This is a show about the changing of the guard. The changes that occurred in the 1960's were very much from conservative to progressive. I realize a lot of guys especially got into Mad Men at first because they thought this was about the good old days when dinosaurs ruled the earth. For me it was a case of Weiner first showing us where we'd come from, before he goes on to show us where we're going.

The once powerful are going to be on a downward trajectory, unless they can change with the times. I think Don can definitely change with the times. Not so sure about Roger, though, bless his unreconstructed damaged heart.

If you don't like Jon Hamm's or Matthew Weiner's politics, and if you are uncomfortable with change in general, you may not be able to enjoy the show the way you once did. It's down to you, can you change with the times?

@Laary. I have to start by saying I don't know what political video you are speaking about. I've not seen one, but that really doesn't mean anything. I'm with you in that I don't appreciate when a celebrity uses his/her position to "sell me" on his/her political viewpoint, regardless of what that viewpoint might be (yes, even if I agree). I always preferred being a shepherd to a sheep. I don't need to follow someone because I like a character they portray on a tv show or movie- - - that's just insane!

I like to think for myself and am not influenced by trends, or catch phrases/political slogans, or celebrities. I guess what I'm saying is that Bill Clinton put it best when he said "don't ask, don't tell." I won't ask about your politics or religion, so please don't tell me about them.

I hope that if you continue to watch Madmen you are able to see Jon Hamm, as Don Draper and not as Jon Hamm "political hack." If you can -great. If you can't, then that's okay too. I won't be as pompous as to tell you that you are wrong, or can't change, or aren't with the times. Only you know what is right for you.

"Change" is a buzzword that is thrown around a lot in today's culture but let's not forget that not all change is good. After all, Hitler, Bin Laden, and Hussein were all huge agents of change - not the kind of change I would be comfortable with though.

So, if you can, put aside your feelings about Jon Hamm's politics and enjoy his craft. If you can't, then just stay true to yourself and don't let anyone, especially celebrities tell you how to think or feel. PEACE!

Great post, mmob. First, I have to lament the aforementioned software here. When I first tried to post my thread, computer crashed immediately. When it came back, thread was not there. Hence, posted twice. Hope the site police can straighten it out, wipe out one.

The "political video" is being shown and debated on political sites. Like you said, I don't like being told what political views I should have.

We will find out come Sunday if I can watch MM with an open mind.

thanks

Great post, Laary. And I'm with you on this: I don't care what an actor's political leanings are. I'm actually an actor, and I certainly don't press on other people to pay attention to my political viewpoints. I suppose because celebrities are standing on the world's stage, it clouds their judgement. As they feel their celebrity star rise, perhaps they feel their celebrity status affords them the opportunity to spout their political viewpoints. Ah, if only they would shut off their me-tardedness and look around them, they would see that not only have they lost fans, they've lost credibility.

In Jon Hamm's defense, the video was trying to be funny, and was sending a wink to the debate. I think it succeeded, much like when Jack Black and Co. did their hilarious 'Prop 8-The Musical'. The Health Care video went just to the edge of my tolerance. If Jon steps over that, by making any further noise, I will continue to watch the show, as I love the overall story, and I love so many of the orbiting characters around Don Draper, but Hamm will lose not only my support for his talent, but my respect for him, as an individual.

Jon Hamm should look to his peers, to learn from them what happens, when you use the opportunity of being a celebrity, to spout your political views. A shining example of this is Alec Baldwin, whom I was a HUGE fan of, until he made the fatal error of jumping into the political pool, crying out that he was going to "leave the country" if George W. Bush was made President. As we all know, he never left *snicker* I was also a fan of Arnold 'Governator' Schwarzenegger, until he jumped headlong into politics, as well.

I wish actors would focus on their craft, and keep their lips sealed when it comes to politics and religion.

Again, fantastic post, Laary!

So by that reasoning stage, you shouldn't be allowed to express any political opinions either. Or any of us who aren't actual politicians or political consultants...

And poor Laary--there's not too much on television or in the movies you can watch anymore, except maybe Chuck Norris films. Pretty much most of the brilliant creative types are liberal and progressive. And most of them have opinions like you do.

I don't think MM is the show for you. It's really a progressive liberal show.

Um, Alec Baldwin won Best Actor emmy. I think his career and fan base is doing just fine. Much better than Larry the Cable Guy.

@stagekiss - great post. you articulated my feelings much better than I could have.

@laary - curiosity got the best of me so I googled the video. First, let me say that I am in love with Don Draper. Jon Hamm, on the other hand, I know very little about.

After watching the video though I found myself having very strong feelings indeed (ordinarily I couldn't care less about what a celebrity supports) All I could do was shake my head and ask why. I mean really, the Health Care debate is probably the LAST issue in which celebrities should be voicing their opinion.

Let's be honest, regardless of what passes here for the masses (the you, me and every other non-millionaire masses) the very wealthy, like celebrities, won't have any worries. If we begin to experience the problems that other countries (Canada, UK, Japan) have experienced with National Health Care, it won't affect the wealthy in the least. Rather, if they need a procedure, they'll be able to fly themselves off to all parts of the globe to ensure that they get the best treatment with no concern for the cost. Those of us who can't afford to leave the county, if our health plan falls short of providing us with what we need, will have to worry in a very big way.

IMHO, a video like this would have more credibility if it featured regular Joes like you and me. Sorry but celebrity endorsement on this topic is a joke and an offense. I liken it to me, a women, supporting a movement to prohibit the use of any type of anesthetic for vasectomies. I mean such a plan wouldn't hurt me so why not endorse it? Get real!

I'm not really getting how their celebrity status means they can't speak out on a human rights issue? Indeed, they are saying exactly that--that most of us regular joes don't have the cash to plunk down on expensive health care.

I'm not really getting your logic? Why would speaking out for the right of health care be like banning anesthetic for vasectomies? That makes no sense at all.

So anything bad that happens to someone else is none of your business? You don't care? That's fine for you, but that's you. Most people feel otherwise, so you shouldn't impose your lack of compassion on the rest of the world. You should feel free to not care, but don't turn the whole world that way. That would be awful.

Hi Laary!
I haven't seen this video, so I'm not sure what Jon Hamm is supporting or not supporting.

I have a different view than most of the previous posters. I feel that everyone in America has a right to voice opinions regarding politics.
I don't know why some of us feel that actors or actresses should be held to a different standard.

I think MM fans are intelligent, open minded people, and probably wouldn't be influenced by a statement from Jon Hamm.

Exactly, and if they have a talent for making people laugh or writing songs or doing movies, etc. on a subject like that, then that's good for the cause, and a very good outlet for their creativity.

It's no coincidence that most of the funnier, more creative, talented people are liberal--they do tend to go hand in hand.

But we need accountants too, so that's where the more conservative folks tend to congregate careerwise. ;-0

Laary--Michael J. Fox has a serious parkinsons or MS (I forgot which) and he spoke out about Stem Cell research. I think as much as any person in this country, more than me, more than you even perhaps, he has standing to speak out on that subject. How could you POSSIBLY begrudge him that right? That's downright meanspirited--even if you don't agree with his position, you can surely see how important it's outcome is to him and others in his position? How could you HATE him for that? Indeed, that should make you respect him more that he's not just suffering and letting his life go to waste. He's working to help others like him.

I don't get it.

60s--here's the link to the video

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/041b5acaf5/protect-insurance-companies-psa

Thanks Betty Crocker!

I thought it was pretty clever, and working in healthcare for so long, I can't disagree.

And here I thought the Mad Men audience was a bit more intelligent than your average t.v. audience, and therefore couldn't/wouldn't be influenced by the opinions of others. Least of all celebrities. The current national political debate and climate certainly is an indication that no ones mind is being changed by anyone else be they celebrity, politician, or average joe/jane.

I didn't even know Jon Hamm had done a political video til I saw this thread. I still haven't seen it. I just don't understand why anyone cares what any celebrity says. If you already agree with their position, you might like the celebrity more. If you disagree with their position you will probably like them less. And, as celebrities, surely they know they risk popularity if they delve into politics.

Laary... I'll hope that you will perhaps develop the detachment to view movies and TV...(especially incandescently great TV like MM)... by watching how an actor goes about portraying his/her character without being influenced by the actors regular lives and opinions. You may dislike an actor and their behavior -- but that has nothing to do with the parts they play.... the dislike is only about you and your opinions. Shorter version... it is- or ought to be- about their acting chops, playing a part.

Betty Crocker.... as ever youi said it all better than I could. Thanks.

Stage Kiss...nice post... but I have to disagree. I love actors and don't think they lose their credibilty as actors if they express an opinion or take a stand. I remember the HUAC, and lots of other examples of actors making public declarations on issues... (some of course with which I personally disagreed) and it didn't mean they'd compromised their acting ability at all. Do you act in LA or NewYork or??

@laary: Everyone is free to hold whatever beliefs they want. As a denizen of L.A., I have just come to assume that every single person in the entertainment industry will hold liberal views. If entertainment types ever say something otherwise, I am always somewhat surprised. There is a culture out here that you have to be involved in these certain causes to be cool, or maybe Rahm's brother won't call you back to offer you a deal.

Hamm, Redford, Pitt, Baldwin and Cusack can get on their soapbox all they want, but they know they risk alienating at least half their fan-base. It's a calculated risk they take. Baldwin's public posturing doesn't hurt his standing within Hollywood, because like-minded individuals vote those awards to him. It's a very narrow-minded culture out here, believe it or not, in its own way. At the same time, Baldwin took a lot of heat within Hollywood for doing a sketch on SNL with Sarah Palin last fall. He made a very nice written statement on a blog somewhere endorsing the idea of political tolerance of others, which I respected quite a bit.

In any event, Americans are usually smarter than to automatically buy into anything celebrities say relating to political causes. To the contrary, I have found that celebrity endorsements of political causes usually backfire in the public eye and hurt the cause's prospects. The limited exception to that rule might be political fundraising, because all the hangers-on are usually superrich also and can easily write fat checks to any preferred candidate or cause as a favor to their celebrity friends.

Laary, you just have to learn to accept that artistic types will be liberal generally. Let them have their opinions, as is their right. Then let them entertain you, because that is what they do best. So long as their business is not running the government or deciding what laws or public policies are best, then we're all safe. That is the job of people elected to high office. And we get to choose those people ourselves.

I agree 60schild. I spent more than 20 years in healthcare, including some time filing claims (ugh!) for patients.

I thought it was funny - satire, if you will. How many ads on the other side of the political spectrum have you see with heavy-handed haranguing, misleading statements etc. Turn about is fair play.

Personally I am so fed up with insurers that I am all for single payer: Medicare for all!

Have to add partly this is because I have been doing battle for MONTHS with our insurer over our college-aged daughter as a dependent. Our plan (in NY) has a company in Michigan running some sort of "database" to confirm that all folks claiming to be dependents actually are. Well, she is. We have provided her birth certificate (long version), our marriage certificate, proof of address, and five - count 'em - FIVE verification forms from the Registrar of her (former) college proving that she was indeed enrolled as a full-time student there between the dates of Nov 1 2008 and Feb 1 2009. I've also sent a copy of her course list (not official enough even though the college name is emblazoned on the top of the page). If we haven't provided enough proof to satisfy their guidelines by October 1, they will deny all payments made for her since Feb 1 of this year.

I've been dealing with Medicare since 2004 on behalf of a disabled sister and have NEVER had a problem with them

'nuff said.

@Betty- while I agree, personally and passionately, that the health care issue is a human rights issue, the fact that it's been polarized and politicized is also true. I'm all for actors/artists having a platform to speak out on human rights issues that they believe in, but when you've an audience and fans to think of, you have to be prepared that some in those groups you hope to keep around will tune you out, and lose respect for you, based on what you're trying to peddle. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.

And while Alec Baldwin did indeed win an Emmy, I think he has a small village of people to thank, who believed in him and his talent, and wanted to work with him, despite his ridiculous behavior (Tina Fey and Lorne Michaels, respectfully). I know his recorded phone call to his daughter didn't help his case, which only piled onto to the circus he created around himself, when he jumped into the political pool. Just remember, Elia Kazan may have won a lifetime achievement award, but that doesn't mean he won back friends and fans because of what he did during the HUAC trials.

And please, I hardly think it's fair for you to assume I'm a republican or that I don't care about people. I do care about other people a great deal, AND I happen to be a liberal. Please don't assume you know anything about my character from a message board posting in cyberspace.

Anything I post is strictly my opinion-that's it. An opinion. Because I don't agree with your stance doesn't make me "wrong" or "bad" or an uncaring person.

This is a fun place, so why don't we all contribute to the fun instead of flaming another's opinion. Remember, we all have opinions, all of us. We can simply agree to disagree, ok?

Does anyone else notice that it's Tom Selleck's voice doing commercials for orange juice growers these days. Just sayin...

I personally don't care if celebrities get involved in political debate. As long as they don't use award shows for their platforms. I know where I stand. They're predictably progressives with a few exceptions. It's curious that they're so dedicated to spending their time endorsing spending taxpayer money but very few actually donate THEIR own riches to any cause except political.
Michael Moore hates Capitalism -shock!- didn't we already know that? I think he has survived very well under the system. Are you going to see his new movie? Tell your friends at over ten dollars a pop! How ironic.
Celebs should hold no influence over anyone anyway, unless you're a lemming or a sheep or already inclined to believe that way.. I reserve the right to stop watching them if I think they're kooks (Charlie Sheen). It's STILL a free country.
With that said, I certainly don't begrudge them their freedom of speech, UNLIKE the Obama Administration who is doing their best to silence or marginalize anyone who disagrees with them. (Humana, most recent)
Now the Democrats haved denied posting the ominous healthcare bill on the internet 72 hours before the vote for Americans to read, instead, they're planning shoving it right down our throats sight unseen. So much for transparency.
If this is what you want Jon Hamm, looks like you're going to get it. Looks like we're all going to get it.
.

@Melba: Well, yes and no. As DonDraper said, actors risk alienating their fan base, if they choose to speak out. It's everyone's choice to make, and I wish them well on their decisions.

And, I'm an actor in San Francisco, working on a 2 year plan to be in LA.

Here is another link to a funny video re: health care. I only recommend this to pro-change minded thinkers though, so all others, you've been warned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4

Sorry Stage--I might have misread your post. It sounded like you were saying something about how say, if men had to have their penises cut without anesthetic (for some reason by law, say), you wouldn't care enough to put a stop to that.

I mean, you might not care enough to do a PSA spoof per se, but really, if it somehow affected you emotionally, you might.

I just took that as a blanket, why should rich celebrities care about the health care system b/c they can fly to wherever and pay for anything in cash. Quite a few care even if they don't have to pay for it themselves. I assume you would too.

Wooo NNT!! We're #37!!! Go USA!

Look Betty, if I've offended you, my apologies. This is the internet-I cannot discern your tone of voice, body language, etc, nor can I expect you to read mine.

You're coming off extremely hostile to me, and from what I posted, I've obviously hit a nerve.

However, while I am sorry I have offended you, I will not apologize for my opinions, nor should I expect you to apologize for yours.

Of course I care about the current state of health care. What I don't appreciate are celebrities coming out and using the topic as an platform to peddle their political wares. It's nice that they care, I get it. But my hunch is, it's more of a tactical move for publicity, and not that they actually care about the rest of us.

No, I'm not offended--I just post very plain English/matter of factly.

But really, why should you have an opinion and not any other actor? I don't mean that in a hostile fashion, just literally. Why is your opinion fine, but not Jon Hamm's?

LOL, Laary!

How about this for celebrity opinion? Maybe you might find Kirk Cameron more to your liking, hahaha!

Kirk Cameron Stands Behind Controversial Darwin Statements

He and other creationists have created thousands of editions of Charles Darwin's landmark work explaining evolutionary theory, with a 50-page introduction that picks apart aspects of Darwin's work and try to link it to everything from Nazi eugenics to the scientist's alleged "disdain for women."

Distributing Books
On Nov. 19, three days before the 150th anniversary of the original publication of Origin of Species, Cameron and other religious activists will distribute their books at "the top 50" universities around the country.

An online video of Cameron describing his theory – and his controversial beliefs – has been circulated wildly across the Internet, where it has also inspired many many counterarguments and spoof videos.

But then, speaking out about his faith is nothing new for Cameron, who has been doing it since finding God 20 years ago during the height of his fame as wise-cracking Mike Seaver on the long-running ABC sitcom Growing Pains. Cameron has made a cottage industry out of starring in films that cater to evangelicals, such as the Left Behind series and Fireproof.

Fiery Reactions
But never has he ruffled so many feathers, especially among academics, as he has this week, slamming evolutionary theory as untrue, inherently un-Christian and the driving force behind some of the most horrendous catastrophes of the 20th century, including Adolf Hitler's plan to destroy "inferior races."

"You can see where [Hitler] clearly takes Darwin's ideas to some of their logical conclusions and compares certain races of people to lower evolutionary life forms," Cameron says. "If you take Darwin's theory and extend it to its logical end, it can be used to justify all number of very horrendous things."

But academics dismiss such arguments as ludicrous.

"This has been refuted many, many times. The anti-evolutionist fearmongers have to link Darwin to every perceived evil from mankind," says Kevin Padian, professor of paleontology and evolutionary biology at the University of California, Berkeley. "The two kinds people who believe that religion and evolution can not coexist are extreme atheists and extreme religious fundamentalists. Everyone else doesn't really have a problem. [A majority] of Americans believe that a belief in god is compatible with evolution."

Willing Target
Cameron, who lives outside of Los Angeles with his wife of 20 years, Chelsea Noble, and their six children, realizes that he is making himself a target by being so outspoken, but is willing to do so for a cause that he believes so strongly in.

"I am proud to bring this to people's attention," he says. "You see things in the world that are truly distressing and you think, 'What can I do?' Well this is something I can do."

@BC: With due respect, the point is this:

Why should rich celebrities care whether or not middle class working people can afford the additional taxes and premiums it will cost them to purchase mandatory health insurance coverage? Rich celebrities can't relate to middle class families not having enough money to actually purchase health insurance, which (as I understand the current bill) would be required under the President's "plan."

Personally, I like keeping the money I earn working long hours (this website nothwithstanding) and I enjoy spending it on my family. This is not a "human rights" issue, this is primarily a tax issue. It is also an issue regarding the appropriate scope of government. Just my two cents, in light of all the heat and light expended on the topic.

@stagekiss: That last post was great. I agree that it is often about publicity and posturing and "Hey, look at me, I'm important, listen to me!" A little humility goes a long way in my book.

Keeping your money? I'm not getting you. You aren't keeping your money.

Health care is a human right in EVERY other industrialized country but ours. It is. I'm not getting what you mean by "keeping your money."

That's just not true. Period. Saying it isn't over and over doesn't make it true.

And our difference of opinion on the actual health care plan is exactly why I applaud those with strong influential voices taking a stand on what's right.

Even if you don't agree with them, you have to applaud them taking a stand.

I even applaud "cold, dead hands" sometimes just for having an opinion and standing by it. Even though I obviously disagree.

BC: Not sure what planet you're living on, but where do you think $900M will come from to pay for this grand "plan"? It's called, "taxes." You should check it out.

So you obviously don't agree with Kirk Cameron posturing as well, right?

Sorry, my mistake: that's $900 Billion-- with a "B."

That's far less than the Iraq war per month.

Sorry, the million was. The 900 billion is still far less than the Iraq war and far far far more important long term.

No offense, but I wouldn't call Kirk Cameron a "celebrity" any more. He's a guy with a video camera on YouTube, just like anyone else. But if you read my post above, I said everyone is entitled to do or say anything they want. I'm all for free speech.

And yes, I would much rather my taxes go toward health care than Halliburton.

How old are you btw?

There does seem to be a lot of 70+ folks that still live in the 50s and 60s? And care only about taxes...

Again, it's a new era.

I need to find a younger web site.

Certainly, that's your choice, but it's not mine. You would have to agree that it is up to constitutents to decide if they want this, right? And if they don't want it and Congress votes it down, then that is legitimate, right?

BC: Didn't your mother teach you that is not a polite question? And you have a photo of me, so you can guess how old I am. I am of the MW generation-- Gen X.

It's not about age as to whether you care about taxes. It's usually more about how much you value your work and time spent earning a living.

How about Charlton Heston? Or the Terminator? Or Glenn Beck? You value their opinion, no?

Why are you watching this show? I don't think this is the show for you. I'm not sure you really get this show?

@BC: I never said he "couldn't" have an opinion. Sure. Absolutely, he can. This is a free country. I applaud his employment of our 1st Amendment rights.

However, that said, dondraperesq makes an excellent point: why would he, a rich celebrity, care about the rest of us? Oh, sure, Jon may appreciate we are fans of his, but really, putting out a video on the world wide web, with his name attached to it and his performance will benefit Jon Hamm and his career only. He'll be in the public eye, people will spill dialogue over it (as we are now), and he'll have our full attention. As a great many in Hollywood have said: "There is no such thing as bad publicity".

He is able to have his opinion, and share it. My point is, I don't appreciate celebrities peddling their political wares publicly. And when they do spout them publicly, we are allowed to have an OPINION on it. My opinion on it? I don't like it, and I feel there's a tactical reason why he helped make that video, and it's called: Ta da! Publicity. If you do like it, fine. You may not like what I have to say, and perhaps you think I have an a tactical agenda for spouting my opinion. You know what, Betty? That's just fine as you have a right to your opinion, too. How's that for some plain English/matter of factly, hmmm?

Amongst the more enlightened fans, there do seem to be a bit of fogey types that hate that radical John Lennon and that crazy rock music.

Are your taxes REALLY a problem? C'mon now, stop it. You don't like the roads you drive on? You don't like the water you drink?

Really, it's hardly a problem. How much money do you really need? How many TV sets?

Do you care about your children's health at all? Another couch is so much more important...

Wow, you are really into imposing your value system on others, aren't you? Do you respect diversity? How about diversity of opinion? Or is that just lip service...?

As I stated above, everyone is entitled to their opinion, even celebrities. I am not into censoring anyone.

I am rich--for now. But one big illness and lack of coverage, and I'm seriously cash-poor.

I care about others as much as I care about myself...or almost anyway. And folks who work in nonprofits, teaching, cops, etc. They all deserve full coverage and health care. Period. Not a question.

BC: You don't know anything about me or my lifestyle. How do you kow what I spend my money on? Are you just projecting? Speculating? Personally, I respect informed opinions, not blind dogma.

You should know by now that I am a lawyer in Los Angeles and I used to work in Congress and I understand public policy and the lawmaking processes. You haven't told us what you do for a living or what your basis of knowledge is for all your statements. A little background on your infinite wisdom may be appropriate.

Betty, just because people don't agree with you, DOES NOT MAKE THEM WRONG.

I'm in your age group Betty, and I'm a liberal *gasp!* Yes, it's true, I am. I abhor Glenn Beck and his whole posse.
I voted for Obama *gasp again*

DDesq is making some excellent points. Please try to have an open mind, and stop shouting down anyone who doesn't agree with you. He's not "old", and perhaps he doesn't hold republican leanings because he is debating this with you. This is a very emotionally charged topic of discussion, and the right answers are anyone's guess.

Take a chill pill and relax, will ya?

>

All those people have that. Their employers provide it.

Well, I guarantee if Jon Hamm showed up at the Diabetic Man March on DC last weekend instead of this video, viewership would have taken a huge dive. (Well, it would have jumped for a week or so, but the "new" type of viewer would have lasted like a week and gone back to Nascar).

There's a reason actors, comedians, writers, directors, etc., are liberal--liberal ideas are generally more creative, intellectual, forward-thinking. Satire, comedy, drama and poetry all question the status quo and push society forward. Rarely backward.

At one point a lawyer in LA for a firm that was headed by a former Democratic National Committee chair and we represented several presidential candidates.

Now a chef and the president of a nonprofit.

Not all ideas are equal. Saying over and over again that taxes trump health care doesn't make that correct or even worth discussing. This TV news talking heads each giving opposing sides has led to a true decline in intellectual discussion.

There are some truths and real thinking. This nihilism is exactly that...as if any idea is just dandy. Not all opinions/ideas deserve equal credence or airtime.

This is part of the problem with our journalism in this country.

DD/Stage--OF COURSE you are entitled to your opinions, but why in god's name are you and Laary going out of your way to protest Jon Hamm's, etc. right to that opinion, I don't know. And so, once you all opened that door by attacking him, you then open yourselves up to attack.

It would have been better to just let his opinion speak for itself and in a discussion about health care period, share yours. I just don't know how you can object to his opinion and then get so defensive when someone challenges yours.

That's all I mean.

Re >

That's true. But those values are not conducive to governing. Two totally separate spheres. Governing is not art. Which is why those emotive feelings shouldn't be the subject of public policy. Everyone is still free to provide charity, without the compulsion of government. There is no reason to make it mandatory. If people don't want to be charitable, they should be free to act on that desire. Just like you are free to post on this Board all night....

>

See, now you're showing me that you are dogmatic. Not much different that Rush or Glenn Beck, just the other side of the fence. Partisan is still partisan.

>

Well, that's pretty telling right there. I rest my case. You are clearly not any more open minded than any right-wing extremist on the airwaves right now.

The question now becomes, why aren't you practicing law anymore?

Sorry-- for whatever reason, BC's quotes won't show up on my posts.

BC: You need to READ my posts. I never said Hamm had no right ot voice his opinion.

DD--I also volunteer now in the legal clinic here and NOOOO, all those people DO NOT have real insurance anymore. They don't

One in 8 homes are in foreclosure. Mostly due to serious health care debts.

Then why are you on this thread about protesting Jon Hamm's participation in a health reform video spoofing the right of insurance companies to make zillions in profit? Again, we wouldn't even be discussing this otherwise...

READ my first post. Let's turn your question around: Why are YOU on this thread if YOU aren't protesting Hamm's participation? Jeez...

They actually gave you a license out here?

I don't get your question about not practicing law? I worked in a law firm, I was a prosecutor for 5 years in Manhattan, I worked as a legal consultant in the affordable housing finance industry and for legal publications.

I currently volunteer at a legal services clinic, but as a profession, I find food, wine, farming to be far more satisfying/rewarding. Does the fact that I choose less income mean I don't deserve good health care?

Um, DD, you really do need to be careful with the personal insults. You really don't know the circles I come from and frankly, probably have a bit more clout in the LA legal world than you seem to think.

You have to be careful about underestimating your opponent.

Seriously. That kind of belittlement only works for much weaker women.

I'm DEFENDING Jon's participation, isn't that obvious?

I seem to be engaged in a battle of wills (as opposed to wits) with you, but I don't know exactly what you are fighting me about?

And substantively speaking, your solution to the health care issue is CHARITY??? Your aunt Sally should hold a BAKE SALE for her chemo treatments and her CAT scans? She should go to her church and ask for someone to make her dinner so she can save a few dollars for her $1000/month medication???

That is a health care policy you want to defend as the mechanism to take care of an entire country?

So you can keep a couple more thousand dollars/year?

That is what you are fighting FOR?

.....Entertainment and politics do not make good bedfellows.

Most of the people in Hollywood are under enormous pressure to conform to the hard left because they need to work.

It's just that simple.

Hey BC: I'm not here to protest Hamm's right to state his opinion. Not at all. Go back, take the blinders off your eyes, and read my words.
Neither did I come here to attack anyone. I stated my opinion. Your spinning it now, that I was attacking him? Well, no, I wasn't. YOU are the one attacking, Betty. Not me. I've been deflecting your attacks on me for hours, and defending myself. I don't know what your problem is, but I'm glad it's not mine.

Fair debate is fair debate. DD is right: you are being led by blind dogma. I also see you only spouting slogans, empty rhetoric, fear and half-truths. Seems to me you've done nothing but fill your brain with left wing talking points, cherry pick what fits your narrow perception, and shout down anyone who doesn't match your obfuscated argument on health care.

You're as bad as the right, with the Beck-Rush-Malkin-O'Reilly-Coulter wingnuts and the tea baggers banging their drums and trying to drown out anyone who doesn't agree with them or their special slice of insanity. You're a fantastic example of how honest, rational debate on health care is nearly impossible. I'll be blaming you and the wingnuts you hang with, if the health care bill hits an impasse.

Whew... just back from dinner and what an exchange!

DDesq.. one quick observation... you say (10:32) "why should rich celebrities care..." (about other peoples ability to pay for health care, etc). Well.... one very simple reason might be that they can remember what it is like to NOT be rich... among many other possibilities of reasons for a social conscience.

StageKiss postulated that publicity was a driving reason for "celebrities" to speak out....and I'm sure some times that may be true ...but I'd guess: first: not that often, and second:...the greater degree of fame for their excellence at their craft, the less likely their stand (whatever it was) would be for publicity.

For me, "celebrity" has become a very muddy word/idea...

StageKiss... I was glad to hear you say (8:09) it was everyones choice to make. Indeed. to return to the origin of the thread, I just think it a pity to allow ones dislike of an actors POV to cloud ones experience of their performance of their craft.

(StageK: personal Q.. do you do stage and commercials?? I am in SF area and send you best wishes on your two year plan)

Finally.. BettyC...a humble thank you.

.....Dear Maddicts.....May we dispense with the hyperbolic extremes??

I think we can all agree, we are simultaneously joined in the union of Maddiction.

Let thoueth proceed.

.....Say......

John Lennon says....."How do you sleep......"

How do you sleep???

Wow, some great comments, thanks to you all. First...

BettyCrocker, thanks for trying to impose your ultra liberal views upon us. Jon Hamm would be proud of you too.

You seem to forget one item when you suggest that even celebrities have the right to impose their will upon us with million dollar videos. Why can't I do the same????? Because I am not a CELEBRITY, Duh!!

I recall some years ago Brad Pitt was asked his opinion of a political issue. His response was "What do I know, I'm only an actor". Hurrah for being honest. Just because they are good at reading lines from a script, we should listen to them on issues that affect our simple lives??

My wife doesn't particularly like Mad Men, I don't think she can comprehend the hidden byplay. She admits she only watches because she loves Don Draper, she says he is very handsome.

I enjoy all the hidden byplay, the period costuming and authenticity, and also I am in love with Betty Draper. I hope January Jones doesn't show her political views in a public statement. It might bust my bubble of her. Betty will no longer be the sexy, frustrated, beautiful, unfulfilled, wife of an Add Man searching for .. he doesn't know either.

L.

Not sure how to frame this. Let's say "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"?

For all those worried about THEIR taxes skyrocketing due to the cost of increasing coverage to those who don't have health insurance now, I would point out that they are ALREADY paying for their care. When folks have inadequate or no insurance, they don't go to the doctor; a lot of them don't even have a regular physician. They rely on "free" clinics, if and when they can find them, or they wait until they are seriously ill and go to the ER. Who do you think pays for the far more expensive care in an emergency setting? We all do, in higher taxes, higher insurance premiums, higher fees charged etc. When presented with an emergency, hospitals by law cannot turn people away for inability to pay.

On the other hand, if everyone has at least basic preventive care coverage with small co-pays and limits on catastrophic out-of-pocket costs, identifying and treating diseases and disorders early on reduces the overall costs to the whole healthcare system.

LOL! It always cracks me up when the person who RESPONDS to someone's right wing post gets accused of imposing their "extremist" liberal views! Remember, you started this thread--you opened up YOUR views for scrutiny and analysis. If they can't hold up to my dissection, that's not my fault.

Making a good argument and pointing out that not all opinions are equal in merit is not extremism. It's conviction of one's beliefs, but those beliefs remain reasonable. There's no hostility or partisan politics in positing a strong argument--the hostility is on your end in the reception to my position.

It's like asking the question: Do you think dinosaurs and man roamed their earth together? Some folks might actually answer "Yes" to that question, but it doesn't make that side of the question worthy of discussion. And pointing that out to them will surely cause them to say "you're partisan and closed minded." But unlike say, abortion, death penalty, use of tax money, and other policy questions where reasonable minds may differ, sometimes there really aren't two sides to a story. Sometimes one opinion is on the right side of history and morality.

In any event, Americans are usually smarter than to automatically buy into anything celebrities say relating to political causes.

Says the man from a state run by the "Gover-nator." Arnold Schwarzenegger. A movie star. A celebrity. Yeah, right. Americans don't "usually" buy into anything celebrities say relating to political causes. Remember the 80's when they rejected what that celebrity Ronald Reagan had to say...

Oh, wait....

If you're going to condemn celebrities for having political opinions, and running with those opinions, you'd better start with big ones. Like Arnold. Like Reagan.

Funny how conservatives always seem to forget RR started out as a mere "celebrity." If you have any admiration at all for RR, then you've no case for EVER objecting to celebrities getting into politics, as RR never would have been president if he had done what you seem to want celebrities to do and shut up about their politics.

Hey, I'm actually with you. I think celebrities should always maintain the illusion of being neutral forever and forever. They should never recommend anything. Stand for anything. Or get into politics. I certainly think the world would have been a better place if Reagan and Arnold had stayed in the movies. Celebrities should always be blanks, aware that their one and only task is to play fictional characters, not be real people.

Hey, Rushie is a celebrity! So is Glenn Beck. They get to have opinions. Oh boy, do they have opinions!

And kudos on the RR point--indeed, when he was still just an actor, the AMA used him in ads OPPOSING health care reform! I'm sure that was fine with those who agreed with him then...

Again, this whole conversation started when Laary proclaimed his disgust with Jon Hamm's appearance on what many call a very good satirical video. You don't have to agree with his opinion, but why object unless you wanted the opportunity to express your own opposite opinion. Nothing wrong with that per se, but then you can't object to the folks who want to respond--and who respond quite successfully actually.

@Betty: I believe you've watered down much of your credibility by the tactics you've taken in this thread, to 'debate' anyone who had a different opinion, or stated anything contrary to your argument. It's no longer debate when flaming, name calling and attacks occur, and there's a reason why I tend to think you're just as much of a wingnut as the Glenn Beckian droids, the tea baggers and the birthers on the right. You won't engage in debate, though you posture to welcome debate. Those are just words, Betty, but the proof is in your approach. You actually remind me Bill O'Reilly, who welcomes guests on his show, then bullies them with flaming and name-calling, if they hold a political position different from his own. As I mentioned, you're a perfect example of why it's nearly impossible to have a rational discussion on the health care issue. You're just another one of the wingnut hysterics that try and drown out any kind of sane debate. The hilarious thing about you is, you believe you are actually open to a free and open discussion about health care, but you aren't. The blinders you wear and the slogans you spout hold you back everytime. Like I said before, I'm glad your problem isn't my own.

@Auburn Annie: Fantastic summation of the health care debacle we are in, and it's true: if we renew the status quo on health care, and ignore the problem, it's only going to get worse. I don't know the answer, but I agree with you wholeheartedly, that preventive care is the key, and it's the foundation we need to the current health care nuttiness. I have my own tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, of why basic preventive care isn't available to all, but I'll keep that one to myself. After all, what do I know? I'm just an actor :-) (Nice call on that one, Laary! I think I love Brad Pitt just a little bit more now)

Hi Melba, I do stage and film work right now, though I'd love to do commercials, at some point. Thanks for your support, and hello to a fellow San Franciscan!)

Typical Alinski point - Obfuscate, deter, change the subject. Bravo.

How did RR get into this? Funny, but I have heard on RIGHT Wing radio where he warned about government run health care. Guess he made two opposing statements, brilliant politician if he did.

I never objected to you guys presenting your views, why the heck would I post the questions otherwise? You guys are not celebrities, you will influence no one. But it sure doesn't stop you from trying, it's what liberals want, me to live my life the way YOU want me to.

I like my life, I'm retired, have Medicare Advantage, and love it. Please, please, please don't take it away from me and start running my health care from Washington.

Let's get back to Mad Men.

It's a great show, from the get go it was unique, different, very authentic. The "actors" are terrific, as ACTORS.

I hope they continue to be great actors and when the camera turns off, they go about their lives and I go about mine.

THE END.

I'm sure Betty is about to jump on my s**t, shout me down and dissect my argument with more flaming and name calling, just like good ol' bully Bill O'Reilly.

Successfully argued your point, have you? Really? Well, it's nice to know you think so, Betty.

I'm outta here. Take care, everyone and I'll see you around the talk forum.

Laary... I note your remark ( ) about "Celebrities who have the right to impose their will on us" and wonder just how that happens?? How can they "impose" their "will" through a video that you are free to ignore?? In fact, they can't impose anything., any more than you can. You may present your view that you don't like Jon Hamm in a video... fine. Cool. Noted. And I am free to ignore you or to take issue with your position. Either way, there is no "imposing".

And even if you are not a "celebrity".. you may make your own video if you choose to make the effort.... and people will be quite free to watch or ignore it.

Calling your opinions illogical or without merit are not personal attacks. I haven't called you any name--you are the one attacking me. What is your problem with me? I don't have anything against you personally, other than obvious annoyance at your aggressive need to attack me. You are being the aggressor here and I think it's because you just don't like it that I'm not backing down.

Again, I'm not obfiscating--I'm the one sticking to the issues and you and Laary get defensive and talk about how I'm extremist. But my opinions are indeed mainstream, if also strongly expressed and they represent 65 percent of this country. Maybe not 65 percent of people over 65, that's for sure. But of the entire country, these are their generally held views about health care. That's not opinion, that's a "statistical fact."

Laary--RR DID speak out against government health care as a celebrity. That's what I'm saying. He used his position as an actor to further a political cause. And later he became president. That many people on the right LOVE.

And your health care IS government run. Period. That's what Medicare is. Government health care. The republicans want to abolish medicare. And put it in private companies hands to deny you coverage at anytime.

Sorry, meant to insert time 10:47 into my post to Laary

Stage--you are partly correct. No, I am NOT open to a "debate" on whether health care is a human right or not. That's what I meant about questions that we should no longer even be asking as intelligent people in this country--like the question of whether dinosaurs and men walked the earth at the same time, or whether the earth is flat. Those are no longer legitimate topics for discussion in serious circles. I don't need to entertain truly extremist views such as, every aspect of our lives should be privatized and open for profit-making, including our health and medical care.

I am, however, open to a debate on the role of celebrities in shaping public opinion and political policy, or other more reasonable questions, like whether the government should fund abortions or whether we should remain in Afghanistan.

OK, I admit, I stopped reading all these posts to post this. May I suggest a trip to Yahoo Messenger chat. They have chat rooms in every category, including something like 35 political chat rooms. It's all in real time, too, with up to 50 people all posting simultaneously, along with voice for those with microphones and speakers. It's obvious to me the posters in here have never spent any time in political chat. If you haven't, believe me, Glen Beck and Keith Olberman (sp?) aren't even in the little league when it comes to these guys. But, be prepared. Any opinion expressed in political chat is completely expected to be backed up with a link to a reliable web site (which is always debatable as to what sites are "reliable"). If you want an education as to how utterly divided we are on every issue, spend a little time in political chat. You will find everything from complete nut jobs to semi-intelligent life. I've spent way too much time there over the past few years and have utterly enjoyed the intelligence and civility I discovered here on MM. In short, you guys have no idea how lovely this site is compared to many other blog/chat locations on the web. Let's keep it that way and stay out of politics (and religion).

You do raise a good point...and I do try to refrain from STARTING these political discussions, but I obviously have tremendous problem restraining myself from responding to them!!

And yet, as much as I would prefer that this thread weren't even started to begin with, I did respond with aplomb, and would have trouble telling someone like Laary that he can't start this kind of thread, as annoying as I found it to be to begin with, and as irresistible as it was to respond. I think once it was "started," it exists, the can of worms is open, and I have less problem (obviously) letting it take its natural course to finish.

But yes, of course, I wish he hadn't posted this thread. I think you're right in asking that we don't even start these discussions, and we should try to refrain. I am not quite sure I regret responding though...I am not sure.

@Stagekiss: Why do I think your idea is anything BUT " tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, of why basic preventive care isn't available to all, "

Seriously, I wish I could find you in Political Chat room 6 sometime. It's so unusual to find intelligent life in there, it would be a treat. And now I'm really curious as to what your theory is.

@BC: you're such a typical liberal - childish, foot stomping "I want what I want" with no thought to cost or consequence. And how dare you state, not once but twice on this site alone, that MadMen is only for progressive-liberals, and "it's not for" those of us who see things differently. Boy that is some narcissistic viewpoint you've got there. Or wait, maybe Obama appointed you as "Television Czar" ??

@3Martini and @DonDraperEsq: Thanks for trying to talk sense wih BC... but believe me, I've done it on another thread. She just likes to argue. You notice she's nowhere around on the other threads, but just bring up something political and she's all over it.

@Hey BC, what the heck is a "progressive" anyway? Is that what you libs are calling yourselves these days? Hmm... except I don't see any progress being made... at all! Maybe Regressives would be a better word.

@Stage Kiss: You go girl!

Again, it is you, the right wing side, that are hurling the insults and foot-stomping and then accusing me of that behavior. I am merely challenging your original positions and standing my ground against your attacks. Why the hostility? You don't like my opinion, fine, then defend yours. But don't just attack the person and call them names. That shows more weakness in your opinions than the original opinions themselves. That's the foot-stomping, not my well-defended opinion, whether you agree with it or not.

My only "fault" here is not walking away, which perhaps is a bit masochistic, but I can't just abide bullying.

What is wrong with this software? AMC, I use Firefox and XP, when I touch a box I crash. Now I am on my laptop, hoping it holds up.

This thread wasn't started by me, but by Jon Hamm getting political. It ties in completely with Mad Men. I know from experience I cannot separate the actor from reality. You guys mentioned Alec Baldwin. A few years ago for Xmas, wife bought me "Pearl Harbor" since I'm former Marine and love war movies. When I found out he was in it, I never broke the seal, haven't watched a minute of it on TV.

A correction to Mz. Betty Crocker. My Medicare Advantage Plan is NOT Medicare. It's funded by Medicare but it's administered by a separate insurance company.

Another misconseption. NO ONE in this country is without health care. At one time I was unemployed about 1997 with no health insurance. A syst on my back, went to the local Community Health Center. Great doctors and nurses, they cut it out, gave me prescription. Oh, it did cost me, $33 for the surgery and drugs because I was receiving some money.

Here's hoping this computer holds on when I hit......

As for Ronald Reagan, he did not take a stance on health care "as a celebrity". He did so as President of the Screen Actors Guild, a union representing thousands of people in the entertainment industry. He also did not get elected President because he was an actor. He got elected because of his experience as SAG President, and Governor of California. At least be intellectually honest when making your points.

And Laurie--that's just not true that I'm not on other threads. I post on the episode thread, I posted all week on other threads, about Peggy and Joan, etc. You really can't just make things up to find ways to insult the opponent--that's not really discussing, it's just deliberately defaming just to demonize someone.

You obviously don't like my politics and indeed, are often the first one to start a political discussion or make a gratuitous political statement on a thread. Fair is fair and even if you don't agree with me, you can't just make reality something else.

Laary--that IS government health care. It will NEVER be denied because the government pays for it. It is not driven by profit. That is what we want. Something like medicare (that also covers prescriptions) for EVERYONE.

So you wouldn't mind if Ed Asner became governor and president either. Or Melissa Gilbert. How about Actors Equity presidents? Brad Pitt heads a nonprofit to build housing in New Orleans. He indeed does speak out on numerous political issues (just google).

This conversation could go on for eternity. There's no way I'm going to get you to even think about what I'm saying, let alone even agree. You want to hate liberals, that's "your right," but don't call it discourse. It's just reactionary, is what it is.

And NO, that's not an insult. It is a statement about your opinion/argument. There really is a difference in logic btw ad hominem and substantive/form of argument attacks.

I'm not going to get into the political debate, but I'll tell you my view of actors making political statements and our reactions to such statements:

- actors have the right to say whatever they wish. If they are smart, they will refrain from making political (or any controversial) statements because it risks turning off a portion of their audience, costing them some popularity and potentially reducing their earning potential.

- that being said, I believe we, as individual members of the public audience cheat ourselves if we choose to close the door on an actor (or director, or writer...) because of that person's personal beliefs (whether political or religious). The person may be (in your eyes) a complete idiot, but s/he may still have a talent that can entertain you - if you allow it.

Indeed, Miss Laurie, I'm having a very inane, but fun, discussion about Barbies' and Kens' heads coming off...part of the fun of this site. Anything from men's socks, to Oprah, to someone's head coming off, either Barbie's or right wing viewers who don't like an actor's views.

And Laary--LOL, I love your logic. Jon Hamm started it and made you post this thread maligning his liberal views! That's a good one. So anyone who responds to your post is a "typical liberal" and is being argumentative...lol.

Laary: You can't be that naive. Medicare FUNDS the program, hence it is a government program.

Administration and Funding of Medicare

Funding for Medicare comes partially from payroll taxes, known as FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) taxes. FICA comprises Social Security tax and Medicare tax. The rate of the Medicare tax is 2.9 percent. Employers withhold 1.45 percent from their employees and match it with another 1.45 percent [Ref]. High-income Social Security beneficiaries also pay income tax on their Social Security income, some of which goes toward Medicare.

This money goes into a trust fund used to pay doctors, hospitals and private insurance companies when Medicare patients use their services. This trust fund has been more difficult to manage than the Social Security trust fund, because health care expenditures are harder to track and can change quickly. Medicare Part B is partially (about 25 percent) paid for by premiums and co-pays. In all, Medicare costs about $277 billion per year, roughly 13 percent of the total federal budget [Ref].

Hey, I still love Planet of the Apes despite its star going off the gun-toting deep end! I mean, who wouldn't love seeing a young Chuck in his loin cloth?

@BC - I certainly don't like your politics, but my dear I am WAY down this thread, like #80, so don't factlessly remark that I'm "the first to jump" into a political debate. You however, started WAY up at the tippy top spewing out your liberal rhetoric. As for you "merely challenging my original positions".. what? My dear, you jumped onto this thread WAY before I did, so how can you be merely responding to me? Give it a rest.

And out of 90 remarks, yours are at least 1/3. Nice try.

Mctwisty, have you been eating Betty Crocker cakes? Let me try this again.

My Medicare Advantage Plan is different from Medicare in benefits. Deductables are lower, all tests are free, generic drugs are free, it's $20 cheaper a month than Medicare. It came about in 2003, Thank YOU George W. Bush. Glad he wasn't a liberal.

You won't catch me on health care, I have read and read up on it. With Obama Care, they will control even your bank account. If you dispute a charge, they will just TAKE IT.

Fred2 - why do celebrities make political videos? They wouldn't do it if they didn't have that political view. It's different than mine. That makes me sour of them.

BC- I am NOT a progressive liberal...I don't know why you would think I can't watch Mad Men. Please explain yourself.
I think the healthcare issue is very complicated. Like why does my sister have to pay $800 a month to have health insurance because she has a preexisting condition ???? Why can't my 36 yr old daughter have health insurance .She and her husband are hard workers but it's not available where they work. Why is that? She hasn't had a papsmear or other physical exam in 18 years. I take it personally. I'm getting up on this soap box right here( even tho I am not a celebrity). Hamm and anyone who wants to can say whatever they want to. congress will do whatever it takes to insure that you vote for them in the next election. So I think we all should just take care of our own dam selves........!!!!!!!

I'm talking about other threads, and you know it. And again, with the hostility. Why so aggressively angry?

You are like the Red Sox. My fellow liberals and I are like the Yankees. The right wing feels like the Red Sox did all those years and hate liberals because they are the Yankees. But the Yankees just know they are in command of the game and don't feel inferior to anyone. The Yankees never hated the Red Sox as much as the Red Sox hated the Yankees.

Sab--I am saying that if Laary has such a problem with liberals, he really needs to examine whether he would like this show. It has a liberal/progressive director, writers, actors, and the underlying theme is one of change, progression, and rejection of old patriarchies, etc. You obviously don't hate liberals as much as he does and so it's subtle undertones wouldn't even bother you in the least, indeed you wouldn't even think about them. But they might bother Laary because he has such overt hostility towards liberals--enough to start this thread.

Medicare Advantage is a middle man that gets paid to manage the codes, payments, etc. But make no mistake--the government pays the claims and it is a government FUNDED program that won't be denied payment because no one is making profits on withholding coverage. Those aren't the same as insurance companies who actually insure the coverage. They are acting as the conduit for payment, not the insurer of risk.

It is as socialist a program as they get.

@All posters. You guys would all be a breath of fresh air in political chat, honest! Too bad I met y'all here, and not there. You have all expressed valid points that desperately need honest debate. The vitriol on both sides of the healthcare debate has become toxic. My greatest fear is that this country that I love has now come to a point where we're so busy yelling at each other and shouting each other down that we will never be able to solve our problems. I don't know what catalyst started this, but I'm beginning to think the net itself is the double-edged sword (like television) that brings out both the best and the worst in us. This is my plea (just my personal plea) that we all find a way to stop shouting at each other, listen harder, leave the meanness out, and try to solve our incredibly huge problems by taking an honest look at what IS, as opposed to debating talking points from either side.

About 3 years ago in political chat, at the height of a particularly partisan (and nasty) debate, one chatter made the following statement: "We get the government we deserve". At the time, I was offended by this, believing our politicians all had motives not in our best interests. However, I've come to agree with that statement. We just can't expect our politicians to be more reasonable and knowledgeable than the people showing up at the rallies, town hall meetings or polls. Not only is Democracy expensive, it also requires research, hard work, and sustained participation by we, the people.

Just my 2 cents.

@BC - See again you're not factual.... Sighhhh... Laary did not "malign" Jon Hamm. He merely said he was "not real happy" with actors who get involved with politics.

As for "the government" paying for health care, that's US you dolt!!. Our taxes right now pay for the people over 65 on Medicare. What will my payroll deductions looks like if we add another 200 million people to that dole? Think it through, please.

I had to pop on here and give my last .02 to BC: YES, you are a bully. Look back over your quarrel with dondraperesq, and tell me that I'm wrong. You've now lit into Laurie, who is yet another Maddict challenging you, and your narrow minded perception on the issue at hand (pun intended).

You are a nothing but a cycle of slogans and propaganda. You spout vitriol towards anyone you perceive to be a "right winger" (DDesq and Laurie, for instance), and put down their arguments at will.

Talk about being a "reactionary"! If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black! I laughed out loud when I read what you wrote. What cracks me up further is that you probably perceive me to be a "right winger", because I find many of your "arguments" ill informed and irresponsible. You've hinted at it, and while I'm amused at your insinuations, I'm not. Again, I voted for Obama, I'm a liberal, and as I'm in a sharing mood, I'll offer my unsolicited position on religion: I'm a Deist, and proud of it (it's ok, I'll let you look up what a Deist is)

If you're to mince words with people, and debate that issue intelligently, be prepared that not everyone is going to agree with you, and could quite possibly *GASP* find holds in your inconclusive, ill informed argument.

I'm done. I don't like arguing with people for the sake of arguing. It's a waste of this precious time I have on this planet.

@bipolarbear: is there any way to inbox each other on the AMC site? I'd be happy to share with you my 'tinfoil hat conspiracy theory', on why I believe preventive care insurance is not readily available to all, but I'd rather share that with you one on one, than publicly.

It's funny, Bi, but I actually don't think I'm being mean or vitriolic. I am certainly being adamant and not giving up any ground, but I don't feel as if any of my views are extreme or personally insulting to those with other reasonable, opposing views. And perhaps yes, it's time to walk away.

But I don't feel like anything I've said was insulting the person or their character (though certainly critical of the viewpoint or the approach). I and a few others did substantively address Laary's medicare points, we pointed to other opposing celebrities, but I do feel like several of those that oppose my views have more interest in insulting liberals period, and me as a representative, and haven't actually responded to anything we've said. With some exceptions, I don't feel like any of my points were actually addressed by the other side, which indeed, is frustrating. And I do view as part of a larger problem with political discourse these days.

Which does mean, you may be right, Bi, and this really isn't the site for this kind of discussion, I agree. But again, I saw the thread and just got sucked in to respond.

Well Laary, I guess you ARE uniformed. You belong to a socialist medical plan, paid for by the government. I believe it was a "liberal" president who started Medicare. LBJ.

http://www.medicareadvocacy.org/FAQ_ManagedCare.htm#Comparision%20Chart

In addition to the government’s Traditional Medicare program, Medicare offers individuals the option to receive services through a variety of private insurance plans. These private insurance options are part of Medicare Part C. Medicare Advantage is a means of receiving health care and Medicare coverage. An individual who joins a Medicare Advantage plan is still in the Medicare program.

@BC: Well now I guess you're delusional too. You are absolutely hateful and insulting in your commentary and your previous post stating that you don't think you're being "mean" is ridiculous. I'm finished with you. A more hyperbolic or less-informed debater, I have not met.

As for policing who gets to watch MM and who shall not, an indication of your self-superiority. Another unattractive trait of yours. I'll bet your family or friends have recommended therapy at one time or another, haven't they?

Mz. Crocker, you are the most ill-informed poster I have ever seen. You want to ram your views down our throats. Here's the fact. YOU ARE WRONG about the Medicare Advantage Plan.

It is not a "government" plan. Period. It is managed, conducted, and carried out by a SEPARATE carrier. There are dozens of companies who have different plans. How can dozens of companies be "the government"???? There is only one government. They can't run the Postal Service, I sure don't want them running my plan.

When there becomes ONE administrator, how are they going to do it? My Postman will give me a shot when he delivers my mail?

@McTwisty: Yes, it's true. Throughout history, the Dems are the ones who've come up with all kinds of ways to spend "other people's money" on a myriad of entitlement programs.

Stage--NOW I almost feel like there's something intellectually dishonest about this role of an "offended" liberal--like it's completely made up out of a whole cloth. There really is, objectively speaking, other than just that comment I just made now, that is personally insulting or vitriolic.

NOTHING in my posts was propaganda, insults, vitriol, slogans. It is debate, pure and simple. You make a point, I counter it with opposing opinions and facts. You don't have to agree, but you don't have to get ugly about it. Being a strong debater is not vitriol. It just isn't.

That you are saying you are so offended is actually rather suspicious now. I have literally read each of my responses to you and Don and indeed, I even APOLOGIZE to you at one point for misreading your post as if you didn't care about people. And other than expressing a frustration with a clear generational difference, I haven't stated one personal insult to anyone here and literally have coolly, albeit, admittedly relentlessly, countered others attacks.

Calling out misstatements, inconsistencies, hypocrisies, and even lies isn't vitriol. It is debate. I really am not getting your anger. It's baffling to me.

Laary: What part of FUNDED BY do you not understand? Medicare FUNDS all of the insurance brokers. Really, are you really that uninformed?

Medicare Advantage programs are FUNDED by the government!

Mz. Mctwisty - you said it in your post....

In addition to the government’s Traditional Medicare program, Medicare offers individuals the option to receive services through a variety of PRIVATE INSURANCE PLANS. These private insurance options are part of Medicare Part C. Medicare Advantage is a means of receiving health care and Medicare coverage.

Private means "NOT PUBLIC", means not government.

You people are easy.

But saying I'm mean and uninformed over and over again doesn't make it true. That is all you have to say to me, you aren't actually saying anything substantive, but just focusing on how hateful and uniformed I am. Literally, tell me, WHERE am I being hateful? Please quote the post and tell me why you think it's hateful.

I am RIGHT about Medicare Advantage--it IS a government program paid for by the government, managed by a private company.

Being confident in the factual or philosophical merit of my positions is not being mean. It's not. Saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

You are receiving SERVICES through the private company and they are getting paid IN FULL by the government. They are not insuring the risk. The government is.

It IS a government funded and insured program. Managed by a contract with a private company.

It IS socialism. By any political science definition of the word.

Laary:
In addition to the government’s Traditional Medicare program, Medicare offers individuals the option to receive services through a variety of private insurance plans. These private insurance options are part of Medicare Part C. Medicare Advantage is a means of receiving health care and Medicare coverage. An individual who joins a Medicare Advantage plan is still in the Medicare program.

What part of this do you not understand? Medicare FUNDS the private insurance plans.

For those who need a little help on Medicare basics: Traditional Medicare is health insurance that the government offers to senior citizens. Seniors go to their regular doctors (as long as the doctors agree to accept Medicare), and Medicare picks up the bills. The billing system is called fee-for-service, which means that doctors bill for every service they provide.

Anyone who is eligible for Medicare can choose to sign up for Medicare Advantage, which pays private insurance companies a set rate to treat Medicare beneficiaries. It was conceived as a cost-containment measure on the theory that competition among private plans would drive down costs. That has not happened. Some people prefer Medicare Advantage plans, though, because of convenience or because some plans offer extra benefits, such as additional coverage or even cash back through rebates on co-pays. About 23 percent of Medicare beneficiaries choose a Medicare Advantage plan.

You are not very smart if you can't figure that out.

Laurie--you are very angry. I feel so bad for you. Obviously, I don't like your political views either, but other than becoming annoyed at your increasing level of anger and personal attacks at liberals and me specifically, I've never had any problem with you personally. Why are you so angry all the time? I've seen it elsewhere and still don't understand it.

From the government itself...

http://www.medicare.gov/publications/pubs/pdf/02179.pdf

Medicare Advantage Plans (like an HMO or PPO)—Medicare Advantage Plans are health plan options approved by Medicare and run by private companies. These plans are part of the Medicare Program and are sometimes called “Part C” or “MA plans.” Medicare pays an amount for your care every month to these private health plans.

Medicare Advantage Plans must follow rules set by Medicare.

Medicare Advantage Plans aren’t supplemental insurance.

@LB - and Ronald Reagan funded Star Wars, which benefited no one.

Medicare Advantage is the health care equivalent of Section 8 project-based housing or other government funded housing projects, like 202 or 236 housing for seniors and disabled. Private companies own and/or manage the housing through contracts with the government, but the rents and expenses are paid by the government, with a slight co-pay of a tenant share based on income, and under these contracts, these private companies must follow HUD rules.

It is substantively the exact same thing. They are government programs funded by the government, managed by contracts with private companies

Mz. Mctwisty, Mz. Crocker, what is in the water where you live? How many times must YOU GUYS say it. Private. Private. Private.

That means the government does not treat me, give me drugs, or give me enemas. They do not tell my doctor what treatment I need. The only connection that I have with the government is if I have a problem (which I have had) that I can contact Medicare. Good freakin' luck. It's impossible to get ahold of anyone in Medicare, unless I want to sit on phone hold all day. The one problem I have had, I wrote my Congressman, a great Republican.

The Post Office loses my packages and certified mail. They can't find them. I ask for a refund, big laugh. They are the GOVERNMENT, they don't give refunds.

YOU will get the health care you requested, I am afraid. When it happens, don't come on here crying.

The only nonsocialist thing about these public-private partnerships in housing and medicare is that it gives the private sector a taste of the business--they can make fees and such for their management. But the actual insurance or risk is all borne by the government and the taxpayers. These private companies are not permitted to deny claims or otherwise profit on the health or medical care of a patient beyond their administration of the program.

So otherwise, it's pure socialism. And a good thing at that!

@Stagekiss: Obviously, you missed my post on the other thread where I admitted my complete computer illiteracy. Luckily, my 17 yr old son is here, wants the computer, and I may be able to get him to help me figure out if there is such a box, and if so, how to set it up. Give me a couple minutes.

Goodness Gracious!!!!

===By mctwisty on September 25, 2009 4:54 PM

@LB - and Ronald Reagan funded Star Wars, which benefited no one. =====

Mz. Mctwisty. Do recall a little thing called the First Gulf War. You remember some missiles called Scud Missiles sent by Saddam, killed a lot of people, including female nurses.

We deployed a thing called Patriot Missiles, shot them down in the sky. A DIRECT DEVELOPMENT FROM STAR WARS. Thank YOU Ronald Reagan. Saved a lot of lives, probably saved Israel from getting into the war, kept it from becoming a World War.

Get some help, guys.

Laary: There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Medicare pays for your private insurance regardless of whether you believe it or not. Medicare says so itself.

It's a shame you're so wrapped up in your "NO GOVERNMENT FOR ME" blather that you cannot see that you are on a government program, paid by the government. You are blind, blind, blind.

McTwisty--You're doing a heck of a job, but I have been here for 115 posts and I think it's hopeless. There's not even a basic understanding of the concepts of public programs, funding sources and government contracts here to have a real discussion about universal health care. This is the real problem. Not just a difference of opinion or political philosophy. There is a real issue with misinformation in this country. It's going to be very hard to counter. Think of all the other misinformation we don't even know about.

There's no wonder we get accused of being misinformed. There's a whole different "truth" or reality going on here.

Well, I provided Laary with a link to the Medicare/Medicare Advantage brochure given to everyone eligible for Medicare. It states right in the brochure that it is funded by Medicare, which is funded by the government.

But he is blinded by his right-sided righteousness. Remember, anyone who isn't on the right here is a "filthy liberal". Not moderate, conservative, independent - a liberal - said with venom and disgust.

Mz. Crocker, you have nailed it. Bravo.

It's useless trying to explain simple English to some who are too dumb to even know what day it is.

I need to get off of here and go to another forum where at least some of them have IQ's above room temperature.

Later.

Seriously, I really don't think I've been mean to them. I really don't. Strong and determined, perhaps a bit relentless, but not mean. And obviously not uninformed. Not on this issue anyway. I think it's the opposite. I really do.

This is bit of a microcosm of a real blind hatred for liberals amongst a certain group. And a bit of psychological projection, am I wrong?

The real legacy of Reagan's Star Wars speech is that missile defense has become a high-profile, politically symbolic program, rather than a military program judged on its merits. The continued political support for a program that still offers no prospect of defending the United States from a real-world missile attack and undermines efforts to eliminate the real nuclear threats to the United States shows that Reagan's vision remains seductive--dangerously so.

The original Star Wars vision - a multi-tiered system of weapons and sensors that could simultaneously destroy thousands of Soviet missiles - has been superseded by the more modest goal of protecting the nation against an accidental missile launch by China or Russia, or deliberate attacks by so-called rogue states like Iran, Iraq, and North Korea (none of which currently have missiles that can reach U.S. soil). In keeping with this diminished mission, the 1990s version of Reagan's dream has been renamed the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) program.

Like the B-2 bomber, which House Budget Committee chairman John Kasich has dubbed the "Dracula weapon" for its remarkable ability to escape the budget cutter's ax, the Star Wars program is currently rolling merrily along, impervious to technical glitches, cost overruns, and massive shifts in the geopolitical landscape. This aspect of the Star Wars project - its proponents' unflappable optimism, coupled with a stubborn disregard of hard facts - makes it the perfect monument to Ronald Reagan.

The most remarkable thing about Reagan's Star Wars plan, which was announced with great fanfare in March 1983 with the ambitious goal of rendering nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete," is how consistently it has failed to meet virtually every performance goal that has been set out for it

See, when they are wrong, they just leave. No, "let me think about that" or "I didn't know that", just vanish with a last insult.

Laary--seriously. My IQ is in the high 140s. I'm from top 20 college and law school, I worked in one of the most prestigious law firms in LA, was a prosecutor in Manhattan, worked in a publishing house as an editor of a national housing industry legal journal. Went to Chef School, worked in restaurants, lived in six states, started a nonprofit and write political "rants" (lol) elsewhere.

You may not agree with me, but you have to get off the specious, reactionary insults. Clearly, neither McTwisty or I are dumb and you can't just say that as a legitimate response. I mean, duh, you can, but it isn't a very effective or indeed, true retort.

@Stagekiss: Here's my 17yr old son, Will. He's got an idea:

To my knowledge there is no way to talk one on one using this site but if you want i can give you a program that will allow you both to talk via microphone it is a very simple process you just download it run it type in my server info and connect when you get that far i can verbally give more instructions. The program is ventrilo if you have used it before great if not well its not hard after you confirm that you have done this i will give you more info

Mz. Mctwisty, and which left wing website did you find that report. It's customary to give a link when you plagarize a website, common internet courtesy.

I live in a small town, hopefully when the nukes come and you have made sure that Star Wars is discontinued, it will hit the city you are located in and not mine. You like your chances?

What's this got to do with Mad Men or the current issues?

Yeah, that "left wing website" was the Washington Post website.

Thanks for the bombing wishes. Wishing death on people is so pleasant.

I'm not sure what this political thread has to do with Mad Men. You started it. You tell me.

Mz. Crocker, all you have told us is you have attended many liberal colleges and lived in liberal bastions in this country. When you mention the word "lawyer", we automatically know where you are coming from.

I have two degrees, have served my country in the Marines, have a son and daughter who each have two degrees, daughter is a CPA, son an office manager. I once was an Administrative Assistant to a college Vice President, really just wrote all his spreadsheets and college publications.

I was in High School the same time as Janis Joplin, Jimmy Johnson, and I personally know GW Bailey (actor), of our class. Spoke to him last year.

I am a retired Computer Technician and still have people call me to fix their computers.

Need I go on. We ALL have Resumes too.

I really gotta go do some emails.

It's been fun, you guys study up for the next time.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0215/dailyUpdate.html

Star Wars' missile defense system fails again
Analysts say timing couldn't be worse, as N. Korea says it has nuclear weapons.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

For the second time in two months, and the third straight time in two years, a test of the national missile defense system has failed, reports the Los Angeles Times. Although mock ballistic missile launched Sunday from Alaska without problems, the interceptor designed to shoot it down failed to launchfrom the Ronald Reagan Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll in the central Pacific Ocean.

The New York Times reports that officials at the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) at the Department of Defense took some "consolation" from the fact that they beleive it was not the missile itself that failed, but a "malfunction in ground support systems."

The L.A. Times reports that analysts say each setback "diminishes credibility" in the program (known as Son of Star Wars," a scaled-down version of the original program proposed in the 80s by Ronald Reagan) at a time when North Korea has just announced that it possesses nuclear weapons.

"It's certainly embarrassing at a time when the administration has basically decided that its North Korea policy is missile defense," said John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org, a nonprofit defense analysis group. "You don't get second chances in nuclear combat."

Bloomberg News reports that the last two tests were "to replicate to a greater degree than previous exercises since 1999 the flight path of an incoming North Korean ballistic missile."

The missile defense system has been championed by President Bush since his election in 2000. In May of 2003 the White House published the National Policy on Ballistic Missile Defense Fact Sheet, which lists the reasons that the US believes that the development of such a program is important.

The current system has had ten tests since 1999, with five of the test scoring hits. But only the last two tests have included the interceptor designed to be used when the system is actually launched. In fact, Pentagon officials have said that now that they are using the actual interceptor, the tests are much more "technologically challenging," and thus more open to the possibility of failure.

The Washington Post reports that this latest failure (each test costs $85 million) could " fuel debate" in Congress over the system, which has cost billions of dollars without any real signs of success. The missile defense system was supposed to be ready for operation by September of 2004, but it could be months before the next test is even held.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has so far refrained from putting the system on alert – a move that had been expected last fall when the first six interceptors were installed at a launch facility near Fairbanks, Alaska. The system, intended to protect the United States against a long-range missile attack, envisions the creation of a multilayered network of land- and sea-based interceptors and space-based weapons.

Reuters reports that President Bush's 2006 budget proposal would cut funds for ballistic missile defense by $1 billion to about $8.8 billion. To date the program has been the single largest US defense research and development project.

New Scientist reports that the program's critics were quick to pounce on the system's latest failure.

"It's clear that the program is being pushed ahead for political reasons regardless of its capability," says David Wright, co-director of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "This interceptor has never been tested in an intercept test. Yet the Pentagon has already put eight of them in silos and is building at least another dozen before even knowing if they work."

The New York Times reports that Mr. Bush's decision to make the system operational even though the testing phase is not completed, has drawn heavy criticism as well. Mr. Wright compared it to Henry Ford starting up an automobile production line, and selling cars without "ever taking one for a test drive."

Business Week points to another problem facing the Star Wars program – altered priorities for Mr. Rumsfeld.

"The Rumsfeld vision of future warfare has had a severe collision with reality," says Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, a conservative think tank in Arlington, Va. The problems facing missile defense, he says, are "the relatively weak case for the overall mission and the need to spend money in other ways."

Business Week also points out that the current system is designed to destroy the "more rudimentary missiles that Iran and North Korea are developing." But Russia has already developed a new missile, the SS-27 that makes the Star Wars system obsolete.

But what if Pyongyang or Tehran buys an SS-27? "I don't know about that," he [MDA spokesman Rick Lehner] told BusinessWeek Online.

Game over! He's a personal friend of GW Bailey! He trumps us!

Personally, Laary, the one that needs to "study up" is you. If you can't even grasp that Medicare Advantage is funded by Medicare (the government), it's easy to see you're the ill-educated one.

Oh come ON, Now!!!

The Washington Post?
The NY Times?
The LA Times?

Why didn't you quote Pravada too.

These are LEFT WING newspapers. They will NEVER give anything but a left wing view.

Jeeezus.

My internet went down and it has taken me an hr. to post this. (This is not at AMC site thing, just my local provider--ugh!)

@Stagekiss: Here's my 17yr old son, Will. He's got an idea:

To my knowledge there is no way to talk one on one using this site but if you want i can give you a program that will allow you both to talk via microphone it is a very simple process you just download it run it type in my server info and connect when you get that far i can verbally give more instructions. The program is ventrilo if you have used it before great if not well its not hard after you confirm that you have done this i will give you more info

One more time, YOU said it....

I will quote it real slow for you, so your brain can catch up.

F..U..N..D..E..D - Funded. Fun-ded.

Got it now?

I hope so.

My dog is calling me. He gets mad when I debate liberals.

That's right Laary, FUNDED. That means the government gives the private insurers MONEY to run the program.

You are in a government funded program.

Got it now?

I hope so.

Please provide me with the sources of your Right Winged information. Since it appears you read no newspaper, you must get all of your news from the Fascist Right Winged Fox Network, right?

@BC: Listen up: I'm at work right now, and don't have time to wait while you log a response.

I'll be back later.

Btw, you forget I didn't come here to discuss the bullet points of healthcare. You dragged me into that one.

This is what I'm saying. There's a whole new Bizarro world "reality" on the right. Top colleges are bad, cities filled with many of our most influential and productive people are bad, leading newspapers with the most prestigious and objective journalists are bad, museums and theaters filled with art are bad, and anything but FOX, CMT, TBN and Worldnetdaily is left wing!!

There is really a whole other America for 30 percent of this country, where intellectual discourse is derided, facts are irrelevant and eschewed, and faith and fear rule. It's the right wing equivalent of "keeping it real" or "too cool for school" where ignorance is truly encouraged in this false identity of "common god-fearing real american."

Stage--

???

Waiting for my response to what? Did you email me or something? I don't see an outstanding question? Do you mean Bipolar--she's been talking to you?

I'm confused.

No way we'll ever find solutions if we can't even agree on the facts. I blame the media. They do a p*** poor job of informing. They simply pick sides and spout anything that agrees with their agenda. Or, they imitate objectivity by interviewing the least informed, most partisan hack with an opposing view so they can slice & dice the inevitable straw-man argument.

All government programs are funded by taxpayers. That's us. Trying to find out how much of that funding is local, state or federal is a real challenge.

What blows me away is that each day I find more and more private industry funded by taxpayer dollars. TARP isn't even a drop in the bucket, apparently. We fund private health insurance providers, hospitals, agriculture--all kinds of private industries. How we can run around thinking capitalism is so grand while we don't HAVE capitalism (at least not in the strict sense) is beyond me. This system that we have, for better or worse, is part capitalist, part socialist and has been for a very long time. It didn't just start a few months ago.

I just finished reading a really good book (heard about it on CSPAN2) (I don't know how to do italics, so please accept the quotation marks)

"A Colossal Failure of Common Sense: The Inside Story of the Collapse of Lehman Brothers" by Lawrence G McDonald with Patrick Robinson.

It's very informative and explains what happened to our economy for people like me that never heard of a derivative before the economic melt-down.

I got this book from my local Library. I think I'm the first person to ever have checked it out. I find the Library the absolute BEST use of my tax dollars yet.

Here Laary, this is from Fox News, so you should be able to understand the language.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Apr06/0,4670,MedicareAdvantageRates,00.html

Government announces 2010 Medicare Advantage rates

Monday, April 06, 2009
By TOM MURPHY

INDIANAPOLIS — The federal government said Monday it will bump up a rate used to figure Medicare Advantage reimbursement to insurers, but many analysts expect overall payment rates to fall next year.

That raises some concern for how lower reimbursement will affect the plans, which allow the elderly and disabled to receive benefits through private health insurers.

These plans receive a government subsidy and generally offer more benefits than traditional Medicare, but they've drawn criticism for their cost.

The trade association America's Health Insurance Plans estimates that Medicare Advantage payments could fall nearly 5 percent next year as a result of the changes. Spokesman Robert Zirkelbach said the cut could lead to higher premiums and benefits reductions for the more than 10 million people enrolled in Medicare Advantage.

"It's an unnecessary disruption in the health security of seniors on Medicare Advantage," he said.

Wachovia Securities analyst Matt Perry, who covers managed care, said the reimbursement likely will fall between 4 percent and 5 percent next year.

Analysts have said lower reimbursement could hurt earnings for private insurers, especially those like Louisville, Ky.-based Humana Inc. and Nashville, Tenn.-based HealthSpring Inc., which have large portions of Medicare Advantage business.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said Monday the national average growth percentage per capita for Medicare Advantage plans will rise 0.8 percent in 2010.

This is a measure of the expected rate of growth for expenses in Medicare fee-for-service programs. It's also one of many factors used to figure Medicare Advantage payment rates, which also vary by county and patient health, among other factors.

The 2010 increase is higher than the half-percent gain CMS unveiled when it announced preliminary rates in February. But it's much lower than increases of 4.24 percent and 5.71 percent seen for rates this year and in 2008.

That's largely due to a proposed 21 percent cut in physician reimbursement for next year. That creates another worry among analysts covering managed-care companies, because many expect Congress to squash that cut.

If it does, insurers could be left with understated rates that won't bring in enough money to pay doctors at their old reimbursement level, Stifel Nicolaus Thomas Carroll said.

"The problem is nobody believes that the doctors are going to get paid less next year," he said.

Medicare Advantage plans have taken criticism lately for their cost. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag has said the government will no longer overpay companies that offer these plans. The government spends about $1.30 on Medicare Advantage patients for each dollar it spends on patients in traditional Medicare.

But several members of Congress also worry about the impact a Medicare Advantage reimbursement reduction could have on people enrolled in the programs.

A letter sent to CMS officials and signed by both Democrat and Republican senators noted that enrollees in their states could face higher premiums and benefit cuts based on preliminary information released in February.

"We must work to develop productive reforms that protect the interests of (Medicare Advantage) enrollees," the letter stated.

I have to agree with you, Bipolar. The way our government has been funding the profits of private corporations, particularly in the past 10 years, is astonishing. And very ironically and to their own personal detriment, most conservatives don't seem to mind that kind of taxpayer funding b/c they think it's good for business and thus, "capitalist."

But that is most certainly not capitalism, and is only good for a few large multinational corporations, who owe no loyalty to this country and who through their never ending need for more and more profit, cause real income, small businesses, permanent jobs with benefits, etc. to shrink and disappear. It is they who truly control our economy and government policies, even our food system, our agricultural policy, our communications/media sources, our access to heath care, our general well-being.

I would much rather our government fund programs that help everyone, not just corporations.

Whew!

BC and McTwisty.....I am in awe of you... valiant valiant efforts...I think McT said it all (regrettably) with "none so blind as will not see"

BC...re yours of 5:57....you are so right, it is very sad and frightening. Bizarro is a good word...it is "debate devoid of reason". And I think your last post (6:27) hits the nail squarely on the head. (demographics: I'm 66 and on Senior Advantage too)

Melba--have you seen this??

http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=11141949

It's crazy and obviously part of the problem

Indeed, Oklahoma's own Global Warming denying senator's environmental policy is this: "God is still up there and this is all his cycles."

Is it any wonder?

????????????????

I know, I know, that really has nothing to do with MM, but I will say, I guarantee you our little Sally knows the name of our first president and believes in Evolution!

@Betty Crocker and McTwisty: I second Melba Toast. I'm in awe of you guys.

Betty - I love your analogy of the Red Sox and the Yankees. The conservatives are incredibly poor losers. When we would attack Bush it was based on actual things he did. The right attacks Obama for made-up things like not wearing a flag pin, bs about not being born in the US, "death panels", and uh, being black and having Hussein as a middle name! For eight years the only attack I made on George Bush was with sarcasm. I didn't come to a meeting with a rifle. I wanted my country back all those years too!

Someone said something earlier about why celebrities should care about access to health insurance when they can afford it. Two reasons: They have friends and relatives who need affordable health care. Another reason, and do I really have to spell this out? How about caring about others?

How many times does Matthew Weiner have to mention Betty Friedan and The Feminine Mystique? How many times does he have to say that Don, Roger and Bert are on the wrong side of things (Nixon suppporters) before some of you get a clue that this show is celebrating progress?

@McTwisty: Glad to see you back. (I know I'm like your stalker. You remind me of an old friend.)

I do think Don is smart enough to see the writing on the wall. We'll see.

NNT--did you ever see my response re Lucky Platter and the tandoori chicken salad?

"Those Were The Days"
by Lee Adams and Charles Strouse

Boy, the way Glen Miller played. Songs that made the hit parade.
Guys like us, we had it made. Those were the days.
Didn't need no welfare state. Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee, our old LaSalle ran great. Those were the days.
And you know who you were then, girls were girls and men were men.
Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.

McTwisty: Have you received enough attention yet on these threads? It's so sad how you bold your posts, and stalk people out. It's almost amusing, if it wasn't so pathetic.

Okay, let's try to clarify re funding of MAPs (Medicare Advantage Plans):

"Medicare Advantage Plans are health plan options that are part of the Medicare program. If you join one of these plans, you generally get all your Medicare-covered health care through that plan. This coverage can include prescription drug coverage. Medicare Advantage Plans include:

Medicare Health Maintenance Organization (HMOs)
Preferred Provider Organizations (PPO)
Private Fee-for-Service Plans
Medicare Special Needs Plans

When you join a Medicare Advantage Plan, you use the health insurance card that you get from the plan for your health care. In most of these plans, generally there are extra benefits and lower copayments than in the Original Medicare Plan. However, you may have to see doctors that belong to the plan or go to certain hospitals to get services.

To join a Medicare Advantage Plan, you must have Medicare Part A and Part B. You will have to pay your monthly Medicare Part B premium to Medicare. In addition, you might have to pay a monthly premium to your Medicare Advantage Plan for the extra benefits that they offer.

If you join a Medicare Advantage Plan, your Medigap policy won’t work. This means it won’t pay any deductibles, copayments, or other cost-sharing under your Medicare Health Plan.

Therefore, you may want to drop your Medigap policy if you join a Medicare Advantage Plan. However, you have a legal right to keep the Medigap policy."

From Medicare.gov @ http://www.medicare.gov/choices/advantage.asp

Please note as stated above that MAPs are PART OF THE MEDICARE PROGRAM, funded by taxpayers.

Some of the political hoo-hah lately has been a proposal by President Obama to cut "nearly $180 billion over 10 years by eliminating no-bid private Medicare plans and requiring the plans to bid competitively for government contracts, with the government paying the average of all bids. This would be in addition to payment reductions lawmakers approved last year, most of which won't start affecting the program until 2010."

See "Medicare Advantage defenders decry proposed cuts" @ http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/04/06/gvsb0406.htm

Since everything is supposed to be evenly distributed among the masses (share the wealth!), are we to be treated to hand-picked articles on every state in the US...or just the oh-so-enjoyable link to the one about Oklahoma?

I'm not writing a treatise on the educational systems of each state, but that's just one of hundreds of stories that came out about two weeks ago that compared all the states and Oklahoma was so miserably at the bottom. It became the lead story because the scores were so laughable.

And yes, Texas, Arizona, and a few other southern states did pretty bad also. The western and northern states did better. Though as a country, we generally are getting stupider overall.

If you google something like Oklahoma and citizenship test, you might find the original stories, including state comparisons.

@Well you libs are, that's for sure!

Laary, what's up with using "MZ"? to both men and women. Real mature.

Laurie--LOL. Always with the gratuitous insult!
Depends on how you right wingers measure it I suppose, but, we liberals sure do know our history, science, literature, political science, art, psychology, anthropology, medicine, law...Some of us need to brush up on the bible, I suppose, but that depends on which religion you ask.

@Betty Crocker: yes, I saw your response to my Lucky Platter question. Thanks. My favourite is the salad (forget what they call it) with artichoke hearts, avocado and sun-dried tomatoes, with the sesame dressing. And I also love their sweet potato fries. Also missing Walker Bros. on a Sunday morning, with the rest of the North Shore. And Mustard's Last Stand...Sorry, I'm getting homesick. It's hard to find good hot-dogs joints in the bay area.

Duh

But there are great burritos! I used to live in SF. Can't complain about the food there!

But you're right. Sausages and other meat in tubes they don't do there very well. That's the Midwest's forte!

Walker Bros....how about that apple pancake, huh? Or the shirred eggs?

And the Tandoori Chicken salad at Lucky Platter has the artichoke hearts, avocado and sundried tomatoes on it as well, but then it has a big scoop of this delicious chicken salad made with tomatoes and indian spices. It's a bit much, but yummy.

You used to live in Wilmette you said, right? Where in Bay Area do you live now?

@Betty Crocker: Central Marin. Just down the road from Melba Toast. Of course I forgot, you can also get the salad with chicken! Usually I found it was filling enough plain, but of course I was leaving room for the fries and maybe a dessert. I was introduced to it by a friend of whom McTwisty reminds me.

Have you ever tried Prairie Joe's on Central near Green Bay? Total nostalgia. Like a 50's diner, only for real, not fake and plastic and franchised. They have great shakes there.

@Deep Dish: you're a Chicagoan, right? What are your favourite restaurants?

I was there last year for the Bioneers Conference in San Rafael. (Van Jones was the keynote speaker actually. He was incredible). And I met my sister, who lives in the Peninsula, at this restaurant in SF, near the bottom of Nob Hill, that is all local and organic--everything from less than 100 miles away, including the meat, dairy, wine, etc. I can't remember the name of it though. I think it was woman owned or chef, I can't remember.

I used to love Boulevard and obviously Chez Panisse, also obviously woman owned. There are several other very good woman-owned or woman-chef restaurants in SF area. And good restaurants period.

A fantastic woman-owned restaurant...in Oklahoma City (it came to mind when reading above about "woman- owned restaurants")....

http://www.nonnas.com/

Lovely, talented, civic-minded, local treasure is our Avis....a gem in Bricktown.

Is she Italian? That black cod dish looked yummy. And it does seem she buys some of the ingredients from local farms.

@Maddicts: I knew a woman once who loved Sinatra's voice but broke all his records when he divorced Nancy for Ava. Her loss. Just as it would be your loss to stop watching our favorite show.

@Maddicts: I have a cousin who lives far from me. We used to email each other about sports. When he didn't answer my emails I started to worry about his health and picked up a phone. When he answered he screamed at me that he heard through the grapevine who I voted for and never wanted to speak to me again and hung up on me. His loss.

@NNT - The best hot dogs are in Northern New Jersey - They are Italian hot dogs pocketed in pizza bread with home fries, onions and peppers on top, all in virgin olive oil.

@Laary: Are you related to Curly, Moe and Schemp?

@StephanieJo: You are dissing a favorite on our chat room. Check the main thread. He defends women from people like Monty.

and StephanieJo: McTwisty is a MADE Mad Man.

I have learned as I've gotten older, never talk about politics or religion with anyone that does not share the same views as I do. I don't waste my time arguing with someone, because nothing I say will change their minds nor will I change mine. So why bother.
After reading these posts, my point has just been validated.
Life's too damn short people.

Hey wasthere... so glad you are back... you just had me head bobbin' in agreement, made my mouth water for some truly wicked food, and made me LMAO...

And McT is MADE... oh yeah!

chatty pattie, truer words were never posted!

@Betty...I imagine she's Italian, last name being Scaramucci, and yes she owns her farm, Cedar Springs, where flowers and produce are grown for her ristorante.

Amazing woman.

I just googled her and yes, she is pretty cool!

I don't mean to malign all of Oklahoma based on their test scores--obviously there are plenty of cultural pockets and local icons. I have heard Tulsa is actually a pretty cool town, with a very strong arts community and great food. Indeed, the NY Times magazine today, as a matter of fact, is featuring this organization in Tulsa for gay teens who come out in middle school and high school--it holds dances, peer support/mentorship and community activities that they might not get in their middle and high schools. That's pretty neat.

And that Avis sounds like a Renaissance woman!

@SCfan and Betty Crocker: There was a movie in the 1950s called "Scaramouche." I think Jean Simmons and her husband (forgot his name) were in it.

I think Scaramuccia/Scaramouche is a clown from the commedia dell'arte or something? Something renaissance-y, no?

Just remembered his name: Stewart Granger.

Well, Tulsa is fine, I guess...esp. if you ask a Tulsan.

Lots and lots of "culture" in many other parts of the state besides there...they do love to toot their own horn. Oklahoma City doesn't have to....

In all fairness, Tulsa does have that fantastic Aquarium....it's great.

The Oklahoma City Museum of Art is wonderful. Bricktown, etc. etc.....

There are fine attractions in both cities and everywhere in between, too.

JMHO...Oklahoma born and bred, so I'm predjudiced, but....no more or less proud of it than anyone else is of their home state.

....the travelogue has ended....sorry for the extreme off-topic-ness...will make every effort to avoid such in the future....thanks for your patience, Maddicts.

Ahem...can't wait for the new MM episode tonight...hope it is more than just Betty redecorating!

prejudiced...sigh

sorry

Betty Crocker, truer words were never spoken. I completely agree. "Not just a difference of opinion or political philosophy. There is a real issue with misinformation in this country. It's going to be very hard to counter. Think of all the other misinformation we don't even know about."

If the American public would spend as much time on public policy issues as they do on American Idol or Survivor, this would be a very different country! We should have had UHC decades ago.

I agree we should all refrain from politics (even though I am a major offender), but sometimes conversations just flow--maybe not this off-topic--but it can happen that somehow a MM discussion can actually bring in "real life" anecdotes or sidelong comments about say, restaurants that then cause a couple of people to post a few lines of things in common that aren't of interest to everyone at that moment. But it really can make for some interesting learning experience (e.g., if I'm ever in OK City, I'm going to Nonna's, the Museum and checking out Bricktown area).

It's hard to avoid, though it should be kept to a minimum. It's just hard to keep every topic exactly on MM point.

@was-you're funny, didn't know this was a mafia, but it sure feels like one! I only fight when attacked-my 1st Sunday in 2 wks, let's see who starts this time! My new moniker is BoyToy-same Avatar fyi.

Good for you, Betty C...you'll be surprised, I'm sure...OKC and Oklahoma as a whole, are a far cry from the general perceptions out there. We love proving folks wrong...ha! Hope you'll have a wonderful visit!

Like I said, though...born and bred....so what do I know? lol

I have traveled quite a bit, though....so I know we're hardly what we're perceived to be sometimes. But, that's ok, I guess, keeps the low life out...just kiddin'.bill skirvin

Also, you may enjoy a stay at The Skirvin Hotel (a Hilton hotel now) historical, classic & gorgeous place....downtown OKC. The original owner (Bill Skirvin) had a daughter by the name of Perle Mesta (Washington's "Hostess with the Mostest") whom you may have heard of.

"Nuff of all that....swore I'd shut up, didn't I? lol

China Wholesale Town - China's most viable wholesale supplier of promotional gifts, Wholesale Carabiner you can customize your own logo, no matter anywhere in the world! Lunch Box Suppliers