Senator Mary Landrieu's "Keeping the Affordable Care Act Promise Act" would require insurance companies to keep offering people the plans they have right now as long as they keep paying their premiums. It's the kind of poll-tested idea that's good politics, and horrible, horrible policy. That's because it's a good thing if some people lose their plans. That's how reform should work, the White House's false promises and hopelessly bungled roll-out, notwithstanding.The individual insurance market doesn't work. You can't get insurance if you are sick, and don't get much insurance if you become sick. In other words, insurers won't sell policies to people with preexisting conditions, and sell insufficient policies to healthy people. As Jonathan Cohn explains, these insufficient policies often don't cover things like prescription drugs and won't cover high out-of-pocket expenses. And if your plan wasn't insufficient, insurance companies would look for excuses to cancel it after-the-fact if you did become seriously ill—what's known as "rescission."Obamacare tries to fix these problems with the individual market—and the inescapable logic of that is some people will end up paying more than before. Here's why in three steps. First, Obamacare makes insurers offer everyone the same policies at the same prices regardless of preexisting conditions (though not age). But bare bones coverage with high out-of-pockets, and even lifetime limits, isn't much use if you're sick. So, second, it sets minimum benefit levels. But what about healthy people who already have individual policies that don't meet these levels? Well, if they had those plans before Obamacare was passed in March 2010, and those plans haven't changed at all since, they can keep them. Otherwise, they can't. [That's an oversimplification of the ACA's grandfathering rules -- J.] They have to buy conforming plans that are almost certainly more expensive. Because, third, Obamacare needs healthy people paying for more than just catastrophic (and even junk) insurance to help pay for all the sick people now getting coverage. In other words, Obamacare needs health insurance to be...insurance.
Your one-stop shop for news, views and getting clues. I AM YOUR INFORMATION FILTER, since 2006.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
It's OK some health plans got cancelled
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Obama lacks the 'leadership thing'
Sunday, September 23, 2012
American Dream v. American Lotto
![]() |
| Today Ben Franklin would be scratching lotto cards. |
Thursday, August 9, 2012
GOP's political rehabilitation of Bill Clinton
![]() |
| We must harken back to our fathers' wholesome, anti-American radicalism of the 90s to save our country |
Ah, the 90s. Believe it or not, I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy daily, read all Ayn Rand's "masterpieces," and subscribed to National Review. I voted for Bob Dole! I really drank the kooky conservative Kool-Aid.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Ames: Newsmax blog advocated treason until lefty blogs called them out
Zoinks! I think I heard a liberal blogger!
This is just like America's rightwing pussies: all bluster and no fight. When no one's looking, they're screaming crazy treasonous shit like they're badass revolutionaries, but at the first whiff of liberal-blogger criticism, they're fleeing with their tails between their legs.
Yesterday, on a rightwing webzine site called Newsmax, one of their columnists called for the US military to overthrow President Obama, in order to "resolve the 'Obama Problem.'" The column, headlined "Obama Risks a Military 'Intervention,'" laid out a nerdoid fantasy-scenario in which the U.S. military ousts Obama, and the junta rules America for an interim period to "restore" the Constitution:
Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
You can almost smell author John L. [for "Loser"] Perry's urine-scented basement bedroom and sticky underwear wafting up from each word of his waffentwerp fantasy column.
In the great tradition of waffentwerp loudmouths like Perry, as soon as a few liberals started to blog his article, the yeasty pussies at Newsmax screamed "RETREAT!" and pulled the article down, and used the ol' grammar school excuse of "I've never even seen this guy in my life!" claiming that Perry isn't even on Newsmax's payroll. Translation: WE'RE TOO AFRAID TO STAND BEHIND OUR YAPPING POODLES.
It's like the screaming loudmouth jerk who makes a lot of noise about "I'll kick yer fuckin ass man!" but then when the other guy finally gets tired of it and starts to lift himself from his barstool, the loudmouth flees like Snagglepus, exit stage left, even. Fucking pathetic.
I'll write more about this soon, but a couple of points to note:
1. I've been following the angry-rightwing's obsession over the military coup in Honduras which overthrew the democratically-elected leftwing president, Manuel Zelaya. If you've watched how the rightwingers have framed that coup, it's been clear that they see it as both a proxy-coup for the battle they believe is unfolding in America, and a blueprint for how to get rid of Obama.
2. Since the John Loser Perrys of America are truly such big gigantic pussies that they can't feel safe without guns, it's time some of us who don't want to be part of John Loser Perry's twerp fantasy to brush up on our marksmanship skills at the local shooting range too.
And now, just to make sure that this article is posted in as many places as possible, I give you the mighty John L. Perry's coup blueprint:
Obama Risks a Domestic Military 'Intervention'
Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:35 AM
By: John L. Perry
Article Font Size ![]()
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:
Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States." Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized. They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office. They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments. They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home. They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag. They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time. They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, "I'm not interested in victory") that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse? Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?
Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America's military leadership is lost in a fool's fog.
Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility?
Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."
In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.
John L. Perry, a prize-winning newspaper editor and writer who served on White House staffs of two presidents, is a regular columnist for Newsmax.com. Read John Perry's columns here.
Here we go again... Impeach Obama Campaign
Brought to you by the guy who claims he initiated the Whitewater investigation, which started with digging into a funny-smelling land deal, and ended with discovering a funny-smelling cigar and a jizz-stained dress. If not for the efforts of brave and patriotic Republicans like Floyd to bring them into the public light, that cigar and dress could have destroyed America like hidden nuclear suitcase bombs.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Census makes it official: W. worst prez ever
Monday, July 13, 2009
Taibbi: Goldman Sachs is a bubble machine
I don't think this is the whole article, but in addition to long excerpts are videos of Taibbi and others talking about Goldman and the financial crisis.
For a scanned version of the RS article, go to Zero Hedge, or here.
The Great American Bubble Machine
Matt Taibbi on how Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression
By Matt Taibbi
July 2, 2009 | Rolling Stone
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Retrospective: National Nightmare of Clinton Era Finally Over
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Hillary's baggage

Fair or unfair, Hillary Clinton's nomination would initiate an exhumation and post mortem of the Bill Clinton years. Her campaign wouldn't be a debate about the future, but rather a constant defensive reaction to her critics' re-hashing arguments and scandals from the past. And meanwhile, the real tragedy of 8 years of Bush-Republican rule would be set to one side. Do we really want that?
Contrast that with an Obama nomination. We'd leave all that Clinton junk behind us. We'd be hopeful for real change. And Obama would have the moral authority to take on Bush's record and offer us something better.
The Baggage Hillary Bears
By Eugene Robinson
February 5, 2008 | Washington Post
[...]
That's the unfair part -- mostly unfair, at least. There's no way that Hillary Clinton would go to the considerable trouble of running for president in order to let her husband make the decisions, as if the Clinton marriage were out of a 1950s sitcom. Hillary has her people -- longtime friends, supporters, aides -- just as Bill has his. If she made it to the White House, her people would be the ones with real power; if his people didn't like it, there wouldn't be much they could do but grumble.
But Hillary Clinton opens the door to all the questions and suspicions about Bill's role. Has she made a single campaign appearance without claiming that "for 35 years" she's been fighting for this, that or the other?
"When she tries to portray herself as a battle-scarred political veteran and Obama as an ingenue, she counts the years she spent as first lady in Little Rock and Washington. When she adds the policy successes of the 1990s (but not the failures) to her résumé, she implies that she was part of a co-presidency. It's legitimate to ask whether she intends to be part of another.
[...]
Questions about Hillary's role in the Clinton administration, and about Bill's business and philanthropic ventures since he left office, are not just fair but necessary.
Why won't the Clintons speed up the release of White House papers that would let us see what kind of authority Hillary Clinton enjoyed? Who donated how much to the Clinton presidential library, and might those donors expect anything from a Hillary Clinton administration? What business tycoons have snuggled up to the former president, and what -- other than the chance to bask in the radiance of his wit -- did they hope to get out of the exercise?
Would Bill return to his foundation and its high-profile international projects? If so, would that work be coordinated with Hillary's foreign policy? Could donors be sure that the foundation's priorities were still being set independently, in accord with what they were told when they wrote the check?
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Why doesn't W get credit for the economy?

This blog post from Krugman links to some great charts, especially the last one, which shows how GDP grew more under Clinton than Reagan, and Bush I and II are at the bottom of the presidential pile!
Going back to Kennedy, the GDP has grown more with Democrats in the White House. Interpret that as you will!
Why Doesn't Bush Get Economic Credit?
By Paul Krugman
January 28, 2008 | New York Times
URL: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/why-doesnt-bush-get-economic-credit/

