American Politics Thread 2013: I'm a cool Rodham grandma in the USA

Sequester:

Head Start programs across the country eliminated services for 57,000 children in the coming school year to balance budgets diminished by the federal sequester, cutting 1.3 million days from Head Start center calendars and laying off or reducing pay for more than 18,000 employees, according to federal government data scheduled for release Monday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/head-start-eliminated-services-to-57000-children-in-us-as-a-result-of-sequester/2013/08/18/e1181810-06d9-11e3-9259-e2aafe5a5f84_story.html?hpid=z2

aaaand:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/us/us-workers-are-grounded-by-deep-cuts.html?ref=politics&_r=0

x-post--interesting stuff re ALEC but does she have ideas re how progressives can better organize

lol @ under educated hungry children

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/revoking-ted-cruzs-canadian-citizenship-may-take-8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-l5FyA3pgo

cruz is one of those dudes who looks 15 years older than he is

It's the hair. Look to the hair, Orwell always said.

I love "Please Don't Go," but looking at that video, I think KC is just entering his coked-out, Dirk Diggler "You Got the Touch" phase.

i think it's the droopy face. he looks awful - wasn't he supposed to be like a handsome, smooth-talking debating genius who was going to save the GOP?

I don't know--I've never seen KC debate.

Pretty sure m first step running for federal office in USA would be to renounce any other citizenship but I guess he needed to keep those options open.

he'd make a great Canadian Senator

can i sublet cruz's canadian citizenship?

what an exciting 8 months you would have

seriously, i'd be interested to hear his rationale for maintaining his canadian citizenship to this point. he has a legit interesting family backstory that logically would bear upon his decision. or, he could simply say "forget my backstory, why WOULDN'T you want dual citizenship?" which i think is legit, too.

he literally didn't know he had dual citizenship until reporters pointed it out to him the other day

I love "Please Don't Go," but looking at that video, I think KC is just entering his coked-out, Dirk Diggler "You Got the Touch" phase.

― clemenza, Wednesday, August 21, 2013 1:02 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

so otm

Is there a thread for drones?

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/09/the-killing-machines-how-to-think-about-drones/309434/

Heathcare is awesome
http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/morning_call/2013/08/ups-to-drop-15000-spouses-from.html

in my fantasy universe this strengthens the argument for single-payer!

xxp Rolling Drone Thread

Heathcare is awesome
http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/morning_call/2013/08/ups-to-drop-15000-spouses-from.html

― the rofflestomper (dandydonweiner), Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:05 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Seems from reading the article that this has nothing to do with Obamacare and is just UPS cutting costs.

I don't really get the big deal, apparently they're only revoking coverage if the spouse works somewhere else that also provides similar coverage?

I guess it's only a big deal to those spouses who whose family insurance costs will go up when they have to purchase "similar" coverage that costs more.

UPS says it's related directly to Obamacare: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/business/ups-to-end-health-benefits-for-spouses-of-some-workers.html

Let's please stop pretending that Obamacare is not directly raising costs for some families, because it is for me.

Several health care experts, however, said they believed the company was motivated by a desire to hold down health care costs, rather than because of cost increases under the law.

We should trust the unnamed experts and not UPS? And that "cost increases under the new law" are should simply be absorbed by UPS as if they are inconsequential?

Seems to me that if we want to take the cynical route on this, we should think that UPS is only using Obamacare as a scapegoat to cut costs. Pretty sure I can find a health care expert out there who thinks that UPS wants to cut costs simply to enrich its shareholder masters.

Pretty sure that health care expert would be right, too.

This -- ACA implementation -- is the point in the musical chairs game where the music stops and somebody gets hip-checked out of the game. It doesn't fucking have to be that way, it shouldn't be that way. This is artificially engineered chaos from the right, from state legislatures and governors, from John Fucking Schnatter and Hobby Fucking Lobby. Chaos is always an opportunity to improve one's position at the expense of others.

Or, as Rahm Emmanuel likes to say, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

Savings from denying coverage to 15000 spouses are like what? $100mm? Anyway are we supposed to understand that the direct costs of aca to ups for expanded benes to adult children and cadillac plans in 2018 and certain fees are commensurate?

The upshot, though, is that the ACA itself is not the real villain here. xp

Why would anyone think it could be?

After all, any unintended consequences not previously imagined should be blamed on anything opposing ACA and not its implementation or design.

We should trust the unnamed experts and not UPS?

I guess it's only a big deal to those spouses who whose family insurance costs will go up when they have to purchase "similar" coverage that costs more.

But do they have to purchase it? Isn't this only occurring with working spouses who can get insurance through their employer?

any unintended consequences not previously imagined should be blamed on anything opposing ACA and not its implementation or design

if they are bad faith exercises in cost shifting rather than rational business decisions to address actual costs , then yes. what this is, i can't tell.

But do they have to purchase it?

"purchase it" is one way to look at it. it is effectively a pay cut for the ups employee depending upon the level of spousal subsidy, i should think.

anyway it turns out the best deal for me and my family is to split coverage, so i'm used to this coverage arrangement. but, it is not forced, it is the best option. i assume that if both spouses are under one ups plan, it's because that's the best deal for them, too. if one is forced out by ups, then logically the other plan is either more expensive, less generous, more administratively burdensome, or any combination of the above.

i haven't seen any language that the plan should be "similar," as quoted above, the summary articles just say that if the spouse could be covered elsewhere, they get cut.

"Let's please stop pretending that Obamacare is not directly raising costs for some families, because it is for me."

Yeah remember that wonderful time pre-ACA when healthcare costs were not rising at all.

We should trust the unnamed experts and not UPS?

No, we should always trust the corporate executives, because they never ever lie about this kind of thing.

UPS is a fantastic company! never had a complaint!

"Let's please stop pretending that Obamacare is not directly raising costs for some families, because it is for me."

Yeah remember that wonderful time pre-ACA when healthcare costs were not rising at all.

I'll trade the increase in premiums that I paid each year (which rose) for the past five years in exchange for what the ACA is going to cost me in 2014. Oh, and the ACA won't let me keep my plan, either. Oh, and I'm far from rich.

I'm one of the unintended consequences who is unlucky under the ACA. Or maybe I'm just the villain for pointing it out.

i haven't seen any language that the plan should be "similar," as quoted above, the summary articles just say that if the spouse could be covered elsewhere, they get cut.

― you're better off in a supersonic jet (Hunt3r), Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:20 PM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah and even if there was that language it would probably just be spin from UPS.

xp You're not a villain for pointing it out, you just aren't a terribly credible person.

I'll trade the increase in premiums that I paid each year (which rose) for the past five years in exchange for what the ACA is going to cost me in 2014. Oh, and the ACA won't let me keep my plan, either. Oh, and I'm far from rich.

I'm one of the unintended consequences who is unlucky under the ACA. Or maybe I'm just the villain for pointing it out.

― the rofflestomper (dandydonweiner), Thursday, August 22, 2013 7:41 PM (27 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

IIRC based on what you've told us, you're going to be paying more because you'll no longer have an insurance plan that just has catastrophic coverage with a massive deductible. And I understand that it sucks because this was the insurance you wanted but...

That's right Matt. Sucks to be me and assuming my family is healthy, it will cost me thousands right out of my pocket upfront in premiums. If we're not healthy, then it will still cost me thousands--around a 22% increase, which is greater than anything my provider ever hit me with on an annual basis.

Thanks for the tip, Alex. I'm just glad I'm not the guy who ran around campaigning that, "If you like your plan, you get to keep your current plan."

Really? His life seems pretty awesome to me. Fuck not getting a shelter dog though.

it's true that Obama should have said "if you somehow like your horrible insurance that doesn't meet any kind of sensible standard, you can't keep it"

What part of my plan isn't sensible, Matt? Even in the two years when my plan covered major surgeries, my out of pocket expense was around $13k. That's less than I would have paid with comparable high premium, low deductible insurance.

What Obama should have said is, "Your insurance might change but the reality is we're gonna address the major shortfalls of the current system so that it's more fair for everyone."

To be fair to don, that's what the administration has done an execrable job of explaining: if you've got shitty insurance now, it's going to be more expensive to keep."

But I'd argue and will argue that my insurance is NOT shitty. In the three years where we didn't have any major health issues in my house, my out of pocket was HALF of what it will be next year. And I started this plan with a 2, 5, and 7 year old...lots of fun trips to the pediatrician.

I don't hate Obama for this and some of the changes via the ACA are great. I just don't like the way it was sold to me.