td11 wrote:but she does qualify for that subsidy, which was a main point of the legislation. if next year she is making more money, she might not qualify for the subsidy, but then that means her income went up a decent amount

cshort wrote:Like tort reform and ability to purchase insurance across state lines?

Atlanta Journal Constitution, 4/12 wrote:A new law that allows Georgians to buy health insurance plans approved by other states was envisioned as free-market solution that would lower prices and increase choices.

So far, the law has failed to produce results: Not a single insurer is offering a policy under the new law.

“Nobody has even asked to be approved to sell across state lines,” Georgia Insurance Commissioner Ralph Hudgens said. “We’re dumbfounded. We are absolutely dumbfounded.”

jerseyhoya wrote:

td11 wrote:but she does qualify for that subsidy, which was a main point of the legislation. if next year she is making more money, she might not qualify for the subsidy, but then that means her income went up a decent amount

She is not a good example of a person harmed by her policy being cancelled. But a self employed person in similar circumstances making a bit more money would be getting screwed financially.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:anyway, I am PLENTY sick & tired of talking about g-dam health insurance

I'd like to know what you make of the VA gov race. Throw in the AG race while you're at it.

I'm a bit baffled by the lib talking heads running their endzone dances on the governor's race, as if there weren't going to be an actual vote on the matter next week.

Virginians, they crazy

Cuccinelli hasn't been up in a poll in months. Unless something breaks, McAuliffe ought to win by 8-10%, and Cuccinelli's chances of winning are close to 0. And really with all the oppo out there, any game changer is going to have to be immense, because no one likes either of them.

I haven't followed the AG race at all, but I think it's supposed to be closer. Hard to overcome that kind of up ballot beating in a race where name ID is lower. The GOP LG candidate is a #$!&@, so that one might end up the worst of the three.

wouldn't stuff like turnout, weather, etc be a bigger factor in an off-year election? I believe Quinnipiac, not exactly a champion of the Teaparty, recently had McAuliffe's margin at 4%

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:Meh, I wouldn't put much emphasis on that Quinnipiac poll. Without getting into the merits or likely outcome of the election and merely commenting on the polls, RCP had the recent average as of Wednesday at something like a 7.3% deficit. A CNU poll today has a 7% deficit. Seems like the Quinnipiac poll is as much of an outlier as the ones that have McAuliffe up by teens.

drsmooth wrote:One of the best articles Adam Davidson has ever written. And I'm not a fan of Tom Scully, and feel that despite his deep connections his readmissions management firm is just one of scores of entities vying to be top dog in that very competitive space:

The President Wants You to Get Rich on Obamacare

JFLNYC wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

td11 wrote:but she does qualify for that subsidy, which was a main point of the legislation. if next year she is making more money, she might not qualify for the subsidy, but then that means her income went up a decent amount

She is not a good example of a person harmed by her policy being cancelled. But a self employed person in similar circumstances making a bit more money would be getting screwed financially.

I'm that person, but without that result. I got my cancellation notice weeks ago with an offer from my insurer of a new policy at well over 50% more than my current policy. However, unlike some others, my first thought was not: "Gee, this means the ACA is a failure." Instead, I went to healthcare.gov (it actually workedand did some shopping and found a few good options at around the price I was paying before.

Some are far too quick to judge my situation (and others' similarly situated) as examples of a failure of the ACA, if not fraud in the inducement by Obama. I don't understand why the insurers seem to be getting a pass on the issue. Has it not occurred to anyone else that maybe, just maybe, the big insurance companies are looking at the situation as a golden opportunity both to up sell people like me AND to blame the ACA while they're at it?

CalvinBall wrote:Between the two candidates running for my dad's vacant borough council spot out household has received five, full color mailers. Five. For something that maybe 200 people will vote for. It's absurd.

When my dad ran he went door to door handing out a trifold pamphlet.

td11 wrote:Michele Bachmann: 'God, I'm A Loser'

Part of the appeal of plutocratic politics is their power to liberate policy making from the messiness and the deal making of grass-roots and retail politics. In the postwar era, civic engagement was built through a network of community organizations with thousands of monthly-dues-paying members and through the often unseemly patronage networks of old-fashioned party machines, sometimes serving only particular ethnic communities or groups of workers.

The age of plutocracy made it possible to liberate public policy from all of that, and to professionalize it. Instead of going to work as community organizers, or simply taking part in the civic life of their own communities, smart, publicly minded technocrats go to work for plutocrats whose values they share. The technocrats get to focus full time on the policy issues they love, without the tedium of building, rallying — and serving — a permanent mass membership. They can be pretty well paid to boot.

The Democratic political advisers who went from working on behalf of the president or his party to advising the San Francisco billionaire Thomas F. Steyer on his campaign against the Keystone XL pipeline provide a telling example. Twenty years ago, they might have gone to work for the Sierra Club or the Nature Conservancy or run for public office themselves. Today, they are helping to build a pop-up political movement for a plutocrat.

Plutocratic politics have much to recommend them. They are pure, smart and focused. But at a time when society as a whole is riven by an ever widening economic chasm, policy delivered from on high can get you only so far. Voters on both the right and the left are suspicious of whether the plutocrats and the technocrats they employ understand their real needs, and whether they truly have their best interests at heart. That rift means we should all brace ourselves for more extremist politics and a more rancorous political debate.

Where does that leave smart centrists with their clever, fact-based policies designed to fine-tune 21st century capitalism and make it work better for everyone?

Part of the problem is that no one has yet come up with a fully convincing answer to the question of how you harness the power of the technology revolution and globalization without hollowing out middle-class jobs.

In City Hall, Mr. Bloomberg’s greatest achievements were technocratic triumphs — restricting smoking in public places, posting calorie counts and championing biking.