HealthCare.gov Got Fewer Than 50,000 Enrolled in October

The states who are doing their own health care exchanges and HealthCare.gov have similar enrollment numbers for October: Fewer than 50,000. Here’s the Wall Street Journal on the federal exchange:

Initial reports suggest that fewer than 50,000 people successfully navigated the troubled federal health-care website to enroll in private health insurance plans as of last week, two people familiar with the matter said Monday.

The early tally falls far short of internal goals set by President Barack Obama's administration in the months leading up to the opening of the HealthCare.gov site Oct. 1, and the low number has worried health insurers that are counting on higher turnout.

Technology problems and design flaws have blocked many users from completing insurance applications or creating accounts to use the site, which serves consumers in the 36 states where the federal government oversees the new health-insurance exchanges.

Here’s Businessweek on the handful of state-run exchanges:

About 49,100 people have enrolled in Obamacare plans through 12 state-run insurance exchanges, according to a consulting company that’s providing a hint on the data congressional Republicans sought during hearings in the past two weeks.

Enrollment through Nov. 10 represents 3 percent of the 1.4 million people projected to sign up in those states by the end of 2014, Washington-based Avalere Health said in a statement today. The data don’t include California, the most populous U.S. state, Massachusetts or Oregon. It also doesn’t account for those enrolled through the federal website serving 36 states.

The number, frankly, is actually higher than I thought it would be.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    The number, frankly, is actually higher than I thought it would be.

    I blame Suderman's privately surprised Obamacare critics.

  • SIV||

    Cocktail party whispers

  • ||

    Does this number reflect those that have actually *purchased* coverage, or merely prospective enrollees?

    If it's the latter than it's possible I would be counted, even though I have no plans of purchasing coverage. I signed up to see how bad the rate increases would be,and how little coverage that would buy, but never got the browsing phase (which took much longer to get to than I had planned).

  • ChicagoRefugee||

    They are counting as enrollees those who have plans in their check-out carts, but have not yet purchased or paid. If Amazon did that, they'd be guilty of fraud.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Right now the ad just to the right of this story on my browser is inviting me to go directly to the California Obamacare website and "Enroll Now!"

    Sometimes these Google ads based on topics may not be exactly what the purchaser was hoping for.

  • Murgatroyd||

    Enrollment through Nov. 10 represents 3 percent of the 1.4 million people projected to sign up in those states by the end of 2014, Washington-based Avalere Health said in a statement today.

    I strongly suspect that the original article from Businessweek is incorrect and that they had projected 1.4 million people to sign up by the end of 2013, not 2014. This error hides the abject failure represented by the 3 percent fact presented in the article. Further down in the Businessweek article they state:

    The administration had a target of 800,000 sign-ups nationwide for the first two months, and the Congressional Budget Office has projected that 7 million people would enroll through 2014.
  • CatoTheElder||

    According to the AP, the Obama Administration target for October 31, 2013 was 494,620 and for March 31, 2014 was 7,066,000.
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/.....53263.html

    According to the WSJ article, the 40-50000 estimate applies to the federal website only.

    According to the Enroll Maven website, total ObamaCare enrollments stand at 94645, which excludes new Medicare enrollments.
    http://www.enrollmaven.com/

  • DJF||

    How many got signed up for Medicaid or is that included in the 50,000?

  • Cytotoxic||

    So does that rate of increase accelerate or deccelerate?

    Also love that this debunks the Progtard talking point about how states should have been happy to build their own exchanges and we wouldn't have the current problems if the other states weren't so intransigient. I can imagine Rick Ungar turning red and huffing and sputtering when he reads this. Maybe he'll die.

  • ||

    So, basically, there is about a 100-1 ratio between the number of people who received (or will receive) cancellation notices and the people who signed up.

    ObamaCare might just hit it's goal of 7 million enrollees. Of course, 99% of them will people who who just had their previous plans cancelled.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It should be renamed the GOP Midterm Domination Act.

  • Brett L||

    Please. You're counting on people with serious brain damage to outsmart people with genetic retardation. They'll fuck it up.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    please cite your numbers....

    They sound like Sean Handjob lies.

  • Sevo||

    'They sound like Sean Handjob lies.'

    A piker compared to that lying piece of shit in the WH.

  • General Butt Naked||

    C'mon, sevo, go easy on shrike.

    He saw Paula Poundstone at last night's NAMBLA meting and she explained to him how important it was for Dear Leader to see him out supporting the cause in the toobz. He's just following orders and repeating talking points, nothing more and certainly nothing malicious.

  • General Butt Naked||

    C'mon, sevo, go easy on shrike.

    He saw Paula Poundstone at last night's NAMBLA meting and she explained to him how important it was for Dear Leader to see him out supporting the cause in the toobz. He's just following orders and repeating talking points, nothing more and certainly nothing malicious.

  • playa manhattan||

    +2

  • General Butt Naked||

    Hey, it bears repeating...

    RAAAWWRRR!

    Get it? Bears?

  • playa manhattan||

    Cal Bears? I'm done with them. Their 3rd string sure got some playing time this weekend, though...

  • ||

    Based on the estimate that anywhere from 7-12 million people will have their policies canceled.

    Rounding to a nice easy 10 million, 10,000,000/100,000 = 100.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I've had my policy cancelled and know of zero people who've signed up.

    1/0 = infinity

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The early tally falls far short of internal goals set by President Barack Obama's administration...and the low number has worried health insurers that are counting on higher turnout".

    Really?

    Health insurers were counting on a higher turnout?

    You better believe it. They may not be able to survive in this environment without lots of new healthy people enrolling.

    This is what I've been talking about, people!

    The biggest hurdle ObamaCare has to clear isn't getting the exchanges up and running. Those will come with time.

    The biggest hurdle ObamaCare has to clear is when the private insurers start reporting their earnings at the end of Q1 2014.

    I'm not saying they're going to fail then, but there's a big dose of reality looming on the horizon. If private insurers cannot thrive or survive in the same world as ObamaCare, then ObamaCare is probably doomed.

    Two point memo to the Obama Administration:

    1) Putting the penaltax off for not having insurance until sixteen and a half months after you got rid of the exclusion for preexisting conditions was monumentally stupid.

    2a) Hitting people with a penaltax of $95 a year is insufficient incentive to make them buy insurance they don't think they need for more than a $100 per month.

    2b) Making speeches and running ads for the exchanges on MTV is insufficient to overcome problem 2a.

  • playa manhattan||

    Can you dumb it down a shade? Which stocks should I short, and what are their NYSE symbols?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Ken doesn't know anything about equities (or debt).

    I bought Healthnet (HNT) and it tripled after the ACA was signed.

    CA play. There is no play on rednecks insurance. They are mostly freeloaders.

  • playa manhattan||

    I like fucking with Ken because he is my neighbor. If he is living where I am, he is doing just fine.

    You mean the same ACA that drove HNT down in the first place? You must be proud.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Don't lie to me, bitch!

    HNT $9 in 2009 to $30 today.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/echar.....undefined;

  • playa manhattan||

    As a guy who claims to know finance, I suspect you know EXACTLY what I meant.

    You're a genius with 20/20 foresight, and pulled 300% in capital gains, so I assume you are posting this from your yacht in the Mediterranean?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    So what? I didn't say I bought HNT at the bottom and sold it at the top (I didn't).

    My return on HNT was only about $1500 - barely above the Obama Bull Market Rally of 2009-present.

  • playa manhattan||

    You implied it, and you meant to.

    "I bought Healthnet (HNT) and it tripled after the ACA was signed."

    By the way, is tin a conflict mineral? Answer in your words, and your words only.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Stocks don't trade in the future based on how they did in the past. And if that's the way you trade, if you make trades like you think the insurers are going to do well in the future--because they've done well in the past? Then I want to be on the opposite side of every trade you make.

    In the short term, a stock is priced relative to the supply and demand for the stock. The short term is about five minutes. Over the long term, a stock's price is based on the economy, industry wide variables, and future earnings. If earnings fall, or even if revenue falls, the stock price will come down--other things being equal.

    Haven't you heard about all these people losing their policies? Why shouldn't we assume that the insurers are going to lose a lot of that revenue? They may stay profitable with a smaller market and a smaller revenue stream, but what's that mean for the multiple the insurers' are getting on their earnings? Why would I assume their revenue is going to grow next quarter--if all signs suggest that they're writing fewer polices today?

  • Ken Shultz||

    That was all to Shrike, by the way.

  • Ken Shultz||

    And add this...

    You were talking about how health insurers have done in the past. I was talking about how they're going to do once all those people with preexisting conditions are on the charge side of ledger, once they're being gouged by providers to cover all the losses from new Medicaid patients, and how they'll do in that environment without all the new healthy people paying in that they were apparently expecting.

    This situation looks to me a lot like when California "deregulated" the power companies and, effectively, uncapped how much the utilities had to pay for electricity but capped how much they could charge their customers.

    Ha!

    One of the biggest utilities in the state went bankrupt, and the others were circling the drain. It was a train wreck in slow motion happening just like this one, too.

    I'm not saying what's definitely going to happen come Q1 2014 to the insurers, but you can color me bearish on the insurers given what we know now.

    And that is certainly the biggest hurdle for ObamaCare going forward. If the insurers' earnings start shrinking in the ObamaCare environment, it's going to be very hard to convince people that ObamaCare should stay. Just like when the utilities in California went bust, reality will have its way.

    And talking about how well the insurers have done in the past isn't going to make any difference to anybody if they aren't making much money next quarter.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The exchanges represent a tolerably small percentage of their entire policy portfolio. If they end up being money losers (a real possibility) then either premiums are going to go up making people even more unhappy, or the insurance companies will withdraw from the market and no policies will be available which will also make people unhappy. But then we'll have the perfect excuse for medicare for all... *sigh*

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Can you dumb it down a shade? Which stocks should I short, and what are their NYSE symbols?"

    Actually, the insurers have already been trading lower.

    I don't have a series 7 license. Not all investments are suitable for everyone. Before making an investment, be sure to check with a qualified investment adviser. Past performance is no indication of future results. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

    And I think everyone should know about ETFs, how to sell a covered call, and how to buy a put.

  • playa manhattan||

    Palin's Buttplug had some fightin' words above. He made a whole $1500 trading from his mom's basement, though...

  • Ken Shultz||

    Here's the skinny on what's going on with the insurers:

    "It is easy to blame the glitches in the Obamacare Website for their problems, but many of these stocks gained in price earlier this month after signups – and setbacks – had already begun. Disappointing earnings reports last week, however, got the group moving to the downside with technical breakdowns."

    http://online.barrons.com/arti.....35698.html

  • SweatingGin||

    Ken: don't the insurers get some kind of a kick-back per person covered? I want to say it was from the per-covered tax.

    Of course, if they don't get that paid quarterly it doesn't matter. Like you say, Q1 earnings should be interesting.

  • Tman||

    Yes SG, yes they do.

    http://www.conservativeintel.c.....-insurers/

    The risk corridor mechanism compares the total allowable medical costs for each QHP (excluding non-medical or administrative costs) to those projected or targeted by the QHP. If the actual allowable costs are less than 97 percent of the QHP’s target amount, a percentage of these savings will be remitted to HHS (limiting gain). Similarly if the actual allowable cost is more than 103 percent of the QHP’s target amount, a percentage of the difference will be paid back to the QHP (limiting loss).

  • SweatingGin||

    Really a brazen control on a "market" there. I bet there's some fun gaming to be done with that, too.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I appreciate that, but what we're talking about is a market reaction to lower earnings.

    If the market was giving you a 10 p/e ratio because it thought your earnings we're going to grow, but now that it sees your revenue is shrinking, maybe it thinks it's going to stabilize at a 5 p/e ratio--but your stock drops by more than half because you're getting that multiple on lower earnings.

    And if the insurers report lower earnings after Q1 2014, I don't think the market is going to give them credit for whatever they're getting in bailout money from the government the way it would give them credit for regular earnings.

    And I doubt that bailing out a shrinking insurance industry is going to save ObamaCare. We're still talking about fewer and fewer people being able to get insurance they consider affordable.

    So, I don't see how bailing the industry is going to stop the industry from shrinking, in that situation, and I'm skeptical that bailing out the industry, year after year after year, is even politically sustainable in that scenario.

  • ||

    $95 is the minimum penalty. It's actually going be 1% of income for most people.

    I plan on paying something close to $400 the first year, a pittance compared to the cost of insurance (~$2200).

  • Sevo||

    I'm sure you've checked the other requirements.
    Since a co. must not deny coverage for existing conditions, can you simply sign up on the day you have an accident and walk into the care facility? No waiting period or other denial of care? (other than the delays built into this disaster).

  • ||

    As far as I can tell, you can only sign up during the open enrollment period: Oct-March31.

    There is truly NO incentive to buy insurance until the last possible day. If you get seriously I'll, odds are that any extremely expensive procedure can be delayed a couple of weeks until the new policy kicks in.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think a lot of these people they were expecting were people under 26--a lot of them were supposed to stay on their parents' polices.

    Their incomes are low.

    And you're right, it's about price signals. Once you start dealing with people who don't think they need what you're trying to get them to buy, you're dealing with people that are going to go with the low cost option.

    If Obama wants them to buy insurance, then he has to make it more expensive for them not to buy insurance than it is for them to buy insurance.

    He can run all the ads he wants on MTV. He can demonize people for not buying insurance they probably don't need. But that kind of strategy isn't enough to make most people put solar panels on their roofs--why would it make them buy something they don't think they need?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Funny thing is, that I am young and healthy, but had insurance in case something extreme happened. My policy was cheap and perfect for me.

    It's cancelled because it doesn't meet ACA standards.

    I am not going to apply for subsidies, I am not going to buy a new policy, and if I get seriously ill I'll sign up for insurance then.

    Fuck the shortsighted bastards. They've just created the exact situation this law was supposed to prevent, i.e. people free loading when they get sick.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's amazing how many people I've talked to that are getting their policies canceled. I'm sure a lot of those people are opting out entirely.

    It certainly doesn't auger well for the insurers' earnings next quarter.

    We shouldn't assume their revenue is going to grow next quarter--if all signs suggest that they're writing fewer polices today.

    It could be an industry with higher profits (unlikely), but it's probably going to be a smaller industry in the future.

    If ObamaCare survives making insurance more expensive and excluding more people from getting insurance, I'll be sadly surprised.

    And I'm really sorry to hear that happened to you. There's no good reason why it has to be this way.

  • anon||

    We shouldn't assume their revenue is going to grow next quarter--if all signs suggest that they're writing fewer polices today.

    You have no way of knowing whether the policies being cancelled are profitable or not for the insurance company.

    Like I said the other day, my bet is they're dumping the bad bets and charging as much as they can for the good bets.

    It's like doubling down when the dealer has to stand on 16 and has 16 showing.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "You have no way of knowing whether the policies being cancelled are profitable or not for the insurance company."

    If they're selling fewer policies, they are likely have a smaller revenue stream--even if they're more profitable. I think we're talking about a smaller market cap for these companies.

    Oh, and chances are that the market is not going to give your earnings the same multiple when your revenue is shrinking as when your revenue was growing.

    We should also remember that some of these policies are being dumped because they don't meet the necessary requirements under ObamaCare--not because they were unprofitable. ...and losing those is probably going to hurt earnings.

    Anyway, I'm with you. I think we're likely to see policies getting more expensive and the insurance companies selling fewer of them--both of which have implications for the political viability of ObamaCare.

  • Sudden||

    We should also remember that some of these policies are being dumped because they don't meet the necessary requirements under ObamaCare--not because they were unprofitable. ...and losing those is probably going to hurt earnings.

    The policies being cancelled and the people dropping out of the insurance pool by not purchasing now are primarily the relatively young and healthy who had largely catastrophic level policies that were still a reliable cash flow for the insurers.

    The revenue they're withheld from not being able to sell those policies may be minimal, but the consequence is that they're losing the lowest risk customer base. That's a critical thing for insurers to have.

  • robc||

    You have no way of knowing whether the policies being cancelled are profitable or not for the insurance company.

    Im only one datum, but my policy was hugely profitable for the insurance company (and isnt quite cancelled yet, the insurance company is gaming the system for another 11 months).

  • Sudden||

    It's amazing how many people I've talked to that are getting their policies canceled. I'm sure a lot of those people are opting out entirely.

    They tried to game the market.

    The market gamed back.

  • ||

    Part of Roberts' reasoning was that the penaltax was not coercive due to how low it was. If the tax was ever raised to the point that would be necessary to drive people into the market it could easily be struck down as being too high to pass constitutional muster.

  • Irish||

    Anthony Bourdain, Don Lemon and Roy Choi discuss the need for the second amendment on CNN.

    Celebrity chef and author Roy Choi revealed that he was present during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. According to Bourdain, Huang’s family used a cache of rifles to fend off rioters from destroying their family-owned Korean store. “You had no support from police or local or city government,” Bourdain noted. “This was a clear example of the right to bear arms preventing utter, utter, utter devastation.”

    This is why progressives are doomed to lose on the gun issue. Conservatives and libertarians are united on the need for the right to bear arms, but there are enough liberals who believe in the second amendment that the Democrats end up too divided.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I have to fully agree with you here.

    Progressives (about 20% of the electorate) are unmitigated idiots on gun laws. If they want to lose they will impose gun bans then wither away forever.

  • SweatingGin||

    Progressives (about 20% of the electorate) are unmitigated idiots on gun laws.

    FTFY

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Can't argue since I am no progressive.

    KEEP YER MONKEY HANDS OFF MY GENITALS YA GODDAMN SOCONS!

  • ||

    There are three kinds of gun banner:

    1) Politicians and LEOs who like special access to firearms because it is a marker of how they are better than the peons
    2) KULTUR WAR scum on (generally) TEAM BLUE who themselves are not firearm owners and see firearm ownership as generally a TEAM RED/redneck thing, and therefore want to ban it because it will upset their political opponents
    3) Animists who have totemically raised guns to the level evil spirit and fear them at all times

    The reason why they have been soundly defeated (in the US) is partially because each group has a completely different reason for wanting to restrict/ban guns, and so they do not coordinate well. They are all generally irrational and sometimes hysterical, and that doesn't help them either. But of course, the Supreme Court's Heller decision really put the nails in their coffin.

  • playa manhattan||

    Isn't Bourdain a bit of a lib? Or didn't he used to be, before he had the show where he was required to mingle with the folk from flyover country?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Flyover country is liberal everywhere except the American South and Taliban/RCC Country.

  • ||

    http://philhardwickblog.files......unties.jpg

    Why is everything you write a lie?

    I would recommend medication and therapy but the cheaper and simpler way would be just take everything you believe and toss it in the garbage.

  • Sevo||

    "Why is everything you write a lie?"

    Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it's a false dichotomy, a mis-direction, cherry picking, just all sorts of dishonesty.
    He's certainly catholic in his mendacity!

  • playa manhattan||

    Well, those are kinds of lies...

  • Ted S.||

    Every word Shrike writes is a lie, including "and" and "the".

  • C. Anacreon||

    +1 Mary McCarthy

  • Brian||

    He's not a real person. He's just a joke.

    He had me going for a while, but no one could really hold so many contradictory positions simultaneously without noticing.

  • Juice||

    CNN anchor Don Lemon confessed that he has “evolved” on the gun issue

    Just like me. Once upon a time I was a no nothing about politics and the like. It wasn't all that long ago either. In 2004 the AW ban sunsetted and I was on some lame message board talking about how no civilian needed an uzi and shit like that. It's just because I didn't know anything about guns. Needless to say the message board discussions eventually led me to see the light.

  • JeremyR||

    Honestly, I don't get the complaints about the web site. The site worked when I looked at it. Was it horribly written? Sure, but so is the new Yahoo sports page.

    The real problem is that Obamacare simply stinks. It does nothing to reduce costs of health care, it only provides health insurance to people by forcing them to buy it at inflated costs (thanks to all the padded "essential health services"), which will be used to pay for the people who are now able to buy insurance despite having health problems.

    Even with a subsidy, it's going to be out of the reach of many people. I think many people log in, have sticker shock, and decide to skip it.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Then don't sign up.

  • playa manhattan||

    It's that simple, huh? I check the mail everyday for a cancellation letter. If I get one and am forced to sign up on the exchange, would you consider that a success for Obamacare?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Price it then come back.

  • playa manhattan||

    I did, 2 weeks ago at https://www.coveredca.com.

    Premiums ^
    Deductibles ^
    PPO=Gone

    SUCCESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|11.11.13 @ 7:37PM|#
    "Price it then come back."

    Dipshit claims to 'know' finance and fantasizes that adding all sorts of coverage will LOWER INSURANCE COSTS!
    Let's hear it for him, folks. Laughing at the village idjit is just fine in these parts!

  • playa manhattan||

    I get a birth control & pregnancy discount for having a vasectomy, right?

  • Sevo||

    You bet! Now figure the added costs of gov't meddling and you're saving money the way the US budget is commonly cut.
    In fact, with the money you've saved by not buying that Malibu cottage, you can afford your insurance!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I get a birth control & pregnancy discount for having a vasectomy, right?

    The bitch you knocked up is costing us taxpayers!

    (unless you are gay - are you a pole-smoker?)

  • playa manhattan||

    How homophobic of you. Why would a gay guy get a vasectomy?

    Here's a serious offer. I'll post a picture of my wife, and you post a picture of yours. We'll put it to a vote, and the loser goes away forever. I'm Facebook friends with several posters here, so they'll confirm that my wife is who I say she is. Are you in?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The community demands naked pictures.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Check your inbox.

    Though I must warn you, I haven't seen much the sun or the gym lately.

  • SweatingGin||

    GBN: just make him watch your video on repeat.

  • playa manhattan||

    I'm negotiating that right now. I think my wife will say yes if I blur her face out. (Disclosure: I am 100 percent certain that no one would ever marry or engage in intercourse with the sorry excuse of a human that plays the role of Palin's Buttplug)

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Playa's Wager.

    Like Pascal's but with nudity.

  • playa manhattan||

    I assume somebody in the DNC national headquarters is trying to find some credible naked pictures. As I thought.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    deal, w/ faces only.

  • playa manhattan||

    Sorry, I stepped away for dinner. So if I understand correctly, you have agreed to this deal. If so, I am 100 percent in.

    I understand that your alleged wife has a fat ass, so faces only. How are you going to verify that the picture you found on the internet is your wife?

  • playa manhattan||

    I love the sound of crickets on a beautiful holiday evening.

  • playa manhattan||

    Chirp Chirp. What a beautiful evening.

  • Sevo||

    I went into specifics when shreek once claimed 'market knowledge' and here was what the gain was.
    All I asked is *WHEN* that gain was to occur.
    What a beautiful evening; might get some rain in SF.

  • playa manhattan||

    Really? I though you guys had the Santa Ana winds too and were looking at some good sunny weather this week...

    Shreek still hasn't admitted he was wrong about conflict minerals. Although I'm not even sure it's the same person everyday.

  • Fluffy||

    Most people won't.

    I'm hoping I get to see the inevitable death spiral ahead of schedule.

    They should have done the individual mandate FIRST, and then loaded all the plans up with mandated coverage LATER.

    Because at the premium levels they could have charged three years ago for bare-bones coverage, they might have gotten people to enroll. Then as prices rose people would have just dealt with it.

    Instead they're trying to draw people in under threat of penaltax, but the product they're seeing when they get there is so horrible even people with a gun barrel pointing at them aren't going to buy it.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Fluffy, you are typically rational but not here.

    You're reacting to Heritage reports (proven liars) that 2014 premiums will be substantially higher than 2013.

    There is no evidence for that other than Heritage itself (proven liars). We know that the market (Exchange) will prove that there are unforeseen circumstances as markets always do.

    If the base of the ACA were not PRIVATE TAX CREDITS I would expect the worst like you.

    But the ACA is all about private insurance funded by tax credits (or cuts) which is a (nearly) free market incentive system.

  • Sevo||

    "There is no evidence for that other than Heritage itself (proven liars). We know that the market (Exchange) will prove that there are unforeseen circumstances as markets always do."

    Yes, adding all sorts of coverages is going to lower the costs. Why didn't someone think of forcing people to buy what they don't need before?
    Yachts would be FREE!

  • playa manhattan||

    Word has it that PB has a Yacht in the Mediterranean paid for by the ACA.

  • Fluffy||

    Community rating and mandated coverage make it impossible for the insurers to compete in any meaningful way that would be relevant to the non-parasite side of the market.

  • Sevo||

    Regardless of the regulatory costs, there will be the typical gov't meddling friction costs.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Community rating and mandated coverage make it impossible for the insurers to compete in any meaningful way that would be relevant to the non-parasite side of the market.

    So you say.

    The market and insurers disagree. But we will know by the mid-terms.

    May the best win. I will be here and the only barometers will be election results and health insurer profits.

  • Sevo||

    ..."the only barometers will be election results and health insurer profits."...

    No, dipshit, the only barometer will be the number of insured.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    No, dipshit, the only barometer will be the number of insured.

    I don't care about that. That is an elective decision.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|11.11.13 @ 8:29PM|#
    "I don't care about that. That is an elective decision."

    Prolly your fave lying pile of shit doesn't care about it either; he got elected on his lies, didn't he?

  • Brian||

    I thought voting was an elective decision.

  • CatoTheElder||

    It's been pretty easy to get a user ID for a couple of weeks.

    Did you actually enroll?

    Because unless you go through the whole process, you don't know how bad it really is.

    I've tried 98 times, and the damn system still says it cannot validate my identity. I supplied copies of IDs as instructed three weeks ago, and still await a response.

    The system is fucked up, I tell ya.

  • ||

    It's deliciously, wonderfully fucked up. The kind of fucked up that fucks up political careers. Oh, this just keeps getting better and better.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Roberts: evil genius?

  • juris imprudent||

    The tax bit did invite speculation about a long play - since an invalid taxation claim wouldn't be ripe until the tax actually kicked in.

  • R C Dean||

    Looks like they aren't including Medicaid signups (the article refers to private insurance plans).

    I understand that the website allows you to pay the first premium "on the spot." Are they only counting the people who have paid their first premium? If not, then they are overcounting.

    Also, note that the "fewer than 50,000" signed up through the federal site could be a lot fewer. I doubt its fewer than 40,000, but that's a potential 20% swing if its at the lower end of the range.

  • playa manhattan||

    +1. There is a 3 month grace period on the premiums, so you have to assume that some people are going to try and game the system with this in mind..

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I saw an interview today where an Obama fellater was desperately trying the "sabotaged!" argument. She even blamed the media, so apparently she's in thrall to Fox News...

    In a hundred years the Socialists have not managed to come up with a new argument. They still "explain" the failure of their programs by invoking the "hoarders and wreckers" routine.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The rational argument on sabotage is - IT IS A FUCKING WEBSITE - THERE WILL BE SABOTAGE!

    PLAN ON IT, idiots.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    meaning - that is no excuse.

  • XM||

    The website sucks and is regarded by industry experts as highly exploitable, so it can be used as an excuse.

    The ACA is hated by the right and isn't taken seriously by the rest. None of my casual Obama loving friends have even the slightest plan to buy healthcare. One plans to pay the penalty, and the others will try to ride it out, knowing no IRS raid is coming to their business that does business in cash.

  • ||

    no IRS raid is coming to their business that does business in cash.

    Oh those poor poor fools.

  • juris imprudent||

    does business in cash

    So they are in the medical mj biz eh?

  • Sevo||

    Meaning it's also not what you're claiming, idjit.

  • Fluffy||

    The progs I observe have already moved beyond the "sabotage" argument, and are now using the "just deserts" argument.

    "Sure!" they now admit. "You're getting fucked over by this. But it's to make sure that the downtrodden health proletariat can get health care! You DESERVE to get fucked over, bourgeois exploiter!"

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Has there suddenly been an increase in men knocking up girls and running off to leave the woman to raise the baby alone?

    Because that's the only argument they got to defend forcing everyone to buy insurance plans that cover contraception and maternity care.

  • Fluffy||

    Remember, to them insurance is "a pool".

    So they consider it fundamentally unfair for people to pay different amounts into "the pool", even if those people demonstrably cost different amounts to insure.

    To them, it is an injustice imposed by evil Nature that it costs more to provide health care to women than men. By forcing men at gunpoint to buy overpriced insurance, so that women can have underpriced insurance, they are correcting evil Nature's evil vicious unjust deed.

    "Insurance is about everyone paying into a pool to spread risk." That's their lie, and they're sticking to it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -"Insurance is about everyone paying into a pool to spread risk."

    Did you mean to say 'spread costs?'

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Well, then Fortune 500 employers who pay premiums based on pools (community rating) are Muslin Socialists too.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No they're capitalists. You wouldn't understand.

  • Fluffy||

    Insurance is about one person betting they will get sick and another person (usually with much more capital) betting they will stay well. Or, at least, get sick in ways that will require care less than the dollar amount of the bet.

    The pool element of insurance is an emergent property of the mass market for such bets, and is entirely incidental to the nature of insurance itself.

    Insurance is a worthwhile prospect for the insured only - ONLY - if the bet is priced to their individual circumstances. As soon as you price it higher than actuarial risk for the individual insured, it's a bad bet for the insured.

    The employer group market manages to skate past this reality by having the primary payer of the premium not be the individual insured. So although I am probably getting raped by my insurance in actuarial terms, I don't see it because I'm not paying.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Well we agree again!

    Individual risk assessment is granular and prone to screwing the slightly pre-existing (PEC) condition payers based on actual risk.

    Medicare and Employer plans are community rated and make up 85% of all insured.

    Viva the little guy who gets a pass on PEC -and the only "victim" is a healthy 3% who pays into the "new pool"!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    But do not insurers play a group game, not an individual one? In other words, they assume (or bet) that some individuals they will insure will end up costing them more than the premiums the individual will have paid to them, but as long as some number of others have paid more into premiums than the insurers will pay in covering them, in an amount greater than the loss in the first circumstance, then the insurer makes their living.

  • Sevo||

    ..."as long as some number of others have paid more into premiums than the insurers will pay in covering them, in an amount greater than the loss in the first circumstance, then the insurer makes their living."

    Nope. Insurers pretty much break even on premiums/losses.
    Insurers are investment firms with huge amounts of cash to invest. That's the reason that hypocrite Buffett likes them so well; he uses the money to invest in other companies as the opportunities arise.

  • robc||

    Time value of money.

    They make money on the float, yes, but if you calculate that into the TVoM, then receiving a $100 premium today and paying out $100 next month is, in fact, paying out less than you receive, as the $100 next month is worth less than the $100 today due to time (and thats even ignoring inflation).

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Bo, the vast majority of health insurance is community rated.

    Medicare/Vets/Federal and employer insurance make up 85% of the market.

    The guys getting stiffed were largely the individuals with PEC - which Obamacare protects.

    Anyone betting demographic backlash against the Dems is a fool.

    (unless the website fails into 2014)

  • Sevo||

    "The guys getting stiffed were largely the individuals with PEC - which Obamacare protects."

    Care to explain this so we can see how you're lying here?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The pool element of insurance is an emergent property of the mass market for such bets, and is entirely incidental to the nature of insurance itself.

    Agreed with the first part, but insurance would not be nearly as pervasive in our society were it not for that emergent property. If it were not present, there's no way Allstate or Progressive is offering you a policy based solely on age, gender, and very terse 5-year driving record. Those kind of bets don't happen in isolation.

    As soon as you price it higher than actuarial risk for the individual insured, it's a bad bet for the insured.

    That's not necessarily so. If I have a 0.1% chance of sustaining a liability of $1 million, it's reasonable for me to pay somewhat more than the expected value of $1000 to insure against it. Why? Because $1M wipes out all my finances and then some, translating to a life of debt slavery. The actuarial value is only of meaning to the insurer.

  • juris imprudent||

    insurance is "a pool"

    I had a FB acquaintance try this on me. So I asked if everyone in Colorardo should pay the same earthquake insurance as everyone in California. He said no, but health care is different. Honest but can't quite shake the cognitive dissonance.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    How long until low enrollment can no longer be blamed on the impenetrable Obamacare portal? The young invincibles may be impervious to fines. If so, that shallow pool is going to be a problem for insurance companies.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    USPS-Amazon deal shows decline of government

    Some may cheer the news that Amazon’s commitment to ultimate consumer fulfillment will not be denied by any so-called “day of rest.” But the spectacle of Amazon Sunday also manages to capture, in a tidy package delivered right to everyone’s doorstep, both the ongoing collapse of government and the subservience of everything in our society to the unnecessary satiation of consumer desires. Sound the heretic alarm! Guess what? We don’t need Sunday deliveries. But we do need a functional government.

    Wasn’t it just the other day we were hearing that the USPS would cease deliveries on Saturday? Now here’s Amazon to the rescue! Terms of the deal haven’t been released, but you’d have to guess that Jeff Bezos is paying a tidy sum to get mail carriers out and about on Sundays. The lesson offered is pathetic. The U.S. government can no longer adequately fund the postal service. But Amazon can!

    I suppose it’s not quite accurate to lambaste the provision of a new delivery option as yet another example of the relentless ongoing privatization of public services. But it is still unsettling. Amazon’s obvious goal is to get more Amazon Prime signups. What Sunday deliveries by the USPS really mean is that a government service is being co-opted as part an Amazon marketing campaign. I don’t think this is what Ben Franklin had in mind.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Progressivism is religious belief in government. NOTHING may violate its terms. For that is hetersy.

    I don’t think this is what Ben Franklin had in mind.

    That's only true because he wouldn't have made all this government in the first place.

    Articles like this give me hope.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The government can't grow, harvest, refine, package, and distribute the American food supply either. Damn the greedy private sector for taking that over, too.

  • SweatingGin||

    Maybe so, but my nightmare is just beginning.

    Is there any taste better than progressive tears?

  • Irish||

    No. The fact that this guy can look at our government and claim it's collapsing is just precious. Such an individual is doomed to be miserable forever, and that makes me so happy.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Yes, and the more he gets what he wants, the more miserable he will be - he just doesn't realize it. Unfortunately, it makes the rest of us more miserable as well.

  • Brian||

    When the government collapses the system, progressives will mourn the collapse of the government.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Prime is great. Just the other day I ordered something on Saturday evening, and had it Monday afternoon, with the free 2-day shipping option.

  • Irish||

    I suppose it’s not quite accurate to lambaste the provision of a new delivery option as yet another example of the relentless ongoing privatization of public services.

    The United States Federal Government is in the ongoing process of taking over 18% of the American economy and this nitwit thinks the comparatively minor movement away from the Post Office is somehow proof of too much privatization.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    FLASH: George W. Bush is still alive, scheduled to speak to the Messianic Jewish Bible Institute, which wants to convert Jews to Christianity. Bush himself says he's just going to talk about American values in general.

    In a desperate attempt to maintain its relevance, the Anti-Defamation League asks Bush not to address the evangelical Protestant group:

    "The ADL called the organization “a Texas-based group that attempts to convince Jews to convert to Christianity by promoting the false and offensive notion that Jews can accept Jesus as their messiah and still be Jewish.”...

    "[ADL head Abraham] Foxman nodded to Bush’s relationship with the Jewish and pro-Israel communities even as he expressed his dismay at the speaking engagement.

    "“President Bush is a friend who has an abiding love and respect for Israel and the Jewish people,” Foxman said. “I know that he does not represent or embrace the purpose or the mission of this group, and therefore I wish he would not speak there.”"

    http://www.politico.com/story/.....html?hp=r3

  • playa manhattan||

    JOOS!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I was more interested in the BOOSH angle, but whatever floats your boat, I suppose.

  • playa manhattan||

    My wife was raised in an orthodox jewish family, and as a non-interventionist, I think Bush did more than enough to support Israel.

    This doesn't really have anything to do with Bush, though.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Uh, Bush is the guy whose speaking appearance is at issue, at least according to Mr. Foxman.

  • playa manhattan||

    The issue here is Mr. Foxman. But we are digressing into kultur war territory.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Sure, he's the ultimate issue. He's one of the secular "leaders" of the Jewish community who is being displaced as a gatekeeper by grassroots activists using social media:

    http://forward.com/articles/18.....hment/?p=2

    These activists are more likely (compared to the ADL types) to actually believe in God, so their emphasis is naturally a bit more traditional, and less about promoting the latest secularist talking points - like OMG BOOOSH talking to evangelicals who want to convert us!

    One grassroots activist, as the article said, induced the Christian chain Hobby Lobby to stock Chanukkah items - the ADL was dragged into the dispute kicking and screaming, and Foxman said: "“In the good old days, when someone said something critical or nasty, you could ignore it....Now everyone has a megaphone. Your supporters come and say, ‘Did you hear?’ You’re forced to deal and engage.”

    So the God-oriented types now get to set the agenda now! And the ADL can cry BOOOSH as much as it wants, that won't change a thing.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That's a poor example, though. I think most of us on here would agree with Foxman and the ADL when he stated "The Anti-Defamation League posted the apology on its website while noting that not stocking Jewish items did not indicate bigotry". The real story is the naivety of some dude taking the words of a minimum-wage cashier as official company policy. Of course, the story gained steam due to the Hobby Lobby's founder's outspoken religiosity. But if I were Foxman, I would have stated out of it as well, because the whole thing was stupid.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Ah, but look at the result - Hobby Lobby stocked the Chanukkah items and established ties with the Jewish community. And all without idiotic litigation, just catering to potential customers! Anyway, I'm in Hobby Lobby's corner due to the HHS mandate litigation, and they need to keep other God-botherers on their side, which stocking Chanukkah items can do.

    It's not as if Foxman wants to avoid silly issues. The Bush thing shows that. Also (going by their Web site), they find time to discuss sports team names and to endorse ENDA. Because letting dudes use the womens' locker room has always been a matter of pressing importance for Jews.

    Basically, Foxman has the priorities of a liberal Democrat who thinks God (if He exists) is a liberal Democrat, too, and who sees the American right wing as the focus of evil in the modern world. The Christian community should be relieved that new activists are arising who get beyond these tired tropes.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Basically, Foxman has the priorities of a liberal Democrat who thinks God (if He exists) is a liberal Democrat, too,

    Don't worry, when I use that, I'll give you credit.

    Hobby Lobby stocked the Chanukkah items and established ties with the Jewish community. And all without idiotic litigation, just catering to potential customers!

    Absolutely. Now to work on Kwanzaa.

  • Fluffy||

    Anyone who considers it evil for one person to talk to another person about religion (Because it might convert them! CULTURAL GENOCIDE ROWWRRAARRR!) is a soulmate of the Taliban.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I know a lot of Jews who resent Christians proselytizing them, there is an ugly history there.

  • ||

    there is an ugly history there

    I would call the Spanish Inquisition unexpectedly ugly.

  • playa manhattan||

    There's no sugarcoating it.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

  • playa manhattan||

    P.S. Happy Veterans Day! and to Swiss whatever the name is these days!

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Thanks

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    +1 service to your country

  • ||

    Should also point out that atheists have not been very kind to Jews either.

    I wonder how the ADL feels about atheist proselytizing?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    They probably wouldn't want to proselytize themselves!

  • SIV||

    Atheist churches, Atheist synagogues, Atheist mosques, where will it end?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Question SIV:

    Let's for the moment, assume you are 100% correct. Which is absurd, of course, but let's say you are anyway.

    Atheism IS A RELIGION!

    So fucking what? So they worship the fact that there is no god. What exactly does that prove? How does this make you feel better? What is the point to your absurd little argument? That Atheists need a crutch too? Do you even have a point?

  • General Butt Naked||

    The point is that to SIV, EVERYTHING IS THE SAME NO MATTER WHAT!.

    If you believe in santa clause at the age of 30 it's THE SAME THING as not believing in santa clause at the age of thirty.

    Also, that obsessing on some imaginary rift between "cosmos", cocktail party libertarians and whatever he claims to be gives him a vague notion of superiority. Atheism (other people's, that is) is the crutch that holds up his ego.

    Also, also, never NEVER, ever forget that though he brings up cultural bullshit issues about ten time a thread, that it's you that is the CULTURE WARRIOR!!. I guess for daring to question his bitter, proofless proclamations.

  • Irish||

    COSMOTARIANATHEISTCHURCHCOCKAILPARTIEZ!

    OH GOD! THE DEEP ONES HAVE ARISEN FROM THEIR VAULTS WITHIN THE SEA! YUG NOBBA SOTHOTH!

    ALL MUST HAIL THE UNCLEAN!

    /About as coherent as SIV

  • Sevo||

    Corning|11.11.13 @ 8:06PM|#
    "Should also point out that atheists have not been very kind to Jews either."

    I hope you're not presuming commies are atheists.

  • William of Purple||

    are you suggesting old Joe Stalin was a regular Jesus freak?

  • Sevo||

    William of Purple|11.11.13 @ 10:55PM|#
    "are you suggesting old Joe Stalin was a regular Jesus freak?"

    You know, some reading might help you avoid looking like an imbecile.
    In fact, Stalin regularly referred to what god would do; by all indications, he seemed publicly atheist while privately religious, much as US politicos tow the lion by acting like they bleeve in a sky daddy.
    Beyond that, commies make no secret of substituting the wonders of the state for your fantasy; hardly "atheist".
    Your ignorance is tiresome.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    During the brief period when Jews held power over Christians, there was a pretty "ugly history" too. Should Christians breathe fire at Jews talking about Judaism too?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Fortunately, today, the God-botherers in both communities have gained a new appreciation of each other.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Can you elaborate on this-During the brief period when Jews held power over Christians?

  • ||

    You misspelled Romans.

  • ||

    the false and offensive notion that Jews can accept Jesus as their messiah and still be Jewish.

    When did the Jews get a Pope that can excommunicate people and who was the idiot that authorized the ADL to speak for him?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Jews don't need a "pope" to excommunicate. Your average rabbi is fully authorized to declare cherem.

    Jus' sayin'

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Indeed. in the early Christian church, it wasn't uncommon for bishops to excommunicate each other over minor theological disputes. Not until the indulgence/graft gravy train arrived in the Dark Ages did they declare a ceasefire. I'd imagine that the situation is similar for rabbis.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Absolutely. Maimonides threw out excommunications at basically anyone who pissed him off. It took Napoleon gathering all the rabbis in Europe in one room and telling them to cut that shit out for it to stop.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    You know who else gathered rabbis in one room to make them stop.....

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That's easy; Herod the Great.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I'm not sure I want to give Napoleon that much credit. Sure, he didn't want the law to discriminate among his subjects on religious grounds, but that was because he wanted all his subjects to bow down to him, serve in his idiotic wars, and starve themselves economically as part of those same wars. Today, of course, there may be fewer divisions among French Jews...because there are fewer French Jews!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That's true, but Napoleon's "Grand Sanhedrin" was the impetus for the "haskala" (Enlightenment) movement, of which, pretty much all Jews who are not Chassidic are a part of.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I thought that started in the 18th century. Anyway, the Enlightenment Jews were big fans of France and Germany, seeing those countries as the wave of the future. So their prognosticating skills were a bit off.

  • juris imprudent||

    So their prognosticating skills were a bit off.

    About like navigating - as an old Jewish friend of my dad liked to say "if Moses had made a right instead of a left, we'd have the oil and they would have the desert".

  • CatoTheElder||

    Just about every Jew I've ever known was either a strident atheist, non-practicing, or into some weird Eastern metaphysical bullshit. I've met a few religious Jews, but never got to know them well enough to talk about religion or anything serious. So all I know is what I read. Curiously, the "official" Jews like Foxman seem only to get pissed when a Jew strays over to the Messianic reservation.

    The Messianic Jew concept is peculiar, but if somebody wants to accept Jesus and still keep Passover rituals and Jewish dietary law, or whatever, why is that anybody's business? Personally, I don't care: if the official Jews want to diss the Messianics and still keep kosher or whatever with strident atheist Jews, well, okay. It just seems peculiar.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    How is it peculiar? In the early Christian history, the idea that you could be a Christian without adopting Jewish religious practices was a controversial innovation.

  • CatoTheElder||

    That's true, but then Paul came along and said not to bother.

    The really peculiar thing to me is how the "official" Jews get all pissy over the Messianic types but couldn't care less about atheists. But then, I don't understand why Christian fundamentalists just can't stand Mormons or Catholics but think Jews are swell, either. Religion is really weird.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Though I've got to hand it to the Muslims: they hate every infidel with roughly equal passion.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Just about every Jew I've ever known was either a strident atheist, non-practicing, or into some weird Eastern metaphysical bullshit."

    You may have Pauline Kaeled yourself. The Orthodox are a fast-growing part of the US Jewish community. They're beginning to nudge the Foxmans aside. Which is cool by me; with all due respect, the atheists-are-cool-but-Christians-are-icky schtick gets old fast.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Probably did a Kael ... I don't live in New York, so my sample size is only a couple dozen and probably suffers from selection bias. Most of the Jews I've known were either Israeli, Canadian, or Texan.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    But then, I don't understand why Christian fundamentalists just can't stand Mormons or Catholics but think Jews are swell, either

    Because the Second Coming doesn't require gathering all the Mormons or Catholics in one place and letting them be slaughtered by the forces of the Anti-Christ?

  • ||

    How is it peculiar? In the early Christian history,

    It is odd that people have a problem with human sacrifice. Alexander the great killed dozens of people before battle and searched their guts for omens.

    No idea why people would find stuff that was done 1000s of years ago weird. It is mystifying.

  • JidaKida||

    lol what a joke, bottom line is the insurance companies will get rich!

    www.Privacy-Road.tk

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The Bots have joined the Peanut Gallery?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Richmond Attorney Qasim Rashid has a new book out ("The Wrong King of Muslim") about the persecution of the Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan - he's a member of that persecuted group and wants international awareness and education to put an end to the problem.

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/2828804055001/

  • Cytotoxic||

    The Ahmadi, Baluchs, and Shia of Pakistan should start their own violent insurgency to destroy Pakistan with Indian aid.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    A low-intensity war between two nuclear powers? Sure hope that works.

  • johnl||

    There is a nonstop war by Pakistan against India.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I suppose that's a good point. I'm still worried about it going nuclear. I say this without making India morally equivalent to the Pakistanis.

  • anon||

    Who gives a shit if it goes nuclear?

    What those fucktards get for letting idiots run their countries. Hell, it's what we deserve.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Hmmm...hate to sound like a hippie, but the radiation won't discriminate between the warmongers and the innocent. Indeed, the warmongers are more likely to be in radiation-proof bunkers.

  • anon||

    Than perhaps the innocent should do something about it before it gets to that.

  • anon||

    *then* goddamnit.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Why don't you stop it?

  • XM||

    But did they actually purchase insurance, or they just complete an application? How many of them are going to medicaid?

    49,100 / 12 = 4092

    I guess that's respectable considering the website woes and stick shock, but some of those are undoubtedly wealthy individuals, people who qualify for medicaid, and Chad Henderson-esque activists who are determined to make sure this scheme works, even if they have to sell their cars.

    I don't see the enrollment numbers going up significantly even if the website works.

  • CatoTheElder||

    The enrollment numbers will go up.

    There are a bunch of geezers under 65 (like me) and pre-existing condition customers who want price-controlled and subsidized coverage.

    I have opposed ObamaCare every step of the way, but since this is the system I am going to game it for every dollar I can.

  • CatoTheElder||

    I'm going to game it on the premium side and on the benefit side. Earlier this year my doc recommended a few geezer oriented tests like stress test, etc. With a cat plan, they'd all be out-of-pocket this year, so I've waited in anticipation of my no or low out-of-pocket preventative services under ObamaCare.

    They system sucks, but the bastards forced me into it.

    Thanks, young Obamatons for subsidizing my medical services.

  • XM||

    I qualify for medical here in CA, and might even qualify for subsidies. I'm not doing anything right now though, because I think delays and changes in the law is inevitable.

    I think most people may just lie about their income level and qualify for subsidies. By next year I expect to see local stories here in LA about how people with two cars and a nice house are getting subsidies for their silver or premium plans.

  • anon||

    I don't see the enrollment numbers going up significantly even if the website works.

    It's a rigged game; the numbers will either go up because insurers will quit insuring (insert demo here), or they'll go up because they'll change the definition of "enrolled."

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Illinois SSM bill: You'll have to litigate it to find out how much religious freedom is in it

    "Religious protections on gay marriage in doubt

    "Exemptions based on a person's beliefs are not spelled out

    "..."We're going to have to wait for lawsuits to arrive," said Peter Breen, an attorney with the Thomas More Society, a socially conservative legal group.

    "Critics of the bill that positions Illinois to become the 15th state to allow gay marriage point out that, though it protects clergy and houses of worship, it doesn't spell out exemptions for people and businesses who, based on their religious beliefs, might not want to do business with same-sex couples. The text of the bill makes clear that it doesn't alter two related laws: the Illinois Human Rights Act and the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

    "The Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows exemptions from certain rules as long as those exceptions don't harm the welfare of society....

    "...John Knight, a lawyer with the ACLU of Illinois who specializes in LGBT issues [said] "We think for the most part … people shouldn't be able to rely on their religion as a basis for discriminating in their commercial businesses."

    "Even for religious entities, the exemption is not absolute....

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/.....2465.story

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Alabama SoCons Applaud Anti-Gambling Crackdown

    -Recently, Attorney General Strange has drawn fire for continuing to aggressively enforce Alabama’s gambling prohibitions. Even retired U.S. Magistrate Judge Vanzetta McPherson has suggested that upholding the state’s gambling laws is not one of the “consequential issues that really matter.”

    But faithfully enforcing the law in Alabama does matter. While some Alabamians may be ambivalent towards gambling in the state, they should not be about ensuring that the current laws of the state are upheld.

    If, as Judge McPherson claims, the will of the people of Alabama is so overwhelmingly supportive of expanding gambling, then why were Democrats, enjoying the support of gambling operators, unable to legalize gambling in Alabama for decades? Why would Alabamians have elected so many Republican legislators, many who campaigned specifically against gambling?

    http://www.alabamapolicy.org/b.....le-of-law/

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    That post is from March. Their most recent blog post (from today) is this:

    "Today, Alabama is home to the highest prison crowding rate in the country, with prisons at 187 percent capacity. Without true reform, Alabama risks falling prey to federal court intervention, similar to California, where unelected judges order the release of thousands of prisoners from state lockups. These edicts ordering the haphazard release of inmates risk turning out dangerous offenders who pose a significant safety risk to their communities. But this does not have to be the story for Alabama; there is an alternative....

    "Alabama’s leaders are at a crossroads, presented with the opportunity to make real positive change to their criminal justice system or continue on the current path. The high cost, low return system currently in operation can only last for so long. Leaders must act to improve and expand alternatives to incarceration for low-risk and nonviolent offenders to ensure that costly prison space is focused on those who pose a long-term threat to our public safety, not those we are simply mad at."

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That seems to fit strangely with this other initiative of theirs:

    -In order to effectively deter would-be offenders, the punishment for owning and operating illegal gaming paraphernalia should be raised from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class C felony.

    http://www.alabamapolicy.org/r.....ling-laws/

  • Christophe||

    Obviously they want the kid-diddlers and murderers out of jail to make room for the society-destroying gamblers.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Annapolis Democrats: Heads we win, tails you lose.

    Days after a Republican was elected mayor of Annapolis, City Council members say they will revisit legislation that would strip the mayor’s office of much of its power.

    Democratic Alderman Ross Arnett of Ward 8 tells The Capital he will introduce a charter amendment to move Annapolis to a council-manager style of government. The city manager would report directly to the City Council, not the mayor.

    Under Arnett’s legislation, the mayor’s post would be largely ceremonial. The mayor would retain a single vote on the council. Arnett says the change would stabilize the city’s management.

    Elections have consequences, remember that?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Five aldermen said they would support changing the city’s government, but noted it was not related to Pantelides’ political affiliation. They did, however, worry the mayor-elect lacked the experience needed to perform the current responsibilities.

    “One of the key reasons why people were concerned about Mike’s candidacy to be mayor is he has no experience managing an organization,” Alderman Joe Budge (D) said.

    I wonder if Budge voted for the guy with experience managing an organization in the last two presidential elections?

  • Almanian!||

    You know who else initially didn't meet expectations...

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Luke Skywalker?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    Pip?

  • William of Purple||

    Alexei Yashin?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Gigli?

  • anon||

    Strippers at the Spearmint Rhino?

  • ||

    OT:

    Remember the Russkie political scientist who predicted the breakup of the US into several small states? I loved looking at that map and redrawing the lines as I figured the split would involves various states going in different directions (there is no reason to believe that Philadelphia would end up aligning the same way as the rest of PA).

    Well some one took that idea and based our current ideological fragmentation around it. The articles has some good and interesting points, but can't help but trip over its own biases.

    http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/ma.....-arms.html

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I'll take that division if the Far West gets a port.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Orange and San Diego counties could be absorbed.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Don't need a port that badly.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Something in Northern CA or Oregon perhaps?

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    What's wrong with Orange and San Diego counties?

    We're a lot more tolerable than LA.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I guess it's guilt by proximity? I've been told CA is almost normal in the north, but I admittedly know little about the state and tend to lump everyone in the south together.

  • Sevo||

    "Northern California County Board Votes For Secession From State"
    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.c.....rom-state/

  • Winston||

    They should do what West Virginia did and create a separate state government and then vote to secede.

  • juris imprudent||

    You have been BADLY misinformed.

  • juris imprudent||

    Just for that San Diego, avoiding the Reconquista, will charge exorbitant fees for every good you land-locked bastards move through our fine port.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    You eat bread and beef? I think we'll work something out. ;-)

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    When you say "current ideological fragmentation", you must note that we have always been ideologically "fractured". While examining sub-cultures is enlightening, I would argue that there is a common American culture that unites all those disparate "nations".

  • ||

    That's the point.

    The author is basically trying to take current ideological geographical divisions and show their roots.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Richard K. Morgan used that "Jesusland" map as the basis of his book, Thirteen. Somehow Jesusland turns into an uneducated backwater people try to escape, while California's progressive economy takes off once it's freed from the unenlightened hicks holding it down.

    I liked his Takeshi Kovacs series, and Market Forces had some good action scenes in spite of a silly plot - but he's kind of a dumbass in real life, and it shows in some of his books.

  • Irish||

    Richard K. Morgan used that "Jesusland" map as the basis of his book, Thirteen. Somehow Jesusland turns into an uneducated backwater people try to escape, while California's progressive economy takes off once it's freed from the unenlightened hicks holding it down.

    That's hilarious.

    From his Wikipedia page, here's what Morgan says his books are about:

    Society is, always has been and always will be a structure for the exploitation and oppression of the majority through systems of political force dictated by an élite, enforced by thugs, uniformed or not, and upheld by a wilful ignorance and stupidity on the part of the very majority whom the system oppresses.[1]

    It's always funny that progs never realize they ARE the willfully ignorant.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    A system of political force, dictated by an elite, enforced by thugs. Sounds a lot like the subject of this article, doesn't it?

  • ||

    His politics are retarded, but the Takeshi Kovacs books fucking rock. I hope the film does Altered Carbon justice.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I loved Altered Carbon, and the sequels are very good. I remember picking it up at the airport bookstore in the hopes that it might be OK, and thinking "Holy shit, somebody new is actually writing real science fiction!" while reading it on the plane. Sadly that was a decade ago, and the genre hasn't improved any since then.

  • ||

    There's Neal Asher still writing new stuff. Iain Banks unfortunately just died. And Charles Stross is putting out new stuff too. Try them.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Thanks, I'll check them out. I've read some Stross, but somehow entirely missed Asher.

  • ||

    Asher is excellent, and he had a lot of books to choose from. They're all good. His current series, The Owner series, is incredibly anti-government and anti-powerful elite. Plus it's just good.

    You can also try Alistair Reynolds or Simon Morden. Morden's not great but he's not bad.

  • ||

    Iain Banks unfortunately just died.

    Holy shit!!!

    I did not know that.

    Oh well his books were starting to suck anyway.

  • Snark Plissken||

    I read some of his mainstream books and grew to despise him for his flaming socialism and his compulsion for making his American characters cardboard cutout capitalist villains or just extremely shallow and ignorant.

  • Snark Plissken||

    I really enjoyed those books but the whole time I thought about how unrealistic the whole sleeve concept was, since our personalities, experiences, emotions, etc are all dependent of the physicality of our brains. When we learn something we reinforce a neuronic pathway in the brain. IOW, unlike a computer, we aren't cleanly divided up into hardware and software, with the brain just acting like a hard drive.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    The novels get into that a bit. When you implant into a new sleeve you aren't exactly the same as you were in the last one, because of the physical differences.

  • Snark Plissken||

    I know, but it doesn't change the fact that the physical structure of our brains IS who we are, not that it would have some ghostly effect on who we are when downloaded into someone else's brain.

    So in this respect I don't consider them to be any more realistic as scifi than Freaky Friday.

  • ||

    Morgan is, among the current British scifi top level writers, probably the least scientifically knowledgeable. People like Alistair Reynolds and Simon Morden have PhDs in astrophysics and shit like that; Asher and Stross clearly work hard to make their "science" believable, and Banks made his tech so advanced as to be indistinguishable from magic.

    But he certainly knows how to write an entertaining action scifi novel. The part where Kovacs goes on his rampage in the facility where they were VR torturing him is epic and I still remember it. I really hope the movie doesn't suck.

  • Snark Plissken||

    I'd consider Morgan to be about as scifi as Ray Bradbury, ie, not really at all. That's doesn't mean that The Martian Chronicles wasn't entertaining as hell.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    He does a little handwaving, but shit, it's 500 years in the future. Between now and then there will be many technologies invented that we can barely imagine now.

  • Snark Plissken||

    He does a little handwaving, but shit, it's 500 years in the future.

    Meh, it's all handwaving. So what? I don't care, I still found the books to be entertaining. The laws of physics and human anatomy don't change, it'd be a lot easier and more logical to scoop out the brain and take the personality stored on whatever digital or whatever medium it's stored on and plug it into the brainstem like a USB device. I don't mind weak science as long as the author isn't trying to make a major issue of the science (like 'proving' that we need to stop global warming now!!!111).

  • Fatty Bolger||

    The part where Kovacs goes on his rampage in the facility where they were VR torturing him is epic and I still remember it.

    Yeah, that was amazing. And it plays out just like a movie in your head, I even heard the action music playing (seriously), so if they screw that up there is absolutely no excuse.

  • ||

    His politics are retarded, but the Takeshi Kovacs books fucking rock. I hope the film does Altered Carbon justice.

    From the wiki page:

    Set some five hundred years in the future in a universe in which the United Nations Protectorate

    What the fuck is wrong with you?

  • Snark Plissken||

    Yeah, but on the other hand it's pretty dystopic. Those books are easy reads and entertaining, nothing more. I'm not sure they'd even qualify as scifi.

  • juris imprudent||

    Maybe you need to read some Tom Kratman?

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

  • Irish||

    It gets even better.

    The fight over how to define the new health law’s success is coming down to one question: Who counts as an Obamacare enrollee?
    Health insurance plans only count subscribers as enrolled in a health plan once they’ve submitted a payment. That is when the carrier sends out a member card and begins paying doctor bills.

    When the Obama administration releases health law enrollment figures later this week, though, it will use a more expansive definition. It will count people who have purchased a plan as well as those who have a plan sitting in their online shopping cart but have not yet paid.

    Hahahahaha.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Jesus.

    Another win (lose) for the dipshit peanut gallery here. Fuck man, people here have been saying that this was gonna happen since the roll-out.

    We call all of this shit but are derided and marginalized for doubting the power of Dear Leader and the great nation of AMERICA.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Well I only think it my patriotic duty to create the illusion of economic activity by going out and 'buying' a plasma screen TV and PS4 online.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Everybody do your part and put this $17K 84 inch LG 3D TV in your shopping cart. We'll have this economy turned around in no time! (By the way, I saw this TV at Micro Center and it was FUCKING AWESOME.)

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Just measured. It'll fit!

  • Sevo||

    'I'm going to buy that'
    'The check's in the mail'
    'The truck is on its way'
    'I won't cum in your mouth'
    Hint: When the wallet comes out, the first one might be true.

  • anon||

    To be fair, pre-orders of products do gauge consumer interest in a particular product pretty well; that said, I think maybe 10% of people that put cash down on a pre-ordered product actually buy the product. At least in the video game industry.

  • Sevo||

    In my bizz, if 10% of those expressing (non-paid) interest buy, I'm happy.
    But if the O'care numbers include those who have 'enrolled' before they see the costs, all bets are off. That's not 'enrollment'; that's tire-kicking with a data entry requirement.

  • Almanian!||

    The Koala says, "What do you mean I'm not a bear? I have all the koalafications...."

    HAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! KOALAFICATIONS! HAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    A koala bear decides he wants to get laid, so he picks up a prostitute. He goes down on her several times and they are really enjoying themselves. After they’re finished the koala starts getting dressed.

    The prostitute says, “Where’s my money?”

    The koala shrugs his shoulders. The prostitute repeats herself, asking for her money. Again, he shrugs his shoulders. The prostitute grabs a dictionary, finds the word "prostitute", and then shows it to the koala.

    The definition reads, "Prostitute: Someone who gets paid for sex."

    The koala picks up the dictionary and looks up "Koala Bear" and shows it to the hooker.

    It reads, “Koala: Eats bush and leaves”.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    A policeman in the big city stops a man in a car with a koala in the front seat. "What are you doing with that koala?" He exclaimed, "You should take it to the zoo." The following week, the same policeman sees the same man with the koala again in the front seat, with both of them wearing sunglasses. The policeman pulls him over. "I thought you were going to take that koala to the zoo!" The man replied, "I did. We had such a good time we are going to the beach this weekend!"

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That joke was the sequel to mine, where the koala begins to turn tricks himself and the man who picks him up lies to the police officer about what they were doing.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    These two koalas are building a house. One of them is putting on the siding. He picks up a nail, hammers it in. Picks up another nail, throws it away. Picks up a nail, hammers it in. Picks up another, throws it away.

    This goes on for a while, and finally his friend comes over and asks him why he is throwing half of the nails away. He replies, "Those ones were pointed on the wrong end." The buddy gets exasperated and says "You idiot, those are for the other side of the house!"

    http://www.polishjoke.com/poli....._nails.htm

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    A man walks into a bar with an alligator. He stands up on a table and says to the crowd "Folks, I'll make you a bet. I'm going to stick my genitals into this here gator's mouth. If I can safely keep in them there for one minute you all have to give me $10. If I lose I'll buy the house a round."

    The crowd agrees and the man drops his pants and puts his genitals in the gator's open mouth. The seconds tick by slowly as the crowd grows more and more anxious. Finally the minute is up and the man grabs a beer bottle and hits the gator on the head. The gator opens its mouth and the man pulls his genitals out unharmed.

    "Well there ya go. Y'all owe me money. But I'll tell ya what, I'll give a $100 to anyone who wants to give this a try."

    A hush falls over the crowd. "I'll try," says a small woman, "but you have to promise not to hit me on the head with the beer bottle."

  • anon||

    The Koala says, "What do you mean I'm not a bear? I have all the koalafications...."

    Ok, I lol'd.

  • Irish||

    Michael Moore rightfully points out the abnormally high suicide rate among veterans, proves dumbass progressives aren't the only ones prone to brainless outrage.

    Moore is a scumbag, but actually mentioning a problem facing veterans on veterans day hardly strikes me as the horrifyingly evil statement that the conservatives seem to be making it out to be.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Irish, I thought of our discussion about the film about late term abortion providers today when I overheard a segment on a public radio show about it. I can not find a link to the text, but the audio can be found at the link below. It filled in some interesting details about the matter, like that there are only four doctors who openly provide that service in the nation and they reports some severe NAP violations directed against them.

    http://hereandnow.wbur.org/

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    One abortionist who used to do late term abortions no longer does so - because he became convinced it was wrong. He testified to Congress urging it to ban abortions after 20 weeks:

    http://www.lifenews.com/2013/0.....-ban-them/

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I guess that is better than no longer doing so because some pro-life extremist shot them, or burnt down their barn full of horses or the like.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Burnt down their barn?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Dr. Carhart.

    -Dr. LeRoy Carhart is one of the doctors profiled in “After Tiller.”

    The threats against him began almost immediately: his clinic was attacked, his barn set on fire — burning his beloved horses and animals alive – and his family was threatened.

    http://hereandnow.wbur.org/201.....-abortions

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "burning his beloved horses and animals alive"

    I agree that's horrible, but on what grounds do *you* think it's wrong to kill a horse, when killing a human being in a late stage of fetal development is unobjectionable?

    For their next documentary, I suggest they cover these cases:

    "A jury in eastern Oklahoma has convicted a 27-year-old man of shooting dead his pregnant girlfriend and her unborn baby after she refused to get an abortion.

    "The jury deliberated almost seven hours Thursday before convicting Christopher Kenyon Simpson, of Spiro, in the death of 20-year-old Ka'loni Flynn, of Fort Smith, Arkansas."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....pport.html

    "A 21-year-old Connecticut man has been charged with the murder of his pregnant 20-year-old girlfriend because she refused to do an abortion so he could allegedly be with his "other girlfriend.""

    http://www.christianpost.com/n.....ion-97670/

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The murder of Tiller was wrong, just as the murder of Albert Anastasia was wrong. I await with interest the airing of a hagiographic biopic on Anastasia.

    "Anastasia earned the nickname "The Executioner" for his work as a hitman. According to some reports, he enjoyed watching his victims die. Anastasia established a reputation for being especially brutal and cruel....

    "Working with Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, Anastasia oversaw many of the mob murders carried out by Murder Inc....

    "On October 25, 1957, Anastasia went to the barber shop at the Park Sheraton Hotel in New York City for a haircut. But instead of getting a trim, he was killed in a hail of bullets. Two masked gunmen attacked him while he sat in the barber's chair, hitting him five times. Anastasia's underboss, Carlo Gambino, reportedly orchestrated the killing after he convinced the mob that Anastasia had become a liability.

    "Anastasia's brutal murder made headlines, and is still remembered as one of the mob's most gruesome killings."

    http://www.biography.com/peopl.....a-17139028

    And I bet there are still four or so Mob enforcers left! Why not a sympathetic profile of *them?"

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    With all due respect, this is the fundamental problem I see you having: a hitman who kills fully developed, non-controversially human persons is equated with those who kill a fetus. That you can not see the differences that most see between those is telling, it bespeaks an attraction to a worldview which favors abstraction over lived experience.

    In the end, while you feigned outrage at the arsonists attack on the abortion provider described above, ultimately you think 'well, those people are killers, who get what they deserve.'

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Hmm...these are some interesting points...have you considered fucking yourself?

    I meant what I said and I repeat it. The murder of george tiller eas wrong, and so was the murder of albert anastasia. But dont pretend either of these gentlemen were humanitarians. They both should have been turned over to the justice system for punishment. As we now know, that would have been the humane solution for them as well as the community.

    Are you aware that theres only a minority of people here who support late term abortions like you do?

    And you atill havent explained how, from your perspective, you can regard killing a horse as wrong, and killing a late term fetus as right.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Killing the horse was only wrong because it was someone else's property. Exact same situation for the undeveloped sub-canine thing that is the fetus. Class dismissed you may now fuck yourself.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    When does a living human being cease being a sub canine thing and acquire human rights? At birth? After 20 weeks (5 months) in the womb?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    When does a living human being cease being a sub canine thing and acquire human rights? At birth? After 20 weeks (5 months) in the womb?

    And since no one can possibly answer this objectively, will you please shut the fuck up about it?

    You can't answer it. I can't answer it.

    I DON'T FUCKING CARE!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I think its more the (perceived) flippant tone of the post. (I refuse to use the term "tweet".) He could have made his point without the snarky "Happy Veteran's Day" at the end.

  • Irish||

    If he'd written the same thing without the Happy Veteran's Day part he would have gotten the same response.

    I just think conservatives don't want any statement about the troops that isn't heavily sanitized and full of hero worship.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I just think conservatives don't want any statement about the troops that isn't heavily sanitized and full of hero worship.

    That's true.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Conservative treacle about the military is only surpassed by liberal treacle about race and 'the poor.'

    Of perhaps teachers.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Perhaps, if the conservatives really gave a shit about the troops, they'd consider using them only as a last resort as opposed to the first.

  • Christophe||

    Depends on how you read it.
    If you're willing to believe the worst about the guy (which they would, because KULTUR WAR), then you could interpret his comment as applauding the state of affairs.

    I don't think so, because that would be really fucking low, but I can see why others would.

  • Irish||

    If you're willing to believe the worst about the guy (which they would, because KULTUR WAR), then you could interpret his comment as applauding the state of affairs.

    I don't see how anyone could get that. I think it's clearly a statement against the platitudes that get slung about on Veteran's Day.

    The Cons are just angry he said something about the troops that wasn't unquestioningly worshipful.

  • Irish||

    If you're willing to believe the worst about the guy (which they would, because KULTUR WAR), then you could interpret his comment as applauding the state of affairs.

    I don't know how anyone on Earth could get that from what Moore said.

    This reminds me a bit of when Ron Paul said that 9/11 was the result of American foreign policy and was accused of victim blaming. Now, regardless of the merits of Paul's actual argument, there's no way you can claim that's victim blaming. No one who died in the World Trade Centers was at fault for U.S. foreign policy, so Paul's argument clearly wasn't blaming them for their own deaths. He was saying they were victims not only of the terrorists, but of the excesses of their own government. In Paul's narrative they were just as much victims as in the traditional narrative.

    This was irrelevant to the conservatives though. He said something about the troops and U.S. foreign policy that was unflattering, so they threw a hissy fit.

  • anon||

    Moore is a scumbag, but actually mentioning a problem facing veterans on veterans day hardly strikes me as the horrifyingly evil statement that the conservatives seem to be making it out to be.

    TEAM RED vs. TEAM BLUE. NEVAR FORGET!

  • GILMORE||

    "...actually mentioning a problem facing veterans on veterans day hardly strikes me as the horrifyingly evil statement that the conservatives seem to be making it out to be."

    That's a fair point.

    How about this one though? =

    "Stop thanking the troops for me: No, they don’t “protect our freedoms!”

    http://www.salon.com/2013/11/1....._freedoms/

    His main complaint is that he can't watch football without someone thanking the troops once an hour.

    I'd possibly sympathize somewhat with his 'anti-militaristic' view if he wasn't such as silly leftist cunt who fantasizes about John Lennon's Totalitarian Ghost rising from the grave and disbanding the armed forces. People like this need frequent beatings to remind them that yes, someone out there is protecting your freedoms to be a shithead. Just not me.

  • anon||

    You have better odds ordering a next-gen game console online

    Duh. Sony and Microsoft can't legally hold a gun to your head and force you to buy their shit; therefore, they produce shit people want to buy.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    North Korea publicly executes 80 people

    North Korea publicly executed around 80 people earlier this month, many for watching smuggled South Korean TV shows, a South Korean newspaper reported Monday

    The conservative JoongAng Ilbo cited a single, unidentified source, but at least one North Korean defector group said it had heard rumours that lent credibility to the front-page report

    The source, said to be "familiar" with the North's internal affairs and recently returned from the country, said the executions were carried out in seven cities on November 3.

    In the eastern port of Wonsan, the authorities gathered 10,000 people in a sports stadium to watch the execution of eight people by firing squad, the source quoted one eyewitness as saying.

    Most were charged with watching illicit South Korean TV dramas, and some with prostitution.

    Several of the cities, including Wonsan and Pyongsong in the west, have been designated as special economic zones aimed at attracting foreign investment to boost the North's moribund economy.

    The Seoul-based news website, Daily NK, which is run by North Korean defectors and has a wide network of sources, said it had no information on the executions.

    But another defector-run website, North Korea Intellectual Solidarity, said its sources had reported several months ago on plans for a wave of public executions

    So it could be worse for us.

  • Sevo||

    Wonder if the US rap duo will go to the execution site for a taping.
    They should, just to show what imbeciles they are.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    I wonder what Denis Rodman has to say.

  • Cytotoxic||

    They must be getting nervous. They should be given the unprecendented expansion of markets and cell phones over there.

  • Nando||

    "Walmart in any community has been shown to produce a blast radius of lower wages and higher poverty"

  • Irish||

    Well, that's just the dumbest article I've ever read.

    On the one side is a downtown building his firm rescued—a six-story steel-framed 1923 classic once owned by JCPenney and converted into shops, offices, and condos. On the other side is a Walmart on the edge of town. The old Penney’s building sits on less than a quarter of an acre, while the Walmart and its parking lots occupy thirty-four acres. Adding up the property and sales tax paid on each piece of land, Minicozzi found that the Walmart contributed only $50,800 to the city in retail and property taxes for each acre it used, but the JCPenney building contributed a whopping $330,000 per acre in property tax alone. In other words, the city got more than seven times the return for every acre on downtown investments than it did when it broke new ground out on the city limits.

    So...the JCPenney building has condoes and offices, whereas the Walmart only sells retail. This is an apples to oranges comparison as one of the buildings has uses that the Walmart store does not. But wait! It gets dumber.

  • Irish||

    When Minicozzi looked at job density, the difference was even more vivid: the small businesses that occupied the old Penney’s building employed fourteen people, which doesn’t seem like many until you realize that this is actually seventy-four jobs per acre, compared with the fewer than six jobs per acre created on a sprawling Walmart site. (This is particularly dire given that on top of reducing jobs density in its host cities, Walmart depresses average wages as well.)

    They're looking at the number of jobs per acre. That's a meaningless metric unless you're constrained to a very small number of acres. If you have six jobs per acre spread over 100 acres, you'll have more jobs total than 20 jobs per acre spread over 10 acres.

    Jobs per acre is the strangest and most meaningless statistic I've ever heard of.

  • Libertarius||

    That might be the most arbitrary *and* false POS economics piece I've ever read.

    1. Businesses do not exist in order to give money to the government, and why should I regard it as a positive if a business (or person) is forced to pay a bunch of taxes into the government? HELLO, its the customers who pay business taxes anyway.

    2. Number of jobs per acre? Are we running a fucking vegetable farm? WTF?

  • juris imprudent||

    Well, that's just the dumbest article I've ever read.

    For fuck sakes man, it was in Salon.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    The Tim Channel 17 hours ago
    Walmart really has a lot of you bamboozled, but over here in Germany? Not so much. Walmart lost their billion dollar investment trying to "buy into" the economy here. They failed miserably. The Europeans have laws against selling anything below cost (loss leaders). This encourages more competition because one rich company can't "buy" the market. Living wage laws and strong unions protect against the kinds of abusive employee practices Walmart workers in the US are organizing to stop. But at the end of the day, Walmart couldn't offer the low price, because they were so unaccustomed to playing on a level field. The head of Walmart's German operations didn't even speak German. Hubris. Enjoy.

    Um, hooray entry level barriers to markets and high prices?

  • Irish||

    And how is Europe doing economically right now?

    I like that leftists talk about how horrible Europe is economically when they need to talk about austerity, but when they talk about retail or wage laws we should be more European.

    Maybe, now stay with me here, Europe is in bad shape because of those retail and wage laws and not because of the austerity.

  • Snark Plissken||

    I can't speak for the rest of Europe, but things aren't exactly easy right now in Czech right now. It's good that the Czechs didn't jump onto the euro bandwagon, but unfortunately my wife just got fucked on a bunch of outstanding euro debt thanks to the Czech central bank. Five percent in one day is a really big deal when you have pretty slim profit margins.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Methinks it's problematic to regard businesses as nothing more than cash cows that dispense weekly paychecks to the proles and tax revenue for the state.

    Clearly that's the attitudes progs and socialists have given their irrational hatred of globalization and any new method of efficiency that results in some obsolete jobs and firms being destroyed.

  • Cytotoxic||

    And that gives me comfort. Short term, things suck for us, but we have unstoppable forces on our side that the proggies just can't beat. Globalization and capital markets are Elder Gods.

  • Snark Plissken||

    Walmart couldn't offer the low price, because they were so unaccustomed to playing on a level field. The head of Walmart's German operations didn't even speak German. Hubris. Enjoy.

    Actually he's got it exactly backwards.

    I've seen US companies struggle to make it in Europe in my 20 years of living here and yes it has to do with not speaking the local language, but not at all with being unable to deal with a level playing field.

    Instead, European companies know that localization is very important. They also know that there's separate bureaucratisation to deal with in every country. This also involves a lot of sleaze, bribery, palm greasing, etc. French companies especially know this and accept it and are good at it. US companies think the only important thing is to have efficient distribution networks, etc. Works in the US, breaks down in Europe.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The funny thing is that Wal-Mart is losing it badly. They are not much cheaper than the competition, there stores are poorly stocked and generally shitty. The Great Canadian SuperStore wallops them-Rand bless the SuperStore!

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Oh my this band on Letterman
    MOON TAXI

    5 guys with hipster beards.

  • ||

    ▂ ▄ ▅ ▇ LIFETIME OPPORTUNITY ▇ ▅ ▄ ▂ ▁
    My Boy friend makes $75/hour on the internet. She has been without a job for 6 months but last month her pay was $16453 just working on the internet for a few hours. Straight from the source------------ http://www.jobs53.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement