.. they are both right on.

but subsequently got charged with pissing

I'm thoroughly familiar with what everybody wrote and why, including me

unless you meant National Socialist.

yep, I'm sure that's the condition insurance companies would like to see

A thousand people vs those two = a fair fight.

"I can't wait to see people scream at Moore and Krugman."

...because some on the left are becoming more like RWingers using Rovian tactics?

Moore (to finish the sentence in the OP):

And the OP actually cited where they did so.

Let me guess here - you're not understanding the point that the ACA is 99.99% win, with the sole failure being the individual mandate? Or is this an issue of denial?

because you disagree with 0.01% of it?

Really?

Sid

Ins Co profits by as much as 50% and mandates rebates on those premium dollars that do not meet the 85% criteria.

It is a mandate accompanied by a NEW consumer tool (The Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, implemented by the Patient Protection part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010) for demanding from Ins Co the kind of coverage rates and services that the market previously had NO incentive to offer.

It is a mandate that is on those who CAN buy insurance, but refuse to, and yet benefit not only from everyone else having hc insurance, but also from the fact that, even though they didn't pay, they have access to the systems if/when they ever need it, which is highly likely.

But I fear the danger of existing loopholes, new donut holes and the ever-present GOP's willingness to chip away at this law by doing nasty shit like holding the whole national budget hostage until they get the incremental-steps-backward changes they demand.

See: the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

else is there to do? We cannot stop. We need to figure out how to avoid issue fatigue, and/or recover from it, and keep up the fight no matter what happens. What does not defeat us will make us stronger and the challenges can help the talent to rise to the top to lead the fight. We just need to never give up. I believe the people of this country are with us, not the Repukes. I, for one, have been wondering what we have that could match the political activities of churches on the issues; I believe the answer to that question, given the downward pressure on American wages and benefits, is Labor in general and Unions in particular. They could be the source of the sustenance, brother-and-sister-hood, that we will need to get us through this.

I often remind my rightwingnut adversaries that number of rightwingnuts) times zero(what they generally are) still equals zero.

I was merely having a hard time understanding and coming to grips with the idea I see argued on a variety of issues around here, that dissent/criticism -- like acknowledging the flaws in the ACA, even in the wake of the "victory" -- is some kinda "pissing in the punch bowl" indicative of behavior and attitudes unbecoming a dedicated lefty/lib.

Maybe they should have said the ACA is god without a flaw and then they would not have been "pissing".

"They both dissed the individual mandate. Most of the DU supports the mandate. VEHEMENTLY."

Krugman is a strong supporter of the mandate, which is why he supported Hillary.

Have a nice day!

you can read it again:

"Health reform doesn’t work without a mandate (remember the primary? Maybe better not to)."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002877085#post10

Get it? It doesn't work!

You don't know what Krugman was saying when he said

if there's no single payer system. Otherwise it doesn't work.

Just because he brings up that it's a formerly Republican idea and its somewhat flawed doesn't mean he's against it.

wayyy to far to paint Moore and Krugman as the bad guys here. Both side that this was a victory for most Americans, but not perfect.

I agree with Pro on this, which doesnt happen often.

You haven't in multiple threads now

Have I made my point perfectly clear here?

I guess there's something to be said about standing by your convictions LOL...

But the Earth is still round

"I'm not wrong. So not just no, but HELL NO."

...wrong about Krugman and the mandate, but apparently this victory is making you unhappy.

"I actually cited where I was correct about Krugman. Sorry, you're wrong again."

...no. You cited where Krugman mentioned that it was "originally a Republican plan" (RomneyCare) and that it wouldn't be the system anyone designed from scratch:

I don't think you're being serious.

I think you're pissed and looking for a hero to support your pissing on a victory.

It's not Krugman, he is a strong supporter of the mandate.

What do you think he means by:

"But it’s still a big step toward a better — and by that I mean morally better — society. "

Does that make you sad?

However if you are seriously convincing yourself that "it is, after all, originally a Republican plan" is NOT addressing the individual mandate, then you are living in denial. There is nothing else in the ACA that was a Republican plan except the individual mandate.

You're desperately grasping at straws now.

And
"But it’s still a big step toward a better — and by that I mean morally better — society. "
means exactly what I said - 99.99% of the ACA law is wonderful. The mandate is that cancerous .01% that could rise up and devastate the whole law.

BTW you're running out of straws.

"There is nothing else in the ACA that was a Republican plan except the individual mandate."

...saying that you're extremely upset about a victory for a plan that's 99 percent Democratic and one percent Republican, a provision that will affect about one percent of Americans (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002877072)?

Krugman stated specifically:"Health reform doesn’t work without a mandate (remember the primary? Maybe better not to)."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002877085#post10

He didn't say he didn't like it or loved it: He said "reform doesn’t work without a mandate."

Get it? It doesn't work!

Some more quotes from Krugman when the law originally passed.

And you've posted those old quotes several times now.

None of that changes the fact that when Krugman laments

Krugman said " It’s not perfect, by a long shot — it is, after all, originally a Republican plan"

The IMPERFECTION he is referring to is the individual mandate.

Or do you have an idea as to what else he's referring to?

Did Krugman say this:

"Health reform doesn’t work without a mandate (remember the primary? Maybe better not to)."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002877085#post10

Yeah, right.

With Medicare, the overhead is something like 3 percent.
With private insurance, it's currently between 20 percent and 30 percent.
The ACA will bring that down to between 15 and 20 percent depending on whether the insurance is group or individual.

CAN survive and won't create the onus of toooooooooooooooooo much job loss too quickly amongst Ins Co, thus creating any more permanent political adversaries than absolutely necessary, plus too much stress on hc providers by forcing fees for service down too fast.

SHOULD create more job growth.

In theory.

even be interested in new, more efficient, business models. Employee participation in ownership could provide some of the profit margin that entrepreneurs are going to need.

it was a jab at all the "purists" around here that think any discussion or pointing out of flaws in the ACA on the day of glorious "victory" was a pissing in the DU punchbowl.

and of course, an introduction to my own commentary on the matter

The ACA has flaws, but it is what could finally be passed in the face of the Republican blockade.

If you don't keep reminding people that it has flaws, and that mainly thanks to the Republicans, when those flaws make themselves felt in in a clear way the republicans will say "see, it doesn't work" and push to eliminate it entirely.

The rest of us are hoping for the "gradual improvement" that was talked about when trying to get it passed. That's not going to happen if the only people talking about its problems are the ones bent on elimination, not reform.

in my experiences

but it is often characterized as "pissing" regardless of the intent behind stating of "facts"

I'm not gonna explain myself or this post in its entirety here again, but suffice it to say the subject line was hyperbole, and the point was to not the fact that it should be okay to criticize the policy pursuits and results of our dem leadership without fear of being charged as something tantamount to in some measure, traitors to the general cause.

For example, if I wanna criticize BHO's "kill list", I should be able to do so without reading about how I'm really just trying to undermine his reelection chances, etc. Every criticism like that shouldn't need to be accompanied by extensive qualifications to establish my general support and intent to vote for him anyway, much like K&M did in supporting the victory over the ruling despite having a relatively low regard for the ACA itself. I and many here will do the same for BHO's victory should it occur in Nov, despite having a pretty low regard for many of his policies. It's all about wishing and trying to make him better, just as acknowledging and complaining about the inadequacies of the ACA seek the same goal.

The ACA is flawed, to be sure. They say so. Krugman also makes it clear that it's a first step down a long road.

Geez louise.....

Not sure where the piss is coming from, but it's not from Moore or Krugman.

as is the case more often than not

and as any fifth grader that read my comments would likely discern, they'd likely see us in total agreement

because diluting it was the Only damned way the R's would let it pass. The bottom line and in spite of its current status, We finally have something to build on which is a hellava Lot more than we had before yesterday!

it is a start. Now, we scream louder to get more. I will not rest until we have universal health care for all - government-run and funded with tax dollars. I am not afraid to say that, and not afraid to advise cutting the war-mongering to be able to afford it. I am for health care, against killing brown people in other countries for cheaper oil.

I'm not afraid to and Do tell the poor recipients of my DC Daily calls to lawmakers-That I Want my tax dollar contributions to Our Gov't to be used to Help those who are less fortunate than I. Period. I may need help someday, maybe not-but it's satisfying to Know that I contributed to Helping people rather than contributions made without My permission, for funding death via wars and cuts to vital services that improve our whole community called "America"..

that's obvious to many if not most

Republicans had nothing to do with 'letting it pass'.

But in this case, there's not much to say.

and there's not much diff between having very little if anything of relevance and nothing to say,

Both men are pretty dead on both in their criticism of the serious flaws in the bill and in their calling the upholding of the law a victory. I wonder if the OP remembers that when it was originally past, the flaws were openly acknowledged among Democrats, and we all vowed to fix those flaws and improve this law, not to craft an easy chair out of laurels to sit in claiming we did all we need to do. This is just a start, as these Mike and Paul clearly state.

as my commentary should make clear

through rose-colored glasses.

And Moore and Krugman are correct in pointing out what that flaw is: required purchase of private insurance with few restrictions on the insurers.

It's sad when people take the attitude, "It's the best we can get."

No, it's not. The countries that base their health care on private insurance have the insurance companies on a choke chain: prompt payment unless they can *prove* fraud (no looking for lame excuses not to pay) and limits on executive compensation are two of the biggies.

and didn't need to have it passed before I knew what was in it.

I couldn't find those darn death panels anywhere

The former only makes sense, given that the bill is a start towards a fair and effective health care system rather than the final step. The latter makes less sense, because had the supreme court struck down the law it would have made further progress more difficult. (Not impossible, but certainly more difficult.)

I'm a little torn currently on whether your assessment on the difficulty thing is valid or not though, given that without it, the push for single-payer mighta been stronger, given it's about the only solution left.

Or you could frame it in a more contentious manner guaranteed to provoke dissension.

Stirring the pot just for stirring the pot's sake.

Frankly, I thought Moore was a bit too conciliatory. I'm gobsmacked that anyone would suggest that he's pissing on the decision.

I proposed it in the manner I did due to provocations.

I was under the impression (from some) that any citation of flaws or dissent regarding the law even in part on that glorious day was tantamount to treason to the cause.

In fact, it reminds me a lot of the tone of Repugs that claim liberals think the President is some kind of Messiah. It's a pretty tiresome one note symphony, at any rate.

and intellectual ineptness stemming from operating on too small of a knowledge pool, which almost always results in the use of hollow declarations your pool can't fill.

At least you don't have to worry about drowning, unless you're as small as your words indicate

I've reminded many a rightwingnut that he does satisfy the small "m" definition of the word, since he did save us from the Bush calamity.

You don't shit about me, you just have nothing left but shit to talk

Now you are improvising as if you had forgotten the tune.

You must have been disappointed when you at last returned to the scene of your drive-by and saw so few dancing to your tune. It left nary a ripple in my own vast pool of knowledge.

you did.

and that alleged vast pool of knowledge must be the explanation for the lack of any substance other than repetitive turds of the kind this TP addressed.

thanks though, for admitting that you're opposed to the complaints M&K made about the ACA, and my call for them to keep it up so that it might be improved upon.

Wait, what?
Really.... really..........really?

Look the ACA is flawed, a step in the right direction but it is flawed. I still want Universal Health Care and will continue to fight for it. Just because the ACA does some good things doesn't mean that I can't have complaints about it and want the Republicons to win. We won't get what we want if we don't demand it.

it's too bad all around here don't feel that way about it

write the headline before reading the whole article.

your response me reminds me of someone who does a lot of fruitless and incorrect assuming

there's a simple cure for that -- either asking questions, or go into the hurry up and wait routine

Me too.

and characterization others used/applied to what was no doubt in most cases, similar conduct, to make a point my commentary on the matter covered.

excuse me

imagine a "magistrate" deciding a case without all the material facts but a buttload of assuming

you can however leave the "me" outta those results

Perhaps on the boards you usually frequent, people get high post counts for little or nothing. It's a tougher crowd than perhaps you are used to around here.

it's just another subject-changer displaying its impotence as far as I am concerned

hardly someone that represents a threat to anyone but itself

If you stick out your mug like that, it is going to get wumped....

about your stupid, non-topical response

I'm afraid any wumpings are well outta your reach, as you made clear with your initial whine

It is pretty clear you are just looking for kicks, and not that fun, 'kicks just keep gettin' harder find' kind, either. But as it is evident a number of people are having a pleasant time jeering you each time this bobs to the top, there is no reason not to be indulgent.

"Whether you can hear it or not, the Universe is laughing behind your back."

the witlessness of your initial response, and further showcasing your ineptness with claims (of the anal kind in every sense of the word) that only served to establish your own guilt of the charge you posed.

Your playing dodgeboy now and showing a desire to establish the only thing you likely have a mastery of -- the "last word" game -- erases none of that, and indeed, it helps explain it.

I could care less about your imaginary "pals" laughing behind my back. That's just a variation on the same kinda garbage I've been reading and hearing from rightwingnut dodgeboys for decades now.

You'd think that self-proclaimed geniuses like yourself (the role you and your imaginary pals are assuming here) would be able to refute what I posted and best me with the ease you wipe your lips or your ass crack -- assuming you don't waste much time sorting out which is which -- but no, you just pretend you can and did with BS that doesn't even address what I posted, making it impossible for you to have done so.

I don't need any one to be the "judge" of that, because no one but an idiot or a dishonest and infantile jerk would deny it.

The day I'll concern myself with a even a universe full of turd-tossing monkeys that find me "funny" and your unwarranted and juvenile garbage highbrow stuff, will never arrive.

I have enjoyed making fun of it and you though, and look forward to your next dodge showcasing your singular interest in a popularity contest like some kinda pimple-faced schoolboy, and using it as a "proof" though.

Is that what decision are based on in your kangaroo court, the number of peedonnuts that come from the peeingnuts gallery?

This is the only thing you've made "clear" here. WHat's clear to objective readers without a major and prolonged investment in simply being a rather poor smartass like yourself, is likely the polar opposite.

But if it makes you feel better, hang your wig on your imaginary, unseen, and unheard inhabitants of the universe and their laughter.

They are both ecstatic about it

I see it done around here all the time by our resident purists.

I suppose I should thank them for the idea

that provides evidence for and represents exactly the kinda BS I addressed in the TP

thanks

at first I didn't read your thread to the end
I assumed I knew where you were heading

But I'm down with it - Keep pissing Michael and Paul

most did, and I can understand why

the overarching point I was trying to make is of course, what transpired here.

I think far too often many of us lefties are too quick to judge the motives behind the complaints that have piled up over the last going on four years now, which leads to divisions on an interpersonal level and therefore potentially will make us collectively weaker numerically, since that could make the diff between some staying in the fold and say, voting green where they'll be accepted, since they make and share many of the same complaints.

and then of course, the intolerance over complaints also erodes the liberal status as the "tolerant" ones as well

http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Social-networking-and-politics/Main-findings/Social-networking-sites-and-politics.aspx

I see it as undermining the necessary solidarity we're gonna need to beat back the rightwingnut hordes, and to bring BHO and the dem leadership more back in line with the base and their wants and desires, like with single-payer for example.

If we don't do it, who will? And a lack of complaining means no impetus for it on their part.

Both say just what I feel, this legislation can now be built and improved upon, like SS. It's the proverbial foot in the door and with yesterday's SCOTUS ruling, the door is firmly propped open.

Julie

....

they clearly violated the "thy shall speak no evil about the dems or their work product" I read arouind here all the time.

that's what gave me the idea for this post

It will lower the costs to everyone to have everyone in the pool. The only people adversely affected will be the freeloaders who can afford healthcare but don't buy it and then access the system for emergencies, and those costs are distributed to all of us.

The poor and the lower incomes will have complete or partially subsidized premiums, on a sliding scale. The only "victims" of the mandate are the freeloaders.

but I understand your pov on the matter.

If it was in the form of a tax for medicare for all as opposed to feeding the insurance companies no matter how slightly or largely, I would be.

They will be buying insurance, which will provide some - perhaps adequate, perhaps not - access to healthcare. For many, it will only afford them the knowledge that they have insurance; it will not provide them sufficient coverage to take care of the majority of their health care needs.

A partially subsidized plan that is only required to cover 60% of allowable costs after a $5,950 deductible isn't health care for someone who needs help simply paying the monthly premium - it is a tantalizing glimpse of what others can afford. In essence, it is nothing more than a catastrophic care plan, only useful in getting them past the gatekeeper in the hospital accounting department if they develop a major problem or have a very serious accident. And after that, it won't save them from medical bankruptcy, because we (as a nation) are still doing nothing to address the very real problem of spiraling costs. It is better than nothing, but hardly 'healthcare' in the minds of most.

Still - they won't be 'freeloaders', so I guess that makes it all right.

the long and short of it is as I conclude my responses here -- my subject line and the quotes from them was smartasshood in response to an all too common theme/result of straying too far from "the dems/BHO do no wrong, ergo diseent and criticism of them is verbotten" I had read that were applicable to this specific case -- the "victory".

It's almost like my commentary that pretty much matched their own in the way you cited, and that I wove the above into, was ignorant incongruity and inconsistency rather than the deliberate act that it was.

I have no problem with what Moore and Krugman wrote, I have a problem with the way so many think about and act upon the criticisms others around here offer regarding BHO and the dem leadership and their work products. Others were writing about "the pissing" others here were doing in the wake of the decision, which was no doubt far more about the flaws they see in the law rather than any desire to have seen it struck completely down over those flaws.

and I could hardly make this a specific callout to named posters or posts without fear of editorial reprisal, just as they didn't, now could I?

Apparently I was too subtle for those without a guilty conscience, who knew exactly what I was posting about if they read it.

likely wouldn't fill the inside of the hydrogen's electron orbit.

and further validating it

To pick up on that!

but by all means, keep them coming

after they do nothing of the sort? After they recognize the Act for what it is, a flawed product of policy and politics?

I just applied the definition for such I saw outta some fellow DUers

or not use it.

We try to inform eachother, and hope to avoid inflammatory and unnecessary comments.

Welcome.