Sunday, November 17, 2013
Chris Hayes Tells Us The Truth About The A.C.A. Rollout
Chris Hayes nails it on the A.C.A. roll-out and calls out the hyenas in the MSM and the right who have done all they could to sabotage, obstruct, and misinform the American people on this badly needed health care legislation.
The right has no alternative to the A.C.A.
All they have is NO! NO! NO!
Take it away, Chris:
In Addition To Premium Credits, Health Law Offers Some Consumers Help Paying Deductibles And Co-Pays
Saturday, November 16, 2013
The Right Blogsphere and the Debasing of Michelle Obama
I had to attend to some family matters over the past few days, so I was unable to respond to several other comments on the blog that featured this photo of Mrs. Obama:
Me Claimable Ho
I don't understand how someone who had the intelligence and insight to write this:
"The atmosphere throughout the blogosphere is malignant. It is bound to have a deleterious effect on our health both mental and physical, if we remain involved with it much longer. The blogs have become nothing but a repository for childish hatred, extreme cynicism, insolence, bilious rhetoric, malevolence, spite, and lunacy."
would put up a post with no purpose other than to mock, malign, slander, smear denigrate, insult, demean, and debase Michelle Obama. There's no humor in implying with a specially selected anagram of her name that the First Lady of the United States is either a whore or like a whore. Everyone with a functioning brain knows what the word "Ho" stands for, and especially what it insinuates when placed under the photo of a black woman.
As I said in one of my comments, Mrs. Obama is a loving wife and mother who has comported herself with grace, intelligence, and good humor as our First Lady.
I wonder how humorous the people on the right would find it if anyone placed an unflattering photo of either Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan with the word "Ho" under it.
What is the purpose of engaging in something as base as that with this First Lady? The only explanation I can come to is that it is a deliberate attempt at "putting her in her place." And what motivates that sort of sneering degradation of a woman [who has done nothing more than embrace a cause, as all first ladies do, and promote it]--what motivates that sort of venom can only be guessed at. And it's just horribly depressing to think about what the underlying motive really is.
Unfortunately when people engage in such character assassination just for the fun of it, the result is just more childish hatred, extreme cynicism, insolence, bilious rhetoric, malevolence, spite, and lunacy, we all wish were not part of our attempt at talking to each other.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
CBS's 60 Minutes and Lara Logan's Benghazi Hoax
Frank Rich, writing in New York Magazine brings up some serious questions about Logan's involvement in the now discredited report CBS's 60 Minutes ran on the Benghazi tragedy.
Here is Rich:
"Lara Logan’s story was not a mere journalistic mistake, but a hoax comparable to such legendary frauds as Life magazine’s purchase of the billionaire Howard Hughes’s nonexistent “autobiography” in the seventies and Rupert Murdoch’s similarly extravagant embrace of the bogus Hitler “diaries” in the eighties. In Logan’s case, she perpetrated an out-and-out fictional character: a pseudonymous security contractor who peddled a made-up “eyewitness” account of the murder of four Americans in Benghazi.
The point seemed to be to further Benghazi as a conservative political cause (instead, Logan’s hoax boomeranged and extinguished it) and to melodramatically exploit the tragic slaughter of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues as titillating prime-time network entertainment. Logan’s phony source, who in fact was at a beachside villa and not on site to witness anything, cooked up violent new “details” for the Benghazi narrative that seemed to have been lifted from a Jean Claude Van Damme movie.
Here are a few questions that Logan’s “apology” — every bit as bogus as the story itself — failed to answer.
(1) How could Logan (by her own account) have worked “for a year” on this report and not done the elementary cross-checking that allowed Karen De Young of the Washington Post to expose the fraud almost immediately after it aired? Indeed, what was Logan doing during that long year?
(2) Why did CBS News trust a reporter with such obvious political agendas? Logan had given an over-the-top red-meat political speech about Benghazi around the time she started pursuing the story a year ago. And she had also maligned the patriotism of the late reporter Michael Hastings when he had the audacity to question the loyalty and judgment of the American General Stanley McChrystal and his cohort in Afghanistan.
(3) What was the relationship between Logan, her source, and the source’s publisher, which is also owned by CBS? Accounts of the 60 Minutes scandal keep referring to that publisher as Simon & Schuster, but that’s not strictly accurate. Logan’s source was not being published by the S&S that is bringing out Doris Kearns Goodwin’s new book on Teddy Roosevelt. His book was being published instead by an S&S subdivision, Threshold, whose authors include Glenn Beck, Karl Rove, Mark Levin, Lynne Cheney, and Jerome Corsi, best known for promoting the Swift Boating of John Kerry and the birther conspiracies about Barack Obama. Why would Logan and CBS News be in bed with such a partisan publisher? Who was the editor who vetted the book containing the same hoax that Logan aired on 60 Minutes? (Threshold’s editor-in-chief is Mary Matalin.)
(4) Logan said in her apology that it was “a mistake” to have included her source in her report. But as many have asked, what was the report without that source? Inquiring minds do want to know."
I've yet to read anything in the conservative blogsphere talking about the discredited CBS report on the Benghazi incident. Nothing from the blogs that tripped over themselves in featuring Lara Logan's "mistake."
Why?
It doesn't fit their narrative of a cover-up scandal, so they don't see why they should report the fact that it was a botched, partisan, put-up-of-a-fake story.
The inimitable Stephen Colbert pwns CBS and its dishonesty.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
RICHAR COHEN'S WASHINGTON POST COLUMN MADE ME GAG
UPDATE BELOW
What Richard Cohen wrote:
"Today’s GOP is not racist, as Harry Belafonte alleged about the tea party, but it is deeply troubled — about the expansion of government, about immigration, about secularism, about the mainstreaming of what used to be the avant-garde. People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children. (Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?) This family represents the cultural changes that have enveloped parts — but not all — of America. To cultural conservatives, this doesn’t look like their country at all."
So what's Cohen trying to write here? That the Tea Party is not racist but a bi-racial couple triggers a gag-reflex in the deepest part of their "conventional" and unhappy souls? Why would a perfectly normal couple cause a gag reflex in anyone, except racists? He contradicted himself in two sentences, while exposing his ick factor at the same time.
And why the "used to be a lesbian?" dig? Didn't he make his point about his miscengenation revulsion without having to pile on his homophobia as well?
At a time in this country when we have a bi-racial president and a bi-racial first couple of the largest city in America, how could anyone, let alone a newspaper columnist in a top U.S. publication, write something as ignorantly reactionary as Cohen did? What cave has he been living in that caused him to think bi-racial marriages were anything but conventional?
Cohen is stuck somewhere in the Ozzie and Harriet 1950s where that family of actors, a fantasy of Hollywood teevee executives, existed in the lives of very few "conventional" families of actual Americans.
I believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the freedom to let a guy, who also writes opinion columns for a prominent newspaper, expose himself for the wanker that he is.
American family:
Ta-Nahisi Coates of the Atlantic:
"The problem here isn't that we think Richard Cohen gags at the sight of an interracial couple and their children. The problem is that Richard Cohen thinks being repulsed isn't actually racist, but "conventional" or "culturally conservative." Obstructing the right of black humans and white humans to form families is a central feature of American racism.
If retching at the thought of that right being exercised isn't racism, then there is no racism. Context can not improve this. "Context" is not a safe word that makes all your other horse-shit statements disappear. And horse-shit is the context in which Richard Cohen has, for all these years, wallowed. It is horse-shit to claim that store owners are right to discriminate against black males. It is horse-shit to claim Trayvon Martin was wearing the uniform of criminals. It is horse-shit to subject your young female co-workers to "a hostile work environment." It is horse-shit to expend precious newsprint lamenting the days when slovenly old dudes had their pick of 20-year-old women. It is horse-shit to defend a rapist on the run because you like The Pianist. And it is horse-shit for Katharine Weymouth, the Post's publisher, to praise a column with the kind of factual error that would embarrass a j-school student.
Richard Cohen's unfortunate career is the proper context to understand his column today and the wide outrage that's greeted it. We are being told that Cohen finds it "hurtful" to be called racist. I am sorry that people on the Internet have hurt Richard Cohen's feelings. I find it "hurtful" that Cohen endorses the police profiling my son. I find it eternally "hurtful" that the police, following that same logic, killed one of my friends. I find it hurtful to tell my students that, even in this modern age, vending horse-shit is still an esteemed and lucrative profession"
What Richard Cohen wrote:
"Today’s GOP is not racist, as Harry Belafonte alleged about the tea party, but it is deeply troubled — about the expansion of government, about immigration, about secularism, about the mainstreaming of what used to be the avant-garde. People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children. (Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?) This family represents the cultural changes that have enveloped parts — but not all — of America. To cultural conservatives, this doesn’t look like their country at all."
So what's Cohen trying to write here? That the Tea Party is not racist but a bi-racial couple triggers a gag-reflex in the deepest part of their "conventional" and unhappy souls? Why would a perfectly normal couple cause a gag reflex in anyone, except racists? He contradicted himself in two sentences, while exposing his ick factor at the same time.
And why the "used to be a lesbian?" dig? Didn't he make his point about his miscengenation revulsion without having to pile on his homophobia as well?
At a time in this country when we have a bi-racial president and a bi-racial first couple of the largest city in America, how could anyone, let alone a newspaper columnist in a top U.S. publication, write something as ignorantly reactionary as Cohen did? What cave has he been living in that caused him to think bi-racial marriages were anything but conventional?
Cohen is stuck somewhere in the Ozzie and Harriet 1950s where that family of actors, a fantasy of Hollywood teevee executives, existed in the lives of very few "conventional" families of actual Americans.
I believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the freedom to let a guy, who also writes opinion columns for a prominent newspaper, expose himself for the wanker that he is.
American family:
Ta-Nahisi Coates of the Atlantic:
"The problem here isn't that we think Richard Cohen gags at the sight of an interracial couple and their children. The problem is that Richard Cohen thinks being repulsed isn't actually racist, but "conventional" or "culturally conservative." Obstructing the right of black humans and white humans to form families is a central feature of American racism.
If retching at the thought of that right being exercised isn't racism, then there is no racism. Context can not improve this. "Context" is not a safe word that makes all your other horse-shit statements disappear. And horse-shit is the context in which Richard Cohen has, for all these years, wallowed. It is horse-shit to claim that store owners are right to discriminate against black males. It is horse-shit to claim Trayvon Martin was wearing the uniform of criminals. It is horse-shit to subject your young female co-workers to "a hostile work environment." It is horse-shit to expend precious newsprint lamenting the days when slovenly old dudes had their pick of 20-year-old women. It is horse-shit to defend a rapist on the run because you like The Pianist. And it is horse-shit for Katharine Weymouth, the Post's publisher, to praise a column with the kind of factual error that would embarrass a j-school student.
Richard Cohen's unfortunate career is the proper context to understand his column today and the wide outrage that's greeted it. We are being told that Cohen finds it "hurtful" to be called racist. I am sorry that people on the Internet have hurt Richard Cohen's feelings. I find it "hurtful" that Cohen endorses the police profiling my son. I find it eternally "hurtful" that the police, following that same logic, killed one of my friends. I find it hurtful to tell my students that, even in this modern age, vending horse-shit is still an esteemed and lucrative profession"
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Presidential Poll Numbers
When I read about a president's poll numbers "tanking," I smile to myself and remember the days when Saint Ronnie's approval numbers were at 35%.
President Obama's approval rating of 41% seems almost atmospheric compared with President Reagan's abysmal 35%.
How quick those who dislike Mr. Obama are to jump on his approval numbers as a sign of, well something, but how they conveniently forget that every president goes through a period of decline; and that ultimately it is historians who will judge a president's term in office.
Meanwhile, as someone once said, a president's poll numbers are nothing more than a snapshot of a particular period in his presidency.
For those who have faulty memories, here's what the country thought of Reagan. HINT: He was NOT as popular in office as he has become since he left office and since he died.
From Gallup:
"Ronald Reagan From the People’s Perspective: A Gallup Poll Review Reagan’s image improved substantially in the years after he left office
by Frank Newport, Jeffrey M. Jones, and Lydia Saad
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE PRINCETON, NJ -- Ronald Reagan, the nation's 40th president, became one of the nation's most revered public figures in recent years, a distinct turnabout from the more routinely average ratings he received while he served in office between 1981 and 1989.
Reagan's job approval ratings in his first years in office were hurt by the bad economy, and the last years of his administration were marred by the negative fallout from what came to be known as the Iran-Contra affair."
[SKIP]
"Reagan's Ratings While He Was in Office Reagan was not an extraordinarily well-regarded president during his eight years in office.
He averaged a 53% job approval rating during his presidency, slightly below average for all U.S. presidents for which Gallup has recorded job approval ratings. Reagan's ratings were higher than the averages of his three immediate predecessors -- Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, and Richard Nixon, supporting the arguments of those who contend that one of Reagan's major contributions was to restore confidence in the presidency after the battering it took in the 1970s.
But the two presidents who followed Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, each had higher average ratings than Reagan, as did three earlier presidents -- Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Dwight Eisenhower."
[SKIP]
"...although 1983 began for Reagan with a 35% job approval rating -- the worst of his administration -- things started to look better."
[SKIP]
"...in November 1986, the Iran-Contra affair broke into the news. That same month, Reagan was on television denying that there had been any trading of arms for hostages, but the damage was done. His ratings plummeted from 63% in late October to 47% in early December, and stayed relatively low throughout 1987."
According to Gallup, Mr. Obama's approval rating average to date is 49%. That's about what it has been, give or take a few points, for the past almost 5 years he has been in office.
And President Bill Clinton, [who was impeached, but found not guilty], as you can see from the chart taken from Gallup, had higher approval ratings than did President Reagan.
So to the opposition who is prancing around Mr. Obama's current dip in the popularity polls, I'd caution them not to get too drunk on the numbers quite yet. We do have a little more than 3 years to go before Mr. Obama's term is over.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Radical Redneck, The Impostor, CAUGHT!
UPDATE BELOW
Here's the impostor. Go to the link in his name in the comment below, and you will see that the Blogger profile number is:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/13952529374464731851
Radical Redneck said...And what about Black Trash such as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson,and all the other race baiters. Why not expose these frauds, who only shows up for money and if the shooter is white! And Trayvon Martin's girlfriend Rachel Jeantel that obnoxious, uneducated, dishonest, ignorant waste of space who was the Queen of black trash!
I'm afraid I just can't go along with the belief that President Obama DELIBERATELY lied about "keeping your plan." I do, however, believe that he meant A MAJORITY would be able to keep their plans. He certainly made a huge mistake by not qualifying that statement. And now he's paying the price, since his enemies are hammering him on this.
He was WRONG when he did that. I guess that Obama thinks we're all stupid. Even I fell for it until I received a letter from my Insurance provider. Even though some of us really are if we believed him. What he should have said was .You could keep your insurance...UNTIL the ACA became law. Then I’m sorry but you're all going to be screwed.
This whole sham has clustershit written all over it. Just wait until the tens of millions us people who have not yet seen it for themselves what the ACA truly is actually sign up for this pile of garbage program .I already received a letter from my insurance provider and here's what I have in front of me, from them:
A policy that is ACA compliant and most closely resembles my current coverage.
The difference? A 120% increase in premiums, and a marked increase in deductibles, co-pays, and out-of-pockets!! For The Same Coverage.
I tell you I am so freaken angry I can hardly see straight. This Goddamn freaken moronic a-hole sorry excuse for a President.
He sounds more and more like a snake oil salesman and credibility is falling faster than Miley Cyrus' panties, except with the ones who are completely Brain-Washed.
And Speaking of idiots...
You “Progressives” “Libertarians” and “Liberals” really can't comprehend that Obama lied to you, can you?
Radical Redneck who posts at conservative blogs
is the impostor who stole my avatar and name.
Radical Redneck is also "Skoal Man." Link to
"Skoal Man's" name and the Blogger profile
number is :
The same profile number he used for "Shaw
KeeWee and himself.
Sloppy work, Radical Redneck. I guess that's
because you've taken on too many fake
blogging personas.
- I think that Wendy Davis should run for the Texas governorship, after all she has the same amount of qualifications as Obama had for president... NONE!Reply
A Sunday Talk About Values by Bill Maher
Meanwhile, on the BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI! non-scandal, still no retractions in the conservative blogsphere of the now discredited story CBS's 60 Minutes ran a few weeks ago.
"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was hogwild about the now-discredited 60 Minutes blockbuster in which fabricator-security contractor Dylan Davies recounted his nonexistent exploits the night of the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi more than a year ago. But after CBS finally retracted the story this morning (after dragging its collective heels for a week), Graham is now declining to discuss the story or the retraction." --Talking Points Memo
Saturday, November 9, 2013
FRAUD, NOT PARODY
Conservative bloggers have allowed one of their own, who has stolen my avatar and uses the names "Shaw Keeawe" and "Shaw Keewee," to post at their blogs.
If you see the fraudulent "Shaw Keeawe" or "Shaw Keewee" on any blog, you only have to link to the name to know it is not the real Shaw Kenawe.
I know the difference between parody and deliberate fraud, unlike the conservative who is pretending to be me by displacing one letter "n" in "Kenawe" and substituting an extra "e" for "Keeawe."
This is not parody. Parody is clever and witty. The impostor is neither. He's boorish and dumb.
What this conservative impostor is doing is a form of internet harassment, and I don't understand why the otherwise decent bloggers like "AOW," who absolutely KNOW the fraud is not me, allow this sort of abuse and dirty trick on her blog to continue.
Here are the CONSERVATIVE blogs that allow this:
Always on Watch blog:
- This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Reply
-
Your comment is a waste of broadband space.
I expressed no outrage in this blog post. The author of the CNBCessay did. Contact him with your concerns.
-
-
The Obama administration has said it is working around the clock to fix the website by the end of November. WHAT MORE DO YOU PEOPLE WANT?Reply
Here is the Blogger profile number for the impostor "SHAW KEEAWE":
http://www.blogger.com/profile/02614939972327263128
On Saturday 11/9/2013, the impostor changed back to using 'SHAW KEEWEE":
We are so very lucky to have such a great looking First Family. Especially the Beautiful and Gracious First Lady.
But what I can’t understand is the consistent criticism of First Lady Michelle Obama’s posterior? Why? And when will it cease? I find the constant and apostrophe abuse to be quite appalling, and shameful. We certainly didn’t have this kind of abuse and shameful behavior when George Bush was in office and his drunken daughters were in the headlines almost daily. I say God bless this President and his beautiful family..
Geeeeez Blog
UPDATE: The blogger "Geeeez' deleted the impostor, but I've included the deleted comments by "Shaw Keewee" in the event he posts them elsewhere.
And I thank the blogger, Geeeeez for her integrity.
Shaw Keewee said...Will the CRAZINESS ever end? Just when we though it was safe to go back to the world of blogging, we see it all again.
Death panels?
Born in Kenya?
Secret Muslim?
Secretly Gay?
Socialist/Fascist/Marxist?
The vacations?
The shameful things said about Our beloved First Lady?
Oh, and lets NOT forget their demand we cut food stamps, welfare, Social Security, and Medicaid to get the budget under control, but call for an increase in Defense spending. It goes without saying ObamaCare's repeal needs to be the first thing out of every right winger’s and Conservative politician's mouth.
Etc. etc. etc.
And oh yes, let us not forget the more than occasional remarks or should I say “attacks” about Michelle Obama's African posterior either. Never in my lifetime have I seen a First Lady’s butt held under a microscope quite like Michelle Obama’s.
As well as referring to the current President as Barry Soetero
There is two things that marks this Presidency over any other, the fact that he is the first Black president, and the fact the he has an unusual name as well as of the lack of respect demonstrated by having been more lies told about him not only spread by those in the public who do not like him, but by elected officials of the opposing party than has ever been seen previously.
Meanwhile, the Democrats keep winning!!
Shaw Keewee said...All these negative comments about Michelle Obama’s butt seems to seep in racism
Hilary Clinton was the subject of several crude remarks for her activities in the Benghazi cover-up But why the obsession with Mrs. Obama’s butt?
Mr. Obama called Benghazi an act of terror which means the same thing as a terrorist attack.
"These acts of terror" means he was calling it a terrorist attack.
Now apologize for calling "democrats liars.
"These acts of terror" means he was calling it a terrorist attack.
Now apologize for calling "democrats liars.
Here is the "Shaw Keewee" Blogger profile number:
And here is another Blogger profile number used by the
"Shaw Keewee" impostor:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/03025479244993215675
These Blogger profile numbers have been used under various other blogger and commenter names, which have also posted at the above blogs.
So the impostor has been quite busy visiting conservative blogs pretending to be several other bloggers and commenters.
Friday, November 8, 2013
Is there no end...
to the TeaPublicans' stubborn wrong-headedness? Speaker John Boehner, (R-Orange) and his minority of a minority, who cost this country billions of dollars while the government was shut down, is now claiming that if they support ENDA, it will encourage frivolous law suits.
[Have you finished laughing yet?]
"[ENDA]...forbids discrimination among federal contractors against gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people. That order has been languishing somewhere in the White House for years. As Mr. Obama said last week, workplace discrimination is “offensive. It’s wrong. And it needs to stop, because in the United States of America, who you are and who you love should never be a fireable offense.” --Daily Kos
The TeaPublicans are against a bill that would end discrimination in the workplace? How liberty-loving of them! How big-tent-y of them! How Constitution-worshipping of them! And boy-o, how this opposition will encourage Americans to flock to their party and be proud to stand with the TeaPublicans against the all-American ideal of inclusiveness and non-descrimination.
A majority of Americans support ENDA; a minority of a minority of legislators, whose only purpose in life is to obstruct and sabotage anything President Obama proposes, is behind this nonsense again, threatening to defeat this bill.
When the whiners and feckless complainers tell us that this economy still stinks, or that Americans still need jobs, or that the A.C.A. is still not working well, take a look at the legislators who have done all in their power to obstruct, filibuster, and sabotage anything and everything this administration has put forward to help the American people.
A party that puts their personal agenda before the needs of the American people deserves all the bashing and mockery it gets. IMO, the TeaPublicans are no more a political party than a roving band of gang-bangers, reveling in their ability to keep the government stalled and not working as it should while at the same time making people's lives miserable.
BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI!
Did I get your attention?
Good.
Because this:
NEW YORK -- CBS' "60 Minutes" announced Thursday night that it's reviewing a controversial Oct. 27 report on the attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, to determine if its eyewitness, security officer Dylan Davies, "misled" the network. "60 Minutes" said it had "learned of new information that undercuts" the harrowing account given on air. The New York Times reported Thursday that Davies previously told the FBI that he was not at the U.S. compound on the night of Sept. 11, 2012 -- an account that directly contradicts his "eyewitness" statements on air.
CBS Reporter Sorry For Benghazi Story: ‘We Made A Mistake’
I still haven't seen anything on any of the conservative blogs that jumped on the fraudulent story peddled by CBS 60 Minutes liar, Dylan Davies. They don't let facts get in the way of their blinkered world view where BENGHAZI! is their hope for destroying the Obama Presidency.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Ken Cuccinelli -- Sore Loser
Civility, sportsmanship, honor--Ken Cuccinelli has none.
He's refused to congratulate the winner of the election in Virginia for the governorship of that state, Governor-elect, Terry McAuliffe.
Even in closely fought sports contests, the losers congratulate the winners. It's the classy thing to do.
I might add to the list above that Cuccinelli has no class either.
In this case, Virginia came out a real winner in rejecting this sore loser.
YES, YOU HAVE TO CALL THE GUY WHO JUST BEAT YOU
An open letter to Ken Cuccinelli II, who was not chosen to govern Virginia
Ken Cuccinelli Has Not Called To Congratulate Terry McAuliffe, Why Does This Matter?
Good News for the A.C.A.
Despite all the doomsday naysaying, the glitches, and the GOP governors who refused to cooperate, the A.C.A. is gaining support and doing what it was intended to do: Allow uninsured Americans the chance to buy affordable health care.
I've maintained that despite the rocky roll-out and the vehement opposition from the TeaPublicans, the A.C.A. will be successful.
The TeaPublicans have bellowed the loudest on the bumpy beginning, but never have they proposed an alternative that addressed the shameful and catastrophic state of the under-insured and the uninsured in this country, claiming that anyone can get health care--he or she has only to go to the emergency room of any hospital. That's the TeaPublicans' universal health care plan for a country of 300+ million citizens.
See this article by Reuters:
Uninsured Americans are showing more interest in the coverage offered under President Barack Obama's healthcare law despite technical problems that have hindered enrollment through a government website, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.
The glitches have crippled HealthCare.gov, the new online insurance marketplace meant to serve people in 36 states, frustrating millions of would-be applicants since it opened for enrollment on October 1.
The poll's findings are good news for Obamacare supporters who worry the problems and bad press could dissuade people from signing up, particularly the young and healthy who are crucial to diversifying the pool of insured and keeping premiums down.
The uninsured view the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, more favorably since online marketplaces opened - 44 percent compared with 37 percent in September, according to the Reuters/Ipsos poll. It found that 56 percent oppose the program compared with 63 percent in September.
A higher proportion of the uninsured also said they are interested in buying insurance on the exchanges, with 42 percent in October, saying they were likely to enroll compared with 37 percent in September. The results have a credibility interval, a measure of accuracy, of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.
[skip]
The online poll of nearly 12,000 people was conducted in October. Some 1,100 of the respondents identified themselves as uninsured.
Among the general public, support for the law rose from nearly 44 percent to 47 percent, with a credibility interval of 1 percentage point, according to the poll. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that up to 7 million people are likely to sign up for coverage on the private exchanges for 2014, but that number has been called into question due to HealthCare.gov's problems.
The Obama administration has said it is working around the clock to fix the website by the end of November.
OVERCOMING OBSTACLES
The results showed that the rise in both the law's popularity and in the uninsured's willingness to buy was much greater in the 14 states that chose to run their own exchanges and whose sites have generally operated more smoothly than HealthCare.gov, which serves the other 36 states.
More than half of respondents in state-run exchanges now favor the law compared with about four in 10 elsewhere.
To the uninsured the faulty website is "a technical barrier that is being repaired and it pales to barriers they've faced in the past," said Sara Collins, vice president at the Commonwealth Fund, a private healthcare research foundation.
Ezra Klein:
So Obamacare almost lost the election for the Democrats despite being almost exactly as popular as it was in 2012? That's hard to believe. If anything, the surprise of the Virginia election is that Obamacare's approval was as high as 45 percent. This has been a persistent finding of the polls on Obamacare: It's basically been exactly as popular -- and unpopular -- since it passed. The problems of its first month have had basically no effect on its standing in the polls. In fact, if anything, there's been a slight uptick in its popularity.
The biggest fear that the naysayers have is that the A.C.A. will succeed and that Americans will grow to like it.
Exactly what this Reuters report is confirming.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Extremist Tea Party Candidate Cuccinelli Loses to Democrat McAuliffe
It's a great day for the state of Virginia and for the Democrats.
Virginia voters said NO! to extremist TeaPublicans Ken Cuccinelli and E.W. Jackson
McAuliffe's defeat of Republican Ken Cuccinelli ends Virginia's nine-cycle streak of electing a governor from the opposing political party of the sitting president dating back to 1977.
Cuccinelli tried to rally his supporters in the waning days of the campaign by pronouncing they would "send a message to Washington" as he pounced on the Affordable Care Act's implementation problems and controversial Obama administration statements on the ability of Americans to keep their health care plans.
Despite a bit of a surge in Cuccinelli's favor, Virginians opted to vote Democratic on Tuesday, and with it ended the state's streak as the 'nation's naysayer' that began 36 years ago.
The last time Virginia elected a governor from the same party of the sitting president was 40 years ago in 1973 when GOPer Mills Goodwin edged out independent Henry Howell by 1.4 points with Richard Nixon in the White House.
In other good news, New York has a new Democratic Mayor, Bill DeBlasio
"Bill de Blasio was elected New York City's first Democratic mayor in two decades Tuesday, running on an unabashedly liberal, tax-the-rich platform that contrasted sharply with billionaire Michael Bloomberg's record during 12 years in office. With 21 percent of precincts reporting, De Blasio, the city's public advocate, had 72 percent of the vote compared with 26 percent for Republican Joe Lhota, former chief of the metropolitan area's transit agency. De Blasio, 52, will take office on Jan. 1 as the 109th mayor of the nation's largest city."
Democratic State Representative Martin Walsh is Boston's new mayor.
State Rep. Martin Walsh will be the next mayor of Boston. In a tight race, he defeated City Councilor John Connolly. Walsh replaces Thomas Menino, who’s led the city since 1993.
INFIDEL753 has a great analysis on the election HERE.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Rafael Cruz, Ted Cruz's Father, Says Evolution is a Communist Lie
And Ted Cruz has bragged that his father is his hero.
When we state that the extremists in the GOP are anti-science, we're telling the truth.
This guy is certifiably nuts.
U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution
"A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution.
Only Turkey ranked lower.
Among the factors contributing to America's low score are poor understanding of biology, especially genetics, the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians, the researchers say. “American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalist, which is why Turkey and we are so close,” said study co-author Jon Miller of Michigan State University."
The whack-a-doodle extremists in the GOP promote superstition and stupidity.
"Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997).
However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995).
This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent. Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSE n.d.).
The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986).
This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.
One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence.
The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.
Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it.
All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear.
Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable.
They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)