Skip to main content

President Barack Obama smiling and holding
That whole "Obamacare is doomed to fail" line from Republicans is getting harder and harder to defend by the day. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office makes their protestations sound even more ridiculous. The top line finding:
Relative to their previous projections made in February 2014, CBO and JCT now estimate that the ACA’s coverage provisions will result in lower net costs to the federal government: The agencies currently project a net cost of $36 billion for 2014, $5 billion less than the previous projection for the year; and $1,383 billion for the 2015–2024 period, $104 billion less than the previous projections.
The other good news:
  • Health insurance premiums are lower than CBO originally projected, saving the government $190 billion;
  • "12 million more nonelderly people will have health insurance in 2014 than would have had it in the absence of the ACA;"
  • The number of uninsured will fall to 30 million by 2017 and will remain there through 2024, absent other reforms;
  • The projection made originally in 2012 that the ACA would reduce the deficit is still valid, and deficit reduction is greater than anticipated two years ago.

Additionally, they project that premiums will rise only "slightly" in 2015, by about $100 for the mid-level plans that have proven to be the most popular in the exchanges. They also say that those premium hikes will be caused more by increasing health care costs than the having more and sicker people—those with pre-existing conditions—now in the risk pool.

Lower premiums, 12 million more people insured, lower costs to the government and further deficit reduction. Try repealing all that, Republicans.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 09:10 AM PDT.

Also republished by Obamacare Saves Lives and Daily Kos.

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

  •  Tip Jar (145+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Termite, ericlewis0, doroma, Elwood Dowd, skillet, alypse1, IB JOHN, ontheleftcoast, ferg, Trix, JML9999, political mutt, Tony Situ, jiminmaryland, Drocedus, Patango, jasan, blueoregon, Skyye, We Won, Vicky, high uintas, Dancun74, peagreen, joelgp, destiny1, CwV, Wreck Smurfy, reflectionsv37, angry marmot, 2thanks, Texknight, dewtx, Sylv, bara, CPT Doom, eeff, Aunt Pat, whl, TomP, LNK, Pinto Pony, Siri, Cassandra Waites, leonard145b, Jon Sitzman, rhutcheson, litigatormom, Sapere aude, TofG, IndieGuy, duhban, konving, bobatkinson, westyny, imicon, this is only a test, Drokkenian, Jakeston, tardis10, Via Chicago, rapala, gof, Tuffie, VPofKarma, bartcopfan, puakev, Onomastic, Shawn87, EighteenCharacters, CADeminVA, AllDemsOnBoard, Greasy Grant, puckmtl, Involuntary Exile, Laurel in CA, bleedingheartliberal218, foresterbob, runfastandwin, i saw an old tree today, MBramble, GrafZeppelin127, sulthernao, judiev, annan, SaintC, smartdemmg, catly, texasteamster, sc kitty, Mr MadAsHell, Just Saying, Russ Jarmusch, flynnieous, thomask, GraniteGrl14, mjd in florida, hbk, tampaedski, FindingMyVoice, ekgrulez1, ichibon, jdmorg, Dustee, ptressel, david78209, rukidingme, TheLizardKing, Diana in NoVa, KayCeSF, BarackStarObama, SherriG, rsmpdx, Mokurai, GleninCA, dansmith17, Angie in WA State, middleagedhousewife, dmhlt 66, skepticalcitizen, cpr4life, etherealfire, Buckeye54, Ginny in CO, YaNevaNo, worldlotus, Lencialoo, jazzmaniac, PeterHug, lunacat, groupw, cipher14, Andrew F Cockburn, tmaguire18, raspberryberet, hamjudo, dreamweaver1, 2dot, sciguy, sendtheasteroid, chickeeee, Gwennedd, splashy, skyounkin, dewolf99

    "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. [...] There would be no place to hide."--Frank Church

    by Joan McCarter on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 09:10:07 AM PDT

    •  Wait for it, when they stop calling it Obamacare (60+ / 0-)

      then you'll know they're ready to stop attacking it. Then they'll start taking credit for it with lines like, "Well it was TERRIBLE until Republicans forced Democrats to fix it. Remember the disastrous rollout? We told you. Thank the Republicans for fixing it." Then a few years later they'll rename it the Ronald W. Reagan Memorial Healthcare Plan.

      GOP 2014 strategy -- Hire clowns, elephants, and a ringmaster and say "a media circus" has emerged and blame Democrats for lack of progress. Have pundits agree that "both sides are to blame" and hope the public will stay home on election day.

      by ontheleftcoast on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 09:22:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Somehow the Repugs will find a way (17+ / 0-)

        to take credit for ObamaCares, that's for sure.  However, people are just beginning to get that the "launch," the "roll out," even though absolutely terrible has had absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the policy.

        This is a monumental achievement for President Obama and all those who have fought for reform of medical insurance.  It is, after all, a regulatory entity that has finally stopped the insurance industry from screwing its policyholders.

        •  Like Clinton Eliminating the deficit (24+ / 0-)

          They say the GOP forced him to do it however his first budget that raised taxes was passed with no republican votes and him putting 100,000 more police on the gov't payroll stimulated the economy.

          •  BINGO!! Not one Republican't vote. (20+ / 0-)
            They say the GOP forced him to do it however his first budget that raised taxes was passed with no republican votes....(emphasis added)
            And the Senate deadlocked 50-50, such that VP Gore had to break the tie. That legislation helped create the longest period of unbroken economic growth in American history.

            [That's so nice, I always say it twice: Clinton's legislation helped create the longest period of unbroken economic growth in American history.]

            "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

            by bartcopfan on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 10:14:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  and W's idiotic "laissez faire" approach (11+ / 0-)

              had led to one of the longest (in my memory ) periods of MIDDLE CLASS ECONOMIC STAGNATION.

              Pardon my unabashed French, but FUCK the Republicans - they have turned our government into a wealth spigot for the already-filthy-rich.

              America's LAST HOPE: vote the GOP OUT in 2014 elections. MAKE them LOSE the House Majority and reduce their numbers in the Senate. Democrats move America forward - Republicans take us backward and are KILLING OUR NATION!

              by dagnome on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 10:48:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Boy do you have your economics backwards (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mokurai

              shrinking deficits are by definition bad for GDP and economic growth as the Govts deficit = the private sector's surplus.

              Clinton rode one the largest debt bubbles in history and he set the stage for the criminal banking behavior of the 2000's with his repeal of Glass steagall and the commodities futures modernization act.

              Private debt bubbles are unsustainable and bad for the economy in the long run as depressions are essentially private sector debt deflations., Clinton should not be applauded for his role in this.

              http://static.seekingalpha.com/...

              http://soberlook.com/...

              "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens. The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it. If we can afford full employment killing Germans, we can afford full employment during peace-time.

              by Auburn Parks on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 12:39:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No argument on repeal of G-S (6+ / 0-)

                (other than that he enacted the Republican'ts' agenda--it wasn't his legislative initiative, nor his wife (but Sen. Phil Gramm's) subsequently enriched, sitting on Enron's board). But as far as the economics go, I'd respectfully suggest you may have your history backwards. I remember those times fairly well myself and the US economy was so energetic, even in semi-3rd world Oklahoma, a kid could get a job flipping burgers at McDonald's or other fast-food joints for double-digit hourly wages (I saw the pleas on their marquees).

                But inflation (which Rs usually go nuts about and besides, Greenspan (R-Ayn Rand) was still on the job at the Fed)) remained low and Big Dog created 22+ million jobs here at home. I don't think the dot-com bubble created all those jobs and the government debt/deficits were coming down so much/fast that the only problems worth discussing in America at the time was whether the president should be impeached for having a girlfriend and whether Elian Gonzales should be sent to live w/ his father in Cuba or handed over to a bunch of wingnut grifter relatives he'd never seen before.

                That's what I remember from the Clinton Boom.

                Now, if there was a private debt bubble, even as the public debt was being reduced mightily (achieving the first balanced budgets since LBJ), I'd ask what you would have had Clinton do about it. I remember Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" comment in the mid-to-late 1990s, but what I think I understand about central banking is that he's the one with his foot on the economy's gas/brake pedals. And woe to the president who tries to influence the (at least, nominally) independent Fed chairman.

                Of course, when W was (s)elected, after spending his entire campaign season talking down the economy, suddenly Greenspan and the conservative, corporate, compliant media didn't think deficit-reduction mattered anymore and the "problem" of paying off (virtually) all US government debt (forecast to occur in 2012) was about the only one they "solved". If Clinton presided over a bubble, then he was certainly (I guess you think) lucky or smart to schedule it to pop on W's watch. But I don't think it was luck.

                I think it was W's change in policies--massive tax cuts for top income earners (while pretending they're for the middle-class), massive defunding of federal and state government initiatives (and the economic stimulus they provide), and reaping the results of his own bad-mouthing of the economy. Certainly, ignoring Clinton-era warnings about international terrorism, as well as his own advisers' PDB, led to NYC's skyline being changed forever for the worse and (at least) two ill-advised and worse-executed wars, funded on the credit card we were well on our way to paying off. These were/are economic disasters I (and most Americans) would trade in a heartbeat for the Clinton '90s.

                Economically (and I do have an MBA, so I don't perceive myself as a complete idiot on the subject), I think it matters what is being deficit-spent on, but--rather than attending to our D+ infrastructure or real improvements in public education (rather than more defunding--and grifting for private and religious schools), as just a couple of possible examples--W's focus was on shoveling our tax dollars to his wealthy friends and well-connected donors to launch the 0.01% into orbit, esp. by laying off workers here and sending their (former) jobs overseas.

                My bottom line is this...if you're not a millionaire or a fetus, Republican'ts don't give a shit about you.

                "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

                by bartcopfan on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 04:01:57 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Evidence you are ignoring about the private (0+ / 0-)

                  debt bubble that Clinton benefited from:

                  https://research.stlouisfed.org/...

                  http://static.seekingalpha.com/...

                  Please review the evidence before repeating the same false claims.

                  What can be done about private debt? Easy, much higher capital requirements, income verification, Income ratio's, there are a ton of ways to reign in bank lending and consumer or private debt. But that would hurt bank profits so they don't allow Congress to do that.

                  And just so you know, the budget was back in deficit before the bush tax cuts. Thats what happens when the private sector saves money, some other sector must spend more than its income, usually that the Federal Govt as thats where dollars come from.

                  http://soberlook.com/...

                  "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens. The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it. If we can afford full employment killing Germans, we can afford full employment during peace-time.

                  by Auburn Parks on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 04:49:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  CLINTON should have done this? (0+ / 0-)
                    What can be done about private debt? Easy, much higher capital requirements, income verification, Income ratio's, there are a ton of ways to reign in bank lending and consumer or private debt. But that would hurt bank profits so they don't allow Congress to do that.
                    Actually, I'm not certain that we're on opposite sides of this argument. My recollection is that these were tools in Greenspan's toolbox that he chose not to use. Recalling what I learned in history about the crash of 1929 and the Great Depression, I wanted him to start increasing margin requirements on stock purchases, but that never happened or even AFAIK got serious consideration. I knew things had gone nuts in the mid-aughts when I saw TV commercials offering 125% home equity loans. Again, was Clinton supposed to insist that Greenspan do...stuff? Especially when we have since found that Greenspan was even more opposed to gov't intervention than we'd already suspected, due to his previously-obscured Objectivist views?

                    I guess I'm not sure who the 'they' is that "don't allow Congress to do that". The banks? I don't have lots of doubt about that; as Dick Durbin said, "they frankly own the place."

                    After reviewing some of your links, I couldn't help noticing that the fastest-growing public debt came under St. Reagan and GHWB, then again under W. If those were glorious times for the nation and Clinton presided over America-the-Hellhole, I won't be able to convince you otherwise. I just disagree. And I'd love to put it to a vote.

                    "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

                    by bartcopfan on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 08:35:13 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Don't leave out the very essence of (0+ / 0-)

                      the great boom of the '90's.  The dot.com bubble.

                    •  WRT to Greenspan, Clinton, the Fed and regulating (0+ / 0-)

                      bank lending.....Greenspan and the Fed board of Govenors  are not elected representatives, therefore the ultimate responsibility for their actions fall on the elected leaders who appoint and confirm them.

                      As Bernanke explains under oath:

                      "We are the Agent of the Treasury, we will do whatever they tell us to do"

                      http://www.3spoken.co.uk/...

                      Greenspan has said essentially the same thing referring to Congress.

                      So yes, I expect my elected representatives to represent the people. Clinton the corporate Dems do not, they are only slightly less bad than Cons.

                      "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens. The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it. If we can afford full employment killing Germans, we can afford full employment during peace-time.

                      by Auburn Parks on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 04:58:17 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  And Yes, I was referring to the banks owning the (0+ / 0-)

                      place.

                      "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens. The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it. If we can afford full employment killing Germans, we can afford full employment during peace-time.

                      by Auburn Parks on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 04:58:40 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  "I couldn't help noticing that the fastest-growing (0+ / 0-)

                      public debt came under St. Reagan and GHWB, then again under W."

                      You are correct with Ronnie his average annual budget deficits were:

                      4.3% of GDP

                      And with those deficits and his private debt bubble of thhe S & L's the economy went from 10% unemployment to 5%

                      H.W. Bush had smaller average annual deficits:

                      3.975% of GDP

                      and W had historically small average deficits:

                      2 % of GDP

                      http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/...

                      https://research.stlouisfed.org/...

                      So lets at least get our facts right.

                      "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens. The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it. If we can afford full employment killing Germans, we can afford full employment during peace-time.

                      by Auburn Parks on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 05:10:00 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  According to your STL FED link, the recession (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        raspberryberet, rabrock

                        started in January of 2008, a full year before the "Kenyan Usurper" took the oath of office. I certainly believe the facts indicate that the blame for the recession should go to W, not the guy trying to clean up the mess. Granted, PBO allowed President Snowe (et al) to vastly limit the size of the stimulus (to about 1/2 to 1/3 of what Krugman and others called for at the time), thus we're now still in an era of painfully-slow growth which is extending unemployment; deficits; and real, human pain unnecessarily. But Republican'ts won't permit any better and aren't being blamed nearly enough to change it.

                        I must say, you seem very willing to overlook W's "contribution" to our current situation ("...W had historically small average deficits...."). Yes, if you disregard that he came into office with budget surpluses 'as far as the eye could see' and that his (mis)administration's mishandling of the economy, including lax financial oversight by his regulators, enabled the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression). You also seem very willing to blame PBO just because he was the poor bastard standing there when the stuff hit the fan.

                        This next part may fit better below your next comment, but I'll put it here since it applies to the "W's deficits" comment above as well.

                        I don't have strong feelings about running relatively small deficits.  2% would be perfectly acceptable, simply as an amount. My issues, which I--apparently unsuccessfully--tried to convey in a previous comment, are, economically, about what the deficit is being spent on and, politically, that they only matter if a Dem is presiding over them. If it was investing in American infrastructure, medicine, R&D, and educating its people, I have no problem whatsoever with that and would even encourage it.

                        But that's not what W did w/ it. He gave it to the already-wealthy and they hoarded it, destimulating the economy. He blew it on wars of choice, esp. Iraq, driving up deficits (which, again,  obviously only matter when there's a Dem in the White House) and increasing costs, but w/ no return on investment. Then his anything-goes regulators failed to rein (like what controls a horse) in the anything-goes banksters. And when that party crashed, say w/ Lehman Brothers' failure in the fall of '08, he was close enough to the end of his term that the consequences fell on his successor.

                        Now. (Wow, these have really turned into 1000x more effort than I wanted to expend....) If you want to talk about private debt in terms of people's increased credit card and student loan debt, I'm game. My understanding is that going back to St. Reagan's era, when he did his reverse-Robin Hood act to take from the poor and middle-class to give to the well-off (including his and (guess who?) Greenspan's inter-generational sleight-of-hand on Social Security (raising retirement ages (it's already 67 for me) and cutting benefits)), families understandably tried to increase their income, first by sending women into the workforce (piggybacking on feminist callings of the time), then by charging up their credit cards. You (IMHO) rightly express concern about the limits of the latter tactic.

                        I'm not so partisan that I can't criticize a Democrat. I've already noted that Clinton enacted too much Republican't legislation and that PBO allowed his opponents to restrict his legislative freedom more than I think (even he would now agree) he should have. Since you apparently think WJC and PBO would/should have exercised free rein (again w/ the horse thing) and demanded that their Fed Chairmen acquiesce to their dictates, I guess I can criticize them for not dictating Fed policy (and goodness help the manufactured outrage industry had Democratic presidents even pretended to try to actually exert such influence).

                        But Clinton certainly didn't perceive his "free rein", shocked that his presidency hinged on the Federal Reserve and a bunch of fucking bond traders?  You accurately read the organizational chart, that the president appoints the Fed chairperson, but I don't think the dashed lines of authority agree w/ you.

                        And I'll be damned if I'm gonna point a bigger finger of blame at WJC & PBO than at Reagan/GHWB, W, and the congressional Republican'ts.

                        "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

                        by bartcopfan on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:07:54 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I never said W was not responsible. And I never (0+ / 0-)

                          said that Dem presidents are more to blame than Con presidents. Don't argue with strawmen please, thats what wingers do.

                          My original statement was that your understanding of economics is backwards. You were praising Clinton's surpluses, Surpluses are bad for the economy.

                          Deficits are by definition good for GDP and the private economy.

                          You obviously don't understand the difference between the currency issuer (Congress) and the rest of us currency users. This is what is backwards in your framework. And this is what I have tried to point out. But you don't seem to want to accept the obvious logic. Perhaps you would be better convinced by reading and seeing regular mainstream dignitaries say essentially the same thing I am saying. Please enjoy:

                          http://www.dailykos.com/...

                          "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens. The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it. If we can afford full employment killing Germans, we can afford full employment during peace-time.

                          by Auburn Parks on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 03:04:56 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  OK, I THINK we're converging on a solution. (0+ / 0-)
                            My original statement was that your understanding of economics is backwards. You were praising Clinton's surpluses, Surpluses are bad for the economy.

                            Deficits are by definition good for GDP and the private economy.

                            Or at least down to the crux of the matter.

                            Basically, my belief is in counter-cyclical budgeting (which I think is essentially Keynesianism); that the (federal) gov't should run large deficits during recessions to help stimulate demand and much smaller deficits (or even relatively-small surpluses) during economic expansions to help prevent overheating/inflation of the economy. This is what I saw WJC as doing and why I praise(d) him. In this way, the budget is roughly balanced over time (the business cycle). I also agree w/ your earlier comments about growing the money supply sufficiently to keep the economy moving, which I suppose would increase deficits (or reduce surpluses) slightly.

                            So. Where I see the crux of your and my disagreement is this, is it always true that:

                            Surpluses are bad for the economy....Deficits are by definition good for GDP and the private economy.
                            I would agree wholeheartedly that surpluses are terrible during weak growth, like we have now, and worse under recessionary conditions.  But those weren't the conditions under which WJC was running them.

                            During strong growth/expansion, deficits/stimulus would cause inflationary growth and eventually overspeed the economy--yet this is what slavish adherence to the "god" of the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) Republican'ts claim to worship (for everyone but themselves) would demand. You appear to endorse this as well: "deficits are by definition good for GDP and the private economy." Is that really what you mean? Because I think that would be terrible economics.

                            [Of course, a BBA would be just as terrible during a recession, when it would demand gov't cuts just when they were needed most. This used to be known as Hoover economics, since that's what he tried during the Depression and it made things worse, just as contractionary policy today (like the gov't shutdown and state/local gov't layoffs) makes the economy worse.]

                            My position is that deficits and surpluses both have their places in fiscal policy, deficits during recessions to stimulate recovery and surpluses during strong expansions to prevent inflation. Slavish devotion to either no-matter-what is poor economics and poor policy. And devotion to the wrong one (surpluses during recessions or deficits during expansions) is even worse.

                            So, is that a straw man argument?

                            "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

                            by bartcopfan on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 04:27:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "deficits are by definition good for GDP..." (0+ / 0-)

                            This is a true macro economic statement. So its not terrible economics, its an economic tautology. Raising taxes or cutting spending is by accounting definition bad for GDP as GDP is Govt spending + Non-Govt spending - net imports.

                            Yes, there may be times when it is appropriate to run a surplus. Maybe the Clinton period was one of those times. But we have to recognize what was happening that made a surplus possible. A giant private debt bubble.

                            I would much prefer to have low private debt growth and high deficits as the method by which the money supply grows along with economic activity.

                            You seem to cheer on a high private debt low govt deficit model. This is the same model that conservatives use. Like I said, your economics are backwards. High levels of Private debt do nothing but exacerbate income inequality as more and more income goes to creditors over time to service existing debt. Its not economically healthy for the private sector to spend more than its income because we are all revenue constrained.

                            The US Dollar comes from the US Govt, so the responsibility should be Ours collectively to provide enough money and income to maintain full employment ad price stability. Because, We The People are not revenue constrained.

                            "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens. The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it. If we can afford full employment killing Germans, we can afford full employment during peace-time.

                            by Auburn Parks on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 04:53:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Funny, I can't STAND what conservatives do. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rabrock, RevBobMIB
                            You seem to cheer on a high private debt low govt deficit model. This is the same model that conservatives use.
                            I don't know how many ways I can say the federal gov't should have run up MORE debt after W's Great Recession, esp. when we could have borrowed at essentially 0% interest rate (and, hell, still can!). I was/am pissed that PBO allowed Snowe and his other mortal enemies to constrain him to a $700B stimulus (about half of which was tax cuts) when I'm arguing it should have been $2 TRILLION and focused on extending unemployment benefits, keeping state and local gov'ts funded so they wouldn't have the layoffs they did instead, and making direct payments to individuals (not banks) so they could stay in their homes rather than lose them in foreclosure; yet somehow I can't escape your claim that I'm a monomaniacal deficit hawk....

                            OK, instead of bitching uselessly, I'll ask you to please educate me on the private debt bubble WJC ruthlessly inflicted on America. Who or what borrowed it? What did they spend it on/invest it in? Who or what lent it? What should Vile Bill have done instead?

                            "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

                            by bartcopfan on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 09:05:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The Govt doesn't borrow money in the sense (0+ / 0-)

                            I assume you are using, there is no ""we got lucky that interest rates are so low so we can borrow more". The amount of interest we pay on Govt liabilities (Cash, Reserves, and T-bonds) is a political decision. The Fed and TSY are ultimately responsible for how much interest spending goes on.  Per the 1951 TSY-FED accord.

                            But I certainly agree with everything you are saying in your first paragraph (Minus the bit about borrowing and interest rates). So I'm not arguing with you about that stuff.

                            Its not a private debt bubble that Clinton necessarily 'inflicted" upon America.

                            Here's the logic chain:

                            Dems and Cons believe deficits and "debt" are inherently bad and immoral....."leaving debt to our children etc"

                            and they believe surpluses are good and something to strive for.

                            This belief has led to politicians  and most Americans implicitly or explicitly cheering on private debt bubbles as the means for growing the money supply and the economy, because that means the deficit can be smaller.

                            The deficit should simply be at least as high as the trade deficit and thats the baseline, from there, the best rule of thumb is:

                            If unemployment is too high => the deficit is too small
                            If inflation is too high => the deficit may be too big

                            "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens. The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it. If we can afford full employment killing Germans, we can afford full employment during peace-time.

                            by Auburn Parks on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 05:43:48 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  There are only 4 rules that we need to understand (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      reasonshouldrule

                      economics

                      1) All income comes from spending an vice versa. Nobody gives away free money (except for the Federal Govt).

                      so Spending = Income

                      2) All larger economies have more money than they did as smaller economics. In other words, a growing economy needs a growing money supply. This is because population and productivity growth are deflationary, and deflations are depressions, so the money supply must grow at least as fast as producitivity and the population to maintain stable prices.

                      3) Fiat money comes from 2 places, private bank loans expand the money supply, and deficit spending.

                      You are free to prefer private debt and bank loans as the means of growing the money supply, and I will continue to prefer free money from the Dollar issuer via the deficit as a better means of growing the money supply.

                      Want to put that up for a vote still?

                      Private banks vs We The People?

                      "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens. The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it. If we can afford full employment killing Germans, we can afford full employment during peace-time.

                      by Auburn Parks on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 05:15:20 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  bartcopfan (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  raspberryberet

                  You are right on the money on this issue, and I taught MBAs, so I know what you and the rest of us are talking about.  But you and  Auburn Parks are arguing different issues, and for the most part, your general points agree.

                  However, Auburn Parks IS forgetting about the history.

                •  @ bart, as I say (0+ / 0-)

                  If you are not OLD, RICH, WHITE, AND MALE, you are a total fool if you vote for a teatard republiskunk for any office any where.

            •  It was a bubble (0+ / 0-)

              that let inevitably to a crash.

              Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

              by Mokurai on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 02:01:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Remember how our discussion began? (0+ / 0-)

              You said this:

              "Clinton's legislation helped create the longest period of unbroken economic growth in American history."

              Referring to the massive Clinton tax increases in 93.

              Do you still believe that Clinton's tax increase was responsible for the huge private debt bubble that fueled the late 90's growth?

              Do you still think that was a good policy?

              Do you advocate for huge tax increases right now, keeping in mind that Clinton raised taxes on everyone, not just the 1%?

              Do you think tax increases would be good for the economy right now?

              "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens. The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it. If we can afford full employment killing Germans, we can afford full employment during peace-time.

              by Auburn Parks on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 05:02:31 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  I honestly don't think that will work. (5+ / 0-)

        They have been so against absolutely everything about Obamacare (even going so far as to say Obama was "cooking the books" about the positive figures) that pretty much everybody will know it's bullshit. Hell, I'd bet even the Dittoheads would know it deep down.

        Why do I have the feeling George W. Bush joined the Stonecutters, ate a mess of ribs, and used the Constitution as a napkin?

        by Matt Z on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 11:13:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't see this happening till 2017 (4+ / 0-)

        at the EARLIEST. It won't be until after Obama's out of office and then when the dust settles they'll try to rewrite history that they might benefit from politically...such as it was their healthcare plan the whole time, etc. But for now they'll be on the "Obamacare failure" meme for the short-term while the guy they name after him is still in office because it'll benefit them politically.

      •  You can tell that the GOP wants... (5+ / 0-)

        to ignore this story. There was no mention of this report anywhere on Drudge today and Fox News had the shortest article ever about this (and I only found it by searching their website as it wasn't listed on the home page).

        Looks like that repeal tactic isn't going to work for the GOP so well this November...

      •  Sabotage (0+ / 0-)

        Hopefully if the GOP tries to take credit for fixing the computer problems associated with the roll out someone will have the courage to point out the Right Wing websites that specifically instructed hackers on how to sabotage the government website and the roughly 20 cases of hacking dectected by Homeland security.

    •  Sad for them (49+ / 0-)

      but like every other thing they shove down the throats of their base and low information voters, they can't erase Obamacare in the minds of the nation.  

      I have insurance for the first time in 15 years.  I am very lucky to have an excellent health center near by -- I'm getting referrals and then dental care.  Even those folks didn't respond to my mentioning the Affordable Care Act -- so I said, Obamacare.  And they had varying reactions (I live in a red area of Connecticut) which is ok because every single one of them was polite, professional and friendly.

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

      by gchaucer2 on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 09:22:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nope. It will be HillaryCare (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GleninCA, TofG

      as soon as the November elections are over and the Republican Presidential Primary season opens.

      Or could it be BenghaziCare?

      Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

      by Mokurai on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 01:58:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  MAYBE THEY'LL CHANGE IT TO "WALKER CARE" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rabrock, indedave

      Just saw a campaign ad, where Wisconsin governor Scott Walker is taking credit for getting Wisconsin out of debt, lowered property taxes, created thousands of jobs and get this!  This is the killer!!  He's taking credit for getting healthcare for everyone!!!! Just about choked on that, when I saw it, especially when I no longer qualify for Medicaid, because he lowered the countable income limit, which is down to $591.67, in Wisconsin.  A lot of people, including me lost their Medicaid, Badgercare insurance coverage.  I am disabled, on SSDI, want to work a little, to supplement my SSDI benefit. I was able to find a part time job, working from my apartment. I had my Medicaid review, back in December when I was working 22.5 hours a week at $8 an hour.  I was denied, because I "made too much money".  Since then, in March, my hours have been cut to 13 hours a week, so am now grossing $104 a week.  Thought I would still be able to get Medicaid and help with the Medicare premium, but of course, I still make          "too much money".  For Medicaid, they say my countable income is $960 and the limit is $591.  Of course as soon as   I meet the $4,060 deductible, by July 31st, I will be eligible for Medicaid!!  They will even "let me pay ahead on the deductible"!! I also make $15 too much for premium assistance, for help with the Medicare premium.  I am going to appeal the Medicare premium denial and hopefully will get that back, otherwise I will have to pay the Medicare premium, which is about $104 now.  Just thought I'd let everyone know that our "wonderful Wisconsin governor Scott Walker", the one who would not accept Federal funds, to expand Medicaid, but instead, lowered the countable income, for Medicaid, kicking thousands of adults, off Medicaid, is now taking credit, for getting thousands of people on healthcare.  Don't you just love it!!

    •  In the quiet of the night. . . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rabrock

      You can almost hear the right-wing heads exploding from utter disbelief.

      "It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it." ~ James Danforth Quayle

      by Loraxe on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:35:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yes indeed. Your diary is right in line (22+ / 0-)

    with one I posted a couple of days ago. I mentioned a story in Rollingstone Magazine that Tim Dickinson wrote which is this, Obamacare is working, and the GOP's worst nightmare is coming true. Health care spending is now rising at only 1.3% a year, which is 1/3 the rate from 1965. Further insurance premiums are coming in at 15% lower than what the CBO estimated. Polls are also now much more favorable to the ACA. People want the law to STAY and to be IMPROVED! Smart Dems. will get on board and start running WITH the positive news about Obamacare in 2014!!!

  •  When you say increases by on average $100 (17+ / 0-)

    I assume that means per year and not per month. Had a small heart attack (which is fine because I'm insured!)

    No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible.

    by Magster on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 09:28:23 AM PDT

  •  Yay (9+ / 0-)

    Poverty is the worst form of violence. - Mahatma Gandhi

    by blueoregon on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 09:30:02 AM PDT

  •  More solid proof, ObamaCare Works. (9+ / 0-)
  •  Where is Chuck Todd? (21+ / 0-)

    Last time we had an ACA CBO thing he was trumpeting it as vindication of Republican fears, and he was wrong.

    Hello?  Bueller?

  •  Let's get this on CNN and MSNBC asap n/t (8+ / 0-)

    Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by destiny1 on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 09:40:54 AM PDT

  •  Stop with this wagon circling! (12+ / 0-)

    Don't you care about people and stuff?!?

    Sorry, poking fun at the wreck list.  Carry on.  

    When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

    by Sun dog on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 09:45:16 AM PDT

  •  Like a sale at Macys, you know you were getting (11+ / 0-)

    ripped off by 'list price' (or MSRP).

    Obamacare will have lower premiums, insure more, and cost government less than projected
    When my wife pays $5 for a pair of pants that were intially $70, we know how much people were being NEEDLESSLY ripped off by MSRP.

    Same damned thing with "insurance": coverage is better, prices are lower MOSTLY because prices were set on "power-gouge' for the last 20 years.

    Heath 'insurance' is still a scam and will be until we achieve single payer, but now the scam costs less and that's not bad. (My and my wife's coverage is now HALF what is was this time last year, for actually better coverage, although the coverage we did have was crappy. Pay out the nose for premiums, and then pay for all your services too.

    Perfect scam.

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

    by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 09:46:40 AM PDT

  •  When have facts ever stopped a Republican... (8+ / 0-)

    from shooting off his mouth?

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, ... there are few die well that die in a battle; ... Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the king that led them to it; — Shakespeare, ‘Henry V’

    by dewtx on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 09:46:52 AM PDT

  •  HELP! Please advise what to say. . . . (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    catwho, bartcopfan

    Several friends are furious about Obamacare because they had perfectly good experiences with their old insurance and the new insurance costs them a huge amount more money.

    They are otherwise good Democrats.

    Please give me some resources, links, advice because I have no answer.

    •  There are lots of things here (9+ / 0-)

      Depends on their definition of "perfectly good experiences."  If they didn't have insurance because they were young and healthy, then I'm sorry but they need to be on insurance.  It only takes one bad thing to happen and their no longer healthy.

      There were going to be some people who were going to have to pay more.  But they get a lot more services built in, and more people are now being covered.

      It's estimated that my insurance premiums are about $1K per year higher because Texas refuses to cover people under medicaid.  So, my premiums have been higher than they needed to be for years.

      "Harass us, because we really do pay attention. Look at who's on the ballot, and vote for the candidate you agree with the most. The next time, you get better choices." - Barney Frank

      by anonevent on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 10:01:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  why aren't the hospitals putting pressure on red (0+ / 0-)

        state governors to opt in to the medicaid expansion.   another attack on the middle class because we are turning away free money rather than us pay more for our healthcare.

        we need the numbers and lots of ads near election time.

        •  Most of them are (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          raspberryberet

          Not Rick Scott's in Florida, though.

          The healthcare industry and the Chamber of Commerce more generally are appalled to find that the Tea Parties have more political clout than they do in seriously Red states.

          Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

          by Mokurai on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 02:13:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  They are putting pressure on (2+ / 0-)

          in TX, for example:

          Paul Burka, Texas Monthly, Health Scare - What the politics of Medicaid expansion says about the future of Texas

          While the protests continued outside the reception room, a press conference was taking place inside featuring Perry, Cornyn, Cruz, Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst, and other Republican leaders, all of whom had come to the Capitol to engage in two of their favorite pastimes: bashing the federal government and criticizing Medicaid, which currently provides health care to more than 3.3 million children and poor or disabled adults in Texas. The pols were here to insist upon their refusal to accept an expansion of Medicaid that could bring billions of dollars to the state and reduce the number of Texans without health insurance, currently 24 percent of the population, or about 6 million people.

          Not to be outdone, the Democrats had scheduled their own press conference in the Capitol, featuring two of the party’s rising stars: San Antonio mayor Julián Castro and his twin brother, Joaquín, a freshman congressman. Along with representatives of the Texas Hospital Association, they would make the case for why Texas should expand Medicaid and take the federal money that comes with it. The dueling press conferences, which introduced an element of political theater that had been largely absent from the Eighty-third legislative session, left no doubt that the debate over health care had become the seminal issue in the Capitol, one that could not only determine Perry’s political future but also have a transformative effect on medicine and business in the state.

          I can't help it. I love the state of Texas. It's a harmless perversion. - Molly Ivins

          by rsmpdx on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 03:18:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Did any of them have injuries or hospitalizations? (14+ / 0-)

      If they had, they would have quickly discovered the limits of those "perfectly good" insurance plans. Oh, and those plans could have kicked them out and rendered them completely uninsurable with a diagnosis of cancer or chronic illness. And they can no longer be subjected to a lifetime cap. And their max out of pocket expenses per yearare now capped. Remind them that the ACA is MUCH more than their insurance premiums.

      Is fheàrr fheuchainn na bhith san dùil

      by bull8807 on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 10:01:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Are your friends well off? High income earners (4+ / 0-)

      who had junk insurance before ACA would not be eligible for any subsidies and so would have to pay the entire premium of a new ACA plan, which would be much more expensive than any junk insurance they had before.

      Also, it's possible (even probable) that their pre-ACA coverage had high deductibles and co-pays, and maybe an annual or lifetime limit on coverage. Their new ACA-compliant plan would almost certainly be much lower in those areas (with an annual limit and no lifetime limit), probably resulting in fewer out-of-pocket costs per year than their old plans - even though the new premiums are much higher.

      The point is that they need to compare the coverages of their new and old plans, and consider all out-of-pocket costs (including deductibles, co-pays, etc. ) - not just the premiums.

      And to belabor the point, you might ask them to compare what their costs would likely be with each plan if they were injured in an auto accident or became very ill. I bet the results would surprise them.

      •  "with an annual limit and no lifetime limit" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bobatkinson, TofG

        to clarify, that is an annual limit on out of pocket expenses, not coverage amounts - and no lifetime limit on coverage.

      •  and if they are baby boomers too (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Turn Left

        it is a double whammy for those in the subsidy cliff and older. This is why I think the subsidy cliff needs to be set at $80K income per person, not at $46K. It needs to phase out verrry gradually starting at $60K incomes I think.

        Thanks Democrats! My Obamacare is permanent coverage no one can take away - and saving $3,000 is nice too

        by sotiredofusernames on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 07:09:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  My friends are middle class. Health insurance (0+ / 0-)

          They have used it quite heavily in the past.
          One complaint was being forced to use a generic drug rather than the one they were used to, which worked better for them.
          No other complaints.

          I think one friend said the premiums (for a married couple?) went up $8000 per year.

  •  "absent other reforms" (5+ / 0-)

     photo b80a2441-25b2-4674-a969-f62600aef8a1_zps0df8272b.png

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 09:49:47 AM PDT

    •  I heard Vermont is trying this out (0+ / 0-)

      If the state is able to pull this off in 2017 it might serve as a template for other states. The big challenge I heard is the cost: $2billion in it's less than $3billion state budget and how to raise that money.

      •  The same way other countries do (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ptressel, Shockwave, Mokurai

        Through taxes on employers and employees. The employers pay for that instead of (probably) more expensive group plans.

        The big question will be if the state exchange will be able to negotiate drug prices and other service prices with providers. That will be the biggest difference maker.

  •  Does the 30 million "uninsured" include those on (0+ / 0-)

    Medicare?

  •  Breaking: This PROVES Obamacare is a failure! (7+ / 0-)

    Insert Boehner, Cantor, the Turtle, Rush, etc.

  •  OMG - comparing "estimates" again.. (0+ / 0-)

    They estimated the humongous costs of ACA incorrectly.. (or less people are now projected to sign up).  So, now a new estimate of what it costs over ten years is twisted into "reducing deficit".  Un-freakin-believable.

    •  Nope (14+ / 0-)

      Deficit reduction was projected as compared to NO ACA, and now that reduction is predicted to be even greater.

    •  Sorry, but you're wrong (9+ / 0-)

      They estimated that the ACA would reduce the deficit before the states started opting out of Medicaid expansion.

      "Harass us, because we really do pay attention. Look at who's on the ballot, and vote for the candidate you agree with the most. The next time, you get better choices." - Barney Frank

      by anonevent on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 10:03:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The ACA was always predicted to lower the deficit (10+ / 0-)

          The CBO has always considered the PPACA to be a deficit reducing law. It would not have garnered the votes it needed to pass if that were not a fact. Initially the figures were lowering the deficit by around 300 Billion over the first ten years and more in the out years. I'm happy to see that they still consider the ACA as a deficit reducer after tens of millions of Americans finally have health insurance and all of us will have better health insurance. Why aren't you happy?

      •  not really.. (0+ / 0-)

        When they did their comparison, they used "current law" as the baseline.

        That baseline was unsustainable and needed to be modified anyway.

        The biggest "savings" are to Medicare and due to cuts built in that will likely never happen.  Congress has overridden those cuts each and every year.

        The White House just announced that Medicare Advantage cuts that were scheduled to kick in this year will will not happen.

        What a bunch of mumbo jumbo.. savings, my ass.

        Why am I not happy?  Because
        a: no real savings (see above)
        b: Americans will be paying more out of their pockets.  Even if it did cost the gov't less, it will end up costing Americans more in the long run.

        ACA is a terrible way to implement universal health care.  It always was.  It is too expensive and inefficient, and doesn't even guarantee much actual health care.

        •  The ACA as written was all that was possible (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Shawn87, OhioNatureMom, HeyMikey

          In the face of the most intense obstructionism for the sake of pig headed obstructionism from a united Republican caucus and conservadems like Baucus the version of the PPACA that became law is all that was possible. It is the first step or as Sister Palin would say a door newly opened. Hells bells the public option was not even possible let alone single payer/universal coverage so just take away the frown and try to be happy that anything was passed at all. The ACA is a small miracle when you look at the timeline and the money thrown at its demise.

          •  I realize that.. and I agree.. (0+ / 0-)

            That doesn't mean I have to pretend it is great.. it is a really crappy law that positively affects a small number of Americans, and negatively affects a very large number - i.e. those in individual plans not getting subsidies plus almost everyone getting insurance through their employers.

            I'm sorry.  I can't put enough lipstick on this pig to make it look good.

            And the worst part is, most of the money goes to big insurers.

            •  Fortunately, this turns out not to be the case (4+ / 0-)

              Everybody who has insurance is positively affected by the new rules requiring everybody to be eligible for coverage; no annual or lifetime limitations on coverage; a limit on out-of-pocket expenses; and more. In spite of fearmongering, premiums will go up less next year than for many years past. Insurance company profits are now capped. The limits should be lower, but until the ACA there were none.

              Why do you use Republican talking points?

              Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

              by Mokurai on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 02:22:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  JJ is right about one thing... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JJ In Illinois

                It is, at the very least, confusing that the CBO is making both of the following claims at the same time:

                * The net cost of the ACA is less than originally projected.

                * The ACA reduces the deficit.

                Anything that reduces the deficit is a net revenue generator, not any net cost.

                I presume there are some meaningful accounting principles behind the simultaneous announcement of both claims. And yes, I well know that the ACA has been billed as reducing the deficit even since before it was signed into law. But the average American doesn't know diddly about accounting principles, and barely knows diddly about the history of the ACA. When the CBO is making announcements for consumption by the general public, it ought to be clearer.

                "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

                by HeyMikey on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 06:32:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  All this BS about (0+ / 0-)

                Republican talking points is misdirection..

                there are facts..  and there are facts..

                Republican talking points attack ACA on principle..it's "socialized medicine"... stupid talk.

                There are some very good parts of ACA.. no yearly or lifetime limits..  no pre-existing conditions on ratings.

                As far as "out-of-pocket expenses" goes, there always has been a defined limit.. it varied with each plan, of course.  But most plans were well under the new ACA limits.

                ACA's out-of-pocket expenses are much much higher on many plans than pre-ACA.

                ACA has taken choice out of the picture..especially for young and healthy adults, who welcomed high out of pocket per year plans, since their risk was minimal.

                A catastrophic coverage plan for all Americans would have been a much more equitable policy.

                •  This too turns out not to be the case (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Radiowalla, Shawn87, rabrock

                  Those plans had caps on coverage. The policyholder was on the hook for everything over the cap. I don't even know what these words could mean in that situation.

                  As far as "out-of-pocket expenses" goes, there always has been a defined limit.. it varied with each plan, of course.  But most plans were well under the new ACA limits.

                  Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

                  by Mokurai on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 08:51:46 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  So there's no savings compared to your imaginary (0+ / 0-)

          reforms that you don't share with us?

          So there's no "real" savings?  

          I think "real" isn't a word you should be using.

          b: Americans will be paying more out of their pockets
          Nope.  The free market in health insurance is going to work to keep costs down, just like our republican friends said it would.  

          The dossier on my DKos activities during the Bush administration will be presented on February 3, 2014, with an appendix consisting an adjudication, dated "a long time ago", that I am Wrong.

          by Inland on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 01:09:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  JJ (0+ / 0-)

      You're doing this all wrong. You need to be a little bit positive about the subject once in a while...Gives the appearance of concern.

      "Because we are all connected...."

      by Shawn87 on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 10:57:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's pathetic to beat a dead horse. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, ferg, doroma, VPofKarma, Shawn87

    But it's laugh-till-you-cry hilarious to watch GOoPerz, necons, paleocons, rightwingnutjobz, and Tali-baggers actually trying to RIDE a dead horse.

    Picture Yosemite Sam: giddy-up, c'mon horse, I said giddy-up, let's go, giddy-up horse.

    We're all just working for Pharoah.

    by whl on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 09:55:32 AM PDT

  •  A $100 increase is not "slight" (0+ / 0-)

    I will be uninsured in 2015 if that ends up being the case. Great news on everything else, but calling that kind of increase "slight" ignores the economic reality for many of us. I have no subsidy as it is (despite the fact that I made $15,000 last year) which is fine with what I'm paying now but a $100 increase is not something my budget has room for. Are we to expect this "slight" increase every year along with the increases we will all have for being another year older? I won't qualify for Medicare for 40 years. That's a lot of increases I have to look forward to even without these imaginary "increased costs." Why did we give the health insurance companies so much power again?

    Is fheàrr fheuchainn na bhith san dùil

    by bull8807 on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 09:56:14 AM PDT

  •  Very good news indeed (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, Via Chicago, doroma, Shawn87

    Hopefully they will be able to keep improving the law so I can get my wife and kids some insurance finally.  

    Feels weird being stuck in this odd (odd in my opinion anyway) position.

    Anyway, any good news is GREAT news in my opinion :).

    "To make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain." - Louis L'Amour

    by Drokkenian on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 09:57:45 AM PDT

  •  PR (3+ / 0-)

    It's so important to get information like this out, but it seems to get buried in progressive blogs like this one, and never rise to the level of common knowledge.  I see Mike Huckabee back on TV screeching about the disaster that is Obamacare, and I get crap in the mail about how Obama has taken away our freedom, but there is no organized effort to inform people about the good things happening.  Just boring Obama lectures and occasional defensive speeches from Harry Reid.  

    It seems to me that a strong campaign to educate people is absolutely crucial.  Most people are paying very little attention to what's really happening in DC, and are horribly misinformed by the calculated, simplistic, and fear-inducing propaganda from the right. Preventing a right-wing takeover of the government depends on informing people about truth - making informed voters.  There really needs to be an organized campaign of ads and other tools to get the truth out.

    I'm still mad about Nixon.

    by J Orygun on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 10:03:54 AM PDT

  •  "Slight" rise in premium of $100? (0+ / 0-)

    Am I reading that right?  Does that mean my current premium of $250 a month (after subsidy) will go to $350 a month?  Because that's not slight for me.  Finding another $100 a month will be pretty difficult.  

  •  Excellent ... but a question: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, Turn Left, HeyMikey

    30 million uninsured is still high ... about what, 8-10 percent?

    I think I read over time that in countries who cover 'all,' they still have five percent uncovered at any one time.  Is this correct?

    Is 8-10 percent 'acceptable,' for lack of a better word?  Would universal Medicaid expansion cut that down?

    I ask this while acknowledging that 17 percent uncovered down to 8-10 is still a great achievement.

    •  Howard Dean sez... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tuffie, TofG

      That once the dust settles we'll have about 93% covered and that would be considered "universal". Of course, if the stupid states would expand Medicaid, that number would be even more.

      And my idea of "universal" is more like 100%. Just sayin'.

    •  I think you'll have a mix of uninsured... (0+ / 0-)

      1. People eligible for Medicaid in states that haven't yet accepted the expansion.
      2. Those living in this country without legal status and ineligible for coverage.
      3. Those opting out of coverage for religious reason (Amish, Christian Scientists, etc)
      4. Those opting out of coverage and paying the fine because who know why.  They think they're invincible/hate private insurance/hate Obamacare/who knows.

    •  If they do it via insurance, yes (0+ / 0-)

      However, the British National Health covers everybody, no exceptions. When I lived there, I got covered, no question about it.

      Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

      by Mokurai on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 04:31:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's cheaper, covering more, working better... (6+ / 0-)

    Cue the conservative outrage.

    No, you can't fix stupid. You OUTNUMBER stupid. -Wildthumb, 1/10/2013

    by newinfluence on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 10:09:12 AM PDT

  •  This report couldn't have come at a better time (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, doroma, EighteenCharacters, Delevie

    right before the confirmation hearings for the new HHS secretary. It takes the air out of every one of the GOP talking points.

  •  Use savings to raise the income level for Medicaid (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG

    It was supposed to be 200% of FPL, but was hacked down to its current level by Baucus and the WH, allegedly to bend the cost curve.

    Since those cuts to Medicaid eligibility weren't necessary,  restore them.

    Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

    by Betty Pinson on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 10:17:14 AM PDT

    •  higher priority = the non-expansion states (5+ / 0-)

      which I think means expanding ACA subsidies so adults below 138% of poverty line get at least Silver plans for zero premiums.

      That doesn't totally solve the problem but would help a lot

      •  I dont see that happening (0+ / 0-)

        Though they talk  a good game, they're not really interested in going the extra mile for low income people.

        Remember, this is the same neo lib crowd that refuses to back a  bill to raise the minimum wage, tries to cut Social Security and cheers the outsourcing of US jobs to third world countries who support slave wages.

        They could care less about low income people unless they can BS them into casting votes for neolib Dems.  Bait and switch, keep the corporate sponsors happy.

        No, they  need to be confronted with some ACA policy that is clean and straightforward with actual benefits to consumers, not some BS vapor policy that sounds spiffy but doesnt accomplish anything.

        Health care advocates are pretty skilled at public policy and dont usually support the junk stuff.

        Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

        by Betty Pinson on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 11:25:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  LoL, they don't have Komen to bail them out now (0+ / 0-)

          Komen helped out  when it came to killing the public option, but they shat the bed with the Planned Parenthood fiasco.  That  big-ass pink ribbon is of no help in "fixing" ACA.

          Money is property, not speech. Overturn Citizens United.

          by Betty Pinson on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 11:37:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  The GOP will love the ACA in 10 years (4+ / 0-)

    They'll try to re-write history and claim it was their idea all along. "Look at RomneyCare! It was all based on ideas from the Heritage Institute!" will be their cry.  

    Then they'll try to privatize Medicare & Medicaid by moving everyone on them into to the Exchanges.

    Just wait, you'll see.

    •  actually might not be that bad (0+ / 0-)

      Medicare premiums are only income-related at the very high end (surcharge) and very low end (Medicaid-Medicare dual eligibles). I will be paying more for my Medicare a year from now than I do for ACA coverage that includes drugs.

      I'm not eager for privatization, but the model of paying according to income level would be helpful for the seniors as well.

    •  Keep yer govmint out of my Obamacare! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      scott jones

      And other future Teaparty slogans.  

      When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

      by Sun dog on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 11:08:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  KABOOM! Another Rethug Head Explodes. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Delevie

    Now maybe the Party of Stupid & Offensive will admit that
    Obamacare = Romneycare = ultraconservative Heritage Foundation health care, and they will start to demand credit for it claiming that it was their original idea all along.

    The 50+ times the Party of Stupid & Offensive tried to repeal Obamacare, and the $50+ Million of taxpayer money they wasted in the process, along with the refusal of 19 teabagger governors who refused to embrace Obamacare and Medicaid expansion speak too loudly about their hatred of the unisurable and the poor and their insistence to deny health care to the desperate among us -- they can go self-fornicate.

    Next Step ---- Single Payer Medicare-for-All!*

    *(KABOOM! Another rethug head explodes, and this time it's a filthy rich oligarch!)

  •  But...but...that's simply unpossible! N/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    scott jones

    "When and if fascism comes to America...it will not even be called 'fascism'; it will be called, of course, 'Americanism'" --Professor Halford E. Luccock of Yale Divinity School; New York Times article from September 12, 1938, page 15

    by demongo on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 10:21:20 AM PDT

  •  Remember when the CBO said that (0+ / 0-)

    it was going to "cost jobs" and how much false play that got on the mainstream media (even though it was an outrageous misinterpretation of the actual findings?)

    well there is a new, powerful response by the MSM to this new CBO report that touts the benefits and success of the ACA

    wait for it. . .

    because, you know. . .

    Missing Malaysian jets and Russian activity in Ukraine and "wait! what's that over there?!?!!". . .

    Be the change that you want to see in the world

    by New Minas on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 10:29:35 AM PDT

  •  Coming soon from the right... (0+ / 0-)

    ...another Twilight Zone rerun:

    "It's a BOOKCOOK!!!"

    (Apologies to Rod Serling and Damon Knight)

  •  I think (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    scott jones

    all those people in red states are going to see what's going on in neighboring states, and then demand their states accept the ACA Medicaid money, and if they don't, those Republicans are out in 2016 and 2018. Maybe even in 2014 the way things operate at warp speed theses days.

    •  I wish you were right (0+ / 0-)

      but gerrymandering, the dominance of right-wing media in many markets, the flood of right-wing money, and flat-out lying will likely enable the GOP to stay in power, and possibly gain seats on the national level.

  •  Also... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FindingMyVoice, Inland
  •  Gosh (0+ / 0-)

    There will be hundreds of radical conservative who have heart attacks and strokes as they read this article.  They rest will just pretend that is does not exist.  

  •  I disagree with the idea that premiums will be (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TofG, rsmpdx, virginislandsguy

    higher next year.  There will be a lot of small and medium sized businesses (especially those with offices or employees in more than 1 state) that will enter the exchange because it is cheaper than private offerings.  A lot of businesses stayed in the sidelines in year 1 because they wanted to see if it would work.  The ACA passed that test this year.

    ACA is focused on the uninsured, but one understated added value of the exchange is its ability to become a large national marketplace for health insurance for all Americans under the age of 65.

    Global Shakedown - Alternative rock with something to say. Check out their latest release, "A Time to Recognize": Available on iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, Spotify and other major online music sites. Visit http://www.globalshakedown.com.

    by khyber900 on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 11:09:34 AM PDT

  •  So important (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doroma, TofG, sotiredofusernames

    to get the word out.

  •  Shrinking deficits are unequivocally bad (0+ / 0-)

    in a depressed economy.

    Govt deficit = Non- Govt surplus

    This is national accounting 101. Anyone who doesn't recognize this as the foundation of macroeconomics has no idea what they are talking about. This especially includes the embarrassingly bad CBO.

    Like when they projected paying off the national so-called "debt" back in 2001. They never asked themselves how the Govt extracting that many trillions of dollars in private sector wealth out of the economy would actually make the private economy work better. How can anyone overlook something so basic to modern economics?

    "The Earth is my country and Science my religion" Christiaan Huygens. The gold standard ended on August 15, 1971, its time we start acting like it. If we can afford full employment killing Germans, we can afford full employment during peace-time.

    by Auburn Parks on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 12:43:51 PM PDT

  •  "Try repealing all that, Republicans." (0+ / 0-)

    Oh don't worry, they will try...

    Conservatism is like an anchor. It doesn't propel either society or the economy. Source unknown

    by SherriG on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 01:25:06 PM PDT

    •  Some of them will, but the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sotiredofusernames, SherriG

      last R, whose vote is the deciding one, will not.

      Mitch McConnell, for example, will try to have it both ways, making lots of noise about "the Obamacare mess", etc. But 400,000 of his constituents are newly covered under ACA. A vote to repeal it, and throw those 400K off their health care plans, is suicide for him.

      Hello, Senator Grimes!

      I can't help it. I love the state of Texas. It's a harmless perversion. - Molly Ivins

      by rsmpdx on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 03:59:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A Badge of Honor (0+ / 0-)

    Even with the relentless and contemptuous pounding given it by those of failed causes, ObamaCare grows and gains in all respects. Recent pools show that more and more Americans' are seeing it for what it is ... not what the Koch Brothers and their paid politicians want it to be.

    And - sorry Mitch McConnell - just as Obama is now a Two-Term president - ObamaCare will continue to grow and evolve ... and yes, it will become a Single Payer System. On that note - I would ask that any among you who support our current Cartel Of Health Insurance Companies - to please explain why we should have to pay them for the reasonable right to access health care as needed.

    ObamaCare is here to stay - and unlike Republicans - it will see another day.

  •  Unlike other claims ... (0+ / 0-)

    Republicans, and the Tea Party and Libertarian allies, love to make broad and vague statements. We've all heard them - statements like ... "a train wreck" - "jobs killer" - "kill grandma" - "death panels" - destroy our economy" - "takeover of health care" ... etc., etc.  That's it - no substance - nothing to back the claims - just say it.

    That is oh-so Newt Gingrich ... and exactly all that those on the neo-con right can offer.  On the other hand, the benefits stated herein, and others, are easily supported by credible and customary sources.

    Quit voting for vapors, or hot air Republicans or their Tea Party and Libertarian allies.  They aren't legislators, but rather agitators.

  •  Humorous :-) (0+ / 0-)

    That whole "Obamacare is doomed to fail" line from Republicans is getting harder and harder to defend by the day.

  •  The Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare (0+ / 0-)

    This good news will not make the President's enemies - and there are many of them - very happy.  Can we stop using the handy but offensive term "Obamacare"?  It has ever been used in a pejorative way by those who oppose it.  There is no legislation officially called Obamacare - none; so let's get with it about this detail.

  •  This is not good news - (0+ / 0-)

    it is GREAT news.

  •  Oh no! "We're all... (0+ / 0-)

    Doomed as doomed can be!" ~ Ed Grimley

  •  obamacare (0+ / 0-)

    Can't get too excited about an improvement in a system for funneling money to insurance companies. IF those lower rates are true they won't last long.

  •  Obamacare Premiums (0+ / 0-)

    Premiums may be lower than anticipated, but Obamacare does too little to to lower the premiums paid by middle-income, and barely middle-income, people.

    I am self-employed, and my wife directs a small non-profit.  We make too much to qualify for ACA subsidies, but still spend between 20% and 25% of our joint income on healthcare, counting premiums, deductibles, out-of-pocket limits, and things our insurance doesn't cover, like anything dental.

    Healthcare expenses make it difficult and sometimes impossible for us to save anything for retirement.  Funds that should be enough to provide both healthcare and retirement savings are all eaten up by healthcare more often than not.  

    Imagine my reaction when we looked on healthcare.gov (Virginia), first on my own and then with the aid of a Navigator, only to find no policies that were any better value than our Anthem Healthkeepers policy with monthly $1220 premiums.  Premiums were about the same, and the one choice that was not quite $200 less in premiums had out-of-pocket maximum higher by $3,000.

    The ACA is without question a boon to the poor, but it leaves many middle-class people in the lurch in a bad way.  

    This is bad policy and terrible politics.  Even as a lifelong Democrat, it's hard not to see that the needs of the poor are being met on the backs of the middle class - at least the self-employed middle class.  Which of course is the standard Republican line.  If anything would resuscitate Reaganism for another generation, it would be this.  That the needs of Cigna, Aetna, et al. are being met the same way doesn't make it any easier to bear, or any better for the country.

    As a liberal, I can see that the ACA is at its heart a sweetheart deal with big insurance (sure, perhaps made necessary in 2009 by Max Baucus, Ben Nelson and the filibuster, but a corporatist collusion nonetheless).  I understand that with in today's Washington, if anyone gets screwed, it will not be big insurance, it will be me.

    But, please, no more witless cheerleading about the supposed success of Obamacare by people who should know better.

    Any success the exchanges have will be dearly bought not just by people like me, who know what's happening to them, but by the country at large.

    When the American people tire of buying overpriced private health insurance for everyone in the country, will they turn to the Democrats to provide single-payor healthcare, or will they turn against the party that gave us another Pentagon, turning us into the country that spends more on healthcare than the next ten combined?

  •  Too bad it still leaves so many without coverage. (0+ / 0-)

    I filled out all the forms needed, only to find out that working full-time and making $36k/yr, we made TOO LITTLE to qualify for federal assistance.

    At this point my state was intended to expand Medicaid--but they didn't. You'd have to earn les than $4680/yr for a family of four to qualify for Medicaid in my state.

    So reading all these congratulatory stories is just becoming infuriating--because people making less than the federal minimum of about $40k/yr (aka, "most people this law was supposed to help") are simply screwed if their states have legislatures that refuse to expand Medicaid.

    So, lower class folks in "red" states, like me, still don't have coverage. It would cost me $280/mo for health coverage if I made $4k more per year--but since I don't, I'd have to pay $587/mo. And I can't.

    I can't believe this law allowed for states to opt out, but didn't offer any recourse for those millions of people this left behind. Does anyone have any idea how I can actually get covered in Missouri? Is there anything more I can do?

    •  This law DID NOT allow for states to opt out. (0+ / 0-)

      The Supreme Court did. The right-leaning Roberts Supreme Court removed the mandatory medicare expansion, and you're right, that completely sucks for people in red states.

      You can raise hell in Missouri about this inequity. Take it to your governor, tell your friends, write letters to the editor, let people know. But first have your facts straight.

      The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
      ---> Bertrand Russell

      by smileycreek on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 04:12:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Are there any facts I missed? (0+ / 0-)

        Problem is, the people at healthcare.gov couldn't even tell me the actual minimum--$40k was a guess, and the lowest she was willing to test to see (each different amount required a full application).

        I well admit you folks have a better handle on this than I do (you folks==contributors and commentors on this site). What are the facts I should know? I thought I have the gist of it figured out, but clearly not.

        •  The important thing here is (0+ / 0-)

          that you are being denied Medicare which you would clearly be eligible for in my state. And why? This is not the fault of the ACA as it was written. The Medicaid expansion to the law was struck down by the Supreme Court, leaving it up to individual states whether or not they would deign to take federal money to expand Medicaid and help their own citizens and economy.

          People in red states are in a horrible position when their governors refuse federal funds to help people like YOU, the very person this law was originally passed to help!

          Republican States Rejection of Medicaid Expansion is Almost Awesome in its Evilness.

          If people in red states realized that it's their own state governors and legislatures screwing them over, NOT the ACA, then they can go after the people in charge.

          I wish you the best and I hope things change so that people in red states like you can also get the benefits of the ACA. I find this situation infuriating and unconscionable.

          The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
          ---> Bertrand Russell

          by smileycreek on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 04:46:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Numbers (0+ / 0-)

    Republicans will find some way to convince the gullible that numbers are not to be trusted because they are projections which, like evolutionary theory is not to be trusted.  The Obama-haters will immediately begin singing this song.

  •  The teatards (0+ / 0-)

    are stupid enough that they will still try to repeal the ACA.

    And you just can't help stupid.

  •  So if in 1860 the Congressional Budget Office... (0+ / 0-)

    So if in 1860 the CBO had issued a study showing that states that abolished slavery were better off economically - excepting their plantation owners, of course - do you really think that would have done a damn thing to prevent the South from seceding?  The oligarchs down there had concocted a caste system built on the tale that whites were a conquering warrior tribe, and thus being on top of slaves was a point of pride, no longer how bad their own lives were.  What's data compared to pride?

    That's how traditional society works, even if the traditions are fakes.  Not statistics, or empirical data, or even votes.  Myths.  It's built on elite-approved myths that relentlessly teach the peasants to love their masters and hate anyone who might have different ideas.  It's how the virus of class-based civilization overran the world.  By 1980 our corporate elites realized that the old ways were more profitable: make life better for the proles, and they get more liberal, make it worse and they revert back to primitive religion, superstition, and tribalism.  The rich spent their profits to replace facts with myths, using the powerful new tools of advertising, creating fake authorities, and even concocting fake fields of study like Creation Science.

    So in America, and America alone, facts will not persuade the faith-based.  Either we will confront them peacefully and make it clear that we are as willing to fight for our basic human rights as they are for their myths and caste privileges, or we will actually have to fight them, as happened in 1860.

    But at least we can use facts to keep the crazies from scaring the undecideds into following them.

  •  It's going to be... (0+ / 0-)

    interesting what ammo the GOTP (Grand Old Turd Party) is going to use in the next two years, what with:

    Obamacare (PPACA) running wildly successful;
    All jobs have been replaced from the GWBunnypants era;
    The stockmarkets seem to be flowing along nicely;
    etc., etc., etc!
    Finally, a great number of Republicans/TPers will be campaigning from their jail cells if the news in the past month is any indication of the future.

    I think the House of Republican/TP Representatives had better buckle up tight... it's gonna be a bumpy ride to reelection, IF that happens!

  •  ObamaCare; (0+ / 0-)

    you named it, you own it. Repeat that to every teabigot you can find; it will make their day.

    No country can be both ignorant and free - Thomas Jefferson

    by fjb on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:24:08 PM PDT

  •  Now if they can manage to get that 30 million (0+ / 0-)

    Insured by modifying Obamacare to get them into the system...



    Women create the entire labor force.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

    by splashy on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 07:10:03 AM PDT

  •  Try repealing all that, Republicans. (0+ / 0-)

    Rest assured, they WILL try. Again, and again, and again ...

    OF COURSE the New Right is wrong - but that doesn't make WRONG the new RIGHT!

    by mstaggerlee on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 08:34:42 AM PDT

Angie in WA State, Sylv, Trix, jazzmaniac, ferg, PeterHug, hyperstation, eeff, Just Saying, bara, lunacat, xopher, Iberian, splashy, navajo, high uintas, artebella, litigatormom, jdmorg, Texknight, westyny, AmyCat, 2dot, imicon, Diana in NoVa, KayCeSF, Vicky, rapala, CPT Doom, ichibon, LakeSuperior, alaprst, mjd in florida, sc kitty, dewtx, reflectionsv37, LNK, Inland, skyounkin, SBandini, Tunk, Ginny in CO, FindingMyVoice, Alan Arizona, SherriG, el cid, middleagedhousewife, AllDemsOnBoard, blueoregon, bartcopfan, Sapere aude, peagreen, whl, puakev, Via Chicago, flumptytail, deepeco, gchaucer2, Wreck Smurfy, leonard145b, JML9999, TomP, Involuntary Exile, NewDealer, Cassandra Waites, smartdemmg, catly, envwq, wyldraven, dmhlt 66, rhutcheson, JBL55, Bule Betawi, rsmpdx, ewmorr, bobatkinson, rem123, ayjaymay, Botopdawg, Mokurai, LOrion, ericlewis0, Dems in 08, stevenaxelrod, Save America, slice, Onomastic, annieli, I love OCD, Mr MadAsHell, Intheknow, FarWestGirl, Seattle Rod, mikejay611, deeproots, thomask, BarackStarObama, chickeeee, tardis10, IB JOHN, createpeace, worldlotus, TRPChicago, Andrew F Cockburn, Joe Jackson, Vatexia, this is only a test, GrafZeppelin127, jham710, DRo, Auriandra, Laurel in CA, YaNevaNo, joelgp, i saw an old tree today, angry marmot, TheLizardKing, Siri, We Won, IndieGuy, ahumbleopinion, rukidingme, 2thanks, This old man, kellius, doroma, Buckeye54, New Minas, Rixar13, etherealfire, rat racer, ShoshannaD, Dancun74, aresea, Drocedus, Aunt Pat, Jon Sitzman, the oklahoma kid, Fordmandalay, peterfallow, runfastandwin, tampaedski, Patango, duhban, ekgrulez1, skepticalcitizen, dreamweaver1, hamjudo, RightHeaded, Tony Situ, VPofKarma, Skyye, ptressel, DarthEVaderCheney, LiberalLoner, rabrock, Jakeston, paulex, mercedeslackey, hbk, lonelybamadem, Cynthia Hobgood Strauss, juliana44, liberaldad2, Shawn87, bobcat41702

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site