Friday Open Thread

“We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.”

–Elie Wiesel

28 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Pseudonymous says:

    Colorado’s reinsurance program has been lauded as a way to reduce health care costs. Here’s the fine print.

    For months, Gov. Jared Polis and state health officials have been talking about how Colorado’s new reinsurance program is going to lower insurance prices across the state for people who purchase coverage on their own.

    But, as open enrollment kicks off Friday, two new analyses show that tens of thousands of people could end up paying more for their coverage next year as a result of the reinsurance program unless they shop around for a new plan — and some might still pay more even if they do.

    On average statewide, the increase would be fairly modest, about $22 per month. People living outside the Interstate 25 corridor will still likely see a drop in their health premium prices. But, for some families along the Front Range, the increase could be more than $100 a month, according to one report.

    And the increases would affect only people or families with average to below-average incomes. People with high incomes are likely to see decreases in what they pay for health coverage.

    • RepealAndReplace says:

      …..unless they shop around for a new plan

      So why not simply shop around? Instead, people want to put their faith in some half-baked promise that only rich people will pay for their government-provided health care.

      • Pseudonymous says:

        “We want to make sure people are looking at their options, depending on how the math looks for the advance premium tax credit,” Patterson said. “They can still reduce their premiums significantly by shopping, rather than just renewing their plan.”

        But that might not be true for every family.

        Louise Norris, a Colorado health insurance agent who is also a nationally respected writer on health coverage issues, wrote an analysis for the website Healthinsurance.org looking at the situation of a hypothetical Denver family of four with a household income of $95,000 annually. With subsidies, that family might be paying $355 per month currently for a plan that, if they choose to renew it, would rise to $529 per month next year. Even if the family shopped around, the cheapest plan this family could buy would be $523 per month.

      • MADCO says:

        judegemental much?

    • Early Worm says:

      I am in this exact situation – premiums dropped $300, but the subsidy dropped $535. Net increase, if we keep the same plan, is $235. And no, shopping around does not change anything. But, net premiums are still half what they were before ACA.

      There is a bigger headache. My household is hovering around 400% of the poverty guidelines, the cut off for the subsidy.  If the household income is $1 below the 400% level, we get a substantial subsidy. If it is $1 above, we get nothing. There is no way to know exactly where you are at until you pay your taxes. It amounts to a $10,000 plus tax hit. This is not logical or consistent with any reasonable public policy. Do you think Congress will fix it? 

  2. itlduso says:

    "Trump must be stopped from sabotaging this election."

    That needs to be the elevator pitch that the Dems present to the American people.  From there, they can explain that Trump is not asking Ukraine for an honest "investigation" into Biden and the 2016 server.  No, he's asking Ukraine (and China and Russia, etc.) to manufacture a dishonest investigation into these matters that have already been thoroughly debunked.  And, Dems can also make the case that if Trump is not removed from office, that he will be unleashed to act like a dictator, including enlisting the IRS, DOJ and other government agencies to attack his political enemies, maybe even you.

    I believe this is the simple explanation that 60% or more of the American public will support.  Once that threshold is reached, then the GOP will be forced to vote to impeach and convict.

  3. AnonPoster says:

    Hi Y'all. First post here. Just wanted to say that as much as I support removing Fat Bastard from the White House, I don't think it's going to happen. Americans tend to support that which makes their wallets thick. Even though Trump deserves no credit for the economy(thanks Obama), he won't be removed unless there is a downturn.

    • Voyageur says:

      The good news, if you can call it that, is that the economy is already heading to where the woodbine twineth, basically due to Stinky Boy's trade war.

      (Woodbine used to be planted in outhouses to mask their smell.  A modern rendition of that 19th century phrase would be "in the toilet."

      )

       and as a fat person myself, I think you have chosen the wrong reason to oppose Trump.  Are you saying that if he loses 30 pounds you will vote for him?

    • RepealAndReplace says:

      Welcome!

  4. itlduso says:

    Here's a ray of sunshine.  I've been getting mailings from Trump, and so has my GOP mother-in-law who has sadly been deceased for over two years.  So, their vaunted targeting operation seems to have some expensive flaws.  Keep on sending them, Trump!

    • harrydoby says:

      Me too (and I've always been registered with the Democratic Party).  I've gotten at least two other expensive mailers in the last few months.

      Yesterday I got a bulky survey mail with a postage paid return envelope — oh the temptation to weight it down and return it at their expense!

      More money than brains, obviously.

  5. JohnInDenver says:

    A Republican politician has a new way to address impeachment issue queries:

    Huffpost: "GOP Lawmaker Head-Butts Camera Rather Than Answer A Question About Trump"

  6. Genghis says:

    The latest Keystone Pipeline fuckery has dumped close to 400,000 gallons of crude on a North Dakota wetland this week. Clearly, the only answer is more corporate welfare for the O&G industry.

  7. MADCO says:

    Is it $20.5 trillion? Or $52+?

    Either way – the oppo ads, which would run hard in April and then go dark until September and then be run non stop in PA, MI, WI and AZ: 

    trillions and trillions but no taxes? riiiight
    And if you already have Medicare – or think you  do – be afraid. very afraid – cause it's about to go away. If you can emigrate to Canada or England – get your tickets now.

    Trump : 
    I promised never to touch your Medicare – and I saved it.
    D's want to take it away to insure illegal imigrants

    Trumps wins reelection- no one can understand why

    • gertie97 says:

      Good. He's all hat and no cattle.

      • Genghis says:

        Yep. Dude's an empty suit.

        • itlduso says:

          He's worse than an empty suit — he supported radical ideas like forcibly taking away assault weapons and eliminating tax breaks for churches that don't support gay marriages.  Now, I may agree with that, but a majority of Americans don't. 

          I'm very curious to learn who Obama's 2008 delegate legal genius, Jeff Berman will now support.  He clearly screwed the pooch by picking Beto who wasn't going to win any delegates anyway.  But, he's still the best at understanding delegate selection rules and I would put money on whichever candidate gets his support.

  8. Genghis says:

    Joe Manchin will most certainly not support Bernie Sanders if he's the Dems' presidential nominee, and might even vote for Trump in that event. It's surprising that ol' Joe was able to detach his lips from Don Blankenship's phallus long enough to give an interview.

    • RepealAndReplace says:

      The irony is amazing. Other than maybe Kentucky, can you think of a state that has more people per capita in need of more financial assistance from the government than West Virginia?

      • Genghis says:

        Damn right, R&R. Before moving here in 2003, I lived in Ohio and spent substantial amounts of time in W. Va. It's downright horrifying to see how thoroughly a private industry can physically destroy a state, and how successfully the industry recruits politicians to facilitate the destruction, privatize the profit, and socialize the costs. Vast parts of the state looked like a literal war zone back then, and it's hard to imagine that anything's gotten better in the intervening years.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.