Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs! |
grantcart's Journal
Follow up to a previous article on the US Filibuster explaining how it originated, the fact that it is relatively recent partisan tool in American politics: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/... This graph explains the point as well:  The Senate Majority Leader has two important tools that he can use to confront Lieberman and humiliate him in front of the world: Step One - Invoke Standing Senate Rule XXII http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#U.... In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. This threat of a filibuster where no floor speech and no quorum is required may, therefore, be more powerful than an actual filibuster, which would require attendance by a quorum of Senators as well as the physical presence of the Senators speaking. Previously, the filibustering senator(s) could delay voting only by making an endless speech. Currently, they only need to indicate that they are filibustering, thereby preventing the Senate from moving on to other business until the motion is withdrawn or enough votes are gathered for cloture. This will require the Republicans and the traitor Lieberman to reenact an actual physical filibuster that Jimmy Stewart made famous in "Mr. Smith goes to Washington".  Step Two - Leave the Issue on the Agenda indefinitely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#U....
A filibuster can be defeated by the governing party if they leave the debated issue on the agenda indefinitely, without adding anything else. Indeed, James Strom Thurmond's own attempt to filibuster the Civil Rights Act was defeated when Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield refused to refer any further business to the Senate, which required the filibuster to be kept up indefinitely. Instead, the opponents were all given a chance to speak, and the matter eventually was forced to a vote.
Step Three - Schedule the Senate to meet 7 days a week and no holiday breaks
Simply schedule the Senate to meet in permanent session - No Thanksgiving breaks, no Sunday breaks and no Christmas breaks.
The result of these three steps would mean that the Republicans and the traitor known as Lieberman would have to maintain a 24/7 filibuster. No other Senate business, including funding for the government, the war, or their own pet projects could be considered. When it comes to an actual physical filibuster these scoundrels don't last long. Strom Thurmond's filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 lasted only 24 hours and 18 minutes. This would have numerous benefits. It would result in a public humiliation of the traitor Lieberman and it would show that the Republicans are paper tigers - they are willing to blow hard but they will not be actually sustain a filibuster that ruins their schedule with their mistresses. It would also bring attention to the ludicracy of the filibuster, the relatively modern misuse of it and the extraordinary power small unpopulated states have that have resulted in the Senate becoming increasing less democratic in principle. Short of tar and feathering it is the best way to expose them and humiliate them on a large stage.
 Single Payer is our common goal and our eventual common victory. For purposes of discussion lets assume that everyone at DU desires a single payer health care system, expects the Democratic Party to bear the fight for a single payer health care system, and will not consider the United States to have crossed the minimum threshold of civilized countries until a single payer health care system is passed and implemented. In the United States many people, millions of families and thousands of small isolated communities consider this to be a radical far left proposal that is socialistic in nature and brings the country closer to communism. It does not. Single Payer is not a particularly revolutionary point. All of the most conservative parties in Australia, Canada, England, and all of the other developed countries embrace single payer and regularly compete with liberal parties in expanding or improving their single payer system. No one wants to abandon their single payer system, the issue is never raised. Looking at trees and missing the forrest. We differ simply on strategy and tactics on how to get the US to a single payer system. If you were to take at random any two active DUers who were normally at bitter odds at DU and drop them into a Representative group of 500 Americans for a 4 hour cocktail party there is a 76% chance that the two DUers (who normally would be fighting in GD) would end up in the corner discussing how little they have in common with the other 498 people at the party. In our hyper policy analysis, discussion, snark and pummeling we examine trees. We look closely at the tree examine the bark with a magnifying glass and argue with passion about the subtle differences between two trees that appear to the casual observer to be arboric twins. Sometimes we need to take a step back and see the historic things that are happening. The 81,135th Day. Since the United States Constitution came into effect on September 17,1787 the House of Representatives has existed for 81,135 days. Every single day that Americans woke up during those 81,135 days they knew that any medical calamity could destroy everything that a lifetime of hard work had built. That any family could bring into the world a child whose demanding medical condition was the sole responsibility of the family. Some of those families on some of those days could wake up feeling fortunate that they had better coverage than the rest of their neighbors and citizens because their employment meant that they had reasonable care except that they always knew that the care could be revoked, the job lost or the company could cease to exist. Certain band aid approaches have been applied to keep the system from literally being out of the middle ages. All senior citizens are covered. Many children were covered. Some expenses of some poor people were covered. But essentially the responsibility of bearing the burden of being at the losing end of nature's medical lottery was an individual and family affair. But on the 81,135th day of the House Of Representatives the peoples representatives stood up to the most powerful lobbying effort in the history of modern democracy and said that starting on the 81,136th day and for every day that this country is in existence the system of health care that is responsible for the health of all of its citizens is going to be a shared burden. From now on the risk is going to be shared by all. This country is now committed to the idea that basic medical care should be provided to every single citizen. The future The bill is a compromise. It is defective. It is a work in progress. There will be some terrible unintended results. There will be some face reddening fuck ups. And it is a thing of beauty. It is a thing of beauty because it starts us on the road to a real solution. Senator Orrin Hatch is 100% correct when he states that this bill will lead to the complete socialization of health care insurance. This is not a slippery slope it is a cliff that is as abrupt as the Grand Canyon, once we start rolling the decayed insurance companies towards the edge they will start falling over like like logs. It is inevitable. Today is a small step but it is the highest step up. Like Medicare it will be eventually seen as normal. Like the CDC, the EPA, the FDA it will be a real increase of federal responsibility that very quickly will be perceived as normative and as a traditional American point of view. In time the Public Option will develop a constituency. Others will demand access and the comparison between private and practice will become as absurd as saying that the fire department should not have ambulances as they infringe on private ambulance companies (which in the last few years have virtually disappeared from the EMS system in most urban areas). States will be given the right to "opt in" for single payer and a couple of small states, possibly Hawaii and Vermont will take the first step. Oregon, Rhode Island and Delaware will follow and some state that no one every expected, possibly from the south will jump the cue and the race will be on. A couple will hold out for a while but the shrinking private sector will lose their efficiencies in size and simply become "add on plans". On the 85,945th day or the 86,342nd day or the 88,343rd day or whatever day it is when virtually all of the citizens of the United States come under a Universal Single Payer system, Americans will look back on the 81,135th day of the House of Representatives and they won't be seeing the faults of the bill but the long delayed but still historic big first step. 
Yes I am an indefatigable optimist and the glass is not only half full but it is always just a few inches away from the refrigerator where the rest of the water is being cooled in preparation for the three dimensional chess/domino game that our gifted President will bring it at the optimum time to fill it and leave the opponents stunned and parched for water. But that is not why I am a little giddy tonight watching us lose a couple of races that nobody is going to remember 2 months from now (Remember all of those republican congressional seats that we have been winning in off elections - no longer relevant.) The reason that I have to chuckle is that I come from that small sub section of Democrats who were raised in a very conservative home that also was dutiful Protestant and attended Church strictly on time and I know exactly what the fundamental base of the Republican Party is thinking and what they are going to do.
Today we Democrats celebrate the passing of the leadership of the Republican Party from "unknown" to Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin becomes head
of the Republican Party on
November 3rd, 2009
Not since Babe Ruth "called the shot" or was misunderstood cursing out a spectator has there been such wonderful nonsense in getting ahead of a big story as Sarah Palin has achieved by putting her nose into New York's 23rd District and taking out the Republican nominee. Now to understand the significance of this you either have to be one that grew up going to Church Sunday listening to people who appeared completely rational talk about how the fluke play of a quarterback from some backwater land grant college defeated USC for the first time in 8 years was an "act of God".
On Sunday in Churches all over rural America there will be otherwise sensible people talking about how today's results show that God has decided to intervene and that Sarah is going to be America's Joan of Arc. Now they won't actually know anything about Joan of Arc but it sounds good, an unsophisticated woman comes to lead the country to freedom.
Expect to see more and more sermons based on the courage of Esther. You see people listen to Rush and he makes them laugh but nobody really believes that he is sent by God or is willing to follow him anywhere. But just as her book is coming to press and she will be on the TV everyday even reaching the hallowed grounds of the Oprah, the hardcore fundamentalist base will believe that Sarah Palin of Alaska aka, Joan of Arc, Esther of Persia has been sent to turn this country around.
Now like any good old Testament thrashing a sacrifice will have to be made. It is not for the timid but the 35% of the Republican Party that hates politics and only gets involved in it because innocent children are being slaughtered everyday and Pastor Bob tells them its their duty, are willing to roll up their sleeves and cut a few throats. All they need now is a few dozen mildly moderate Republicans to slaughter in primaries.
So starting from now on you are going to be treated to a real life Republican civil war. But please wear protective gear, this is going to be as nasty as a full fledged Dexter ritual.
The small minded Bishops of the Church of the Republican Party, those that know the catechism of Ronald Reagan but can't really connect with the simple faith of the people in the pews know that there is absolutely no upside in getting in the way now. They may not be familiar with Esther but they know that those that tried to stop Joan early on had a hard time finding their heads. So the Very Reverend John Boehner The Minority Bishop from Ohio leads the way begging for forgiveness:
Boehner regrets backing Scozzafava in NY race
WASHINGTON – The House Republican leader says he regrets that he and other members of his party spent time and money supporting the GOP nominee in a special House election in upstate New York.
The candidate picked by GOP officials in New York's 23rd Congressional District, Dierdre Scozzafava, abruptly dropped out of the race Saturday. She then backed the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens, over Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.
Support for Hoffman from prominent Republican conservatives helped to drive Scozzafava out of the race.
On Monday, House Republican leader John Boehner told reporters that he regretted supporting Scozzafava, saying she is clearly out there for herself and has an agenda different from that of most Republicans.
National Security Republicans, Economic Republicans, Eisenhower Republicans, you can all start packing your bags, the Republican Party is now going to be run by the least educated, most superficial, religious nut job, in the history of the party. Cleon Skousen may raise up from the grave and join his protege Glen Beck on TV. If you leave now your children will be spared, the Lord God has instructed Joan/Esther Palin to be merciful for those that fold and get out of the way.
If you have some rare expensive wine that you have been saving for a very special night, or just have a beer ready, take it out and toast the new leader of the Republican Party, Sarah "Joan of Arc, Esther from Persia, Palin"
The next time they want to vote for a war I suggest a 6 year trigger before we start debate.
Want to cut taxes for the rich, lets put in an 8 year trigger to ponder it before we take action.
The next time they want to get an exemption for ethical actions for a Congressman to resign and work for a lobbyist, 12 years trigger and then we will focus on the problem.
As for expanding the federal government power into overseeing the evil practices of the health insurance industry and starting government run options for the sane people in the country, we have had a 40 year trigger and that is quite long enough.
Oh and the trial period for filibuster has run its course. The filibuster is a relatively new tool to frustrate legislation in a body that is becoming statistically less democratic every year, exaggerating the power of the rural states to 3 times it had when the constitution was begun. We should have gotten rid of it when it was used to frustrate civil rights options. Its an experiment that can now be done away with and all legislation in the Senate should be brought to a vote with the same number of votes it takes to pass the legislation - 51.
Astonishingly Senator McCain is now calling on Republicans to come up with a health care reform agenda, implying that they don't have one.
Apparently the full blown media debate, tea bagging demostrators, multi million dollar industry ad campaigns, Presidential addresses, town halls and press conferences did not alert the Republicans and its last presidential nominee that the issue has been of some interest to just about everyone for the last 6 months. Now that is effective napping!  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com /
GOP needs its own health care reform agenda, McCain says
WASHINGTON (CNN) – As the national debate over health care reform is set to enter a new phase with next week’s scheduled vote in the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, says his party needs to crystallize its own positive agenda for health care reform.
“We Republicans need to come up with our agenda,” the former GOP presidential hopeful says in an interview that airs Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union. “And we need to do it so that there is a viable alternative to this . And it has to do with things that are not associated with government-controlled health care in America.
While many of President Obama's foriegn policy initiatives are still early in process and point to a change in tone and engagement, US/Russia relations have experienced a significant and immediate turn around. Russia's reaction to the Nobel Peace Prize is an example of the 180 degree change in their relationship. Russia is now helping on a number of multilateral diplomatic areas, most importantly on developing a broad front with Iran. The reduction of tensions with Iran will ultimately have a significant impact on Israel/Palestine relations. Few would have predicted that the US/Russia relationship could have improved this much this quickly, and for that alone the President deserves recognition.
Russia on Nobel Peace Prize: Obama thawing 'second cold war'
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1009/p06s13-... Moscow - Russia is one place where US President Barack Obama's influence has perceptibly moved the needle away from Bush-era frostiness, dubbed by some a 'second cold war', toward a new dialogue and hopes for better cooperation. In Moscow, the reaction to the news of Mr. Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize was surprised, but welcoming. "It's hard to see how he's done anything in a few months that merits a Nobel Prize," says Pavel Zolotaryov, deputy director of the official Institute of USA-Canada Studies in Moscow. "Yet it seems logical. It reflects the world's support for his promises to move in a new direction, and hope that he will have the strength to see it through."
Obama has convinced Russian President Dmitri Medvedev to sign on to his vision of working toward a nuclear weapons free world, and the two have pledged to deliver a major new strategic arms reduction treaty by the end of this year. At a Kremlin summit meeting in July, the two leaders hit it off and agreed to a full "reset" of the vexed US-Russia relationship. And last month, Obama appeared to deliver on that pledge by unilaterally shelving Bush-era plans to station antimissile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic, which had for several years been the single biggest strategic irritant between Moscow and Washington.
"In recent years, our relations had just been getting worse and worse; it was like a dialogue between the blind and the deaf," says Elina Kirichenko, a North America expert at the official Institute of World Economy and International Relations in Moscow. "But Obama has turned that around. At least he stopped making harsh statements that anger Moscow, and made an effort to understand Russia's feelings and concerns."
The President was going for the Super Hero President trifecta today when between the other happenings he had a presser and made a strident defense of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency and strongly attacked the vested interests that were trying to undermine reform.
WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Ratcheting up his drive for new financial regulations, President Barack Obama took direct aim at the industry groups that oppose his proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency, calling their criticism "completely false."
"They're doing what they always do - descending on Congress and using every bit of influence they have to maintain a status quo that has maximized their profits at the expense of American consumers, despite the fact that recently a whole bunch of those same American consumers bailed them out as a consequence of bad decisions that they made," Obama said in a speech at the White House Friday. "Since they're worried they may not be able to kill this agency, they're trying their hardest to weaken it."
The consumer agency is one of the primary components of the regulatory revamp Obama wants lawmakers to pass before the end of the year. But it has come under fire from Republicans and Wall Street. The banking sector has been lobbying to water down the legislation so the agency doesn't have the ability to enforce the rules that it writes.
Obama, however, signaled that the agency must be given the teeth to be effective.
"The consumer agency we're proposing would set ground rules so that firms don't have to compete to confuse families, but to give them better choices," he said. "This will also help small-business entrepreneurs who often rely on credit cards and home-equity loans to finance their start-ups."
Obama had sharp words for his opponents, calling out the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in particular for spending "millions" on a public campaign to kill the agency.
"You might have seen some of these ads - the ones that claim local butchers and other small businesses will somehow be harmed by this agency," Obama said. " This, of course, is completely false - and we've made clear that only businesses that offer financial services would be affected by this agency."
He also shot down concerns that the agency would restrict consumer choice and innovation in the financial arena: "Nothing could be further from the truth."
The Chamber of Commerce, in a statement front-running Obama's remarks, said existing regulators should have their powers expanded to crack down on predatory practices, but repeated that it views the new agency as the wrong approach.
Watching the Senate Finance Committee machinations on the health care debate has brought the spotlight on the obvious problem of special interests, their undue influence on policy and the American system of legalized bribery that is quaintly termed "campaign contributions". That this debate occurs at the same time that the United States Senators will also patronizing discuss the corruption and viability of the Karzai regime, a debate that has to be curtailed on Fridays so that Senators can fly home to attend weekend fund raisers, is of course ironic. The reason that campaign financing does not find a more resonant response in the electorate is because it will have to be debated and voted on by the very people who will be disadvantaged by it, incumbent United States Senators. It also is difficult to see an effective regime that would prevent vested interests from using their resources to advance their influence both in public and private. It is therefore unlikely that 90 days from now, even after their is a brief flirtation with populism that will be ignited by Moore's latest film, that any substantive structural reform will realistically pursued on campaign financing. There does exist another area that deserves reform, rules of the United States Senate. Democratizing the United States Senate Let's start with the standard caveat that the United States is not a democracy but a republic and that a pure democracy would in fact not be desirable, that the lynch crowd gathering to bust a suspect out of jail for a lynching is an example of the type of evil that pure democracy is capable of. Ethnic cleansing in places like Baghdad are examples of the will of the majority inflicting democratic policies to the detriment of the majority and the minority. The Senate was always understood to be a brake on that kind of democratic exuberance, but it wasn't intended to create a permanent wall to the democratic process. Looking at the Schumer amendment for the Public Option, for example, illustrates the point. States with Senators voting for the amendment(population in hundreds of thousands): Delaware 0.8 Florida 18.3 Massachusetts 6.5 Arkansas 2.9 Oregon 3.8 New York 19.5 Michigan 10 Washington 6.5 New Jersey 8.6 West Virginia 1.8 Total Population 77.9 million States with Senators voting against the amendment: Montana 0.9 North Dakota 0.6 Arkansas 2.9 Iowa 3 Utah 2.7 Maine 1.3 Kentucky 4.2 Idaho 1.5 Kansas 2.8 Nevada 2.6 Wyoming 0.5 Texas 24.3 Arizona 6.5 Total Population 52.9 It is obvious by looking at the list that the power of small states with extremely low population have an exceedingly strong impact on legislation, an impact that threatens the basic democratic spirit of the institution. Senators from rural areas have less competition and longer tenure in the Senate. However it is the rules of the Senate that give extraordinary powers to Chairman and to the minority that are making the Senate a monument against the basic understanding of democratic representation that must be addressed. The 6 most senior Senators on the powerful Finance Committee are from Montana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Iowa, Utah and Maine whose average ranking would make it the 39th most populace state in the union. The Senate has become more distorted toward minority power The Senate's basic composition of 2 members from every state without regard to population and giving them longer tenure was intended to create a brake on the impetuous will of the people. Of course that was during a time when the average voter was already limited by various non democratic restrictions, by property, sex, age, and race. Senate malaportionment has gone from 12:1 to 70:1. Now only 17% of the population could get a majority; This was not how the Senate started http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_th...
Since 1789, the Senate has become much more malaportioned. At the time of the Connecticut Compromise, the largest state, Virginia, had only twelve times the population of the smallest state, Delaware. Today, the largest state, California, has a population that is seventy times greater than the population of the smallest state, Wyoming. In 1790, it would take a theoretical 30% of the population to elect a majority of the Senate, today it would take 17%. Today, there are seven states with only one Congressman (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming); at no time in the past has there been as high a proportion of one-Congressmen states. The Filibuster exaggerates minority power in an institution that exaggerates power and it is getting worse.
The 20 smallest states with 40 senators have the power to stop all legislation in the United States Congress. The total population of these 20 states is 30 million, 6 million less than California and only 10% of the population.
History of the filibuster in the United States Senate1) The ability to filibuster was not part of the original Senate rules In the beginning the collegiality of the Senate meant that there was normally a 'gentleman's agreement to end debate and in the first 11 years there was no filibuster and in 1806 revised Senate rules were passed that eliminated the call to "move the previous question". Only by accident and without intention by the writers of the constitution the Senate accidentally created the potential of filibuster in 1806 and the provision for super majorities needed to pass legislation. 2) The filibuster remained only theoretical and its first use was by Senator King in 1841. 3) The rule for cloture was only adopted in 1917 and from 1917 to 1949 the requirement for cloture was 66%. 4) The use, misuse and abuse of the filibuster rule started just 60 years ago and only became a regular feature of daily legislation 20 years ago The filibuster is not part of our constitutional government and it is not a part of our legislative history in the form it is now. It was instituted by accident and used exceedingly sparingly until just a few years ago. At one point a single senator could stop the Senate. That number has been moved and there is no good reason why it should be 60.
Changes in demographics now mean that the minority has more power now than ever before. The entire US government can be held hostage by the representatives of a mere 10% of the population. Without the filibuster rule the Senate still gives extraordinary power to rural states as the lowest 25 populated states still only account for 17% of the population.
The senate has gone through many changes, including changing the voting from legislatures to direct sovereignty. Nevertheless the abuse of the filibuster rule has meant that the Senate has become a less democratic institution and not more. While the United States pontificates and lectures others about democracy its entire legislative process is stalemated by one part that is coming more and more under the influence of campaign contributions and concentrates more power in rural states with declining population rates.
The Democratic Party invented the Cloture rule in 1917. It is now time to eliminate 'cloture' and restore the rules of the Senate to the established Robert Rules of Order that allow for a vote to be called by a simple majority vote.
This is the time to rectify mistakes made by those who have meddled with the original interests and practices of the founding fathers of the Senate and eliminate the filibuster. More on the filibuster here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster
The reason why?
Most likely scenario is that the bill coming out of conference committee will have a public option, probably not the preferred Rockfeller ammendment but the Schumer ammendment.
The Senate Caucus will hold on the procedureal vote for cloture and the final bill will pass the Senate with 54-55 votes.
Why will Senators who are against the Public Option not join a Republican filibuster?
Its one thing to disagree in committee.
Its another thing to disagree with the majority of the Senate.
Its yet another thing to disagree with the House of Representatives.
And its a completely different thing to disagree with your colleagues, the Senate, the House of Representatives, Your President on the most important legislation that the Party has worked on in 20 years, cross the aisle and vote with the Republicans to sustain a filibuster so that the legislation doesn't get a vote.
Dean, Schumer and Harkin are all predicting victory on a final vote.
What is going on now is positioning for the final negotiation. There will be some face saving gestures - probably on reducing spending in other areas that they can go back to their more conservative states and say that they won the deficit battle, save face and claim victory, and if they want they can vote against the bill after cloture.
Its been rather obvious for a while and Schumer, Harkin and Dean all act like they have already read the final script.
Quoting from the OP
1) We all hate mandates. That is not however an excuse not to put in a little effort to understand why mandates have become an inherent part of health care reform
and
If you do not want mandates then you must allow the insurers (whether it is a public plan or a private plan) to charge different fees to different risk groups.
There is no aspersions to people who, understanding the principles involved prefer the current system to change to a system that is clearly going to bring some pain. This solution, as imperfect as it is, will also provide tremendous relief to people with chronic health conditions that cannot get care. They will be accepted without discrimination and will not pay a different fee. In the thread you can read thoughtful discussions by Kim and Hunter, Prism, Boppers and Hello Kitty that all engage in a thoughtful discussion of issues. But there is only one responder on this thread who has taken an intelligent discussion and launched a personal attack. That is you. Somebody disagrees with you then they are a "cheerleader" and "haven't read the post". You stand alone. Everyone who reads the thread knows that I didn't compare people who don't like the mandate to freepers (I already admitted that I didn't like it,that it is a bitter medicine). No those that act like Freepers are those that because they are ignorant of the basic workings of actuarial calculation (the key point that has not been seriously challenged) stoop so low that they accuse the President of accepting mandates for the prospect of future campaign contributions, or has taken direct bribes, or other criminal activity. How small is the mind and how dark is the soul that could be so perversely motivated that they would take a such an attack against President Obama. It is the kind of mind that we see on Fox, it is the cartoon image known as Glenn Beck, it is the spirit of Freepers. Rather than understand and have an intelligent conversation on a complex problem, one in which Paul Krugman warned candidate Obama about (see upthread) some would seek to go to the bottom rung of dignity and insult the President who has served so far with intelligence, humility and self restraint. So please go on with your uninformed belligerent attacks on President Obama. They are not well grounded in fact, almost always devoid of logic, lack any sense of proportion, have no context and reveal an obsessive compulsion to try and tear down someone who is clearly, clearly, clearly way above your self appointed station. You dwell in the basement. Do me this favor. Every time you engage in an attack on the President, mention me. For I stand with him. Even when I disagree with him I have found his epistemology and rationale have always been instructive. So feel free on your next attack on the President to include the phrase "and some here at DU" so that you continue to narrowly stay within the rules. Let everyone understand that you are attacking me. Your disparaging words to me I wear as a badge of honor.
Two related Guantanamo stories, 3 detainees released today, GB will not be closed by deadline:
Guantanamo Bay prison 'will not be closed by Barack Obama's January deadline'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/... An unnamed White House told ABC that "not every" detainee will be removed in time, though it is hoped the numbers will "dwindle substantially" from the current 220. There has been a growing assumption that the administration would not meet its target given the difficulties faced in relocating inmates from the controversial detention centre at the US naval base in Cuba. The Obama administration is said to now regret its earlier decision to proclaim it would close the facility within a year of the president taking office. According to the Washington Post, Greg Craig, the chief White House legal adviser to the president who strongly pushed setting a firm date, will be found a new job before long. He was said to be no longer in charge of the issue. Mr Obama signed the executive order closing Guantanamo two days after his Jan 20 inauguration, aiming to draw a firm line under the "war on terror" regime of George W Bush, who opened the jail in early 2002 to house terror suspects. But only a dozen detainees have been relocated to third countries or repatriated, even though the majority of those remaining are no longer regarded as a threat by the Americans. After years of criticising the prison for not matching international law, US allies are reluctant to take in detainees, while Washington in turn is prevented from sending prisoners home to countries that may torture them. Plans to move detainees to the US have met an outbreak of nimbyism from the public and many in Congress. Feds: 3 Guantanamo detainees transferred to Ireland, Yemen  WASHINGTON (CNN) — Three detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba have been transferred to Ireland and Yemen, the U.S. Justice Department said on Saturday. Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed, a native of Yemen, has been transferred to the government of Yemen. A federal court in May ruled that Ahmed may no longer be detained and ordered him released from detention. The government of Ireland got the two other transfers. Their identities were withheld “for security and privacy reasons” after a request from the Irish government. The United States has worked with the governments “to ensure the transfers take place under appropriate security measures and will continue to consult with these governments regarding these detainees.” The Justice Department also said the detainees were approved for transfer after an interagency organization called the Guantanamo Review Task Force performed “a comprehensive review” of the cases. Since 2002, more than 550 detainees have departed Guantanamo for other countries.
1) We all hate mandates. That is not however an excuse not to put in a little effort to understand why mandates have become an inherent part of health care reform. 2) It is possible to be against mandates. It should be done in an informed manner. 3) It is absolutely true that mandates will increase the revenue of the plans that are offered - again this is true regardless of whether the plan was for profit, not for profit, private or public. 4) The reason that mandates are included in the plan is not to increase gross revenue. 5) The reason that mandates are included in the plan is because if you
a)require an insurer to accept all applicants regardless of preexisting conditions and
b) prohibit fee differentiation because of pre-existing condition you will create a condition of 'regulatory adverse selection'. (explained below)
Illustration
In other words if the insurer (again it doesn't matter if it were a public option plan or a private plan) were forced to accept everyone who needed insurance but the people who didn't need insurance weren't required to get it then many people would simply wait until they have an expensive condition and then join the plan. This would force the plan (again either public or private) to increase their premiums. This would encourage more people to drop the insurance starting a viscous cycle with more and more healthy people dropping out and more and more chronically ill people signing up until you ended up with a very expensive plan that was only serving the most critically ill.
This well accepted economic reality is called the "adverse selection spiral".
If you take away the mandate to buy insurance then you must also take away the condition on the insurer (whether it is a private plan or public plan) that they cannot make an individual assessment on accepting an applicant or charging different fees to an applicant based on their preexisting condition.
NO FEE OR ACCEPTANCE DISCRIMINATION ON PREEXISTING CONDITION = MANDATED COVERAGE
People who are arguing against mandates either 1) Don't understand the basic economics of how insurance works (whether it is public or private the actuarial reality is the same). or 2) Are happy to accept the current system that allows insurers to pick who they accept and discriminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions. You simply cannot have both an elimination of discrimination of preexisting conditions (on both acceptance and fee) and at the same time make it voluntary.
Regulatory Adverse Selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiselection The term adverse selection was originally used in insurance. It describes a situation where an individual's demand for insurance (either the propensity to buy insurance, or the quantity purchased, or both) is positively correlated with the individual's risk of loss (e.g. higher risks buy more insurance), and the insurer is unable to allow for this correlation in the price of insurance<1>. This may be because of private information known only to the individual (information asymmetry), or because of regulations or social norms which prevent the insurer from using certain categories of known information to set prices (e.g. the insurer may be prohibited from using information such as gender or ethnic origin or genetic test results). The latter scenario is sometimes referred to as 'regulatory adverse selection'<2>. The potentially 'adverse' nature of this phenomenon can be illustrated by the link between smoking status and mortality. Non-smokers, on average, are more likely to live longer, while smokers, on average, are more likely to die younger. If insurers do not vary prices for life insurance according to smoking status, life insurance will be a better buy for smokers than for non-smokers. So smokers may be more likely to buy insurance, or may tend to buy larger amounts, than non-smokers. The average mortality of the combined policyholder group will be higher than the average mortality of the general population. From the insurer's viewpoint, the higher mortality of the group which 'selects' to buy insurance is 'adverse'. The insurer raises the price of insurance accordingly. As a consequence, non-smokers may be less likely to buy insurance (or may buy smaller amounts) than if they could buy at a lower price to reflect their lower risk. The reduction in insurance purchase by non-smokers is also 'adverse' from the insurer's viewpoint, and perhaps also from a public policy viewpoint.
Furthermore, if there is a range of increasing risk categories in the population, the increase in the insurance price due to adverse selection may lead the lowest remaining risks to cancel or not renew their insurance. This leads to a further increase in price, and hence the lowest remaining risks cancel their insurance, leading to a further increase in price, and so on. Eventually this 'adverse selection spiral' might in theory lead to the collapse of the insurance market. To counter the effects of adverse selection, insurers (to the extent that laws permit) ask a range of questions and may request medical or other reports on individuals who apply to buy insurance, so that the price quoted can be varied accordingly, and any unreasonably high or unpredictable risks rejected. This risk selection process is known as underwriting. In many countries, insurance law incorporates an 'utmost good faith' or uberrima fides doctrine which requires potential customers to answer any underwriting questions asked by the insurer fully and honestly; if they fail to do this, the insurer may later refuse to pay claims.
Accusations that President Obama wants to enforce mandates because he is selling out to commercial interests is based in the kind of ignorance that you would expect to see in freeperville. These slurs are not based on understanding the basic economics of insurance.
Insurance plans must have an actuarial reality to them. If you require an insurer to accept all applicants and not differentiate fees regardless of their pre-existing conditions then you have created an adverse selection that can only be remedied with a mandate.
If you do not want mandates then you must allow the insurers (whether it is a public plan or a private plan) to charge different fees to different risk groups.
Understanding the Rational for Mandates
One principle backed by President Obama and industry plans is that the health reform bill should include a requirement that health plans accept applicants with preexisting conditions, without charging them higher prices because of their health status, along with a requirement that individuals have health coverage, to protect health plans against the risk of antiselection.
If your going to require plans to accept everyone who applies for insurance 'blindly' without consideration of their preexisting health condition and not allow for a differentiation in price then it is not possible to have a viable plan without mandates. Large numbers of people simply would not sign up for insurance until facing a catastrophic illness and the insurance plan would be mandated to take all of the high expense cases without the ability of averaging those costs over a healthier population. Such a plan, whether it is public or private would go bankrupt very quickly. All single payer plans in fact have a mandate, although in some cases the mandate is through a tax addition that seems invisible. Senate Finance Committee considers alternatives to mandates This insurance industry newsletter reports that the Senate Finance Committee is considering making mandates somewhat more flexible by allowing states to offer alternatives to mandates if they had alternatives that are "actuarially sound" http://www.lifeandhealthinsurancenews.com/...
Here is what they report happened in the Committee on Friday
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, today proposed an amendment to the AHFA bill that would let states opt out of the individual health insurance ownership mandate and switch to other arrangements approved by state insurance commissioners as actuarially sound.
Grassley said he proposed the amendment because he decided during the Senate's August recess that imposing an individual health coverage mandate would create new problems.
"There is of course a principle of personal responsibility," Grassley said. "We all one way or another pay for the health care for the uninsured. A mandate helps stabilize premiums, mostly by requiring younger people to buy insurance."
Moreover, "it's easy to see why the health insurers want the mandate," he said. "It's going to make them a heckuva lot of money."
But, under the AHFA bill, the government could impose up to $1,900 in new taxes per year on a family that goes without coverage, and the idea of requiring an individual or family to own coverage that meets lengthy federal benefits requirements is another cause for concern, Grassley said. He also questioned the idea of adopting a program that would create subsidies for families earning as much as $88,000 per year at a time when the United States has a giant budget deficit.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., brought debate of the proposed Grassley flexbility amendment to a halt by noting that Baucus already has approved a state flexibility amendment that he has offered. That amendment already would let states go with alternatives to the health insurance mandate requirement, Wyden said.
"I wanted to give the maximum amount of flexibility," Wyden said.
Grassley agreed to hold back on further discussion of his flexibility amendment while he determines whether the Wyden amendment would really do the same thing.
We are now in the odd situation of considering the fact that Senator Grassley may have a good idea. Here is what most people can agree on: 1) Mandates are anathema, nobody likes them. Mandates are best served on "other folks". 2) If you are going to require plans (whether they be public option or private plans) to receive everyone without discriminating on preexisting conditions then you simply have to have mandates, otherwise there is no way to meet the basic principle of insurance = averaging out risk over a large representative population. 3) Mandates will (as Grassley surprisingly admits) "earn the insurance companies a lot of money". That is true unless there is a public option and people are free to choose the public option, and do so in very large numbers. Hence the absolute necessity of having the public option if you are going to have mandates. 4) Having options for the states seems a very reasonable option. When asked what those state options might be he said that they might be policies "we haven't thought of yet". 5) Well one option that could be tried out in a small state could be single payer. Canada's single payer system was not initiated at the federal level it was initiated province by province. One very realistic scenario is to make the Health Care bill flexible enough to allow states to opt of the federal system if they still meet the principles of universality and actuarial soundness.
Did Senator Grassley just open the door to state by state single payer systems?
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/str... Yesterday, I posed several pointed questions to David E. Johnson, the founder of Strategic Vision, LLC, an Atlanta-based PR firm which also occasionally releases political polls. One of the questions, in light of Strategic Vision LLC's repeated failure to disclose even basic details about its polling methodology, is whether the firm is in fact conducting polling at all, or rather, is creating fake but plausible-looking results in order to increase traffic and attention to its core business as a PR and literary firm. I posed that question largely as a hypothetical yesterday. But today, I pose it much more literally. Certain statistical properties of the results reported by Strategic Vision, LLC suggest, perhaps strongly, the possibility of fraud, although they certainly do not prove it and further investigation will be required. The specific evidence in question is as follows. I looked at all polling results reported by Strategic Vision LLC since the beginning of 2005; results from 2008 onward are available at their website; other polls were recovered through archive.org. This is a lot of data -- well over 100 polls, each of which asked an average of about 15-20 questions. . . . . I haven't really seen anyone approach polling data like this before, and I certainly haven't done so myself. So, we cannot rule out the possibility that there is some mathematical rationale for this that I haven't thought of. But it looks really, really bad. There is a substantial possibility -- far from a certainty -- that much of Strategic Vision's polling over the past several years has been forged. I recognize the gravity of this claim. I've accused pollsters -- deservedly I think in most cases -- of all and sundry types of incompetence and bias. But that is all garden-variety stuff, as compared against the possibility that a prominent polling firm is making up numbers whole cloth. I would emphasize, however, that at this stage, all of this represents circumstantial evidence. We are discussing a possibility. If we're keeping score, it's a possibility that I would never have thought to look into if Strategic Vision had been more professional about their disclosure standards. And if we're being frank, it's a possibility that might actually be a probability. But it's only that. A possibility. An hypothesis -- as yet unproven
She is pregnant; he had just saved her from a fire in her house, rescuing her by carrying her out of the house into her front yard, while he continued to fight the fire. When he finally got done putting the fire out, he sat down to catch his breath and rest. A photographer from the Charlotte , North Carolina newspaper, noticed her in the distance looking at the fireman. As he raised his camera, she came up to the tired man who had saved her life and the lives of her babies and kissed him just as the photographer snapped this photograph. Scroll down for photograph. 
|
Profile Information grantcart
27535 posts Member since Sat Jan 5th 2008 Blogroll DU Journals
Other Blogs Latest Threads
The ten most recent threads posted on
the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums. Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted
on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the
last 24 hours. My Forums
Democratic Underground forums
and groups from my "My Forums" list.
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
|
