Feb 7, 2014 at 12:18:35
“Yes I became a vegetarian back when it was a silly fad in 1973 -- still vegetarian (41 years), and then vegan when that became a fad (still vegan). And started incorporating more raw food -- silly fad (still mostly raw). Last year this silly gluten free fad got my attention so I tried it too, and I feel great. Now some people my own age are starting to die off of heart disease, stroke, and cancer. I'm 55 and healthy. (People usually do not believe me when I tell my age). Those silly fads! https://www.facebook.com/DcVeggieChefs”
“Social Security virtually ended poverty among the elderly and the Social Security Trust Fund has had a surplus for every year and well into the future.”
Esther21072011 on Jul 5, 2012 at 08:31:48
“Social Security has been telling me for years that they'll be broke before I get there - AND they up my retirement age every year too. Nobody can live on just social security and not be in poverty even now. You need a dose of reality.”
“We have some sympathy, then, for the frustration you are likely to experience. Clearly, you do not have the option to go back to the old American health care system "in a heartbeat." Such a transition would likely take something like 6 years to accomplish assuming a GOP's best case scenario at the ballot box. By this time, your remarkably short term analysis above will no longer hold and millions more people would be losing insurance than gaining it. The other frustration you must be experiencing is seeing members of your own party move away from this repeal-at-all-costs ideology. We are sorry that this is not likely to be easy for you.”
“Precisely the rub. Where things stand. Republicans want polarization because it breaks government and that is their aim. The public, in poll after poll, wants cooperation and compromise and is punishing both parties because they are not seeing cooperation from either side, so the Democrats ... [finish this sentence as you will]. Our answer is above ... change the tone and continue to reach out to those who want to work together to solve common problems. Another answer is: ... give in to their passions and adopt a hyper-partisan tone, which is what the Republicans have been trying to get us to do, fairly successfully.”
davebradt on Dec 20, 2013 at 00:02:05
“Major legislation passed without significant bipartisan support will have trouble in its implementation.”
“Sorry LewDan, we do not think you read us very carefully or understand where we are coming from. We are partisan Democrats, not lying centrists. We think Republicans use strategies and we think Democrats should too. Your response seems to ignore several important facts. A majority of Americans have a negative view of Obamacare (even if only a minority want to repeal it.) And the last time Democrats went into an election with Obamacare under water, we lost control of the House of Representatives. We are not suggesting any change in policy that would weaken the law, but a strategy to help make the law less of a liability to Democrats, and possible improve the law at the margins (killing two birds with one stone). It is difficult to implement the law when no changes can gain approval, even those that would get bi-partisan approval to fix weaknesses. Just saying over and over again that people will like it when they get to know it is not a strategy, at least not a strategy that has proven effective.”
davebradt on Dec 20, 2013 at 00:44:26
“I wish Democrats really believed in the freedom of choice. It's like, big brother thinks individuals are not competent enough to know what is best for himself. After this colossal show of government incompetence, debating and passing legislation one page at a time (the Constitution is only one page) till we get the trust of the electorate again is probably the way proceed from here.”
“Interesting point of view Bart. Let us ask one question, do you want to go back to the old system and tell thousands of Americans (probably millions by the time you could actually repeal the law) that have been unable to get insurance under the old system but have it under Obamacare that you are taking it away? Or do you have other proposals to cover them? Is this repeal and replace with nothing?”
davebradt on Dec 19, 2013 at 23:53:36
“We needed a system that lowered coast and we did not get it. We are getting closer. We should be dealing with, punitive damages, increasing the number of competing doctors and services, eliminate the high taxes on our income saved to be spent on medical matters. O'care makes all these factors worse. It's not too hard to imagine that staring over is the answer. Too much is wrong.”
davebradt on Dec 17, 2013 at 20:24:34
“We needed a system that lowered coast and we did not get it. We are though getting closer. We should be dealing with, punitive damages, increasing the number of competing doctors and services, eliminate the high taxes on our income spent on medical matters. O'care makes all these factors worse. It's not too hard to imagine that staring over is the answer. Too much is wrong.”
Bart DePalma on Dec 11, 2013 at 10:33:05
“"Let us ask one question, do you want to go back to the old system and tell thousands of Americans (probably millions by the time you could actually repeal the law) that have been unable to get insurance under the old system but have it under Obamacare that you are taking it away?"
In a heartbeat.
As things are going now, Obamacare will INCREASE the number of uninsured by several million people in less than a month.
Obamacare has outlawed roughly 5 million 2013 individual health insurance policies and an as yet unknown number of employers are terminating their employee insurance because Obamacare mandates have sharply increased the cost.
To date, only a bit over 300k have submitted an application for the Obamacare exchange junk insurance which costs an average of 41% more than the outlawed 2013 policies. Americans have a bit over a week to sign up for this insurance if they hope to have coverage in January when their outlawed policies lapse.
This is only the first disaster which will hit in 2014.”
Mar 1, 2013 at 13:21:31
“Read the NEJM study and see no claim that the control group was on a low-fat diet. Rather it clearly states that they were not. So this post is defending the low-fat approach against lazy headline writers not against the researchers who completed this study. Dr. Ornish should take steps to remedy this.
We all benefit from educating the 90% of Americans eating the Standard American Diet (SAD diet) on the benefits of a lower fat, mostly plant-based, real food diet. We benefit less by confusing the public with competing claims about which lower fat, mostly plant-based, real food diet is "best." We are with Mark Bittman on this point.”
pinetrale on Mar 3, 2013 at 21:13:55
“The SAD diet, lol. Thanks.”
NKNK on Mar 3, 2013 at 01:58:51
“I was mostly with you until the last sentence. You want to argue about science but finish by declaring that you side with a *food journalist*??? That guy has done a fair share of misrepresenting scientific studies, which is exactly the behavior you are criticizing here - see Dr. Katz's most recent article here on HP for the most recent example.”
“We agree with this comment and petergard (below). As we look at potential reforms designed to strengthen and preserve Medicare and Social Security we should absolutely be looking at elimination of the cap which would mean higher income earners pay more for the programs. This seems almost certain to be a major part of whatever emerges. Also agree with negotiating lower pharm prices. All good suggestions. And we largely agree with petergard's views on the ACA and even the view that these may be steps toward single payer in the distant future, but this would be a different post for a later time. Good discussion here!”
“I do not know about what HuffPo has been up to, but there is no hiding this from us. Alice Rivlin is our mother (mother in law). We are deeply proud of this relationship. But the views here are ours not hers. In fact she has expressed both agreement and disagreement with various aspects of this post to us privately. Her views are widely shared and you can comment there -- so please do not make this about her.”
skylark on Feb 25, 2013 at 17:30:50
“I am not going to apologize. And you seem to have missed my point about extremely rich people, some of the world's wealthiest, pushing for extreme hardship on working class and poor people.”
“Here we may disagree. We think it is more than just rhetorical spin to see "reform" as strengthening, and preserving Medicare and Social Security. You may not trust Obama to take on this mission, but most Democrats will -- and should. [Our opinion -- we understand yours is different.]”
“A redoubled effort against health care fraud certainly needed. We agree with you that there is quite a lot of money being lost there. You have your finger pointed in the right direction with this suggestion.”
Sep 13, 2012 at 17:14:51
“I could not agree more wholeHEARTedly! My 9th was indeed the Best. Burn. Ever! Your report precisely matches my experiences and you put (correctly qualified) praise where it belongs the BMORG and the newbies ("cute little Boy and Girl Scouts in el-wire"). I never use pejorative characterizations of the people who come for the topless party (I do not know how they spent their college years) but they were remarkably absent this year. And some of my bestest new friends were virgins 3 weeks ago.”
“We are sorry to hear this story, and hope the newlyweds find financial stability and health. That said, we strongly agree that political arguments can get very far from the lives of the real people they affect. Your last line gets an "amen" from CenteredPolitics.com!”
“Agree, and all of this fits the Democrats best narrative so well. We know the Republicans are for the rich but who is for the middle class and poor? It’s just one more piece of the puzzle, but the overall pattern is clear.”
mancoff on Jul 3, 2012 at 11:52:37
“Supporting social security, medicare, medicaid, supporting workers rights to bargain in the work place, supporting equal pay for women, supporting unemployment benefits, supporting jobs for teachers, firemen, policemen, supporting affordable health care for all and insisting that public sector jobs like teachers, fire fighters, policemen, etc are just as important and vital to this country and the economy as private sector jobs are......that would be the Democrats and President Obama.
Inisting that big corporations and millionaires get huge tax breaks and millions of dollars in incentive money; trying to put less and less regulations on financial institutions, oil companies, and other big corporations; trying to eliminate social security, medicare, medicaid, slash and burn public schools, eliminate unions thus weakening workers bargaining power in the work place regarding salary, safety regulations and benefits, etc etc..supressing voters rights while taking millions from big sugar daddies to buy elections........that would be republicans and Romney
Not much of a puzzle at all as to who is for the middle class, and a country who is for the people, by the people and for the people; and who would have the top one percent, good old rich white boys rule this country.”
“We agree Alan. And the past couple of days have offered a lot of examples of the complexity of this issue pulling Republicans off message. The McConnell appearance was particularly damaging but Eric Fehrnstrom did not fare much better. Repeal and Replace is a bumper sticker with no policy behind it.”
“A comment on CenteredPolitics.com makes the case that unless a Euro-crisis stalls the US recovery, economic fundamentals point to a very close contest. We think our answer adds to our case so we are posting it herel:
We see your view as too static. Would you say you know what the election effect of a major attack or new war would be and can you guarantee no such event through November? You believe that feeding current economic data into Edward Tufte or Allen Lichtman’s forecasting models predicts a close election, but you allow that there is downside economic uncertainty (perhaps a Euro-crisis, but what about a Mideast crisis, or dramatic stumble of China’s economy?) that could oust Obama, but are you sure Republicans would benefit and keep the House? If there is a serious downturn or double dip, the wave could be more anti-incumbent (Scenario 3) than anti-Democratic (Scenario 1).
Meanwhile, Romney is one gaff away from embracing the demise Medicare and Social Security in a way that would make him unacceptable to enough seniors to sink his boat, and probably the GOP. (Some would argue his embrace of the Ryan Budget already qualifies.) Or Boehner could cause another showdown over the debt ceiling, which he has already threatened to do, and we can just about promise this would lead to Scenario 2. In any of these cases it would be interpreted as a wave we should have seen coming.”
“William Caldwell, Is this a comment on the article or just a comment flowing just from the headline? Since we are talking about stagnant real wages, we are not exactly sure how freeloaders gets into the conversation. We are talking about three decades of productivity gains from standardization, mechanization, globalization and the internet, but none of this showing up in worker paychecks. (See the chart we link to in the pargraph under the header "After Further Review...") You may not know what the word "fairness" means, but we suspect this is not what most people mean by "fairness."”
William Caldwell on May 4, 2012 at 20:22:01
“Conjoined posters? Never seen that before. The entire world is growing and advancing. The US IS the one percent, and some of those poor countries are getting a better deal on the global level. To the point Chinese workers are complaining because they are losing jobs to poorer workers that used to starve in other countries. Like the folks that say why bother drilling, it's a world economy, we can only have so much here while everyone else starves. A good liberal ought to be glad poor folks who are REALLY starving poor have advanced, and despite your complaint the US is still doing fairly well.
In tens of thousands of posts I've read on the net I've almost never seen American liberals interested interested in jobs anywhere but in the US. They will demand our government give more aid to some countries, and cry about greedy conservatives (though conservatives give more to charity than liberals), but in the end they really believe the US worker from middle class down somehow deserves the world's best jobs while poor folks elsewhere must be satisfied with our handouts. And they want to drive rich folks either out of business or out of the US. As if being rich were bad and being poor good. Is the idea to keep everyone else in the world poor but noble savages? I think they deserve better. Say the opportunity to equal us. Euro socialists aren't accomplishing that.”
“When H Ross Perot ran for president, the law said he could give billions to his own campaign but not to anyone else’s campaign. The Supreme Court voided that restriction, so now anyone with a billionaire for a supporter can hire as many lawyers as Ross Perot had. And really, your list of celebrities is sooo 2011. We mint celebrities much faster than that. By the end of 2012 everyone will be talking about dozens of people you have never heard of yet.”
“Agree with the sentiment but the Reagan Administration and others you note deserve more credit for the policy compromises they reached. Tax reform that includes increasing tax revenues while lowering tax rates by closing loopholes and other tax expenditures was good policy during the Reagan Administration and it would be good policy now.”
“This analysis feels a bit static. Democrats will not be able to regain control of the House solely by electing liberals. They will have to retake a lot of the seats moderate Democrats lost to Tea Party Republicans. This will mean returning some moderate members who lost or others fairly similar to them. Both parties have a lot to gain by moving toward the center – where most voters are.”
“We agree with part of this and also disagree with part.
It is true that Democrats controlled everything in those years but many people believed falsely then that liberal Democrats controlled the whole shebang. That was not true. If you look at our writings from 2009 and 2010 we argued against doing health care reform in the first year, and once the decision was made to do health care, we argued for compromise between liberal Democrats and moderate Democrats to get the thing passed ASAP and get back to a jobs agenda. That didn’t happen, liberals and moderates battled over the details of health care reform and it dragged on into 2010. Many of the moderates got defeated. Liberal Dems + moderate Dems = Majority. Subtract the moderates and you get Speaker Boehner. Don't know how anyone would argue that was a step forward.”
Nathan Brittles on Dec 27, 2011 at 22:46:25
“True enough. But you folks forget that 2010 also marked the death of the Blue Dogs. Democrats elected those even further to the left creating a far less moderate Democrat makeup than what has been seen heretofore. Advancing patent ideologues such as Wasserman-Schultz to the leadership of the DNC [caught in serial lies by both POLITIFACT and FACTCHECK], does not add any lustre to the false ideal that this party, especially as it exists in the House, becomes more ''moderate''. It is rather, increasingly left-wing, especially amongst its ethnic caucus components, and thus, not in a position upon taking any future control to offer the ''moderation'' you seek. Things will thus get worse. Not better. They will merely get worse under a ''progressive'' rubric instead of a TP one.”
“We misunderstood your reference to "My way or the Highway." You mean the Democrats offered "My way or the highway to compromise and further negotiations." That is not such a bad highway to be on. Some people use "My way or the highway" to imply there would be no further negotiations. But you clearly understand that is not the case this time. Thanks for clarifying.”