 1, maybe 2, at the middle school level, still only maybe 1-3 in HS? And I figure it's even less than that when you get to larger schools than I've dealt with.

They've started doing this at certain school districts in Texas. If the majority of parents in a class agree and so does the teacher, the teacher moves with the class. One of my cousin's boys is in 4th grade, and he's had the same teacher since 1st grade. Same thing for my niece, who is in a different school district, in 3rd grade.

[Coffee Warlord]

They've started doing this at certain school districts in Texas. If the majority of parents in a class agree and so does the teacher, the teacher moves with the class. One of my cousin's boys is in 4th grade, and he's had the same teacher since 1st grade. Same thing for my niece, who is in a different school district, in 3rd grade.

That seems like a horrible idea, considering you're now expecting a teacher to grasp a different curriculum every year.

Of course, given how fucked up education is, yearly curriculum changes based on the whim of administration/politicians are practically a given, even for teachers who stay in the same grade. So who knows.

[cartman]

That seems like a horrible idea, considering you're now expecting a teacher to grasp a different curriculum every year.

Of course, given how fucked up education is, yearly curriculum changes based on the whim of administration/politicians are practically a given, even for teachers who stay in the same grade. So who knows.

If a teacher can't grasp the content of an elementary school curriculum, I'd be pretty concerned about their abilities.

[panerd]

That seems like a horrible idea, considering you're now expecting a teacher to grasp a different curriculum every year.

Of course, given how fucked up education is, yearly curriculum changes based on the whim of administration/politicians are practically a given, even for teachers who stay in the same grade. So who knows.

I was thinking you could also be in the minority who thinks your kid's teacher isn't great and you get stuck with them for 3 years. (I can't imagine every parent in the grade will love their teacher)

[Coffee Warlord]

If a teacher can't grasp the content of an elementary school curriculum, I'd be pretty concerned about their abilities.

There's a *big* difference between grasping the content and having experience teaching it.

[panerd]

If a teacher can't grasp the content of an elementary school curriculum, I'd be pretty concerned about their abilities.

Coming from a family of teachers that's a pretty short sighted comment. My mom was a great first grade teacher and probably had some "tricks" of the trade for 7-8 year olds that might not work as well for older or younger kids. If teaching were as easy as 5+6 = 11 and this word is "bumble bee" all kids would do well at every school.

[cartman]

I come from a family of teachers as well. For education degrees, they don't teach 1st grade, 2nd grade, 3rd grade, they teach 'Elementary' focus. I don't disagree that there is a difference between teaching 1st and 4th graders, but that difference is less than the one between 4th and 5th grade. One of my cousins specifically took a job where she'd have the opportunity to stay with 1st graders until they moved to middle school.

edit: And, as I mentioned, the teacher has to agree to move as well. So if they aren't comfortable teaching 2nd graders, then they would get a new class of 1st graders.

[panerd]

I come from a family of teachers as well. For education degrees, they don't teach 1st grade, 2nd grade, 3rd grade, they teach 'Elementary' focus. I don't disagree that there is a difference between teaching 1st and 4th graders, but that difference is less than the one between 4th and 5th grade. One of my cousins specifically took a job where she'd have the opportunity to stay with 1st graders until they moved to middle school.

edit: And, as I mentioned, the teacher has to agree to move as well. So if they aren't comfortable teaching 2nd graders, then they would get a new class of 1st graders.

I admit my view is more anecdotal and personal. The most revered guy at one of our feeder elementary schools for about 10 years (I teach at a middle school) was basically a blowhard who did a couple of units meant solely to impress parents and to move up the ladder to the current administrative job he has now. His kids bypassed content for his projects that parents and administrators all thought were so spectacular. (Feed the Kenyans, run for epilepsy. Nothing wrong with any of the ideas per se but they ate up many hours a day the entire year of instructional time) I just would feel really bad for a kid who got this teacher that everyone loved for multiple years when they come out not knowing multiplication facts or how to read. And I'm sure every school has a few of these teachers but at least in the current system you get a sampling of shitty along with good.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm pretty sure that I'd be adamantly opposed to having teachers follow students through several years of school, especially in those early years.
Both teachers & students have different styles, it's critical (especially for the students' long-term success) that they learn to deal with those differences. And it's hardly ever too soon to start working on that at least to some extent.

[panerd]

I'm pretty sure that I'd be adamantly opposed to having teachers follow students through several years of school, especially in those early years.
Both teachers & students have different styles, it's critical (especially for the students' long-term success) that they learn to deal with those differences. And it's hardly ever too soon to start working on that at least to some extent.

Yes though you didn't specifically mention it your description could also apply to homeschooling. This is one of the areas where I take a sharp break from the "mainstream" Libertarian viewpoint. While there are some horrible school districts in this country I think most provide a better education and teach many intangible skills that can't be learned through homeschooling.

[DaddyTorgo]

That seems like a horrible idea, considering you're now expecting a teacher to grasp a different curriculum every year.

Of course, given how fucked up education is, yearly curriculum changes based on the whim of administration/politicians are practically a given, even for teachers who stay in the same grade. So who knows.

Taking educational cues from Texas seems like a horrible idea in general. *rimshot*

[JonInMiddleGA]

This is one of the areas where I take a sharp break from the "mainstream" Libertarian viewpoint. While there are some horrible school districts in this country I think most provide a better education and teach many intangible skills that can't be learned through homeschooling.

And where I come back toward the mainstream Lib. viewpoint (I guess, I'll take your word for what that is on this subject).

On the whole, I'd say a competent homeschooler far exceeds the capabilities of the average/typical classroom. And I'd weigh that more heavily than the intangibles that we're talking about ... but if you're going to be in that setting then you ought to get all the intangibles you can (like learning how to work different college professors)

[Marc Vaughan]

{counts} Let's see here, 3 schools in 4 years for mine (PreK-3rd grade at one, 4th & 5th at another, 6th thru present at another) ... I think it's just become such a commonplace thing at this point (due to a mobile society, the divorce rate, etc) that I have a tougher time seeing it as the trauma that those with different experiences might have.


I think it was more a shock to my kids because English schools are a bit more 'static' - that and the boys speech issues mean that settling into a class involves the other students becoming accustomed to your speech patterns etc. (even more so when you have speech issues AND an English accent as well).

[DaddyTorgo]

I think it was more a shock to my kids because English schools are a bit more 'static' - that and the boys speech issues mean that settling into a class involves the other students becoming accustomed to your speech patterns etc. (even more so when you have speech issues AND an English accent as well).

Oh - I thought you were referring to the English accent as the "speech issue" in question! :lol:




(j/k i really didn't, but i just wanted to get in a crack ;) )

[flere-imsaho]

All I know is that FM has caused me frequent "speech issues" over the years. Usually swearing. So, I blame Marc.

:p

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think it was more a shock to my kids because English schools are a bit more 'static' - that and the boys speech issues mean that settling into a class involves the other students becoming accustomed to your speech patterns etc. (even more so when you have speech issues AND an English accent as well).

That's certainly fair, and I had/have no intention of minimizing that specific situation.

Anyone who has heard my accent knows I understand about the difficulties speech & accents can present ;)

[cuervo72]

Thinking on this a bit more (while noting what diverse sidetracks the Obama thread can take sometimes) ...

re: same school -- the normal minimum today would be, what, 3 schools (physical buildings) in 13-14 years? Primary/Elementary, then Middle, then High. Right? And if the physical location changes, the bus sometimes changes best I can figure (depending upon whether the buses are mixed ages/schools or single-destination routes)

re: same teachers -- how many repeat teachers do kids see prior to HS? 1, maybe 2, at the middle school level, still only maybe 1-3 in HS? And I figure it's even less than that when you get to larger schools than I've dealt with.

I guess my point -- if I have one -- is that I question how much stability really exists under even the best of circumstances. That just doesn't seem to be how the world works, just doesn't seem like a realistic expectation for parents (or students) to have at this point.

Sure, there's examples of just the opposite, I'm doubtful about how commonplace they are I guess.

We're pretty stable re: buses. Our elem stop has been at the top of our street since before my son was in K (he's in 8th now). I know they've had some of the bus drivers for multiple years. And three buildings would be the minimum, which would match what I had and what they're on pace for.

With teachers, it's not necessarily having the same grade/subject teachers again, but ones like music, art, gym, lunch ladies, librarians, office ladies, janitors, guidance counselors, nurses, principals. And seeing former teachers in the hall*, etc (or my daughter having teachers that my son had). In middle school now it applies to extracurriculars as well.


* though my son had a string of like 3-4 teachers who left/retired/had babies either right after he had them or within two years


ETA: we have neighbors who have four kids, and between them they probably went to 4 different elementary schools. Magnet, Montessori, private Catholic, one in another neighborhood where the mom was an aide (they're not really magnet types, and in a couple cases got themselves booted). All of them EXCEPT for the one they naturally would have gone to. Oddly they all wound up in the normal middle school, which on the whole probably has fewer academic sorts than the elem.

[Solecismic]

* though my son had a string of like 3-4 teachers who left/retired/had babies either right after he had them or within two years


Good going, cuervo72's son... Vili Fualaau has nothing on ya'.

So, now that Obama has apologized to those of us who are losing health insurance policies, and we've discovered a potentially huge marriage penalty in there, is this a time for more "executive orders", or is this just part of his game plan?

[JPhillips]

From Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen:

Today’s GOP is not racist, as Harry Belafonte alleged about the tea party, but it is deeply troubled — about the expansion of government, about immigration, about secularism, about the mainstreaming of what used to be the avant-garde. People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children.

WTF?

[Marc Vaughan]

(Edited having read the article and reflected on it)

I think its just incredibly poorly written, I'd prefer to believe that he was trying to discuss the views of old fashioned racists and has a poor grasp of the meaning of the word he used rather than truly believing it to be was a 'conventional' view ....

On the other hand it might be that that writer lives in the 1800's or something?

(I'd prefer to think that the 'conventional' view today is that people of all races are accepted as equals by people)

[cuervo72]

So, wait, you guys missed the kerfuffle over the Cheerios commercial then?

[Arles]

From Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen:
WTF?
There are a lot of issues with the GOP, but I don't know too many staunch republicans who would have an issue with a bi-racial marriage. This is another example of what frustrates me about politics today. You have the Rush Limbaugh "All liberals are idiots" side and the Elite Media "look at all those hicks in red states" side.

And people who don't identify with either side are forced to either hold their nose and join a side or simply sit the entire process out.

[Marc Vaughan]

Actually having read this:

Washington Post columnist article (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/washington-post-columnist-says-people-152403830.html)

It sounds like the writer is just a 'profesisonal arsehole' - that is he writes articles simply to infuriate people and create hits/discussion .... basically he's a paid troll (and its obviously working as we've mentioned and discuss him, damn it ;) ).

[JPhillips]

There are a lot of issues with the GOP, but I don't know too many staunch republicans who would have an issue with a bi-racial marriage. This is another example of what frustrates me about politics today. You have the Rush Limbaugh "All liberals are idiots" side and the Elite Media "look at all those hicks in red states" side.

And people who don't identify with either side are forced to either hold their nose and join a side or simply sit the entire process out.

That isn't Cohen. Last week he wrote that Twelve Years a Slave showed him that slavery wasn't about benevolent masters treating their slaves well. This seems to be Cohen's honest thoughts about the current world.

I agree this doesn't apply to even a majority of the GOP, but if you have to repress a gag reflex upon seeing a biracial family, you're a racist.

[lungs]

You have the Rush Limbaugh "All liberals are idiots" side and the Elite Media "look at all those hicks in red states" side.


There are plenty of hicks in blue states that think like that, much less red states.

[Grover]

So, wait, you guys missed the kerfuffle over the Cheerios commercial then?

The video on Upworthy of all the kids trying to figure out why people didn't like that ad is fantastic.

[Marc Vaughan]

So, wait, you guys missed the kerfuffle over the Cheerios commercial then?

There was really kerfuffle over that commercial? ... seriously?

[Grover]

There was really kerfuffle over that commercial? ... seriously?

Kids React to Controversial Cheerios Commercial - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VifdBFp5pnw)

[Marc Vaughan]

Yeah I get that - heck there are LOADS of articles indicating why its normal and acceptable ... what I'm not seeing is the reason is the initial 'negative' reaction.

I'm guessing it was a group of trolls on youtube which has been blown out of all proportion for column inches?

(sorry to be cynical but I've yet to see anything which indicates a negative reaction to that commercial - outside of the blogs decrying the 'negative reaction' to that commercial ... I agree totally that its not controversial but also think that promoting there having been a reaction can have a negative effect by reinforcing in people who are racist that there are far more others out there like them than their is in reality in most areas)

[Grover]

I'm the same as you, Marc. I watched the ad and thought nothing of anything. Hell, I didn't even really notice it was an interracial family because it looked normal to me.

[Arles]

Interesting play by Clinton:

Clinton to Obama: Let Americans keep canceled health plans (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/12/clinton-obamacare-cancelled-health-plans/3505247/)
WASHINGTON — Former President Bill Clinton said that President Obama should honor his oft-repeated pledge and allow people to hang on to health care plans that are being canceled as a result of the Affordable Care Act.

"I personally believe, even if it takes a change in the law, that the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they've got," Clinton said in an interview at OZY.com published on Tuesday.

The comments from Clinton, who has been a strong supporter of Obama's signature health care legislation, came after Obama said on Thursday that he is sorry that some Americans are losing their current health insurance plans as a result of the ACA, despite his assurances that Americans could keep their insurance plans if they like them.

"I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me," Obama said. "We've got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this."

The White House has said that the president is exploring administrative action to help some of the millions on the individual insurance market who have received cancellation notices but hasn't announced any specific steps they may take.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said that Clinton's comments were in line with Obama's statement last week that he has asked his administration officials "to close some of the gaps in the law."

"The president has tasked his team with looking at a range of option," said Carney, who declined what options the president may be considering.

In the interview with OZY.COM, Clinton added, "For young people mostly, but not all young, who are in the individual market whose incomes are above 400 percent of the poverty level — they were the ones who heard the promise that if you like what you've got you can keep it."

[sterlingice]

I really don't see Clinton's angle here. Everything he does is so politically calculated: what am I missing?

SI

[ISiddiqui]

I think the uber-cynical people are going to say, he's setting Hillary up to be popular among the "I lost my plan" folks, but want government involvement in our healthcare system.... maybe?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think the uber-cynical people are going to say, he's setting Hillary up to be popular among the "I lost my plan" folks, but want government involvement in our healthcare system.... maybe?

That's the best guess I've come up with (fwiw)

[molson]

I really don't see Clinton's angle here. Everything he does is so politically calculated: what am I missing?

SI

It seems a lot of politicians who get out of politics take on an elder statesman-like "above the fray" persona where they feel free to criticize those in their party, maybe praise people in the other party, etc. I bet it comes from a place of having their every stance and comment carefully calculated for decades. Of course, they come off much more likeable when they finally start acting like real people instead of part of a bigger party machine.

[JPhillips]

Clinton's always enjoyed being the smartest guy in the room.

[Arles]

It seems a lot of politicians who get out of politics take on an elder statesman-like "above the fray" persona where they feel free to criticize those in their party, maybe praise people in the other party, etc. I bet it comes from a place of having their every stance and comment carefully calculated for decades. Of course, they come off much more likeable when they finally start acting like real people instead of part of a bigger party machine.
This seems the most likely to me. He comes off pretty genuine in actually wanting this health care idea to work and is offering a way for Obama to reduce the fallout. I don't see an angle by him here as I think about it.

[Edward64]

I'm okay with this but not good. Wonder how the fix is coming along. One month didn't seem long enough.

President Obama announced Thursday an administrative change in one of the bedrock ideas of the new health-care law, allowing insurers to continue offering individual insurance plans for another year even if they do not comply with the law’s rules for minimum benefits.

[Edward64]

Not sure I like the play here. It seems Obama is content with providing minimal amount of support needed to prop up Afghan government in hopes that the forthcoming elections will bring in someone more cooperative and to maintain some sort of presence.

- The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/2013/11/16/c6236ac2-4e1f-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_story.html?hpid=z3)
The United States and Afghanistan have circulated a completed draft of a bilateral security agreement that will indefinitely extend the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan beyond next year’s combat troop withdrawal, and they expect to sign the document by the end of the year, according to congressional and Obama administration officials.

The agreement resolves the issue of “immunity” for U.S. troops from Afghan prosecution — a sticking point in negotiations — by stipulating that the United States will have exclusive legal jurisdiction over American military personnel and Defense Department civilians working with them. At the same time, it makes clear that no one is exempt from prosecution for wrongdoing, according to a senior administration official.
:
:
Karzai declined to offer specifics about the agreement, but officials said the roughly two-dozen-page accord falls well short of his demand that the United States commit to protecting Afghan territory against any outside attack, a condition that would have required a Senate-ratified treaty. Instead, it expresses a strong U.S. interest in Afghanistan’s stability and security, and promises consultation and consideration of unspecified assistance.

In a preamble, the document repeats language from a broader strategic partnership agreement signed last year in which the United States pledged not to use Afghan territory or facilities “as a launching point for attacks against other countries.” But that language is not expected to prohibit U.S. drone strikes against al-Qaeda and other insurgent groups in neighboring Pakistan.
:
:
Most estimates have indicated that the administration will retain 5,000 to 10,000 U.S. personnel in Afghanistan after the end of combat operations to advise and train local forces and conduct some counterterrorism missions.

[JPhillips]

Holy crap.

Virginia Democratic state Sen. Creigh Deeds, a former gubernatorial nominee, was in critical condition Tuesday after being stabbed in his home, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported.

The Times-Dispatch also reported Deed's son Gus was dead from a gunshot wound, citing law enforcement sources.

Anybody have more info on this?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Anybody have more info on this?

Not a lot more beyond the background/bio info at this point apparently.

Deeds critically wounded; son dead from gunshot - Richmond Times-Dispatch: Government And Politics (http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/deeds-critically-wounded-son-dead-from-gunshot/article_431e61ca-5128-11e3-944a-001a4bcf6878.html)

[JPhillips]

Democratic sources tell News4 that Deeds' son Austin "Gus" Deeds attacked his father Tuesday morning before turning a gun on himself. Police say Gus Deeds died at the scene.

Not confirmed yet.

[Edward64]

Not confirmed yet.

News report on MSNBC said police are not looking for any suspects.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This isn't going to help the President any at all.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/n1oPktLLrmQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Another big bomb dropped today in hearings......

Obamacare bombshell: IT official says HealthCare.gov needs payment feature (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101211556)

[Marc Vaughan]

Another big bomb dropped today in hearings......

Sounds more like scaremongering tbh - most large scale software is developed in modules/sections where possible and I doubt this is any surprise to the people creating it.

(note this doesn't mean they won't screw it up - it amazes me how they've managed to bungle it so far tbh ..)

[Coffee Warlord]

Sounds more like scaremongering tbh - most large scale software is developed in modules/sections where possible and I doubt this is any surprise to the people creating it.

(note this doesn't mean they won't screw it up - it amazes me how they've managed to bungle it so far tbh ..)


That so-called financial management tool was originally supposed to be part of HealthCare.gov when it launched Oct. 1, but officials later suspended its launch as part of their effort to get the consumer interface part of the site ready. The tool will, when it works, transmit the subsidies that the government is kicking in for many enrollees to offset the costs of their monthly premiums.


*If* the article is accurate, and *if* I'm understand what they're saying...

Considering how it'd have to calculate and, I'm assuming transmit money to somewhere, that sounds incredibly complex. (The calculation part, and ensuring you don't move too much / not enough money). It also sounds fairly important to people actually trying to pay money through this travesty of a site.

Meaning... 1) again, it should have never launched this early. Politics came first, as usual. 2) given their track record, if this is as intricate as I'm picturing...hoo boy, the clusterfuck when THAT goes live is going to be epic.

edit: Reiterating the 'ifs' up there. The article is moderately vague on WTF this piece was exactly supposed to do.

[Solecismic]

I know it's a conservative source, so it may be exaggerated, but this is the secondary effect I've been most worried about with Obamacare.

Second wave of health plan cancellations looms | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/20/second-wave-health-plan-cancellations-looms/)

Businesses will behave to maximize profit. Anything less and they risk lawsuits if they're big enough, or obsolescence if they aren't.

This is when I'll lose my insurance, which was designed for small businesses - BCBS has already made that clear.

It's also around the time that those who have Obamacare will begin to realize that high deductibles, while probably a more fair way to design a health care system (in principle, there are some positives about Obamacare), are radically different from what most people are used to when they think of health insurance.

[JPhillips]

That may happen to some degree, but no way 1/3 of the American population is losing health insurance.

[Solecismic]

That may happen to some degree, but no way 1/3 of the American population is losing health insurance.

It's probably exaggerated. But what percentage is acceptable to you?

We don't have "you will keep your plan."

We don't have "you will keep your doctor."

We don't have "your costs will go down."

We do have a massive administrative problem, starting (and probably not ending) with healthcare.gov.

What's left? What are we doing this for?

At this point, I think, unless Democrats want to lose the Senate badly and Obama will fall below the veto threshold, it's time simply to repeal the law.

[JPhillips]

It's probably exaggerated. But what percentage is acceptable to you?

We don't have "you will keep your plan."

We don't have "you will keep your doctor."

We don't have "your costs will go down."

We do have a massive administrative problem, starting (and probably not ending) with healthcare.gov.

What's left? What are we doing this for?

At this point, I think, unless Democrats want to lose the Senate badly and Obama will fall below the veto threshold, it's time simply to repeal the law.

There's zero possibility of repeal. Some of the cost controls appear to be slowing medical spending growth and many parts of the ACA are extremely popular.

I'd be all for legislative fixes to make the ACA work better and I suspect those changes would get plenty of Dem support, however, the GOP refuses to fix anything. I don't think the law if perfect by any means, but it's not going away even if there's a GOP sweep in 2016.

[Solecismic]

What percentage of people losing their plans in 2014 due to Obamacare is acceptable to you?

I haven't seen Democrats advance any plans to fix this. What are your evil Republicans blocking, exactly?

[JPhillips]

What percentage of people losing their plans in 2014 due to Obamacare is acceptable to you?

I haven't seen Democrats advance any plans to fix this. What are your evil Republicans blocking, exactly?

The GOP has said they won't do any fixes, so why bother. The one fix that was tried, a change that fixed a section effecting religious leaders, was blocked. If they won't even allow a fix the Southern Baptist Conference was pushing there isn't any point.

People have lost their insurance plan every year I've been alive. I don't know if this will effect more or fewer than in the past. I'm fine with looking at ways to make the transition smoother. I really don't have any loyalty to the ACA. My goals are universal coverage and slowing the growth of healthcare spending. I have a lot of flexibility on how those goals are achieved.

[Solecismic]

People have lost their insurance plan every year I've been alive. I don't know if this will effect more or fewer than in the past. I'm fine with looking at ways to make the transition smoother. I really don't have any loyalty to the ACA. My goals are universal coverage and slowing the growth of healthcare spending. I have a lot of flexibility on how those goals are achieved.

Can you provide evidence that millions of people have lost their insurance each year? For reasons having nothing to do with leaving a job that provided that insurance?

I asked a question, though. For those who have an existing plan, and don't leave their jobs or non-jobs, what is an acceptable percentage of canceled plans?

What were the details of this religious exception?

[Buccaneer]

It still amazes me (but it shouldn't) of how many people have faith in the federal govt and apparently had high expectations (thus causing things like plummeting approval ratings). I guess they hadn't lived long enough to know better.

[Buccaneer]

Can you provide evidence that millions of people have lost their insurance each year? For reasons having nothing to do with leaving a job that provided that insurance?

I asked a question, though. For those who have an existing plan, and don't leave their jobs or non-jobs, what is an acceptable percentage of canceled plans?

What were the details of this religious exception?

I have never heard of any (non-company) plans being cancelled. Switched, decreased and made more expensive, yes. I also know of individual and family dropping insurance because it no longer become affordable - which is where we all may end up.

[miked]

My sister had private health insurance that wasn't with her company. She had a gall bladder something or other that had to be removed. As soon as she got out of the hospital, her company dropped her, wouldn't even cover the post-op visit. Anecdotal, but I'm guessing she isn't alone.

[Buccaneer]

My sister had private health insurance that wasn't with her company. She had a gall bladder something or other that had to be removed. As soon as she got out of the hospital, her company dropped her, wouldn't even cover the post-op visit. Anecdotal, but I'm guessing she isn't alone.

What was the reason given?

[JPhillips]

Can you provide evidence that millions of people have lost their insurance each year? For reasons having nothing to do with leaving a job that provided that insurance?

I asked a question, though. For those who have an existing plan, and don't leave their jobs or non-jobs, what is an acceptable percentage of canceled plans?

What were the details of this religious exception?

It happens all the time. Nobody is losing insurance, they just have to pay more and/or the benefits change. Where I work we changed the details of our plan and the co-pay went up this year. That same thing happens at workplaces all over the U.S. every year.

Here's a quick run down of the religous leader problem:

Months of outreach to Republican Senate offices by religious leaders have yielded no official GOP support to an appeal from a broad coalition of religious denominations to ensure that church-sponsored health plans can participate in the ACA’s health insurance exchanges. Worse yet, from a partisan Republican point of view, two Democratic senators, Mark Pryor and Chris Coons, were the first responders to this call, introducing legislation late last week. Pryor is widely viewed as the GOP’s number one senatorial target in 2014.

Without the requested “fix,” as many as one million clergy members and church employees now enrolled in church-sponsored health plans could soon face the choice of leaving these plans (designed to meet their unique needs, such as the frequent reassignment of clergy across state lines) or losing access to the tax subsidies provided by the ACA to help lower-to-middle income Americans purchase insurance.

Observers generally agree that the exclusion of church health plans from eligibility for the exchanges, which occurred because they do not sell policies to the general public, was an oversight caused by staffers scrambling to draft bill language under tight deadlines. Because employees of religious institutions are usually paid modestly, many will qualify for subsidies made available on a sliding scale to families earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level. But the subsidies can only be used to purchase insurance from the exchanges.

The GOP ended up keeping it from coming to a vote.

[Solecismic]

I asked a simple question. How much is acceptable to you?

You say something happens all the time, but refuse to provide any evidence. I'm not asking about a co-pay change (what a nice benefit that is, by the way). I'm talking about being dropped from an insurance package and told to go to the government for insurance.

When people discover the reality of what a high-deductible plan is, they will be unpleasantly surprised.

[JPhillips]

I asked a simple question. How much is acceptable to you?

You say something happens all the time, but refuse to provide any evidence. I'm not asking about a co-pay change (what a nice benefit that is, by the way). I'm talking about being dropped from an insurance package and told to go to the government for insurance.

When people discover the reality of what a high-deductible plan is, they will be unpleasantly surprised.

I'd rather people didn't have any problems with their insurance, but that isn't realistic. Nobody is going to the government for insurance, they may go to a government website, but there is no government insurance. Every option is a private plan.

If the new standard is that nothing can change about anyone's insurance, the ACA can never be repealed. I would expect you to be outraged when all of the people that got insurance due to ACA changes were suddenly stripped of that coverage.

I'm not arguing the law is perfect or that there aren't ways to make it better. My point is really that the landscape has changed enough that we'll never go back to the way it was pre-ACA. The sooner the GOP realizes that and starts working to amend rather than repeal the better off we'll all be.

[JonInMiddleGA]

My point is really that the landscape has changed enough that we'll never go back to the way it was pre-ACA.

Bullshit. All it takes is enough sense & courage.

Wait, those are in such short supply these days ... yeah, you're probably right.

[flere-imsaho]

I have never heard of any (non-company) plans being cancelled. Switched, decreased and made more expensive, yes. I also know of individual and family dropping insurance because it no longer become affordable - which is where we all may end up.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Newsletters/Washington-Health-Policy-in-Review/2010/May/May-3-2010/Health-Insurers-Agree-to-Stop-Policy-Cancellations.aspx

UnitedHealthcare officials announced Wednesday they will no longer cancel policies held by sick people. The company is acting in advance of a ban on the practice that's part of the new health care law.

The UnitedHealthcare announcement was followed late Wednesday by an announcement from America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) that health insurers in general would commit to dropping the practice of cancelling policies when holders become ill.

Edit: Note that the article is from 2010 and indicates it was a common practice across all insurers.

[flere-imsaho]

I asked a question, though. For those who have an existing plan, and don't leave their jobs or non-jobs, what is an acceptable percentage of canceled plans?


Somewhere south of 84 million would be a good start. (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Blog/2013/Apr/Large-Shares-of-Adults-Are-Uninsured-or-Underinsured.aspx)

More seriously, however, we'll know more after March, when open enrollment ends. If the number of people who have gained insurance due to ACA (through Exchanges or Medicaid) exceeds the number of people who lost their individual plans (which, as I showed earlier, often barely qualify as insurance), then I'll call it a win.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Cripes, this is a frightening thread to read right now.

[ISiddiqui]

It happens all the time. Nobody is losing insurance, they just have to pay more and/or the benefits change. Where I work we changed the details of our plan and the co-pay went up this year. That same thing happens at workplaces all over the U.S. every year.

That's about right. They get different plans; they aren't 'losing' insurance.

And yes, FWIW, some of the provisions in the ACA, preventing insurance companies from refusing to cover folks is a direct result of people being dropped do to health factors.

[Arles]

That's about right. They get different plans; they aren't 'losing' insurance.

And yes, FWIW, some of the provisions in the ACA, preventing insurance companies from refusing to cover folks is a direct result of people being dropped do to health factors.
The irony here is that defenders of the ACA felt it was needed because a lot of people without employer coverage couldn't afford available plans. Now, with the ACA, people who had affordable coverage are losing their plans (replaced with more expensive exchange options). Yet, somehow, this instance of losing coverage is somehow more acceptable to the ACA defenders.

[ISiddiqui]

Mostly because those 'plans' were craptastic insurance that covered hardly anything.

[flere-imsaho]

Cripes, this is a frightening thread to read right now.

Glad you're starting to see how serious the healthcare situation prior to ACA was for most Americans.

[JPhillips]

The irony here is that defenders of the ACA felt it was needed because a lot of people without employer coverage couldn't afford available plans. Now, with the ACA, people who had affordable coverage are losing their plans (replaced with more expensive exchange options). Yet, somehow, this instance of losing coverage is somehow more acceptable to the ACA defenders.

I don't find it acceptable. I'd love to look at legislative fixes either on the plan side or subsidy side, but that won't happen because the GOP is more concerned with sabotaging the law than making it work.

[DaddyTorgo]

I don't find it acceptable. I'd love to look at legislative fixes either on the plan side or subsidy side, but that won't happen because the GOP is more concerned with sabotaging the law than making it work.

Exactly - responsible government could likely fairly-easily solve these issues, the problem is the GOP isn't a party committed to responsible government and "looking out for the people" despite their rhetoric.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Glad you're starting to see how serious the healthcare situation prior to ACA was for most Americans.

That wasn't the frightening part.

[flere-imsaho]

Now, with the ACA, people who had affordable coverage are losing their plans (replaced with more expensive exchange options).

Affordable in terms of monthly premiums, sure. Affordable in terms of the insurance actually paying out a full claim in the event it's needed? Not so much. That's the point here.

Part of ACA was to get the uninsured on insurance, so as to stop them from either a) avoiding treatment or b) going into bankruptcy to afford treatment.

Part of ACA was to get the underinsured on better insurance, so as to stop them from mainly b, above.


Claims that people with affordable individual plans now that also will adequately cover them financially if used as intended are merely anecdotal, until some of you start citing data. And simply saying "X million folks will lose their policy" isn't the point. How many of those policies would adequately cover their members is the point, and here's data to the contrary: Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/)

[flere-imsaho]

That wasn't the frightening part.

You don't say? You mean you are just concern trolling as usual?

:popcorn:

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

You don't say? You mean you are just concern trolling as usual?

:popcorn:

Yes, along with a good chunk of the rest of the country except those of us who realize there are problems don't consider it trolling.

[Galaxy]

I'd love to look at legislative fixes either on the plan side or subsidy side

What would you propose?

[flere-imsaho]

Well, the simple solution would be to re-introduce the public option. :D

[flere-imsaho]

Yes, along with a good chunk of the rest of the country except those of us who realize there are problems don't consider it trolling.

You can make a good chunk of the country think dihydrogen monoxide is a serious problem, too.

[JPhillips]

What would you propose?

Without consultation with experts I can't say specifically, but there has to be a way to broaden the acceptable plans and/or expand subsidies/tax credits. The particular problem shouldn't be that difficult to alleviate.

[DaddyTorgo]

52-48 - the Nays have it. Filibuster on nominations (not including Supreme Court) is gone.

Grrr

Democrats Carl Levin, Joe Manchin, Mark Pryor voted against changing the rule.

[Marc Vaughan]

Without consultation with experts I can't say specifically, but there has to be a way to broaden the acceptable plans and/or expand subsidies/tax credits. The particular problem shouldn't be that difficult to alleviate.

There are lots of important things to do with healthcare in America imho - one of the obvious ones is decoupling it from employment.

At present I know lots of people who remain in jobs they hate because they need healthcare, it stifles competition between corporations for positions and thus depresses the wage level.

Another obvious one would simply be to remove the ludicrous purchasing restrictions which are placed on government healthcare programs preventing them from negotiating fairly with drug companies - at present they're handicapped in total violation of the 'free market' which is so touted by conservatives ...

[DaddyTorgo]

There are lots of important things to do with healthcare in America imho - one of the obvious ones is decoupling it from employment.

At present I know lots of people who remain in jobs they hate because they need healthcare, it stifles competition between corporations for positions and thus depresses the wage level.

Another obvious one would simply be to remove the ludicrous purchasing restrictions which are placed on government healthcare programs preventing them from negotiating fairly with drug companies - at present they're handicapped in total violation of the 'free market' which is so touted by conservatives ...

You silly Europeans and your practical, data-driven and supported solutions.

;)

[flere-imsaho]

Woah.

Edit: This was in response to the filibuster on nominations being lifted.

[DaddyTorgo]

Woah.

Edit: This was in response to the filibuster on nominations being lifted.

Took them far too long to do it, and it's only half-hearted, so I'm not exactly celebrating in the streets, but it's a step in the right direction, so that's good.

[flere-imsaho]

The quick consensus seems to be that this will likely serve to enrage the TP/GOP even more leading to yet more gridlock and (ironically) the Democrats maybe looking, in 2015 (if they still hold the Senate) towards removing the rule for legislation as well. Slippery slope and all that....

[SirFozzie]

The quick consensus seems to be that this will likely serve to enrage the TP/GOP even more leading to yet more gridlock and (ironically) the Democrats maybe looking, in 2015 (if they still hold the Senate) towards removing the rule for legislation as well. Slippery slope and all that....

How could they be more obstructionist? Basically anything the D's try to do.. good/bad/negative gets objected to and filibustered.

We had the Know Nothing Party, the GOP is now the "Do Nothing" party.

Or maybe the Tantrum Party.

[sterlingice]

I'm trying to decide if this is a big deal or not and I think ultimately the answer is "not". It will be a talking point for a little bit. But, frankly, I think it's esoteric enough that the general population will just sigh and shrug it off.

But politics has always been about creative ways to bend the rules to your political will. Just as the incidence of filibuster has gone up recently, there had to be a reason it was the new tool in the toolkit. Now that it's gone, there will be another.

Also, near as I can tell- this is just for nominees, not for legislation, correct?

SI

[gstelmack]

Another obvious one would simply be to remove the ludicrous purchasing restrictions which are placed on government healthcare programs preventing them from negotiating fairly with drug companies - at present they're handicapped in total violation of the 'free market' which is so touted by conservatives ...

You could reduce the need for insurance entirely if individuals were charged the same amount insurance companies were for prescriptions and care...

[JonInMiddleGA]

The quick consensus seems to be that this will likely serve to enrage the TP/GOP even more leading to yet more gridlock and (ironically) the Democrats maybe looking, in 2015 (if they still hold the Senate) towards removing the rule for legislation as well. Slippery slope and all that....

While I'm reasonably sure you can't enrage conservatives too much more than they already are (not without armed revolt anyway), I'm not going to sweat this too much. Goes around, comes around, etc.

[sterlingice]

While I'm reasonably sure you can't enrage conservatives too much more than they already are (not without armed revolt anyway), I'm not going to sweat this too much. Goes around, comes around, etc.

I don't get the timing, frankly. Popularity for Obama will continue to wane throughout his term as happens with second term presidents, the Dems have a ton of seats to defend in 2014, and it didn't appear that there were a lot of nominees out there awaiting passage, just a couple (tho this could be the fact that I'm totally off on). Why now and why not in 2009? Politics is such theater, sometimes.

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

I don't get the timing, frankly. Popularity for Obama will continue to wane throughout his term as happens with second term presidents, the Dems have a ton of seats to defend in 2014, and it didn't appear that there were a lot of nominees out there awaiting passage, just a couple (tho this could be the fact that I'm totally off on). Why now and why not in 2009? Politics is such theater, sometimes.

SI

This is why I'm not excited. It should have happened in 209 or 2010 at worse or whatever.

[flere-imsaho]

From what I'm reading, while there are only a handlful of Executive Branch appointees that are unfilled and can now go through, there are also 90 (or 93, it's unclear) judicial appointments that can now also go through, which may be more significant.

[ISiddiqui]

There was also a rumor that the reason Sebelius wasn't fired as head of HHS was because Obama wouldn't be able to find a replacement that the GOP wouldn't filibuster. It may be too late for that, but would allow for people to be fired easier if they mess up.

[JPhillips]

I don't get the timing, frankly. Popularity for Obama will continue to wane throughout his term as happens with second term presidents, the Dems have a ton of seats to defend in 2014, and it didn't appear that there were a lot of nominees out there awaiting passage, just a couple (tho this could be the fact that I'm totally off on). Why now and why not in 2009? Politics is such theater, sometimes.

SI

The GOP really has escalated things. They are now at a point where they won't accept any nominations to the D.C. Appeals Court.

I actually think the results of this rule change should have been standard practice. An elected President with a majority Senate should get to fill executive and court positions. That's part of what the populace voted for. Ideally the minority party would be responsible enough to maintain the filibuster for extraordinary cases, but the majority party has a right to make appointments.

[JPhillips]

There was also a rumor that the reason Sebelius wasn't fired as head of HHS was because Obama wouldn't be able to find a replacement that the GOP wouldn't filibuster. It may be too late for that, but would allow for people to be fired easier if they mess up.

She won't be fired, but she should be. She not only fucked up implementation, she has sounded clueless in the aftermath. If this rule change results in a new HHS Secretary I'll be thrilled.

[TroyF]

The quick consensus seems to be that this will likely serve to enrage the TP/GOP even more leading to yet more gridlock and (ironically) the Democrats maybe looking, in 2015 (if they still hold the Senate) towards removing the rule for legislation as well. Slippery slope and all that....

Quick consensus? Here is the quick consensus:

The same democrats who passed this bill will be in tears when (not if, it's cyclical people, it's going to come around) republicans get in charge and start ramming through Pro-Life/Anti Gay marriage candidates. They took away the checks and balances and deal making. (while deal making might sound horrible, it at least mitigates how psychotic certain appointments end up being)

As I said above, the dems will pay the piper for this decision. It may be 2015, it may 20 years after, but they will feel the impact of this. This was a very shortsighted decision that will hurt badly in the long run.

[ISiddiqui]

To be honest, a better way to do this would likely be to make positions that been empty for x amount of time to be subject to an up or down vote. Would likely lead to more negotiation earlier.

[DaddyTorgo]

The GOP really has escalated things. They are now at a point where they won't accept any nominations to the D.C. Appeals Court.

I actually think the results of this rule change should have been standard practice. An elected President with a majority Senate should get to fill executive and court positions. That's part of what the populace voted for. Ideally the minority party would be responsible enough to maintain the filibuster for extraordinary cases, but the majority party has a right to make appointments.

This.

[Marc Vaughan]

As I said above, the dems will pay the piper for this decision. It may be 2015, it may 20 years after, but they will feel the impact of this. This was a very shortsighted decision that will hurt badly in the long run.

+1

[DaddyTorgo]

Quick consensus? Here is the quick consensus:

The same democrats who passed this bill will be in tears when (not if, it's cyclical people, it's going to come around) republicans get in charge and start ramming through Pro-Life/Anti Gay marriage candidates. They took away the checks and balances and deal making. (while deal making might sound horrible, it at least mitigates how psychotic certain appointments end up being)

As I said above, the dems will pay the piper for this decision. It may be 2015, it may 20 years after, but they will feel the impact of this. This was a very shortsighted decision that will hurt badly in the long run.

What - like Scalia (and yes I know he's SCOTUS and this doesn't apply, just making the point that deal-making doesn't prevent wackos)?

You're delusional or being deliberately disingenuous if you don't admit that Republicans would have taken it away to ram through those same candidates when they got into power anyways.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

What - like Scalia (and yes I know he's SCOTUS and this doesn't apply, just making the point that deal-making doesn't prevent wackos)?

You're delusional or being deliberately disingenuous if you don't admit that Republicans would have taken it away to ram through those same candidates when they got into power anyways.

Agreed. It's time that this silly notion that somehow stopping anything from passing (or being appointed) can be considered 'checks and balances'.

With that said, the genie is out of the bottle now. It's only a matter of time until the other shoe falls and it is changed for legislation as well. They can't say it's a good idea in one instance and not another.

Hell, at some level we've got some terrible laws because of the filibuster mess. People think they need to put EVERYTHING in a law that does pass because they don't know when they'll be able to get anything done again. Pass things in small chunks, not in huge laws where no one has even read it all before voting on it.

[Blackadar]

What - like Scalia (and yes I know he's SCOTUS and this doesn't apply, just making the point that deal-making doesn't prevent wackos)?

You're delusional or being deliberately disingenuous if you don't admit that Republicans would have taken it away to ram through those same candidates when they got into power anyways.

Chuck Grassley said it today - he doesn't believe that Obama should be able to make any appointments to the DC Court because of ideology - in that there were 4 judges appointed by Dems and 4 by Republicans and Obama shouldn't be allowed to break that "balance". That's a far different intent than just trying to prevent the far right-or-left wing candidate from getting on the court. That's essentially saying that he wants to subvert the '08 and '12 elections because it didn't agree with with this philosophy. Weird, thought...I certainly didn't notice that sentiment when the Republicans got their chance to pack the Supreme Court with their ideologues.

The Republicans left the Democrats no other option. Bush's 1st term nominees were approved at a 94% clip. Obama's were approved at only 81%. His second term is trending far worse. So if the Republicans do manage to take back the White House and the Senate in 2016, there would be far more openings available because Obama hasn't been allowed to make appointments. So what would happen? The Republicans use the nuclear option and pack the courts in 2016 with Scalia Clones.

So while it may hurt the Dems at some point, it would have hurt 'em far worse if they didn't do it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Agreed. It's time that this silly notion that somehow stopping anything from passing (or being appointed) can be considered 'checks and balances'.

With that said, the genie is out of the bottle now. It's only a matter of time until the other shoe falls and it is changed for legislation as well. They can't say it's a good idea in one instance and not another.

Hell, at some level we've got some terrible laws because of the filibuster mess. People think they need to put EVERYTHING in a law that does pass because they don't know when they'll be able to get anything done again. Pass things in small chunks, not in huge laws where no one has even read it all before voting on it.

FML - bipartisan agreement from me.

Mark this date in the calendar - MBBF and I agree on something political.

Sure - we probably disagree on what is terrible in those laws, but we agree on principal.

[flere-imsaho]

The same democrats who passed this bill will be in tears when (not if, it's cyclical people, it's going to come around) republicans get in charge and start ramming through Pro-Life/Anti Gay marriage candidates. They took away the checks and balances and deal making. (while deal making might sound horrible, it at least mitigates how psychotic certain appointments end up being).


Deal making's dead, Jim. See also: recess appointments, use of reconciliation, and signing statements. Hell, have you forgotten the government shutdown already?

The GOP just took the world economy to the brink because Obama wouldn't agree to a) throw away his signature legislative accomplishment, b) agree to budget spending levels lower than those proposed by Paul Ryan, and c) a host of other, less reasonable demands. These guys aren't going to compromise when they get back in power anyway, the way things are going.

You want compromise and deal-making back in Congress? Find a way to get rid of TP influence. Because when you're a GOP Congresscritter and any time you compromise you risk a primary challenge from the right, there's plenty of disincentive to waddle up to the table to talk turkey.

And who says the GOP didn't already ram through psychotic candidates, especially during the Bush II Administration?

[TroyF]

What - like Scalia (and yes I know he's SCOTUS and this doesn't apply, just making the point that deal-making doesn't prevent wackos)?

You're delusional or being deliberately disingenuous if you don't admit that Republicans would have taken it away to ram through those same candidates when they got into power anyways.

Republicans were threatening to do this when the democrats were blocking Bush's nominations. (the dems actually went longer than the republicans have thus far. Appellate judges were at 238 days under Clinton, 355 days under Bush and 257 for Obama. )

They threatened, then they cut a deal. Trent Lott, the republican who coined the term and first talked about doing it, realized very quickly how dumb of an idea it was and he backed off it. Yes, by the way, you read that correctly. Despite Bush's nominees being delayed over 100 days more and him being referred to as the worst president of all time, he didn't endorse the nuclear option and his party didn't enact it. So to your response above, at this point no Republican had ever done it even when they had the reason and the chance to do so. So no, I'm not sure they would have done it if the roles were reversed right now.

I'm not delusional (well, ok, I'm sure some people think I am and I wouldn't know it if I was, so fair play to you sir) I hate both parties. Which is why I hate ANYTHING that gives one party a ton of unchecked power. Once you push a button like this, there is no going back. When the Republicans get power (and again, I stress WHEN, because they will get it back someday), they are going to say "you had your fun, OUR TURN" and go nuts.

It's why you want a cold war. You don't want anyone punching the button. Because even if you win short term, everyone feels pain long term.

[flere-imsaho]

You know, let's not forget that Mitch McConnell famously said, after Obama's first election (when the TP was still only in its infancy, and couldn't have influenced this) that the GOP's primary legislative priority would be to make Obama a one-term president.

The GOP aren't interested in governing. They're interested in a) defeating Democrats and b) destroying the government, in roughly that order. I'm just glad the Democratic leadership finally woke up and saw it.

[ISiddiqui]

Hell, at some level we've got some terrible laws because of the filibuster mess. People think they need to put EVERYTHING in a law that does pass because they don't know when they'll be able to get anything done again. Pass things in small chunks, not in huge laws where no one has even read it all before voting on it.

This is undoubtably true. Laws get stuffed to the gills with hand outs for the minority parties to get past any potential filibusters.

[flere-imsaho]

It's why you want a cold war. You don't want anyone punching the button. Because even if you win short term, everyone feels pain long term.

The "pain" of up-and-down votes on judicial and executive nominees (and possibly, down the road, legislation)? Yeah, sounds terrible. Let's take complete gridlock, government shutdowns, ratings downgrades and driving the economy over the cliff instead.

[flere-imsaho]

FML - bipartisan agreement from me.

Mark this date in the calendar - MBBF and I agree on something political.

Sure - we probably disagree on what is terrible in those laws, but we agree on principal.

Oh god, I agree too.

I don't know if this is worse than that one time I agreed with Jon.

:banghead:

[flere-imsaho]

This is undoubtably true. Laws get stuffed to the gills with hand outs for the minority parties to get past any potential filibusters.

At its heart, it's the difference between crafting a legitimate compromise (a practice now dead at the federal level) and merely horse-trading.

[TroyF]

The "pain" of up-and-down votes on judicial and executive nominees (and possibly, down the road, legislation)? Yeah, sounds terrible. Let's take complete gridlock, government shutdowns, ratings downgrades and driving the economy over the cliff instead.

You don't get it, do you? This is going to go beyond all of that.

Gridlock, government shutdowns and economy over a cliff are both parties doing by the way. I don't know how anyone over the age of 12 can still blindly blame one side in this at this point. It isn't one side is a bunch of evil douche bags who want to destroy everyone and the other is angelic and wonderful. Both are power hungry dirtbags who have about as much care for individuals as most people do for the bug on the ground outside our homes.

Both parties defecate in paper bags, set them on fire, ring the doorbell and talk about the door of opportunity that was just opened for you. I know, I know, one party is less evil because they believe in things you believe in.

I wish I had a party. I'm against the death penalty, for gay marriage, believe we need to raise some taxes but also cut some entitlement programs. . . where the hell is my party?

[Galaxy]

That may happen to some degree, but no way 1/3 of the American population is losing health insurance.

Aren't most medium-to-large-sized companies, along with with unions, self-insured when it comes to health insurance? Isn't this a big talking point that people are missing or don't really understand?

[JPhillips]

I wish I had a party. I'm against the death penalty, for gay marriage, believe we need to raise some taxes but also cut some entitlement programs. . . where the hell is my party?

Sounds like you're Obama.

[Galaxy]

Sounds like you're Obama.

Except the cut entitlement spending part.

[JPhillips]

Except the cut entitlement spending part.

True, expect he offered to do chained CPI and Medicare cuts.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The real fun may come a little later down the road ... when all the clowns Obama appoints have to be removed, and we see an end to lifetime appointments pushed through to make that happen.

Make a note of it, m'kay. Just for when it comes up later.

[Blackadar]

You don't get it, do you? This is going to go beyond all of that.

Gridlock, government shutdowns and economy over a cliff are both parties doing by the way. I don't know how anyone over the age of 12 can still blindly blame one side in this at this point. It isn't one side is a bunch of evil douche bags who want to destroy everyone and the other is angelic and wonderful. Both are power hungry dirtbags who have about as much care for individuals as most people do for the bug on the ground outside our homes.

False equivalence.

One party steps in shits far too often. The other wallows in it.

Here's an example on this page of a false equivalence that you posted.

Republicans were threatening to do this when the democrats were blocking Bush's nominations. (the dems actually went longer than the republicans have thus far. Appellate judges were at 238 days under Clinton, 355 days under Bush and 257 for Obama. )

They threatened, then they cut a deal. Trent Lott, the republican who coined the term and first talked about doing it, realized very quickly how dumb of an idea it was and he backed off it. Yes, by the way, you read that correctly. Despite Bush's nominees being delayed over 100 days more and him being referred to as the worst president of all time, he didn't endorse the nuclear option and his party didn't enact it. So to your response above, at this point no Republican had ever done it even when they had the reason and the chance to do so. So no, I'm not sure they would have done it if the roles were reversed right now.

5 of 6 Bush appointees were put on that court. 4 of 5 Obama appointees have been filibustered. This hasn't been going on for 100 days, this has been going on for years. That's right, these seats have been open for years and the Republicans refuse to sit any judge nominated by Obama on this court per Chuck Grassley. So again, where's the equivalence? A short delay and a permanent delay aren't the same thing.

Bush got 91% of his judicial nominees on the bench. Obama only 76%. When Bush came into office, there were 80 vacancies in the Federal Judiciary (which rose to over 100 in year one). By year 3 that number was below 60 and was below 50 his entire last term. Obama came into office with about 60 vacancies, which rose to over 100 by his second year. It's still over 90 today. The facts just don't support a "they did it too" claim.

[Marc Vaughan]

Bush got 91% of his judicial nominees on the bench. Obama only 76%. When Bush came into office, there were 80 vacancies in the Federal Judiciary (which rose to over 100 in year one). By year 3 that number was below 60 and was below 50 his entire last term. Obama came into office with about 60 vacancies, which rose to over 100 by his second year. It's still over 90 today. The facts just don't support a "they did it too" claim
Much as I hate to bring this up - but throwing percentage statistics around with such small numbers is ultimately pointless as they can change wildly with only a few more nominations being processed.

Its entirely true that the Democrats have played this game as far as I can see - there is a list of the equivalent action taken against Bush here:

List of Stalled/Blocked/Filbustered Nominee's under Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies#List_of_stalled.2C_blocked_or_filibustered_nominees)

(trust me as your local commie infiltrator I hate to bring this up, I enjoy kicking the Republican party as much as the next person ;) )

[Solecismic]

Mostly because those 'plans' were craptastic insurance that covered hardly anything.

That's simply untrue.

My current plan is very similar to the bronze plan. Except I'll be covered if I get pregnant.

Even the "conforming" plan I'm being shuffled into for 2014 (it will go away in 2015) is pretty much exactly the same. All Obamacare does for me is double costs.

Around this time next year, we'll all be arguing about the merits of high-deductible plans. As I've said repeatedly, most of you who have had your plans through work have no idea about true health care costs.

[TroyF]

Much as I hate to bring this up - but throwing percentage statistics around with such small numbers is ultimately pointless as they can change wildly with only a few more nominations being processed.

Its entirely true that the Democrats have played this game as far as I can see - there is a list of the equivalent action taken against Bush here:

List of Stalled/Blocked/Filbustered Nominee's under Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies#List_of_stalled.2C_blocked_or_filibustered_nominees)

(trust me as your local commie infiltrator I hate to bring this up, I enjoy kicking the Republican party as much as the next person ;) )

Of course they play this game. EVERYONE in politics plays this stupid ass game. But nobody believes "their" guys do it. If I throw out gerrymandering, people on both sides will talk about how horrible the other has been at doing it. Both parties do it, it's all about the power and the ability to do so. This isn't new and it won't be stopping anytime soon.

[TroyF]

Sounds like you're Obama.

Crap, some of my post was cut off. See, I'm not "pro gun" but I do think Americans should have the right to own one. I also think the gun show permit thing should be closed. The entitlement part is pretty big. I'm not for doing one without the other. I don't want my taxes raised so they can be raised again when all the entitlement programs go belly up. I don't want all entitlement programs to go away because some of them are pretty damned useful in helping people.

If I ran down a list of things I believe in, it would be split pretty evenly down the middle. If I split off the top 7 things I like about either party, I could have a stranger believing I was a raging tea party member or was the son of two pot smoking liberals from Cal Berkley.

It's funny how BOTH sides will use the same language used by another post here. "My side just wallows in it or steps in it a little bit, YOUR side bathes in it." It doesn't work all that well with me because I think both are subhuman, despicable, horrific examples of human beings.

[Solecismic]

Crap, some of my post was cut off. See, I'm not "pro gun" but I do think Americans should have the right to own one. I also think the gun show permit thing should be closed. The entitlement part is pretty big. I'm not for doing one without the other. I don't want my taxes raised so they can be raised again when all the entitlement programs go belly up. I don't want all entitlement programs to go away because some of them are pretty damned useful in helping people.

If I ran down a list of things I believe in, it would be split pretty evenly down the middle. If I split off the top 7 things I like about either party, I could have a stranger believing I was a raging tea party member or was the son of two pot smoking liberals from Cal Berkley.

It's funny how BOTH sides will use the same language used by another post here. "My side just wallows in it or steps in it a little bit, YOUR side bathes in it." It doesn't work all that well with me because I think both are subhuman, despicable, horrific examples of human beings.

Please stop trying to bring reason to this discussion. It has no place in our modern government.

[Coffee Warlord]

...because I think both are subhuman, despicable, horrific examples of human beings.

Please stop trying to bring reason to this discussion. It has no place in our modern government.

These two posts summarize our government perfectly.

[Solecismic]

These two posts summarize our government perfectly.

Isn't that the perfect example of partisan politics?

I'm agreeing with Troy's sentiment that we have two extremes in government, and both sides refuse to deal with each other, except in the most negative, biased manner.

Supporters of both sides consider the other side evil, something we've seen over and over in this item. They never think their own shit stinks.

Troy is mocking that with his choice of language. And there you go doing the partisan out-of-context quote thing. Taking one sentence, out of context, to satisfy another agenda. It's exactly why nothing is bipartisan these days.

Both parties are locked into this cycle, and continually up the ante.

[Blackadar]

It's funny how BOTH sides will use the same language used by another post here. "My side just wallows in it or steps in it a little bit, YOUR side bathes in it." It doesn't work all that well with me because I think both are subhuman, despicable, horrific examples of human beings.

So instead of false equivalencies, now you're making false assumptions. I'm not a member of either party. I just know what I see and one thing doesn't equal another. What the Dems did in the early 2000s does not equate to what the Republicans are currently doing. The numbers don't lie, especially since the sample size ain't that small.

FYI, I think both parties are despicable. I don't think most of the people are "subhuman" since dehumanizing people tends to lead to irrational actions. I think they're self-serving jackasses who would rather embarrass one another than create a compromise. I think they're also driven to it by the way the game is played, especially by the radicals providing the money. Until that element is removed, this game won't fundamentally change.

[Blackadar]

These two posts summarize our government perfectly.

No, I think that summarization reflects the personalities of the authors, not the government.

[lungs]

If only we could go back to the bipartisan days of 1776.

[Buccaneer]

A Republic form of government is not winner-take-all. But I guess they don't teach civics anymore if anyone is willing to except an executive-legislative system without checks and balances. And I still contend that it is better to not do something than to do something bad or wrong. Sigh.

[cartman]

A Republic form of government is not winner-take-all. But I guess they don't teach civics anymore if anyone is willing to except an executive-legislative system without checks and balances. And I still contend that it is better to not do something than to do something bad or wrong. Sigh.

It is expressly written in the Constitution that agreements of 2/3rds of Senators is needed to pass treaties signed by the President, and just advice and consent of the Senate for appointing judges and officers, no mention of 2/3rds agreement. How is adhering to that taking away checks and balances?

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

[Buccaneer]

Because the powers expressly granted in the Constitution has been greatly superseded and violated, esp. when one party is in control. I do not believe they envisioned a federal govt. with this much power (and expenditures) and therefore, would have sought to reign in the tyranny of the majority in the context of how much they have.

[Buccaneer]

That probably did not make sense. Here's a simple analogy:

You give your child $10 and that child wasted and/or abused that $10. The lessons learned are 1) you do not then give the child $30 and 2) you actually cut back to $5 to see if they will be responsible for that and then you move it up to $10.

If the framers knew what abuses some of the clauses would have been, they would not have granted that much power. Advice and Consent works well within reason, not to use as a hammer. It's not just current events but throughout history as well for representational governments.

[Galaxy]

I'm not fully against this move, but my question is why is it okay for Obama, Reid, and Biden to railed against the "Nuclear Option" back in 2005, but today it's okay?

[sterlingice]

To be honest, a better way to do this would likely be to make positions that been empty for x amount of time to be subject to an up or down vote. Would likely lead to more negotiation earlier.

I really like this idea. Shame it didn't come to pass

SI

[TroyF]

I'm not fully against this move, but my question is why is it okay for Obama, Reid, and Biden to railed against the "Nuclear Option" back in 2005, but today it's okay?

Is it really this hard to see the hypocrisy? I've sat and listened at how the democrats weren't that bad in 2003 to 2005. Ummm, yeah, they were freaking horrible. The Republicans, flush with power, were acting like jack asses. The democrats in a grand quest to stop them from acting like jack asses, went nuts.

Rather than continue nominating every far right zealot they could think of, the Republicans cut a deal with the democrats to push through more moderate judges. If they had continued down the path of the zealots, the democrats would have come unglued and certainly would have continued down the path.

It was politics at work. The Republicans tried to go too far one way, the Democrats stepped in and said "Nope, not gonna allow it" and the two sides struck a deal.

Now we have no deals. Things get slammed through without either side bothering to talk to each other. Both sides are "evil" to their opposite number and you can't have a political discussion with either a far right or a far left person without them calling the other side demons who want to destroy mankind. Whatever "side" you are on, the fact that a nuclear option happened shows how far off the wagon we have fallen as a country.

Instead of trying to win over public opinion talking about what the Republicans were doing, the Democrats simply threw out a power grab that WILL NOT BE GOOD LONG TERM for this country no matter what side you are on. The timing is a little suspect too, with approval numbers sliding off a cliff due to Obamacare, it's nice to shift the subject away, don't ya think?

We can't even talk to each other anymore. The guys we pay money to don't even pretend to work with each other anymore. Power grabs like this happen and people try to justify it. Of course, if it happened to "their party" it would be the worst thing that ever occured. Don't mind me, I'm just disgruntled with the entire lot. Maybe I'm wrong and one side is truly angelic and the other side wants to eat babies. I don't claim to know everything about every political issue. I just hate what I'm seeing right now. I really hate it.

[RainMaker]

I do not believe they envisioned a federal govt. with this much power (and expenditures) and therefore, would have sought to reign in the tyranny of the majority in the context of how much they have.

They also didn't envision a country where women could vote and black people weren't property. A country where you can travel from one coast to the other in 3 hours and communicate in a fraction of a second with someone on the other side of the planet.

I get if people have different views on how things should be handled. Just don't understand the whole forefather bit that gets thrown in. They are politicians from a completely different time. I wouldn't want a doctor to practice medicine in the vision of a doctor from that time. I wouldn't an 18th Century approach to our military. Why are so many people insistent on an 18th Century approach to running government?

[AENeuman]

Because the powers expressly granted in the Constitution has been greatly superseded and violated, esp. when one party is in control. I do not believe they envisioned a federal govt. with this much power (and expenditures) and therefore, would have sought to reign in the tyranny of the majority in the context of how much they have.

1828

4874

[ISiddiqui]

A Republic form of government is not winner-take-all. But I guess they don't teach civics anymore if anyone is willing to except an executive-legislative system without checks and balances. And I still contend that it is better to not do something than to do something bad or wrong. Sigh.

Um... what exactly do you think a parliamentary system of government is if its not a republic (btw, calling it "Constitutional Monarchy" is complete semantics of the royal has no real power)?

[RainMaker]

There was also a rumor that the reason Sebelius wasn't fired as head of HHS was because Obama wouldn't be able to find a replacement that the GOP wouldn't filibuster. It may be too late for that, but would allow for people to be fired easier if they mess up.

She should absolutely have been fired. Honestly HHS needed someone with tech experience in it and instead they went with a career politician and the results are showing.

[JPhillips]

Now we have no deals.

Over the past few years there have been at least three deals on nominees and each time the GOP has broken the deal.

[Blackadar]

Over the past few years there have been at least three deals on nominees and each time the GOP has broken the deal.

This.

The Democrats didn't come to this decision lightly. This isn't a knee jerk reaction. They know they'll feel the repercussions from this at some point, probably sooner than later. The average person thinks that this say "we can't work with the other side". In reality, this is saying "we no longer trust the other side".

[Blackadar]

Is it really this hard to see the hypocrisy? I've sat and listened at how the democrats weren't that bad in 2003 to 2005. Ummm, yeah, they were freaking horrible. The Republicans, flush with power, were acting like jack asses. The democrats in a grand quest to stop them from acting like jack asses, went nuts.

Rather than continue nominating every far right zealot they could think of, the Republicans cut a deal with the democrats to push through more moderate judges. If they had continued down the path of the zealots, the democrats would have come unglued and certainly would have continued down the path.

It was politics at work. The Republicans tried to go too far one way, the Democrats stepped in and said "Nope, not gonna allow it" and the two sides struck a deal.

Now we have no deals. Things get slammed through without either side bothering to talk to each other. Both sides are "evil" to their opposite number and you can't have a political discussion with either a far right or a far left person without them calling the other side demons who want to destroy mankind. Whatever "side" you are on, the fact that a nuclear option happened shows how far off the wagon we have fallen as a country.

Instead of trying to win over public opinion talking about what the Republicans were doing, the Democrats simply threw out a power grab that WILL NOT BE GOOD LONG TERM for this country no matter what side you are on. The timing is a little suspect too, with approval numbers sliding off a cliff due to Obamacare, it's nice to shift the subject away, don't ya think?

We can't even talk to each other anymore. The guys we pay money to don't even pretend to work with each other anymore. Power grabs like this happen and people try to justify it. Of course, if it happened to "their party" it would be the worst thing that ever occured. Don't mind me, I'm just disgruntled with the entire lot. Maybe I'm wrong and one side is truly angelic and the other side wants to eat babies. I don't claim to know everything about every political issue. I just hate what I'm seeing right now. I really hate it.

Troy, step back from the keyboard and take a deep breath.

Everyone in this thread is agreeing with most of what you say. Probably most everyone you know in life would agree with much of what you say. I'm agreeing with much of what you say. For instance, you're right, we have no deals now. But why? Isn't JPhillip's post an indication of why there are no deals now? If this were a courtroom, both sides would be significantly liable. But it's not 50/50. It's more of the fist/bat/knife/gun analogy from Casino. The Republicans have decided to go full Nicky. You never go full Nicky. How are the Democrats supposed to respond in this case? If Obama can't get his nominees through and those seats stayed vacant until 2016, do you think the Republicans wouldn't immediately seek to stack the court? Isn't that more than a little bit of an attempt at election nullification?

You entirely go off the deep end when you infer that some mystery person somehow things that "one side is angelic" and the other "eats babies". Or when you say that they're "sub-human". Or that people "blindly blame one side". No one here has done that and when you keep spouting that junk, it makes you look irrational.

I think almost all of us are entirely disgusted with the whole damn lot of 'em. But as I said before, until you remove the money from the process, it won't be fixed. You could un-employ 535 members of Congress and the next one would be just as bad because they would be beholden to the say radicals who are pulling the purse-strings.

[gstelmack]

This has been building, I think that's the key. If we had a Republican President / Congress right now, everything would be flipped, with the Dems blocking everything, and Republicans going nuclear.

Politics in this country has certainly always been nasty, but I go back to the class warfare Clinton used in '92 as the start of this particular cycle (or maybe the whole Bush I "read my lips" fiasco - he cut a deal and got CRUCIFIED for it by the Dems). Each party has upped the ante each time they get a chance.

[flere-imsaho]

Um, while the Democrats certainly did make hay with Bush I's broken "read my lips" pledge, I seem to recall that many in his party were even more incensed. In fact, you can really trace the origins of Grover Norquist's insanity to that period.

And I was in D.C. when Clinton was inaugurated. From before Day One there was a machine revved up to discredit, tear down, and otherwise stop Clinton. Sure, he didn't help things with many of his actions, but also remember this is when guys like Rush Limbaugh finally came to the national stage.

[cuervo72]

She should absolutely have been fired. Honestly HHS needed someone with tech experience in it and instead they went with a career politician and the results are showing.

THE DEPARTMENT INCLUDES MORE THAN 300 PROGRAMS, covering a wide spectrum of activities. Some highlights include:

Health and social science research
Preventing disease, including immunization services
Assuring food and drug safety
Medicare (health insurance for elderly and disabled Americans) and Medicaid (health insurance for low-income people)
Health information technology
Financial assistance and services for low-income families
Improving maternal and infant health
Head Start (pre-school education and services)
Faith-based and community initiatives
Preventing child abuse and domestic violence
Substance abuse treatment and prevention
Services for older Americans, including home-delivered meals
Comprehensive health services for Native Americans
Medical preparedness for emergencies, including potential terrorism.

HHS REPRESENTS ALMOST A QUARTER OF ALL FEDERAL OUTLAYS, and it administers more grant dollars than all other federal agencies combined. HHS' Medicare program is the nation's largest health insurer, handling more than 1 billion claims per year. Medicare and Medicaid together provide health care insurance for one in four Americans.

HHS WORKS CLOSELY WITH STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, and many HHS-funded services are provided at the local level by state or county agencies, or through private sector grantees. The Department's programs are administered by 11 operating divisions, including eight agencies in the U.S. Public Health Service and three human services agencies. In addition to the services they deliver, the HHS programs provide for equitable treatment of beneficiaries nationwide, and they enable the collection of national health and other data.

HHS Budget, FY 2008 -- $707.7 billion
HHS employees – 64,750


But yeah - gotta have a tech person at the very top! :rolleyes:

[flere-imsaho]

This has been building, I think that's the key. If we had a Republican President / Congress right now, everything would be flipped, with the Dems blocking everything, and Republicans going nuclear.

I doubt that. This is being driven by the Tea Party, and there's no similar movement on the left with any representation amongst Democrats at the national level that would cause the same thing.

[Coffee Warlord]

The Tea Party is no different than the extreme left - they just have a cute name.

[molson]

Don't the Dems realize they're just standing up for Obama's right to appoint judges friendly to his electronic monitoring policies? :)

[Buccaneer]

They also didn't envision a country where women could vote and black people weren't property. A country where you can travel from one coast to the other in 3 hours and communicate in a fraction of a second with someone on the other side of the planet.

I get if people have different views on how things should be handled. Just don't understand the whole forefather bit that gets thrown in. They are politicians from a completely different time. I wouldn't want a doctor to practice medicine in the vision of a doctor from that time. I wouldn't an 18th Century approach to our military. Why are so many people insistent on an 18th Century approach to running government?

You are talking about cultural norms, I was talking about a system of government they had set up which is still very much active and relevant today. It is an economy of scale but there were and still are good reason not to have most of the power in the hands of the few as well as the power of executive and legislative all in the hands of one party. A majority party, in this country, does not get to become a dictatorship. It is still a government of the people allowing representatives to represent their constituent's and state's needs and interests.

[Buccaneer]

The Tea Party is no different than the extreme left - they just have a cute name.

Those on the left do not believe there any extremists on their end, esp. when they believe the most people to the right of them are extremists.

[DaddyTorgo]

Is it really this hard to see the hypocrisy? I've sat and listened at how the democrats weren't that bad in 2003 to 2005. Ummm, yeah, they were freaking horrible. The Republicans, flush with power, were acting like jack asses. The democrats in a grand quest to stop them from acting like jack asses, went nuts.

Rather than continue nominating every far right zealot they could think of, the Republicans cut a deal with the democrats to push through more moderate judges. If they had continued down the path of the zealots, the democrats would have come unglued and certainly would have continued down the path.

It was politics at work. The Republicans tried to go too far one way, the Democrats stepped in and said "Nope, not gonna allow it" and the two sides struck a deal.

Now we have no deals. Things get slammed through without either side bothering to talk to each other. Both sides are "evil" to their opposite number and you can't have a political discussion with either a far right or a far left person without them calling the other side demons who want to destroy mankind. Whatever "side" you are on, the fact that a nuclear option happened shows how far off the wagon we have fallen as a country.

Instead of trying to win over public opinion talking about what the Republicans were doing, the Democrats simply threw out a power grab that WILL NOT BE GOOD LONG TERM for this country no matter what side you are on. The timing is a little suspect too, with approval numbers sliding off a cliff due to Obamacare, it's nice to shift the subject away, don't ya think?

We can't even talk to each other anymore. The guys we pay money to don't even pretend to work with each other anymore. Power grabs like this happen and people try to justify it. Of course, if it happened to "their party" it would be the worst thing that ever occured. Don't mind me, I'm just disgruntled with the entire lot. Maybe I'm wrong and one side is truly angelic and the other side wants to eat babies. I don't claim to know everything about every political issue. I just hate what I'm seeing right now. I really hate it.


The difference is that the Democrats then were willing to cut deals in good faith. They were "rational actors" in the parlance of game theory.

The Republicans today are not "rational actors" at all. They're not willing to cut any deals. Their idea of a "deal" is the other side capitulating 100%. That's not a compromise.

[DaddyTorgo]

Those on the left do not believe there any extremists on their end, esp. when they believe the most people to the right of them are extremists.

There are extremists on the left. The thing is that they (Kucinich, Sanders) do not dominate party discourse and have the potential to call up primary challengers from the "extreme left" against any politician who doesn't toe the line. They've never been more than a handful, and have never exercised significant power. They don't have the $$$ behind them, or the ideological-purity fervor that the extreme right does.

[JPhillips]

You are talking about cultural norms, I was talking about a system of government they had set up which is still very much active and relevant today. It is an economy of scale but there were and still are good reason not to have most of the power in the hands of the few as well as the power of executive and legislative all in the hands of one party. A majority party, in this country, does not get to become a dictatorship. It is still a government of the people allowing representatives to represent their constituent's and state's needs and interests.

Come on. The founders could have written a sixty vote threshold if they wanted one. The routine use of the filibuster was not something they expected.

[JPhillips]

Those on the left do not believe there any extremists on their end, esp. when they believe the most people to the right of them are extremists.

The difference is power. The Tea Party currently has a lot of power within the GOP. When was the last time the extreme left had any power within the Democratic Party. They couldn't even get a vote of card check when the Dems had a supermajority.

[Blackadar]

Those on the left do not believe there any extremists on their end, esp. when they believe the most people to the right of them are extremists.

And you would be wrong.

[molson]

And I was in D.C. when Clinton was inaugurated. From before Day One there was a machine revved up to discredit, tear down, and otherwise stop Clinton.

Isn't this where the bias comes in? From your perspective, trying to remove Clinton (or Obama) from office, either through election or impeachment, or just trying to "discredit and tear down" them is some terrible thing. But that's just because you like them. We had many years of calls for Bush's impeachment or arrest on war crimes, not to mention the comparisons to Hitler, and other more subtle attempts to discredit him at every turn. Bush hate become part of our culture in a way I don't think even Obama hate has reached. Even though Obama has continued Bush's national security policies, and even though we've learned a lot more about them, there's still nothing close to daily rage about it that we had it during the Bush years. People will give lip service to criticizing something about their guy or their party, the underlying loyalty never waivers, it's just about good and evil and what side you're on.

[molson]

The difference is power. The Tea Party currently has a lot of power within the GOP. When was the last time the extreme left had any power within the Democratic Party. They couldn't even get a vote of card check when the Dems had a supermajority.

Which follows the theme championed by some Dems that anyone except them who succeeds either in elections, or through the government process in implementing or stopping policy is somehow illegitimate. Where the Dems lose elections to this tea party of wackos and such, it's never anything they did wrong, it's never maybe that they didn't do the best job of connecting with real concerns people had. They're just the default correct and any attempt to go against that is essentially, breaking the rules, or some kind of brainwashing or devious mind control over the electorate.

Edit: I've read a million times on this board that Republican voters, especially the poor ones, just aren't smart enough to realize that the Democrats want to help them and that they're essentially tricked into voting against their self-interest. I find that kind thinking to be a tad infuriating. The implication is that there's one correct way to vote or think in any election, and if you stray from that you're just not as smart as the other side. That kind of thing, along with how some members can look and talk down to people in rural areas who do crazy things like value gun rights is where the Dem party as a whole loses me, even though these days I agree with them far more than the Republicans on the issues. But I do think that a lot of those voters understand and resent the way they perceive the Dem party thinks of them, so they have a reason to fight for a candidate who will aggressively stand up for them and against the Dems. And I don't really have a problem with anything the Dems are doing in a practical sense right now, and agree that you can't try to be the moderate deal-maker when the other side is taking a more aggressive approach. But part of what has gotten us to this place is are the ideological us v. then mentality where the other side is seen as something evil and less then them, which we absolutely had in the Bush years. I used to think all the time back then, "won't it be interesting when the Dems are in power and actually have to back up this rhetoric that they have all the answers and the Republicans are evil." Well, it turns out the Dems couldn't fix the country the way they said they would, they can't even win elections against crazy tea partiers in some places.

[cuervo72]

We had many years of calls for Bush's impeachment or arrest on war crimes, not to mention the comparisons to Hitler, and other more subtle attempts to discredit him at every turn. Bush hate become part of our culture in a way I don't think even Obama hate has reached.

Yeah, the Bush hate hasn't abated much.

Fuck George Bush and His Stupid Fucking Cat Paintings (http://jezebel.com/fuck-george-bush-and-his-stupid-fucking-cat-paintings-1468548350)

Declared evil, a war criminal, and yes - compared to Hitler in the comments (they both painted!).

(In this case, I wonder how old the writer even is - she says she has a 10mo-old sibling, and from what I see she was an intern just a couple of years ago. Obviously she lived through the Bush years, but 9/11? Might have been pretty young. *shurg*)

[Galaxy]

I doubt that. This is being driven by the Tea Party, and there's no similar movement on the left with any representation amongst Democrats at the national level that would cause the same thing.

You're naive if you think the Democrats would somehow play nicer if the roles were reversed today.

[TroyF]

Troy, step back from the keyboard and take a deep breath.

Everyone in this thread is agreeing with most of what you say. Probably most everyone you know in life would agree with much of what you say. I'm agreeing with much of what you say. For instance, you're right, we have no deals now. But why? Isn't JPhillip's post an indication of why there are no deals now? If this were a courtroom, both sides would be significantly liable. But it's not 50/50. It's more of the fist/bat/knife/gun analogy from Casino. The Republicans have decided to go full Nicky. You never go full Nicky. How are the Democrats supposed to respond in this case? If Obama can't get his nominees through and those seats stayed vacant until 2016, do you think the Republicans wouldn't immediately seek to stack the court? Isn't that more than a little bit of an attempt at election nullification?

You entirely go off the deep end when you infer that some mystery person somehow things that "one side is angelic" and the other "eats babies". Or when you say that they're "sub-human". Or that people "blindly blame one side". No one here has done that and when you keep spouting that junk, it makes you look irrational.

I think almost all of us are entirely disgusted with the whole damn lot of 'em. But as I said before, until you remove the money from the process, it won't be fixed. You could un-employ 535 members of Congress and the next one would be just as bad because they would be beholden to the say radicals who are pulling the purse-strings.

No, I don't think most people are disgusted with the whole damned lot of them, because if people were, they wouldn't be making excuses for their party while blasting the other one.

And if you think I'm for Republicans, you haven't read a damned thing. Would republicans try to stack the court? DUH!!! Of course they'd try to stack the court in their favor. And the dems would use the same blocking mechanisms the Republicans have.

For all the proof you need is how I wrote my post blasting both parties and immediately 4 or 5 people came out and said "NO, NO, NO, they all might be bad but the republicans are worse" (including you in this post)

I'm sorry you guys really believe it because it's 100% garbage. Both sides are out of their ever loving minds. Neither side debates or rules in good faith. They do it in sound bites. Obama "I won't talk about spending reductions until the government is opened up again" Republicans "You've been saying that for three years, you pushed Obamacare down our throats, we need to draw a line and demand you talk about this, even if you disagree with us" Obama "na, na, na, na, na, na I can't heeeaaarrrr you"

How many talks has Obama had about spending reductions since the government opened back up?: None. The fight was just put off for a few months where both sides hope to win the battle of the sound bites again. He hasn't even put out an olive branch and set a time for discussions. Why bother? He got his way, right? Should the republicans have tried something different? Of course they should have. Thousands of families were impacted by their decisions, but exactly where else could they put their foot down? Blocking judges maybe? Well, that's gone. So what else can they do? Tell me. Forget blaming anyone for a second and pretend you are a republican who would like spending cuts. What action hasn't been taken from you?

As long as people are married to their party and excuse their actions because "the other side is worse," we aren't going to see changes for this toxic environment. There is no excuse from either side about why we are where we are now. None.

[ISiddiqui]

Did we talk about this, btw:

Dow Jones Index Closes Above 16,000 For First Time : The Two-Way : NPR (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/11/21/246601011/dow-jones-index-closes-above-16-000-for-first-time)

The Dow Jones industrial average tacked on 109 points Thursday for a gain of less than 1 percent. But the small rise brought a big milestone, as the industrial index closed above 16,000 for the first time in its history.

Thanks Obama!

[Galaxy]

Well, the simple solution would be to re-introduce the public option. :D

More government involvement? Yikes!

[larrymcg421]

Did we talk about this, btw:

Dow Jones Index Closes Above 16,000 For First Time : The Two-Way : NPR (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/11/21/246601011/dow-jones-index-closes-above-16-000-for-first-time)



Thanks Obama!

He's definitely the worst socialist in history.

[ISiddiqui]

He's definitely the worst socialist in history.

He can't even be a socialist right! We can't trust him with anything! :mad:

[molson]

The rhetoric about the economy just depends on whether someone is supporting their party, or attacking the other one. If they're supporting their party, the economy is great because of the stock market. If they're attacking conservative backed evil "wall street", the stock market only benefits the rich and there's no real jobs out there for ordinary Americans, and the un-employment rate is misleading. But I guess for now, since people are criticizing Obama, everything is rosy. If we make this discussion about corporations and wall street, then we'll be back to doom and gloom about how horrible everything is. Edit: But if Obama has managed to fix the economy, or at least the stock market, that certainly is good, so maybe Republican obstructionism isn't such an obstacle anyway.

[RainMaker]

You are talking about cultural norms, I was talking about a system of government they had set up which is still very much active and relevant today. It is an economy of scale but there were and still are good reason not to have most of the power in the hands of the few as well as the power of executive and legislative all in the hands of one party. A majority party, in this country, does not get to become a dictatorship. It is still a government of the people allowing representatives to represent their constituent's and state's needs and interests.

It is nothing like a dictatorship. If a party obtains a lot of power it is because people elected them into office. There are plenty of checks and balances to avoid a consolation of power, and being able to vote out our representatives is the biggest of all.

[larrymcg421]

The last three pages of this thread are filled with sanctimonious people standing on a soap box complaining about partisans, all while they are making blanket statements about large groups of people. The lack of self-awareness is hilarious.

[RainMaker]

But yeah - gotta have a tech person at the very top! :rolleyes:

The health industry is going through a transformation that requires expertise in technology. There are huge modernization programs in both Medicare and Medicaid taking place, and plenty more on the way. Not to mention Obamacare.

Sebelius was a terrible choice for a department that was going to be going through huge technological advances during her tenure.

[Solecismic]

Did we talk about this, btw:

Dow Jones Index Closes Above 16,000 For First Time : The Two-Way : NPR (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/11/21/246601011/dow-jones-index-closes-above-16-000-for-first-time)



Thanks Obama!

Absolutely. He told the fed to keep devaluing the dollar. It's simple math. We have a record 16,000 of something that's worth less than it used to be worth.

It's a simple redistribution of wealth from people who have savings or cash to people who have stock. I'm surprised anyone who isn't heavily invested in the market is cheering about this.

[Solecismic]

The last three pages of this thread are filled with sanctimonious people standing on a soap box complaining about partisans, all while they are making blanket statements about large groups of people. The lack of self-awareness is hilarious.

Both sides of this debate genuinely think the other side is sanctimonious and partisan.

I do think, as someone who wouldn't belong to either party, that the extreme views on the right are more hidden here. I'm sure there are places where those views are common.

[larrymcg421]

I think it'd also be hilarious to tally up the posts of people who rail against partisanship and see how often they criticize each party.

[larrymcg421]

Both sides of this debate genuinely think the other side is sanctimonious and partisan.

I actually find (and this was my point) that most of the so-called non partisan people are more sanctimonious than either side. And I've never claimed that I wasn't partisan.

[Solecismic]

I think it'd also be hilarious to tally up the posts of people who rail against partisanship and see how often they criticize each party.

We don't have threads about issues that favor the extreme right.

I don't consider belonging to the Republican party in part because of their views on gay rights and abortion rights. If we had an item here about either topic, it would be a very homogenous item. Rather boring.

[RainMaker]

Absolutely. He told the fed to keep devaluing the dollar. It's simple math. We have a record 16,000 of something that's worth less than it used to be worth.

Break down this math for me. Because as it stands the dollar is pretty strong and inflation is incredibly low (October was the lowest rate in years).

[Solecismic]

I actually find (and this was my point) that most of the so-called non partisan people are more sanctimonious than either side. And I've never claimed that I wasn't partisan.

I know you are. I actually find the opposite is true. I suspect the real truth is somewhere in the middle. We see sanctimony in what we disagree with.

But, when you look at how partisanship is harming the country, you have to start with the 538 people - most of whom have chosen extreme positions - who can't seem to legislate.

[larrymcg421]

I know you are. I actually find the opposite is true. I suspect the real truth is somewhere in the middle. We see sanctimony in what we disagree with.

But if that were true, then I'd find the right more sanctimonious than the "non-partisans".

[Solecismic]

But if that were true, then I'd find the right more sanctimonious than the "non-partisans".

You and I very rarely encounter the right, right? There's only a handful of people here who truly support those positions - and polls indicate that's more than a third of the country. I think they've been largely driven out of this kind of public discourse. The opposite seems true for your side.

[larrymcg421]

You and I very rarely encounter the right, right? There's only a handful of people here who truly support those positions - and polls indicate that's more than a third of the country. I think they've been largely driven out of this kind of public discourse. The opposite seems true for your side.

I'm curious what your standard of right and left is, and even more curious about your standard for extreme left and extreme right. But there are several right wing people who still post here and I do not find them as sanctimonious as the so-called non-partisans.

[molson]

"Non-partisan" isn't a political stance. You can have strong liberal or conservative policy views and dislike things about the congress and the parties.

Edit: There's lots I hate about the Republican party, including how they handled the debt limit stuff, and have actually sworn off voting for them in national elections, but there is only like 2 actual Republicans here, so it really doesn't come up. Being a young male who's lived in large cities, and who posts at message boards like this one, most of my friends and peers are liberal, and Democrats, so I find myself jostling with them over this stuff much more often. I wouldn't bother trying to have political discussion with my conservative relatives, it's just easier to let that go even though I disagree with them on almost everything, because I'm just not in that group. But my peers, who sometimes think less of me because of either my political opinions, or because of my religious/spiritual beliefs (or maybe that's what I perceive, based on their expressed disdain for those who have those opinions and beliefs I might share), that's much more likely to get me into this kind of debate.

[Solecismic]

socialism - fundamentalism.

[larrymcg421]

socialism - fundamentalism.

So who here do you think is socialist?

[Galaxy]

Did we talk about this, btw:

Dow Jones Index Closes Above 16,000 For First Time : The Two-Way : NPR (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/11/21/246601011/dow-jones-index-closes-above-16-000-for-first-time)

Thanks Obama!

Easy and dirt cheap money available thanks to fed policies, less stocks available to investors (less than half of publicly traded companies today compared to 15 years), the automation of jobs and increasing productivity, and the ever-evolving shift to sell to emerging and booming markets like Asia (led by China and India), Latin America (Brazil), Middle East, and Africa.

[cuervo72]

The health industry is going through a transformation that requires expertise in technology. There are huge modernization programs in both Medicare and Medicaid taking place, and plenty more on the way. Not to mention Obamacare.

Sebelius was a terrible choice for a department that was going to be going through huge technological advances during her tenure.

The focus of a head of a department like that is going to be one of organization, operations, and policy. Positions like a CIO, CTO, CDO are going to take care of technology.

Hopkins is doing pretty well in the medical field, and seems to be making assloads of money (enough to seemingly be buying up half of Baltimore, at least). Do these guys (http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/about/governance/jhh_leadership.html) look like they are tech experts?

[larrymcg421]

"Non-partisan" isn't a political stance. You can have strong liberal or conservative policy views and dislike things about the congress and the parties.

Well I'm not even just talking about policy positions. I'm talking about criticizing the nature of how parties act. Even on that level, it is incredibly one sided from this group.

But yes, I think it would also be interesting to track the posts of people who claim to be independent/moderate/third party. I think that would be incredibly one-sided as well.