Skip to main content

stand by for Obamacare rant ...
@sam_baker
Pick any Obamacare metric. There are people who dramatically overstate its importance, and other people who dramatically understate it (1/7)
@sam_baker
That sounds like false equivalence, but it’s true. Every metric you’ve heard of matters in some way, but no single metric is decisive (2/7)
@sam_baker
Total enrollment matters because that’s the whole point. Risk mix matters more for premiums -- which affect enrollment (3/7)
@sam_baker
Health status matters more than age. Age still matters because no one knows health status. (4/7)
@sam_baker
7.1M matters but isn’t the whole story. Unpaid premiums matter but law will remain stable. Uninsured rate matters but it’s only year 1 (5/7)
@sam_baker
In Oct, partisan Ds hyped web traffic to excuse (temporary) failure. Now, partisan Rs hype data gaps to deny (incomplete) success (6/7)
@sam_baker
If you’re obsessed with any one number, or if you’re dismissing any number out of hand, you’re doing it wrong. (7/7)
@sam_baker
Preach it, brother Baker. Amen.

WaPo:

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on Wednesday announced a plan to repeal and replace President Obama’s health-care law, an effort by the Republican to insert himself into the increasingly competitive early maneuvering for his party’s presidential nomination.

In his 26-page plan, Jindal lays out a lengthy critique of the health law — which he refers to throughout as “Obamacare” — and reiterates his belief that it needs to be entirely done away with. In its place, he sets forth a bevy of ideas that have run through conservative thought for years, in some cases renaming them and in other cases suggesting new variations on old themes.

“There is a void out there,” Jindal said in an interview. “Consider this plan open-source code for Republicans, who are welcome to cut and paste from it.”

He meant copy and paste (which is what he did with other people's ideas), but Republicans can never resist cutting. But don't worry. On the central point, Jindal's all about repeal. This, from Philip Klein:
“I absolutely do not think we can give up the fight to repeal Obamacare,” he said when I pressed him on that point. “That’s the attack from the Left obviously, that once you’ve given stuff to folks, once you've expanded a program, you can’t cut it back. If as conservatives we concede that, we’re done. We’re done as a country and we’re done as a conservative movement.”
Not really, but then again, Jindal is almost always wrong.

More politics and policy below the fold.

Jeffrey Young:

5 Things The Obamacare Enrollment Numbers Won't Tell You

How many people really signed up for health insurance?

The 7.1 million figure the White House cited may be too low. The raw number doesn't include all of the most recent updates from 14 states and the District of Columbia, which have their own websites and saw a flurry of activity leading up to the open enrollment deadline. Nor does it include the applications still pending at the exchanges. Also missing: those who will sign up throughout the year when they become eligible because of a major life change, like marriage or moving to another state.

People who bought Obamacare-compliant insurance directly from a carrier aren't counted either.

Confusingly, the 7 million number may also be too high: We don't know how many of those people took the crucial final step and actually paid their first month's insurance premium to lock in coverage. Based on anecdotal reports from individual insurance companies, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said 80 percent to 90 percent of consumers thus far had paid up. There also will surely be people who let their policies lapse during the rest of the year.

Lisa Aliferis has a great piece on Kaiser Health News blog about those who don't pay.
A new analysis finds that many people who signed up for a Covered California health insurance exchange plan are likely to drop the coverage for a good reason: They found insurance elsewhere.

Researchers at the U.C. Berkeley Labor Center released estimates Wednesday showing that about 20 percent of Covered California enrollees are expected to leave the program because they found a job that offers health insurance. Another 20 percent will see their incomes fall and become eligible for Medi-Cal, the state’s insurance program for people who are low income.

In addition to the 40 percent of enrollees who move to Medi-Cal or job-based insurance, between 2 and 8 percent of those who sign up for Covered California are estimated to become uninsured, the analysis noted.

This process — “churn” to those who study health insurance — is well-known in the Medi-Cal and individual insurance market.

According to the report between 53 and 58 percent of Covered California enrollees are expected to stay in a Covered California plan for 12 months. This analysis is consistent with a Kaiser Family Foundation study published earlier this year. It found that of people who enrolled in an individual insurance plan in 2010, years before the health law fully kicked in, only about 48 percent were still in the individual market two years later. (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

Drew Altman:
The Affordable Care Act's first open enrollment period has come to an end. The ACA is not out of the woods, but it is gaining some momentum, and the technological meltdown of October and November is behind it.

Yet there is a part of the law that is not at all working as originally envisioned, because the Supreme Court dramatically altered the structure of the ACA when it ruled that the expansion of Medicaid should be voluntary for states.

Since then, political and fiscal considerations have led almost half of governors and state legislatures to choose not to expand Medicaid. The result is an insurance system that makes very little sense: An estimated 4.8 million poor Americans in states not expanding Medicaid will fall in a coverage gap this year and get no help paying for insurance, while 10.1 million people in those states who earn more than they do can get tax credits to help pay for coverage.

Want to fix ACA? Start with expanding Medicaid everywhere.
It won't be easy. Staunchly opposed states like Texas will hold out the longest. The details will matter. Achieving an end run around the political polarization surrounding Obamacare, getting 4.8 million people covered, closing the equity gap and building a bipartisan foundation for the ACA will require proactive and pragmatic policy making that we haven't seen for quite some time, at least in Washington, but there are signs that the logjam may be beginning to break.
Peter Beinert:
How McCutcheon Could Come Back to Haunt the Republican Party

Just as liberal judges trapped 1970s Democrats in a "soft on crime" paradigm, conservatives on the Court will make it harder for the GOP to shake a reputation as the party of plutocrats.

Jonathan Bernstein:
Q: OK. What does that mean for the 2014 and 2016 elections?

A: Probably not much. For now, the contribution limits to individual candidates and formal party organizations are intact. It may mean that some money that would have gone to independent expenditures now moves to candidates and party organizations. It’s unlikely to mean more money in the system in general, or more influence for big money as opposed to smaller donors (or non-donors, for that matter).

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 04:30 AM PDT.

Also republished by Obamacare Saves Lives.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Just following a long, long tradition. (5+ / 0-)
      “I absolutely do not think we can give up the fight to repeal Obamacare,” he said when I pressed him on that point. “That’s the attack from the Left obviously, that once you’ve given stuff to folks, once you've expanded a program, you can’t cut it back. If as conservatives we concede that, we’re done. We’re done as a country and we’re done as a conservative movement.”
      Not at all done as "a country" unless these bastards keep kicking us toward third world conditions.

      Duh, why else was Obama's success here, after "generations" of attempts by Democratic presidents failures against a stubborn and bitter opposition so newsmaking? We forget history. Presidents dead before many here were born ran into the buzz saw of "conservative" opposition to such a "socialist" idea that just might be beloved by the real owners of the country, those real Americans so to speak, and not the plutocrats.

      I personally hope that whole gang will in the not too distant future be like the last holdouts in some bad guy bunker as the flame throwers arrive. Unfortunately their allies in SCOTUS are busy making buying the vote easier so it is incumbent on all of us to prove that in the end votes and not cash count.

      The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

      by pelagicray on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 08:26:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's cute how... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DrTerwilliker, Amber6541

      Bobby Jindal still thinks he's relevant. It's over Bobby. Your conservative principals don't work in Louisiana and no one wants you as President. Now try not to screw up Louisiana any more than you already have in your last few months in office.

  •  *sigh* Forget it Bobby, its Chinatown. (11+ / 0-)

    just go work for a think tank or something when your term's up. You blew your shot during that SOTU reply. You're too brown and book smart for "The Base" anyway.

    "See? I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

    by TheHalfrican on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 04:37:24 AM PDT

  •  Given McCutcheon why does any cap hold? (12+ / 0-)

    I don't understand the distinction, legally or conceptually, between erasing the overall cap and erasing the cap on an individual's donation to a single candidate. Given the SCOTUS "reasoning," it seems to me a pretty straight line to eliminating any and all caps. I would think the right-wing plutocrats wouldn't waste a minute before filing a new lawsuit challenging the $2,600 cap, and don't see a good way to argue against them.

    OTH I do not expect to see the big money guys shifting from black ops donations to the octopi of SuperPACS to directly funding candidates, because if they write a direct check their names and amounts are public information. I suppose that's the next challenge -- but I would hope even this SCOTUS would not rule that the First Amendment includes a right to "speak" without disclosing who you are.

    •  Why not just eliminate and and all elections? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, TofG, rl en france, thomask

      Perhaps it is time for us to begin discussing ways to force a constitutional amendment ending corporate personhood. This won't happen through rigged elections. It will only happen through massive civil disobedience.

      Rather than holding rigged elections, we might want to begin thinking about widespread strikes that coincide with rigged elections.

      What do you all think?

    •  The Court has preserved, for now... (0+ / 0-)

      ....the distinction between influencing a single race and influencing multiple races.  I think it's a reasonable distinction.

      It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

      by Rich in PA on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 05:18:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  3 words: Joint Funding Commissions (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TofG, skohayes, Stude Dude, viral

      $3.6 million to a JFC and that can all end up with a single candidate. BOOM!

      The limit to PACs is $5000, but there are no limitations on the number of PACS so $5000 each to 1000 individual PACs that then turn around and donate each of those donations to a single candidate. BOOM! one individual donor funnels $5,000,000 to a single candidate directly. 100% legal.

      I think 2012 demonstrated that SuperPAC efforts are not nearly as effective as the individual campaigns. Getting big money directly to individual candidates will have a massive effect of how the narrative is driven, and without side distractions from SuperPACs whose message may or may not coincide with the individual candidate.

      Libertarianism is just Fascism with a facelift. Scratch the surface of Libertarianism and you will find the notion that corporations should rule supreme, just as it was with Fascism..

      by Walt starr on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 05:33:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  that's fishy, Brother Baker ... (0+ / 0-)

    or like what flies see, with their multiple lenses.
    wow.
    i gotta wash my eyes now.

    is english even what we speak nowdays ?????

    TRAILHEAD of accountability for Bush-2 Crimes? -- Addington's Perpwalk.

    by greenbird on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 04:43:51 AM PDT

  •  The single most important topic facing our (15+ / 0-)

    nation is reinstating free and fair elections. The Supreme Court has shut them down completely. We are facing crises on almost every front: climate change, guns, deregulation, food systems, lack of access to health care, education or jobs, workers' rights... I could go on and on.

     None of these problems can be solved in the absence of governance. But the ultra-rich have staged a coup to prevent governance from occurring.

    We ought to be reconsidering the role of the Democratic Party. It once was to elect good candidates to office. If that is not possible because elections are a sham, then what is our role? What is the best strategic method to reinstate electoral fairness?

    Maybe it is time to put our energy into serious civil disobedience.

    •  Maybe they could (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TofG, Mr MadAsHell

      throw the voters a bone and make all elections as accessible and open to voters.  Early voting, register at polls, everyone eligible, no ids etc.  Since the money side is open full scale let the small people side be open too.

      Everyone! Arms akimbo! 68351

      by tobendaro on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 05:14:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Democratic party needs to begin pounding (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mr MadAsHell

      the negatives of the plutocratic opponent. It needs to stand for the franchise, for "freedom" and "liberty" (quit conceding those words to yellow flag idiots) and pound with sharp negative campaigns the absolute capture of a once somewhat grand party by the most retrogressive forces in the nation fueled by plutocrats with money to buy the law, both in formation and on the books.

      In their way lies the wonders of banana republics and even feudal times of old. You really like freedom and liberty? Then make anyone wearing the TP/GOP label DOA in every election from local sewage czar to Chief Executive of the nation.

      First though, democratic leaning voters need to get off their lazy asses on election days—every election, every time and stop these retreats every off election. Unless we do even electing a figurative St. George to slay the dragon won't be enough. We could elect Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman all wrapped into one in a "big election" only to find them nibbled to death as the hard core turns out and we don't in the off years.

      Ya know, we do get the representatives we deserve. Really good people, those more and better Democrats people here howl about, can't afford to put their futures on a fickle bunch that runs off shopping instead of turning out in those critical off years.

      The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

      by pelagicray on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 08:39:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Cd Dems propose bill that "ACA shall be repealed.. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nicteis, TofG, rl en france, Amber6541

    automatically, upon new legislation taking effect that accomplishes" all of the following?

    •    Prohibits exclusion of pre-existing conditions,
    •    Protects against insurance company termination after condition has been discovered,
    •    Enables adult children to stay on their parents’ plans,
    •    Requires rebates of insurers’ excess profits,
    •    Enables emergency rooms and other first treatment providers to recover their costs,
    •    Does all the other popular things that the ACA does?
    •  sure (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rl en france, FindingMyVoice

      but it would be called Pelosicare.

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

      by Greg Dworkin on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 05:15:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If Drew Altman is sincerely concerned (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rocksout

        about "Achieving an end run around the political polarization surrounding Obamacare....", the first thing he should do is stop calling the law "Obamacare."  That should be hands-off terminology from anyone not invested in seeing the program fail.  It should be a tip-off to the state of mind of anyone using the term as to his political leanings the same way we can now identify mindless, right-wing zealots by their use of phrases such as "Democrat Senate."

        "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke

        by SueDe on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 07:09:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Put everyone on Medicare -- what would it cost? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Greg Dworkin, Amber6541

      I'm a physician.  I've had experience dealing with Medicare and with private insurance companies.  From my end, Medicare is a lot easier to deal with.  Private insurance pays a bit better, but not that much, and it's a huge nuisance dealing with all the different companies' rules, and even keeping track of what company patients are insured with.  I've got patients who've been on Medicare 25 years without even a change in their ID number.  

      I'd really like to see a good estimate on what it would cost to go to a nationwide single payer system, such as putting everyone on Medicare.

      I used to say putting everyone on Medicare would be simple.  Right now I'm in the process of going onto Medicare myself, and I realize there are several not very simple decisions to make.  But having everyone on Medicare, a mostly single payer system, would still be simpler than our current system, before or after Obamacare.  I think it would be cheaper, too.  There would still be a health insurance business, but it would be confined to offering Medicare supplements such as "Medigap" policies, Medicare substitutes such as the "Medicare Advantage" programs, and Medicare Part D policies (the drug benefit).  

      We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

      by david78209 on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 11:15:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have no doubt Medicare for all wd be good policy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        david78209

        which would have the advantage of being possible to implement in stages, by lowering the Medicare eligibility age, and/or extending Medicare eligibility to people who already qualify for other federal assistance programs.

        Medicare for all might also be good politics, and perhaps be useful to frame as:

        1. a supplement to the ACA,

        2. to gradually supplant insurance regulatory aspects of the ACA.

        Pure politics was what drove my above comment's idea of Democrats proposing automatic repeal of ACA "upon new legislation taking effect. My underlying idea was that this might better highlight to the public and to the media that fact that the Democrats are not to blame for the absence of a 'system replicating the ACA's good points without its bad points', because the real reasons for that absence are:
        1. The Republicans have not proposed such a system, because no such system is possible,

        2. Any such system would be fought to the death by insurance companies -- because it would lead to their death, which then would require precisely the "government takeover' of medical insurance (not health care), that the Republicans treat as the worst possible result.

  •  Good morning fellow collectivist Dworkin! (5+ / 0-)

    Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

    Collectivists (those who stand for government control of the means of production and how people live their lives) promise heaven but deliver hell. For them, the promised end justifies the means.

    Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society—and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers.

    http://online.wsj.com/...
  •  Sam Baker's nuance is incompatible (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, TofG, No Exit, rl en france, skohayes

    with binary thinking. It suggests that there's an assessment of the ACA that's something other than "good" or "bad."

    "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

    by Geenius at Wrok on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 04:52:29 AM PDT

  •  On Baker: (0+ / 0-)

    Yes, by all means, let the other side scream bullshit while we counter with a calm, reasoned, let's wait and see, adults-in-the- room approach.

    Typical Democratic weenerism, really tamping down the jam, as our version of the phrase goes.

  •  Keep it up Jindal, Cruz & GOP (12+ / 0-)

    keep digging yourselves deeper into the "Repeal The ACA" as you've already become trapped by your Obamacare hate.  

    I hope the truth will set them free...from the offices they hold.

    As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them. John F. Kennedy

    by JaxDem on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 04:55:36 AM PDT

    •  What's truly ironic (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mr MadAsHell, Amber6541

      is that by stealing the conservative plan from the conservatives, they're left with worthless suggestions like Health Savings accounts (which only work when people make enough money to put a few thousand dollars away and not touch it except for medical expenses), or selling insurance across state lines (though Jindal's plan nixes that idea in the bud) or tort reform.

      Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

      by skohayes on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 06:16:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Jeffrey Young opposes Obamacare (0+ / 0-)

    It's odd to include him in the roundup.


    ODS results in Obama's amazing ability to humiliate his biggest critics, on the right and the left.

    by NoFortunateSon on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 04:56:12 AM PDT

  •  Gone Courtin' (5+ / 0-)

    Justice is blind; a good thing. The Chief Justice is blind; not so good. We all understand that the current system is legalized bribery. These last two decisions convert the process from bribery to merely shopping.

    •  He's far from blind. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FindingMyVoice

      Roberts and his Republican buddies understand exactly what they're doing. They know full well they're increasing the influence the wealthy have on American government.  That's precisely why they're systematically dismantling campaign finance laws.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 09:35:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I imagine motherly types think bobby J. is cute as (0+ / 0-)

    a button. But guy:

    “That’s the attack from the Left obviously, that once you’ve given stuff to folks, once you've expanded a program, you can’t cut it back
    who was it said that last year?
  •  Why do republicans want Americans to be sick and (11+ / 0-)

    poor?

    It seems SO sociopathic.

    Legal means "good".
    [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

    by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 05:12:08 AM PDT

  •  A Jindal/Palin or Perry ticket would sure be fun (7+ / 0-)

    in the same way as killing fire ants.

  •  Whomever at the WaPo (9+ / 0-)

    wrote

    In his 26-page plan, Jindal lays out a lengthy critique of the health law
    must have breezed through college.  As multi-faceted as the ACA is, how did Jindal manage to insert a lengthy critique into a 26 page plan?

    First -- how can a replacement plan be only 26 pages minus the lengthy critique.

    Second -- what is the new definition of lengthy?  For that matter, what is the new definition of plan>

    I wrote longer papers on Ibsen's Little Eyolf and that play wasn't 2,000 pages long.

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 05:15:26 AM PDT

  •  I think McCutcheon was rightly decided (0+ / 0-)

    It is excessive private influence on elections to permit someone to give a huge amount of money in one race, but I don't think it is excessive private influence (to the point of outweighing the constitutional presumption in favor of freedom of speech) to permit someone to give controlled-by-law amounts in multiple races.  As I understand it, the dissent invoked realistic scenarios in which people could game the system, but that's not typically the basis for a defense against unconstitutionality.  

    It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

    by Rich in PA on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 05:18:08 AM PDT

  •  Someone mentioned yesterday that politicians are (7+ / 0-)

    going to start dressing like Nascar drivers.....with brand names all over their clothes.

  •  "Jindal is almost always wrong." (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, Stude Dude, rocksout, Amber6541

    Indeed, when has this fellow been right about anything?  Yet some still characterize Jindal as a serious contender for president in 2016. Considering the bat-shit crazies who'd compete with him for the nomination, they might be right.

    •  Ironically, he's right in the quoted part. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TofG, Arfeeto, Stude Dude

      Once you give people benefits (well-deserved, in this case), it's hard to take them back...unless those people are mostly poor or mostly minority, in which case the dynamic is a little different.  Jindal is correct that conservatism will be permanently discredited if it can't dismantle Obamacare.

      It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

      by Rich in PA on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 05:21:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Poor Bobby - he's a brown person (5+ / 0-)

    and I think the repubs are pretty much on record as not caring for brown people.  He's selling his soul for a seat at the table.

    Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love. - Einstein

    by moose67 on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 05:19:15 AM PDT

  •  Piyush "Bobby" Jindal has no future in the GOP (5+ / 0-)

    He's not white.

    (shrug)

    In the end, reality always wins.

    by Lenny Flank on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 05:20:59 AM PDT

  •  Yes...the republicans have a healthcare plan...the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    orangecurtainlib, rl en france
  •  defense (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541

    Dems look weak always playing defense--there is a great opportunity to go for a touchdown--Now that we showed how to expand and improve healthcare, we're going to expand and improve dental care.  Smile--you look marvelous.

    Actions speak louder than petitions.

    by melvynny on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 05:30:46 AM PDT

    •  But! (0+ / 0-)

      My inner-redneck wants to bellow "If Kommie-Socialist dental care is so great, please 'splain Britain?!?!?"

      Maybe I should run over him with a grinder-mixer....

      "If this Studebaker had anymore Atomic Space-Age Style, you'd have to be an astronaut with a geiger counter!"

      by Stude Dude on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 06:21:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But! (0+ / 0-)

      My inner-redneck wants to bellow "If Kommie-Socialist dental care is so great, please 'splain Britain?!?!?"

      Maybe I should run over him with a grinder-mixer....

      "If this Studebaker had anymore Atomic Space-Age Style, you'd have to be an astronaut with a geiger counter!"

      by Stude Dude on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 06:24:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks Greg (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Remediator, rl en france

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 05:31:59 AM PDT

  •  Republican Talking Point: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SoCalSal, FindingMyVoice, Amber6541

    2009-20016. "Repeal Obamacare!"
    2017-          . " Didn't you know that the ACA was all based on Republican ideas?"

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 05:38:22 AM PDT

  •  Anybody want to predict how many (2+ / 0-)

    delegates Jindal arrives with at the 2016 Republican convention?

    I think half a dozen may be over-shooting the mark.  

    More like two.

    "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

    by Remediator on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 05:38:24 AM PDT

  •  Re Baker : Wish I had time to pursue those metrics (0+ / 0-)

    As it stands, I just feel dirty every time I come near a number used in ACA discussions.  

    There are only a few numbers that  I'm sure can be well represented. The number of people who signed up for insurance on the exchanges seems to be one of those. So would the number of people paying.

    The number of new Medicaid recipients seems, at first glance, to be one of those as well, but...my experience on the exchange makes me wonder.  One problem we had insuring my daughter is that the exchange software wanted her to apply for Medicaid. It makes me wonder if some of those new Medicaid recipients were people who previously had private insurance or would have had private insurance.

    And that's the problem I run into every time I think I have some time to go chasing numbers: things are mished and mashed and extrapolated in ways that require assumptions and extrapolations and are prone to double counting.

    That doesn't make the numbers wrong.   Every number coming out of the administration might be 100% accurate, but I've learned not to trust statistics from people with skin in the game unless I can understand how they were derived.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 05:40:56 AM PDT

    •  Medicaid is really hard, because of churn (4+ / 0-)

      read the Lisa Aliferis link to see why.

      You have to make a distinction, with the pundits and commentators, between those who truly want to know and be informed—and those who want to lower the number for political reasons. That's why I advise looking at the health reporters.

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

      by Greg Dworkin on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 05:56:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know who is who in that regard, and more, (0+ / 0-)

        I don't know who is really good with numbers and who reads the summary up front and passes it along.

        What I know is this:

        It happened. More people are insured. More to the point: even more could be insured if they wanted to be or they could be reached.

        I also know one story that seems not to find it's way into DK that much:

        Latinos are under-represented.  I guess it was predictable, especially in light of stepped up deportations by the current administration.  One of those damned if you do and damned if you don't things.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 06:02:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I like much of what Jindahl said, but...c'mon, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MPociask

    where were you in 2009?

    We would have a much better foundation for excellent national health care if health care reform had actually focused on health care reform instead of or in addition to health insurance abuses. If our annual per-capita costs were in line with those of France, considered by many to be the world's finest, many of today's discussions would fade away.

    Subsidies to those who can't afford the insurance?
    Sure, but who cares? Most people would be able to afford it.  Working poor do fine, not so poor do fine.

    Expand care to absolutely everybody?
    For half the cost per individual, you can cover twice as many people without spending an extra dime.

    That's some wishful thinking, but, so far as the GOP or anybody else goes, what got done got done.  You sat on the sidelines.  Got good ideas now?  I'll listen because I think the ACA is a pile of crap.  

    The real problem?

    I don't trust you.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 05:52:02 AM PDT

    •  great case for single payer (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dinotrac, SoCalSal, Mr MadAsHell, MPociask

      why ACA? Nothing else could pass. An unfortunate political fact.

      But (long argument sith you) ACA does start the 'lower overall costs" discussion through pushing for evidence based medicine and other innovations  (stop doing tests that are useless) and that should continue the 'lowered cost' metric over time.

      ACA is much more than just the web site.

      But now we get to move from repeal it (no) to how well does it work?

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

      by Greg Dworkin on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 05:59:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It starts the discussion, but discussions don't (0+ / 0-)

        cut costs. Actions do.

        As to the web site and systems, that's not a dead issue just because this enrollment period is over.

        If I have another Great Recession year, I'll be back on the exchange next year.  I think it would be really really swell if, by then, I can actually put my daughter on my insurance policy as the law says I can do.

        Not a problem (aside from the ridiculously expensive insurance) if I have a great year -- I'll just buy insurance from an insurance company and they'll have no problem putting her on.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 06:06:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  off exchange enrollment is uncounted (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FogCityJohn

          but estimated in the millions. RAND says maybe as much as 9 million.

          http://acasignups.net/...

          "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

          by Greg Dworkin on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 08:54:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The difficulty with off-exchange -- much like (0+ / 0-)

            elsewhere -- is knowing who would have been insured anyway.  Lots of people had insurance last year. I know I did.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 09:02:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  right, so how do we count you? (0+ / 0-)

              previously insured or uninsured? depends.

              For everyone (not you) yammering about "why won't they release the numbers?!?" it's complicated.

              "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

              by Greg Dworkin on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 09:51:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I know. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Greg Dworkin

                I must hit the Obamacare signups since we signed up on the exchange.

                The interesting one is my middle daughter.

                She has never had a policy in her own name before, but we had to get her one after throwing our hands up in exasperation.

                And yet -- she was insured last year, too.

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 12:02:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Jindal is entirely correct re: himself. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sixty Something

    He's done. His misgovernance has made it so he'll never get elected statewide again. His presidential, even veep, chances are nil and he's (pardon me, but it's true) not attractive enough for television and not smart enough for a daily column. Oh, and he's notoriously lazy.

    He has zero employment prospects after next year. He'll likely end up teaching.

    I live under the bridge to the 21st Century.

    by Crashing Vor on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 06:06:49 AM PDT

  •  Much like Ss originally , or medicare (0+ / 0-)

    the law passed in 2010 was not perfect, in fact it was rather narrowly tailored. the Sc upheld it in a split the baby scenario. yes its legal, but you cant force the states to take the money- which, predictably, saw half the country- those states controlled by rs- say no. the act was predicated on having every state have their own exchange, the decision made that impossible, further, states like WI rejected any fed money and waited until literally the last minute to say no to setting up their own exchange. so instead of the fed exchange covering a handful of states, the exchange instead covered most states. part of the obstruct, frustrate, overload strategy the rs have pursued since the law was passed. and yet despite all their bitching, we hit the targeted number for this year, and will likely exceed it by quite a bit when the extension is included.

  •  dont fully agree with sam baker (0+ / 0-)

    I think the 7.1 million number is critically important because it sets the theme.  Folks will, rightly or wrongly, view it as a success.  That means more folks willing to sign up in the future, including young people.  I think you see that in the polling reversal.

  •  (sam baker - truth) x 17 gazillion = limbaugh (0+ / 0-)

    + 450 other blowhards.

    not to put baker down, just adding context

    it's the same with all important facts and truth tellers these days, and for the last 25 years

    and what makes it easier to distort ACA is that 'uncertainty' regarding it- the certainty-addicted authoritarian right handers will reject it for the certainty of a limbaugh every time

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 08:45:41 AM PDT

  •  “There is a void out there,” Jindal said (0+ / 0-)

    I assume he's referring to the one between his ears.

    "Onward through the fog!" - Oat Willie

    by rocksout on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 08:46:31 AM PDT

  •  OK he laid out a lengthy critique. (0+ / 0-)

    But no mention of what happens if they actually do repeal the ACA. I think the reason repubs are unable to come up with a reasonable alternative is because deep down they know they'll never have to.

    "Onward through the fog!" - Oat Willie

    by rocksout on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 08:58:42 AM PDT

  •  Piyush is a parlor joke. (0+ / 0-)

    
    

    Other than that...

  •  Idiots that put $$$ over any reason. (0+ / 0-)

    Remember Jaws? Those "town fathers" that refused all suggestions beached be closed and their cash registers hit because something out there seemed to be eating swimmers?

    Well, here is a wonderful recent example of such idiots.

    Geological reports warning the hill is in imminent danger of collapse date back to the 1950s.

    And in a press conference following Saturday's slide, the head of Snohomish County's Department of Emergency Management, John Pennington, said 'it was considered very safe'.

    So, is Pennington up for criminal negligence trial in the deaths and damage? Are the zoning people? Nah, just finger of god, nobody could have known.

    The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

    by pelagicray on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 09:34:10 AM PDT

  •  The red states that refused Medicaid expansion (0+ / 0-)

    will start doing so as soon as the Repubs that rejected the expansion start losing elections. The others will see the handwriting on the wall and rush to expand Medicaid.

    Despite their professed principals, it's all about self interest for these folks.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site