Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs! |
grantcart's Journal
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. 
Its a little long but the evidence against ACORN requires it. First let us establish the point of context. What is fraud in the context of the federal government? Well sitting in CA 49 we consider ourselves something of experts on fraud. When we find somebody that is really good on the subject we send them to Congress. First we sent Duke Cunningham to represent us but Duke being somewhat stupid didn't set up a finance committee and pay his wife $ 250,000 a year to run his shakedown, he met government contractors in restaurants and actually wrote down how much his commission would be for each contract he could get. Then he kept the notes. Second we then sent Brian Bilbray. He became Mayor of Imperial Beach. He has never lived in this district but being the aficionados of fraud that we are we sent him to Congress anyway. Now fraud, criminal enterprise and personal debauchery have not been isolated in CA 49 it has spread evenly throughout the US, we just have a predilection of not beating around the bush when it comes to our Congressman. We put it up there for everyone to see. Before we get to the evidence against ACORN we have to say that we see that serious crimes have become common even among our clergy, corporations and communities. Now we didn't send cameras into all of those Catholic and Evangelical Churches to get them to do pedophilia or sleep with prostitutes, these are crimes that became so endemic that they became virtual class action lawsuits. We have Governors hiring prostitutes and using state money for overseas affairs, Senators having sex in public bathrooms and well we don't have time to continue with all of their crimes. Now we didn't have cameraman punk all of these people, their misbehavior became concrete because well it became public. Now when it comes to working with the federal government it is critical that sub contractors work to a higher standard than that of our Congressman and Senators (who are all involved in legal bribery), our clergy, our community leaders. They should also work to a higher standard than the government itself. Every branch of the government has had corruption in the form of embezzlement or other abuse. The CIA, FBI, each branch of the service, and so on. We are currently involved in a great debate about what to do about Health Care. This is an industry that is basically involved in a criminal enterprise to sign contracts and then find frivolous means to back out of claims. The first step of the reform process should have started with empaneling a grand jury. But when you are a sub contractor working for the federal government you must work to a higher standard than all of these. Take for existence the record of General Electric in working as a sub contractor for the United States Government A Brief List of criminal, civil, political and ethical transgressions 1949 General Electric deliberately released radioactive material to see how far downwind it would travel. 1986 the United States and General Electric had conducted experiments on hundreds of United States citizens. One of GE’s most gruesome experiments — disclosed in the Markey hearings — was performed on inmates at a prison in Walla Walla, Washington, near Hanford. Starting in 1963, 64 prisoners had their scrotums and testes irradiated to determine the effects of radiation on human reproductive organs. GE is wholly or partially liable for at least 78 federal Superfund sites. + On September 29, 1998, General Electric agreed to a $200 million settlement in principle of environmental claims resulting from pollution of the Housatonic River and other areas by chemical releases from GE’s plant in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. The claims result from a long history of GE’s use and disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other hazardous substances at the plant, which GE no longer uses for manufacturing. + On March 26, 1998, General Electric agreed to pay a $92,000 fine for previous violations of environmental reporting requirements for toxic releases at its silicone manufacturing plant in Waterford, New York, + On September 15, 1995, General Electric agreed to pay $137,000 in fines and expenses and to clean up a hazardous waste dump at a former plant where it repaired and rebuilt transformers. + October 1993, investigators swooped down on the GE Apparatus Service Center in Brandon, Florida with search warrants to take soil samples and confiscate computer records and files. Inspectors found 30 violations, GE closed the facility in December 1993. + On March 13, 1992, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a $20,000 fine against General Electric for violations of regulations at the fuel fabrication plant in Wilmington, North Carolina. +On May 29, 1991, GE personnel accidentally moved about 320 pounds of uranium to a waste treatment tank. The danger of the mistake was that the size and shape of the waste container caused unsafe concentrations of uranium, which could have led to a nuclear accident. The NRC dispatched a special incident investigation team the same day and an inspection began two days later. The NRC found that the mistake was the result of lax safety controls. +At an April 22, 1998 shareholder meeting, GE CEO Jack Welch claimed: “PCBs do not pose adverse health risks.” Testifying in Albany on July 9, 1998, EPA Administrator Carol Browner stated: “GE tells us this contamination is not a problem. GE would have people of the Hudson River believe, and I quote: ‘living in a PCB-laden area is not dangerous.’ But the science tells us the opposite is true ... And concern about PCBs goes beyond cancer ... The science has spoken: PCBs are a serious threat...” Defense Contracting Fraud + On July 23, 1992, GE pled guilty in federal court to civil and criminal charges of defrauding the Pentagon and agreed to pay $69 million to the U.S. government in fines — one of the largest defense contracting fines ever. General Electric said in a statement that it took responsibility for the actions of a former marketing employee who, along with an Israeli Air Force General, diverted Pentagon funds to their own bank accounts and to fund Israeli military programs not authorized by the United States.Under the settlement with the Justice Department over violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, GE paid $59.5 million in civil fraud claims and $9.5 million in criminal fines. + GE is a repeat offender when it comes to Defense Department fraud. The company has repeatedly violated the False Claims Act — a measure originally proposed by Lincoln to protect federal coffers. When the Project on Government Oversight surveyed defense contractors, it found that General Electric was responsible for 15 instances of fraudulent activity in just a four year period (1990-1994) — more than any other defense contractor. GE: 1. Paid $7.1 million to settle a qui tam suit alleging that the company failed to satisfy electrical bonding requirements for its jet engine contracts, thereby creating a safety risk. 2. Paid $5.87 million (along with Martin Marietta) to settle a qui tam suit associated with improper sales of radar systems to Egypt. 3. Paid fines between 1990 and 1994 ranging from a $20,000 criminal fine to a $24.6 million civil fine for a variety of defense contracting frauds, including: misrepresentation, money laundering, defective pricing (2 incidents), cost mischarging (3 incidents), false claims, product substitution, conspiracy/conversion of classified documents, procurement fraud and mail fraud. 4. Was convicted on February 3, 1990 in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia of defrauding the government out of $10 million for a battlefield computer system. 5. Pled guilty on May 19, 1985 to charges of fraud and falsifying 108 claims on a missile contract. 6. Was convicted of defrauding the Air Force out of $800,000 on the Minuteman Missile Project. 7. Was convicted of bribing the Puerto Rico Water Resources Authority. artial rebates to buy new GE dishwashers. Recidivistic GE What distinguishes General Electric is not merely the number of crimes committed — or the dollar amount of the crimes — but a consistent pattern of violating criminal and civil laws over many years. Exacerbating the situation, General Electric has been a leader in using political influence to attempt to overturn the environmental and defense contracting laws that it persistently violates. excerpts taken from http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2001...
Now despite this record of continual fraud by General Electric no one has ever called for the Federal Government to stop contracting with General Electric.
Again these are crimes that became evident. No one went into General Electric with a camera and tried to see what crimes a local manager might do. ]
And now we come to the case of ACORN.
The evidence is overwhelming.
Now it is clear that when it comes to the question of voter fraud all of the charges against them have proven baseless. Irregularities with either silly or fictional voter registration is marked by ACORN and submitted to voter registrars as required by law.
Surprisingly despite all of the efforts by FOX to undermine the election with baseless charges of election fraud not a single case of voter fraud has been substantiated.
So now FOX has cooperated with provacateurs to go into dozens of ACORN offices and see if they can't get people to take some stupid bait and get involved in improper actions.
And now the call goes out to "defund ACORN". Every organization in or out of the government has had some malfeasance. Even the Church is filled with it.
And yet only ACORN is expected not simply to identify wrong doers and implement corrective systems they are too be wiped out of existence.
Now what is the evidence against ACORN? What is the essential element that makes them unique that they must be exterminated. Are they more corrupt than General Electric?
No the evidence of ACORN is that they are there to help poor people. They are to advance social justice.
Listen to 30 seconds of this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGFXzPNtH3g
The Fox Host asks the undercover reporter "Your not a pimp your just playing one on our show, and you played it on those tapes"
Reporter's response "I AM ONE OF THE WHITEST GUYS EVER" ACORN's crime is that they work with the poor and the minorities and so because of that crime they will be treated differently than every other contractor who has ever done business with the government and had some of its employees act improperly. Poor people aren't stupid, or more inclined to impropriety, or more filled with hatred.
Poor people are simply poor. And shame on this country that it has no moral ambition to face its poor, embrace them and find ways to end their poverty. We would rather send rich kids in to see if we can't find some to be ridiculous and then hold up the people who work with the poor to public ridicule.
Where are their defenders?
It is with great pleasure that I am able to advise all DUers that an active DUer is announcing candidacy for statewide office. 
Jeff Weems is announcing his candidacy for Texas Railroad Commissioner.
The office, a partisan statewide position, has something of an archaic name and nothing to do with railroads but still has major relevance for vast interests in Texas.
The Texas Railroad Commission was formed in the 1890’s to protect farmers from predatory pricing by the railroads. The Texas Legislature later gave the Commission additional regulatory responsibilities, primarily over trucking and oil and gas exploration and production. Over the years, the Commission’s authority over railroads and trucking was reduced, and finally eliminated altogether in 2005.
The Texas Railroad Commission is currently responsible for:
•Regulating oil and gas exploration and production;
•Regulating pipeline (both natural gas and hazardous liquid) safety;
•Regulating certain coal and uranium surface mining operations;
•Setting rates for pipelines and for natural gas utilities;
•Regulating natural gas utility safety measures; and
•Creating and applying programs designed to promote the use of and market for Liquefied Petroleum (LP) or Propane gas.
Jeff's key focus on this campaign is committed to:
ensuring Texas’ vibrant energy industry, protecting Texas’ environment, giving consumers a voice at the commission, and restoring the good name and reputation of the Texas Railroad Commissioners. Jeff's first policy position in announcing his campaign is to significantly reduce lobbyists ability to influence commission business. “I propose that Railroad Commissioners be treated like Supreme Court justices – in other words, Texas Railroad Commissioners should be allowed to accept campaign contributions only for the period beginning 9 months before the primary election through a few months after the general election. In these times of energy uncertainty,” Weems said, “Texans must have confidence in the integrity of their commissioners’ decision-making, and that these decisions are not unduly influenced by campaign contributions.” Weems added that this restriction should apply both to campaign contributions and to gifts from lobbyists. Jeff's website is here: http://jeffweemsforcommissioner.com/contac... / You can send him an email here: jeff@jeffweemsforcommissioner.com Today is also Jeff's Birthday! Please join me in congratulating Jeff, send him a personal message and if you are able and inclined a contribution. He will now be posting under jeffweemsforRRC here at DU and is retiring his old name so that past postings here cannot be used by partisan opponents out of context. I can simply say that he had a very strong voice and his opinions were always very reasonable.
|
Profile Information grantcart
27367 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.
|
