Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Maybe the" Trigger" plan rumour is being floated so that we will be grateful for the crap OPT OUT

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 08:49 PM
Original message
Maybe the" Trigger" plan rumour is being floated so that we will be grateful for the crap OPT OUT
when they present it? That way they can say "see? We got a public Option, a robust Public Option" "Okay, maybe it isn't for everyone and tough if your state opts out but hey, its "better than nothing", which is all Democrats seem capable of!
Why is it the GOP never bent over ass backwards to get precisley what they want? Why do we settle? Or are we? Is this what the Democrats actually want? ??????????? Because with control of both houses, as well as the WH we "should" be able to do better, unless we don't want to.
Sen, Schumer said the Democratic Senate worked as a"team" and would give the President "whatever HCR BIll he wanted". Maybe no one wants real HCR after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good point -- I hate the "opt out" but prefer it to a trigger...So I'm rooting for opt-out
I guess I'm being "played" just like everyone else.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I am not rooting for either of them. I want a plan that covers everyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Well yeah...me too....But making people like me prefer a bad plan reinforces your point
Edited on Fri Oct-23-09 08:56 PM by Armstead
Fuck it -- I think they ought to just say "Everyone is eligible for Medicare" and go from there.

But who are we? We don't seem to matter in any of this. It's all ablout placating the minority who don't want any reform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kermitt Gribble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
3. Many DUers are cheering for the opt out.
However, all they care about is a victory for the President - if tens of millions are left uninsured that's just collateral damage in the war of politics to them, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Thats because an opt out transforms this bill beyond health reform, into a political game
And I gotta wonder if they even care if the "red staters" gotta go through hell while they are hypothetically ousting their Republican law makers (who they elected because they were Republicans)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kermitt Gribble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Exactly.
"Republican law makers (who they elected because they were Republicans)" - These same republican lawmakers that they elected will be heros in their eyes.

And the Dem voters in these states will feel betrayed by the Dems who offered the opt out and either stay home or leave the party. Lose-lose situation, but according to some, these republican voters will miraculously change their ingrained warped beliefs and vote Dem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. I think the Rethugs will have a difficult time deciding to opt-out,
when it comes down to it. How many have opted out of Medicaid, for example?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. You're right......
Edited on Fri Oct-23-09 09:24 PM by Clio the Leo
.... I could give a flip about myself, my neighbors and my family. :sarcasm:

I would expound upon this, but I've already done so a dozen times now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WyLoochka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #6
155. Better than all of us going through hell
which we've been doing for 100 years because of the "conservatives" of both parties and their asinine ideology.

The rest of the country has shown more than enough patience waiting for the "let's move backwards" states to "get it."

And I'm saying that as someone who has lived in red states my entire adult life. It's mortifying to me, as a Democrat, to have these backwater dunderheads hold everyone else back.

I say get on with it blue states - take care of your people. Waiting for the red states is futile. It will never happen with the political stalemate as it is. Having the majority of states move forward will really shake things up and break the stalemate.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aramchek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #6
157. you always avoid the fact that all states will have to participate for the first few years
Do you honestly believe that Repukes will still have enough political will to opt out then?

You know this will not be the case, yet you keep pretending to be ignorant of this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #6
161. Sometimes you have to play political games to acheive progress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
19. I think if we have an "opt out" it will be much harder for the Rethugs
than they think. They will have a lot of pressure from their constituents to let them have the same plans other states have. In the end, I bet few decide to "opt out."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. "I think" no one has a crystal ball
What is consistently on the table is forcing people to buy insurance. Now, here is something that has the unlikely potential to limit their options to unethical and expensive shit. Why chance that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Overseas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #19
139. Or they'll do like Bobby Jindal-- grandstand about opting out
and then after letting it stand anyway, go for photo ops with people happy to finally be getting some health care using that public option.

(Like he did with the stimulus funding-- grandstanded then posed with giant checks bearing his name as the funding rolled in for stimulus projects.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #3
142. I think its a wonderful idea
It would be political suicide for republicans to actually exercise it, and they would know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
4. Look. I do not want a piece of shit
Instead, I demand my shit sandwich, now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
7. Opt out is brilliant
This afternoon, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY)--a very visible public option advocate--said he could back an opt-out clause. "I would accept and would be open to the idea, after the program's up and running a couple years, if a state wants to opt out, if they want to leave 25, 30, 50 thousand of their citizens without that choice," Weiner said. "I dont believe it's gonna happen. So i would accept that kind of an opt-out thing." Rockefeller likewise believes that, once consumers purchase in to the public option, they'll raise hell if their state governments try to take it away from them.

link


If any governor is dumb enough to try to yank health care from people, they better explore other job opportunities.

Medicaid also allows states to opt out.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Mandate a purchase but don't guarantee it'll affordable and responsible for all
Brilliant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. "Anthony Weiner (Democrat NY's 9th) for President 2012! "
Brilliant.

:rofl:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. You're a tad off topic.
Do you discuss issues, or do you just cut n paste and create straw man arguments?

I disagree with the general idea of an opt out and stated why (it doesn't guarantee all people can affordably satisfy mandates with useful health insurance). If you can refute that or add anything of value, I welcome you to continue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
22. Right. How many states have opted-out of Medicaid? None, because there'd
be hell to pay, politically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Then its a moot concession
If it will not effect the long term implementation of the law, it will not affect the votes. Unless congressmen and their lobbyist advisers are all fucking too retarded to think this through (quite an assumption). If it therefore has no consequence on the vote, then why create a loophole that could create hardship for some citizens, no matter how unlikely?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #24
31. If it's included, it will be because it WILL make a difference on the outcome
of this vote. What you're forgetting is that the interests of the conservatives in the U.S. Congress and the conservatives in the individual states are different. The conservative Senators and Representatives want to be able to wash their hands of this, IF it turns out to be unpopular in their states. They can say to their local governments: we voted for it but there's an opt-out clause: you decide!

But when it comes down to it, I think governors will be under strong pressure to not opt-out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. If it will make a difference on the outcome, it will likely make a difference on the implementation
Edited on Fri Oct-23-09 10:29 PM by Oregone
While I understand the political realities may make it all unlikely, I don't think that argument holds water to the slightest chance a large population will be denied a reasonable way to satisfy the mandate.


Thats a tough pill to swallow, though its easier if you are from a "blue state" and know it will never personally affect you if the worst case scenario happens. This bill will never affect me, but I still care about what is good social policy and the lives it touches
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. I disagree, since the interests of Federal and State politicians are not the same. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #22
30. No, because it's a legal entitlement
States are mandated to provide health coverage to the poor. States usually take all federal money though, like NCLB, because even if they bitch about the program they like having the money. I haven't heard any talk of block granting the money, maybe that's what they should have done. Although I don't like block grants either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #7
45. We finally agree. It is brilliant. And it will give the GOP little space to argue.
I think this was a stunningly brilliant last moment idea.

If we don't run with this thing, we are crazy.

Let the red state governors grandstand and say they'll opt out, give them the option to do so, but in the end, we know what will happen. They'll join too.

The Opt Out takes the bite right out of their bark. Brilliant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkansas Donating Member (701 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
9. I think the only way we get something remotely worthwhile is if it has a trigger or opt out
and I would prefer something decent for most of the country that my state may opt out of (though I doubt they would) instead of cutting of my nose to spite my face.

I do not like the trigger. At all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
10. A Robust Public Option in some states that Works as it Should would be GREAT.
It would become the reason for other states to follow suit.

Politicians not getting behind it will be asking for removal from office.

Seems pretty simple to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
11. I have it on good authority from an anonymous source that Trigger is dead
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
14. Christ. Some people want Opt-Out another crew want Trigger...for cripes sake. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
17. If they pass Opt-out, Big Insurance pays some $$ to states, they all opt out
and the public is still at their mercy. I will take that personally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. "and the public is still at their mercy"
More so. Now they are mandated to purchase insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
20. either way, you'll be more bitter then than you are now!
Edited on Fri Oct-23-09 09:47 PM by dionysus
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourguide Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #20
28. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Life Long Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
23. Yeah, some states have it and some states don't.
The same as dental care. Just one of those funding things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. And all states will have the mandates
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourguide Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. The bill isnt written yet, you know that how? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. The mandates seem to be the only thing that is consistently not up for debate in Congress
Edited on Fri Oct-23-09 10:24 PM by Oregone
Correct me if I'm wrong. Even Pelosi was publicly defending as of late.


If Opt-outs also came with the abolishment of mandates, thats a better step. Ive heard no chatter of the sort, period. While there is no final bill, there is enough to go on that people comment on daily (opt outs are among that). Have you seen but a single article about a named or unnamed source suggesting mandates would be dropped?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourguide Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #32
36. You really think they'd put a mandate in w/o a public option?
Do you really think our team is that stupid?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Reworded: "You really think they'd put a mandate in w/o a public option..." available universally?
Yes.

The Baucus bill was just one example, which had no public option at all and a mandate. The other bills had a public option, but not one that everyone could access universally. This is just another loophole to exclude even more people.

Id imagine that if either they drop the mandates or ENSURE everything single person could access the public option, a whole lot more people would be on board of this bandwagon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourguide Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. 1 bill of the 5 had a mandate w/o a public option...
and those concessions were made merely to pass committee. Procedural, nothing more.

Sorry, I dont think our team is that stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. All had mandates without *universally available* public options
Edited on Fri Oct-23-09 11:35 PM by Oregone
You seem to be missing that concept, eh?


Correct me if Im wrong, but I don't think a single bill allowed any ol person with an employer plan to instantly switch. People have to first have to meet exchange eligibility criteria
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourguide Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. I havent read each of the bills
but my understanding was your employer can't put you in the PO against your will, not the other way around. If we get a PO I plan to opt out of my employer plan and opt in to the PO. That was my understanding of the bills.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. "If we get a PO I plan to opt out of my employer plan and opt in to the PO"
Heh. Good luck.

You might wanna hope something like this is amended to the final bill:
http://wyden.senate.gov/newsroom/091709free_choice_amen...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. Another example:
HR 3200, sec 202

(d) Individuals-

(1) INDIVIDUAL DESCRIBED- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this subsection, an individual described in this paragraph is an individual who--

(A) is not enrolled in coverage described in subparagraphs (C) through (F) of paragraph (2);

(B) is not enrolled in coverage as a full-time employee (or as a dependent of such an employee) under a group health plan if the coverage and an employer contribution under the plan meet the requirements of section 312.

For purposes of subparagraph (B), in the case of an individual who is self-employed, who has at least 1 employee, and who meets the requirements of section 312, such individual shall be deemed a full-time employee described in such subparagraph.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #41
46. Better illustration:
Goto:
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/healthreform_sbs...

or for interactive:

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm

Look at "Individual Mandates". Look for "Creation of insurance pooling mechanisms" and search for "Restrict access to coverage..."

And you thought I was bitching and moaning about nothing?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #41
115. Good luck on that. It's my understanding
that if you are covered on an insurance plan you can not drop it and switch to the PO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southernyankeebelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
27. I don't like this idea. I live in a red state. I have good insurance my worry
is for the people who don't have any or pay allot of money for poor health insurance. It just doesn't seem fair for the people in the red states that have been fighting for the health option. I think the democrats have let us all down. Am to the point I don't trust anybody anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #27
48. Can you move?
Can those without insurance move to states that are less messed up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #48
53.  Only if they have money, which is kind of the way healthcare is now!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #53
160. How much money?
Last few times I moved, it cost much less than a single year's worth of health insurance premiums...

..and when I was really poor (living out of my car, literally), the cost of moving was the cost of fuel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #27
146. Red State Here Too! Florida! Wonder How This Will Be Helpful To
us? And I agree with you, it's extremely hard to have TRUST these days, AND it's hard to REALLY figure out what ANYONE is really saying!

Why can't someone just come out and say what the bottom line is? I think by now they pretty much KNOW how this thing is going to play out, and yet we are still sitting here and "wondering" all the time!

Time has come to find out what REALLY is going to pass or NOT pass! Seems like they are throwing confetti in the air and figuring what drops and sticks will be the TRUE ANSWER! I'm tired of guessing and tired of wondering!!!

This is not what one would call "speak softly and carry a big stick" it's "keep mum until we want you to know!" This thing has been figured and re-figured and tumbled around like something in a dryer. Or are they just playing poker and waiting to see who has the "best hand?" The sand in the hour glass is sifting downward.

JMHO!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
34. oh for gawds sake. No state is going to opt out, at least not for long. It's a bone with no meat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JimGinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-23-09 10:58 PM
Response to Original message
37. I Find It Humerous That The OP Posts Here...
And then talks about this board with her old PUMA buddies at the "Old Elm Tree", posting links from here for them to slam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #37
49. .
check your inbox.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #37
54.  I have never been a PUMA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JimGinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 03:09 AM
Response to Reply #54
60. So You Say...
I just ran across that board by happenstance, and while you may claim to never have been a PUMA, you sure "pal around" with them don't you?


Not to mention your own vile posts there...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #60
64. It is a wonderful board with varied opinions and people aren't allowed to attack one another.
You will never find a post anywhere in which I state I voted for anyone other than Obama in the GE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonteLukast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 04:23 AM
Response to Reply #64
76. Funny... I thought most of you supported...
Edited on Sat Oct-24-09 04:24 AM by MonteLukast
... the THIRD Dem running for president?

Hardly sounds like PUMA to me...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonteLukast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 04:00 AM
Response to Reply #60
71. That board is not a PUMA board.
There is a huge difference between it and the two most notorious PUMA boards. Huge difference in tone, and ideology.

Don't YOU have a "safe place" to go, to speak out about subjects you wouldn't find welcome around your family and friends, love them as you may, so to speak?

Keep that in mind...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JimGinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #71
117. This Sig Line From A Poster There Speaks Volumes...
~~~`RISE PUMA'S RISE~~


State Package for Hillary
You may write me down in history
With your bitter, twisted lies,
You may tread me in the very dirt
But still, like dust, Ill rise.

--Maya Angelou


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #117
119. No one on that board has ever said they wanted a republican
Edited on Sat Oct-24-09 09:59 AM by cornermouse
in office. No one. I don't know where you got that saying I haven't noticed it but then again, I don't run around other websites hunting for "heretics".

There are some independents, some socialists, and democratic voters who you chased away from DU and/or tombstoned. I don't know who you think you're talking about; possibly Maya Angelou? I guess you think people should not be allowed to post on more than one board? Or perhaps it's like saracat said. If you didn't jump on the Obama bandwagon immediately in the primaries or renounce and condemn Edwards at length with great bitterness you're not allowed to post on DU and not considered a democrat any more? You tell me. How many ways do you plan to split the democratic party pie?

One last shot across the bow. Do you realize that Lieberman is MORE welcome in the democratic party than Edwards? Think about that for a while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #117
149. The board is actually kind of interesting, now that you've given me a link
They don't put 9/11 queries in the dungeon. I like that. I've always had my doubts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #117
150. delete dupe
Edited on Sat Oct-24-09 12:59 PM by Nikki Stone1
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #60
113. Puma = republican.
Saracat is NOT a republican. Never was anywhere but in your imagination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #113
122. Amen.
And it's against DU rules to attack a loyal poster like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #60
121. Saracat does not make vile posts here. You're slandering her.
The primaries are over. And you need to get a grip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JimGinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #121
135. Here & There...
Different meanings. Look it up...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #135
140. Innuendo + no facts = slander
You're no better than Fox "News".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JimGinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #140
143. Check This Link...
http://oldelmtree.com/discussion/index.php/topic,2662.0...


"Innuendo + no facts = slander"... how appropos
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #143
144. And what am I looking for on this link?
So far, I see one interesting article:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cooke10132009.html
October 13, 2009

The Consequences of a Cheaper Dollar
What Obama Isn't Telling American Workers


A lot is happening in the tumultuous realm of global economics. The Great Recession has caused shifts internationally, with outcomes that will dramatically change the lives of millions of people in the U.S. and beyond. And while Obama is acknowledging this fact with repeated references to a new world order, he isnt explaining how this adversely affects working-class Americans.

The first unmentionable fact is the long-term decline of the dollar, a phenomenon that can now be considered government policy. The business magazine Forbes comments: The Treasury Department would never admit this, but for the time being it's in the country's interest to keep its currency low because it stimulates exports for the economy's manufacturing base and lowers the value of the debt that the Treasury is piling up. ....


This pretty much dovetails with what I see happening and with a lot of other articles that have appeared on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #144
145. And this one: "The Rich Have Stolen the Economy"
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts10162009.html
Weekend Edition
October 16-19, 2009

From Offshoring Jobs to Bailing Out Bankers
The Rich Have Stolen the Economy

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS


Bloomberg reports that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithners closest aides earned millions of dollars a year working for Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and other Wall Street firms. Bloomberg adds that none of these aides faced Senate confirmation. Yet, they are overseeing the handout of hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer funds to their former employers.

The gifts of billions of dollars of taxpayers money provided the banks with an abundance of low cost capital that has boosted the banks profits, while the taxpayers who provided the capital are increasingly unemployed and homeless.

JPMorgan Chase announced that it has earned $3.6 billion in the third quarter of this year.

Goldman Sachs has made so much money during this year of economic crisis that enormous bonuses are in the works. The London Evening Standard reports that Goldman Sachs 5,500 London staff can look forward to record average payouts of around 500,000 pounds ($800,000) each. Senior executives will get bonuses of several million pounds each with the highest paid as much as 10 million pounds ($16 million).

In the event the banksters cant figure out how to enjoy the riches, the Financial Times is offering a new magazine--How To Spend It.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #60
147. She WAS NEVER A PUMA!! I Know For Sure! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #60
165. Calling someone a PUMA
Almost a year after the election. Some of you guys can't let it go. I swear, I had to deal with this bullshit last year with the volunteers. Primary volunteers being nasty to other candidate volunteers who came over. I had to keep reminding them...we fucking won let it go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #54
138. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Lord Helmet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 03:55 AM
Response to Reply #37
70. Well can't say that's a surprise.
Maybe she doesn't know the crap she writes is visible to all on the interweb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonteLukast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 04:08 AM
Response to Reply #70
73. We ALL have thoughts that aren't "acceptable" to our main crowd
... and what do you do if you simply must talk about it, or it'll drive you crazy?

Simple. You find a place more receptive and hospitable, and TALK it out. Then you come back to your main crowd and talk about everything else.

So what if everything can be seen? She's not breaking any rules. No one is breaking any rules.

And remember: it is NOT crap to her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lord Helmet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 04:10 AM
Response to Reply #73
74. who's stopping her?
I find her duplicity hilarious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 04:36 AM
Response to Reply #74
82. What duplicity? I didn't support Obama in the primary. Obviously you have a problem with that.
We have primaries in the Democratic Party. We get to pick among candidates. He wasn't my pick. And I voted for him in the GE because he wasn't Mccain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #82
127. I supported Edwards in the primary; he was the only one speaking anti-corporate language
If Anthony Weiner runs in the next primary, I will support him. But someone would literally have to put a gun to my head to get me to vote Republican.

THE 2008 PRIMARY SEASON IS OVER.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #74
126. Clearly, you are trying to stop her. You've done everything but call for a pizza.
It's time for you to stop defending the indefensible. You just can't admit that the health care debate has been a disappointment to some of us since the best idea, single payer, was taken off the table long before Congress took this up. Now we're being asked to take less and less but HAVE A MANDATE to pay INSURANCE COMPANIES. Good Lord, this is the ideal of GOP healthcare. By law, we'll be required to make the rich even richer and impoverish ourselves as a result.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 04:32 AM
Response to Reply #70
80.  There are no posts I would take back. I wrote what I felt. So they are on the web?
Edited on Sat Oct-24-09 04:33 AM by saracat
I was never an Obama primary supporter. So what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #80
128. You don't need to defend yourself, saracat. These folks seem to have a vendetta for no reason
They are still upset that some people felt Hillary was the better candidate in 2008. But the election is over, loyal Dems voted for Obama, and now, some of them feel a little uneasy that instead of taking a stand on healthcare, he is waiting backstage and allowing real reform to be cut to shreds by a handful of Conservadems and ONE GOP Senator from Maine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #70
123. Yo, Lord Helmet. Is DU the only place you post?
Or should I follow you around the web looking for the porno websites you frequent?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #37
112. "humerous"
"Word not found in the Dictionary and Encyclopedia. Did you mean:
humorous humerus"

(sigh)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JimGinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #112
118. Thanks For The Spellcheck...
I notice you post there as well, and your thoughts on this board are also pretty telling...


On a side note though, when I go over there I try to keep in mind the fact that there are several trolls who have been allowed to remain, flourish and even take control to some extent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #118
125. It's true.
I wish it wasn't. Its one of the other reasons that drove me away for the most part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #118
129. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #129
134. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #118
136. I don't see how that's incriminating in the slightest bit.
And before you go searching, the only other forum I post at is a golf forum for the Jack Nicklaus:Golden Bear Challenge game.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #37
120. The Primary is over. We all elected Obama. Saracat is a loyal DUer and
it is AGAINST DU rules to slander her like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
44. I love the Opt Out.
It's fucking brilliant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #44
130. Politically, maybe, but some people will still die from a lack of health insurance
I find that unacceptable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #130
137. how would - some people still die
from lack of health insurance

if there is no opt out?

I've seen this claim made by several posters, yet I've never seen the reasoning behind it.

Please explain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #130
163. And if there is no bill then even more people will still die.
Lets get this straight, no matter how much we want Single Payer IT WILL NOT PASS.

I'd rather have less people dying than more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #163
166. Up is down.
Right is left.
Backward is forward...

Voila'. Illogic becomes logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #166
167. No, methinks you are the one needing a logic lesson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 01:13 AM
Response to Original message
47. Us blue states could use the medical tourism... and new residents...
..and votes, and house seats, and new friends from all over the country. If the red states are hell bent on turning themselves into third world countries, that's up to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #47
114. Case in point.
Edited on Sat Oct-24-09 08:39 AM by cornermouse
Perfect example of what I was talking about. Hatred and contempt for those who live in red states. If that's not a big part of dividing the democratic party I don't know what would be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #114
159. Hatred or contempt for a state is not the same as hatred or contempt of a person.
Why do those who "live in the red" conflate the two?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Politics_Guy25 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 02:26 AM
Response to Original message
50. Yes thank you for posting out the Grand Elm Tree and this poster
Also, one may want to review the poster's opinions of the 2008 battle for the democratic nomination as well and take everything stated in the OP with an enormous grain of salt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #50
52. Ad hominem
Ive never heard of the "Grand Elm Tree" (though it sounds like a hilarious elf fest), but....

"take everything stated in the OP with an enormous grain of salt"

Okey dokey. Opt-outs are numero uno because someone you claim is biased is against them. Hell of an argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 02:56 AM
Response to Reply #52
56. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 02:59 AM
Response to Reply #56
58. I just don't think that invalidates the argument at hand
A broke clock is right twice a day, ya know. Might be one of those times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moses2SandyKoufax Donating Member (621 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #58
61. I understand, and agree
the opt-out isn't the ideal solution. Just asking that posters keep certain things in perspective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 03:23 AM
Response to Reply #61
66. Well, people should keep in perspective...
that Obama was my pick in the primaries, and because I analyze and criticize policy (much of which is not his direct call), I am branded as an Obama-hater.

Sometimes at the end of the day, people are just looking for a way to use labels and attacks to stifle dissent and avoid actually defending positions. Unfortunately, for some reason, this whole thing about who is in the White House has become incredibly personal, and at least on this board, is obscuring the debate about actual issues. I care primarily about the later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #66
111. There's a lot of branding and
labeling on this thread that simply isn't true.

I disagree with the public option because I think and have always thought it was inadequate for the need and if we're going to spend huge amounts of money we might as well do something that makes a real difference and meets the need instead of doing something that is intended to look good without actually changing anything. j

I think the opt out will turn out to be a disaster for the democratic party. I really do. I am well aware of the fact that people on DU think it will be a well deserved punishment for the republican party, red states, and those who live in the red states and small towns and rural areas. I should add that here on DU I have seen very lengthy threads that displayed their contempt for people who live in middle America and/or outside of large cities. Nevertheless, people are already stretched to their limit with their monthly bills and to load another monthly bill (and not a small one either) and tell them "You have insurance" while ignoring the fact that there IS a co-pay (something you will never see talked about on DU. Why?) and people who were barely making their bills every month simply won't have the co-pay leaving them without healthcare or the healthcare facilities saddled with unpaid bills and possible (if there are enough of them) bankruptcy.

If the "trigger" is weaker than the opt out I don't know why anyone would vote for it or want it unless its to make us want opt out like saracat says. IF so, that is a despicable tactic.

In the end, it looks to me like Obama had the potential to become another FDR. National circumstances of job loss much larger than is reported, loss of purchase power, levels of corruption in the halls of power were all aligned for him to step into the White House and become the new FDR and from what I've seen he has not. That's an awful thought. The republican party started losing their minds back when Reagan came to office. They're now somewhere in the fringe of lunacy. I do not look forward to another republican in the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #111
132. +1
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moses2SandyKoufax Donating Member (621 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #50
55. Also understand that
nothing this administration does will satisfy the op.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #55
133. You don't know that. If Obama's people had come out with a strong single payer plan
instead of taking it off the table, a lot of us would have felt better about this legislation. I am not blaming Obama, but his advisors aren't looking out for what is best for everyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #50
57. When have I ever denied my primary opinion? Once again you infer that
those that did not support Obama in the primary are not entitled to an opinion today on HCR or anything else. Fits right along with the opinion that red states should be "punished" with an opt out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moses2SandyKoufax Donating Member (621 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #57
59. Maybe the "red states"
should be forced to suffer the consequences of their political actions? Maybe your fellow red staters should reevaluate their priorities and the criteria they use to select public office holders?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #59
62. Funny how you want to extract vengeance on anyone who doesn't agree with you
and apparently could care less about the Democrats who have worked there buns off in those states. My state party actually contributed a lot to the the Blue state candidates because we had one of the weathiest stae parties in the nation. And you think we should be punished for contributing to the victories across the nation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moses2SandyKoufax Donating Member (621 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #62
63. Elections have consequences.
Edited on Sat Oct-24-09 03:28 AM by Moses2SandyKoufax
I'm in no mood for "vengeance", just think the saner states(those that aren't governed and inhabited by an abundance of religious zealots, gun worshipers, anti-government teabaggers, and randians)shouldn't be held back from progress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 03:21 AM
Response to Reply #63
65.  So, the Democrats punish their own for supporting them?
Some don't have the faintest idea what it means to be a Democrat. The unions have been attacked lately as well as women, choice isn't important anymore and the LGBT have been mocked.Democrats stand for equal rights and health care for ALL, not just "Blue" states and honestly not just heath care for Democrats. Democrats work for ALL the people.

Human rights and heath care are for ALL people and not just a politcal grudge match.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moses2SandyKoufax Donating Member (621 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 04:05 AM
Response to Reply #65
72. I agree with 99.9% of that.
Edited on Sat Oct-24-09 04:10 AM by Moses2SandyKoufax
Many congressional Democrats don't have the faintest idea what it means to be a member of the party because they haven't been members for long. Life long Democrats were asked to welcome pols like Heath Shuler and Jim Webb because they came along at a time when being a Democrat provided an easier path to power. These folks will be the first to jump ship when being a member of our party is no longer expedient or "fashionable".

My only disagreement with your post is that the electorate has a responsibility. They are responsible for researching and making wise choices when it comes to electing candidates for public office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 04:25 AM
Response to Reply #72
77. And I agree with this post.one of my major complaints about rahm Emmanuel is the courting of folks
like Schuler and Webb. I actually donated to Webb's primary opponent because I just couldn't understand why the party would not support the viable pro-choice woman who was running. Saraficing what I consider to be a keystone issue to make politcal points isn't acceptable to me.

I think the Democratic Party has a responsibility to educate the electorate as well. I could give you countless examples of their refusal to do so.We also have a responsibility to GOTV, and in many states, we don't do that either. My state is much more closely aligned between parties than folks realize. The numbers by registration are fairly close , though indies may end up being the majority, and the Democrats don't vote. the GOP always does, and the fruitloop GOOP much more than the moderates. In primaries, only fruitloop GOPers vote so they get fruitloop fundie candidates as nominees.Then all the R's vote for them just because they have an R after their name.

I can't tell you how often I encounter R's who have no idea what their candidate stands for. One race my husband was in the voulunteers of the opposition told me that they were enviornmentalists and cared for the preserves. I asked if they new my husband's opponent had the worst enviornmental record in the state senate.They didn't know. They had already voted but they shredded the stuff and left. Imagine if they had known?

The candidates can only do so much.The state parties need to help educate the voters on both sides and let them know what being a Democrat means.And the state and local parties need to get the Democrats to vote The DNC needs to help with local races and OFA could be a useful tool but they aren't. They just rehash Obama 2008 and are already running a reelection campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moses2SandyKoufax Donating Member (621 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 04:55 AM
Response to Reply #77
86. I still believe
Edited on Sat Oct-24-09 04:56 AM by Moses2SandyKoufax
that despite the short-term positive result, the 2006 election might be a long-term negative for the party.

Your absolutely right, the state parties need to help educate voters on what being a Democrat means. Too bad they don't have a better, more effective national party to emulate. :(

As i said earlier in this thread: I don't believe the opt-out is a desirable outcome. Sometimes my cynical side just gets the best of me. :( And for that I apologize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 05:00 AM
Response to Reply #86
87.  I think mine does as well, and perhaps I am overzealous in my
desire for health care for all but it is because I know how desperately that I need it and I am sure others need it as well, and I am very aware that many don't have the time to wait for it. Thank you so much for your response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moses2SandyKoufax Donating Member (621 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 05:08 AM
Response to Reply #87
91. I don't think a person
can be "overzealous" when it comes to something like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 05:11 AM
Response to Reply #91
93. Well, some don't think I have the right to be. Health care was always
one of my priority issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moses2SandyKoufax Donating Member (621 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 05:20 AM
Response to Reply #93
96. I'm damn glad you are. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonteLukast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 04:31 AM
Response to Reply #72
78. Delete dupe
Edited on Sat Oct-24-09 04:38 AM by MonteLukast
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonteLukast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 04:31 AM
Response to Reply #72
79. Thanks for doing the big thing and making a good debate...
... out of your disagreement.

Remember, we ALL can be "a few beers short of a case" if we're heavily emotionally invested in what we're saying.
Me, I post over there because I like to talk about a certain persona non grata Dem, at length and analysis... if I did the same over here, I'd ignite enough flame wars for a thousand Twilights of the Gods.

That being said, finding out Heath Shuler was part of The Family made me :wow: . Oh. Em. Gee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moses2SandyKoufax Donating Member (621 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 05:05 AM
Response to Reply #79
89. Upon further review,
I don't think Saracat and I disagree on much! Certainly not HCR. Saracat is a strong and heavily devoted Democrat, and I'm grateful to have her on my side.

I would like to take back that "beers" comment I made. It was said in the heat of the moment, and I would like to offer my sincere apology. If Sara doesn't feel like accepting it I can understand. I went way over the line and regret typing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 05:15 AM
Response to Reply #89
94.  I happily accept your apology, and I am honored to have you on our side as well!
I appreciate your well thought out arguments. And your willingness to debate!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moses2SandyKoufax Donating Member (621 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 05:22 AM
Response to Reply #94
97. Debate without resorting to petty name-calling,
I think that's a DU first!

very glad you accepted I felt horrible as soon as I hit "post".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 05:33 AM
Response to Reply #97
100.  You can delete if it isn't too late! I sometimes have to do that! LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moses2SandyKoufax Donating Member (621 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 05:37 AM
Response to Reply #100
101. Sorry,
it appears to be too late. I alerted on it and requested its removal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 05:41 AM
Response to Reply #101
103. Actually I have got to say, alerting on yourself is pretty funny!
I don't think I was aware we could even do that! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moses2SandyKoufax Donating Member (621 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 06:11 AM
Response to Reply #103
108. I wasn't sure either! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 03:27 AM
Response to Reply #59
67. I don't think any Americans should be "forced to suffer"
Edited on Sat Oct-24-09 03:28 AM by Oregone
Even if you can attempt to abstractly justify the suffering through some political argument.

If this is the mindset driving health care reform, I hope the lawmakers can take a step back and realize that they are supposed to be lifting a society up, rather than punishing the dumb and ignorant that have been repressed to no fault of their own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moses2SandyKoufax Donating Member (621 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 03:50 AM
Response to Reply #67
68. No fault of their own?
These citizens you are referring to not only participate in elections, they also happily vote against their best interests. As a matter of fact, many of these people vote this way just to spite liberals.

Last year, 59,000,000 Americans decided there was nothing wrong with America that couldn't be fixed by allowing the eight more years of the same failed policies that put this country in a ditch(ignoring and dismissing our ideas along the way). Why do you think they'll start listening to us now? This might be something they have to learn on their own.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #68
69. While their choices may be detrimental, they are but products of their environments
Perfectly crafted idiots by the ruling class. But they are still human. Crafting policy as a punishment isn't going to encourage them to be your friends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonteLukast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 04:21 AM
Response to Reply #69
75. Policy doesn't work as punishment...
... for anyone. It wins no friends and hurts a good policy that should work for everyone.

If you REALLY want to punish, I say incorporate some public humiliation for being idiots. To make them feel ashamed to be heartless and greedy.

This will work on all but the 1-4% of people who are sociopaths. They're other animals altogether.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #50
131. Why would you discount someone's opinion because they backed another primary candidate?
Are you trying to compete with the freepers in mindlessness?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #50
154. Grand Elm Tree??? Boy Oh Boy -- Some Of Us Truly Believed In What
someone called the THIRD DEMOCRAT!! We were a really good bunch of people too! WE didn't have ANYTHING to do with what actually happened, but I'd bet you at least "one dollar" that MOST of us actually worked and voted for Obama, thus we DO have a RIGHT to state our opinions here and NOW!!

And, FWIW... I do recall him saying that "you can't sit down at the table to eat with the insurance companies and big pharma, because they'll eat all the food!" The quote isn't exact, but the meaning is there. AND it seems THEY ARE EATING ALL THE FOOD, or at least MOST of it!!!

What he did isn't being condoned, but need I remind many here that there were OTHER DEMOCRATS who "screwed around" a bit too!! Was it Hillary or not who said she would "stand by her man" when it was PRETTY obvious to MOST of us that Bill had a "few" on the side??

And Bill turned out okay and had TWO terms, and even then got caught with his "er hand in the cookie jar" AGAIN!! I just went to see him speak here in my town and he's done some very good things since he left office. And need I remind you also that he signed into law some things that haven't turned out very well. What shall we file that under?? S--t HAPPENS!

I RARELY attack another here, but when others attack people for supporting another Democrat who made a huge mistake, I feel a need to comment.

John Edwards is paying dearly for what he did, that much I'm sure of, but remember... or maybe your mother never told you... THERE IS SOME GOOD IN EVERYONE!! It may NOT be directed at you OR for you, but there is good they direct at their own!

And John Edwards still believes POVERTY here in America should be a PRIORITY, and for that I applaud him! And yes, I feel Elizabeth didn't deserve it, but if John Ensign is still electable, what does that say for any of us??? I KNOW, he's a REPUKE, but bet that dollar again and you just might find quite a few Democrats that haven't been outed yet. And may I be forgiven, mainly because I really loved the guy... it seems to me that "Teddy" had some "splainin" to do also!! John & Bobby too! And I cried for weeks after Bobby!

Flame away... but there's such a thing a forgiveness!! Maybe Elizabeth will leave him in the end, who knows... but that's the way the cookie crumbles!

JMHO!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msallied Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 02:32 AM
Response to Original message
51. I will take a bill with a PO and an opt out over a bill without a PO.
Giving states the option to opt out will make it seem much less like the Feds "forcing their will" on states rights. But at the same time, it would be political suicide for them to opt out just as it would for them to opt out of Medicaid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 04:34 AM
Response to Original message
81. what do you want , saracat? a good health plan...
as good as it has ever gotten, ever, even if it's not as good as the rest of civilised countries have, or do you just want to piss and moan?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonteLukast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 04:38 AM
Response to Reply #81
83. What concerns me is...
... if there's a nasty surprise in the bill.

Like the minimum wage increase Colorado approved in 2006. Little did we know that there was a clause tucked inside that tied the increase to inflation. This year, the minimum wage is actually decreasing because we're in deflation. Nice little gotcha, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 04:49 AM
Response to Reply #83
85. I do understand the distrust as we've been marinated in it...
but sometimes there are good things trying to happen to be taken at face value.

I do not think Obama is selling us out, I believe he is just playing the game as best he can with that huge corporate deck stacked, with all the filthy history to hurdle over to get what he and all really want
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 04:43 AM
Response to Reply #81
84. i want the democratic party and the president to man up and get us a public heath care plan
that covers everyone,ALL citizens. If we can't do that, controlling both houses of congress and the WH, we sure aren't worth much. I want us to stop compromising. there is no need for it. How was it the GOP never had the need to compromise? There is NO reason for us NOT to offer health care for all NOW. We may never get another chance. I simply do not "trust" them to fix it or get it for us down the road when they can't do it with all the cards in their hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 05:01 AM
Response to Reply #84
88. I want what you want.
It's a travesty that the US is a third world country in health care compared to others.
And it's taken This Long, So Long.... for a president to really try and get to this point of possibility of improvement,... and he gets flack for it. I dont understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 05:09 AM
Response to Reply #88
92.  Because he is compromising when there isn't a necessity for it.
That is the main thing that is making folks angry. The GOP NEVER compromised on anything and now that we control both houses and the WH, we should not either. Bipartisaship is a myth. that is what the flack is about. the President should be saying "Yes, we can" to affordable health care for ALL Americans and not make any concession such as the opt out or the trigger.
Some folks are angry because this looks more like concern for conservative Dems and retaining the majority in the midterms than is looks like real HCR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 05:25 AM
Response to Reply #92
99. glass half empty or half full
I say again, this is the best closest possibility to something possibily semi-good coming out of it that may affect millions positively - who else has come close to this challenge 9 months into a new admin, to dare challenge that sacred cow?. Your system is so very different than others of the western (civilised? hahahah) world. You are the military state, you make death not health, you make wealth from death, that is where your money goes.

Give him a little more time. He is neither the idiot that ruled 8 years before him, nor the sell out of the previous 8.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 05:38 AM
Response to Reply #99
102.  If your gonna challenge, challenge ALL the way. There is a bit of protection
for the insurance industry going on here, and it doesn't advance the cause. The same for the deal with Big Pharma. No one will convince me it is necessary to kiss their butt at the expense of people dying. Some people have little or no time to "give".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 05:53 AM
Response to Reply #102
106. I don't see Obama kissing up to Pharma or Insurance...
he is just making them, and everyone, see things as they are... predatory marketing. but he does that in a special way without being overly combative - until he needs to be. Just feeling the climate for now. He will make them submit, he will. Even if in a small way, it will be big for everyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 05:56 AM
Response to Reply #106
107. I hope you are correct. The closed door meeting with Big Pharms did little to inspire hope in me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 06:58 AM
Response to Reply #107
109. but...maybe he could have said:

looky here. you deal with me, I'm not fucking around...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 05:45 AM
Response to Reply #99
104.  And as for what he is, we have no idea as yet.Perhaps when we have a real bill
and other legislation, we will have a better picture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #104
110. half empty
thats too bad.
I think we have a chance at fullness never like for years...
maybe decades.
I'm sorry you feel so sorry
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moses2SandyKoufax Donating Member (621 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 05:06 AM
Response to Reply #84
90. Once again we agree!
I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 05:18 AM
Response to Reply #90
95. Hey, it happens! LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moses2SandyKoufax Donating Member (621 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 05:23 AM
Response to Reply #95
98. Thanks for helping me boost my post count.
At this rate I might hit 1000 by the 2012 GOP primaries!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 05:48 AM
Response to Reply #98
105.  Thanks in part to you, I may hit 22,000 soon! But I have been here awhile
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #98
116. That will work, I have been here since before
2003 and lurked here from right after Inauguration day when I saw the banner on TV. I had 30 posts until the 2008 primaries. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
124. Saracat, I was wondering the same thing, especially considering Matt Taibbi's article
where he told how single payer was taken off the table before all this ever started. It seems like we're being asked to be grateful for any small, narrowly targeted, unevenly applied public option that will serve very few people while the rest of us fork over more and more money to the health insurance cartel. Whatever folks like Anthony Weiner might want to do, the WH has been very careful to allow the conservative Dems to control the ball.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
141. "Public Option Likely to Be Managed by Private Insurance Company"
Source: Washington Post / Raw Story

Public option likely to be managed by private insurance company

By John Byrne
Saturday, October 24th, 2009 -- 7:31 am

A little-noticed tidbit in Saturday's Washington Post is sure to raise eyebrows among liberal supporters of a gorvernment-run healthcare plan: the plan is likely to be administered by a private insurance company, the very companies that progressive activists are trying to unseat.

"The public-option debate is frustrating some Democrats, who have come to believe that a government-run plan is neither as radical as its conservative critics have portrayed, nor as important as its liberal supporters contend. Any public plan is likely to have a relatively narrow scope, as it would be offered only to people who don't have access to coverage through an employer.

The public option would effectively be just another insurance plan offered on the open market. It would likely be administered by a private insurance provider, charging premiums and copayments like any other policy. In an early estimate of the House bill, the Congressional Budget Office forecast that fewer than 12 million people would buy insurance through the government plan"

http://rawstory.com/2009/10/public-option-managed-priva...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #141
148. Actually, letting the people all ready equipped manage it means it gets off the ground faster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #148
151. Same logic behind putting Blackwater in charge of wars and Wackenhut in charge of prisons
And we know what's happening with those.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phleshdef Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #151
152. Not the same logic at all. Its the difference between regulated and unregulated.
The problem was NEVER hiring contractors, the problem was ALWAYS hiring contractors and letting them do whatever they wanted to do without oversight or regulation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #152
153. And you think in our current climate these private companies will be regulated?
Uh... I have a bridge to sell you....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aramchek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
156. just because you live in a Red State, you oppose our best chance at a PO?
don't be so selfish.

Your State will not have the guts to opt out after all its uninsured citizens have been covered for a couple years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #156
158. Just because you live in a Blue State, you find it morally acceptable to deny millions
of citizens access to health care ? Is it selfish to ensure that ALL have access? And exactly WHY should we have to compromise like this? I thought we "won" in Nov. The GOP NEVER compromises. And why are we "compromising" with peoples lives.the political expediency, taking the risk with lives, in order to protect the majority in the midterms, is what is selfish.

As for guts, which I think would be stupidity, my state indeed would have the stupidity to opt out.They never accepted the Federal funding for NCLB because they wouldn't follow the rules and they were the last state to accept the stimulus and the GOP candidates campaigning on the issue of the "horror" of the acceptance of what they say is "immoral" funding are the most popular.The GOP accidental appointed Gov is likely not to run for election because the GOP are running her out on a rail for accepting the stimulus, albeit only after she closed almost all social services in an attempt not to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #158
164. I find it morally unacceptable for there to be no bill.
less people not have access is better then more, even if it is not perfect or ideal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
162. Opt-Out is brilliant
Edited on Sat Oct-24-09 05:24 PM by Odin2005
State legislatures that vote to opt out after it has been in place for a few years will face political suicide.

The whiners that don't like it because it is a "political game" can go pound sand
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jesus_of_suburbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-24-09 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
168. saracat, I thought this exact same thing.
they're lowering expectations so that we'll rejoice when we get something slightly better


and all the usual suspects will chime in with how lucky we are to get an opt-out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Nov 27th 2014, 01:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC