Your first two items sure do make a March 18 deadline look realistic.

"Yes," Pelosi said. "If we took it up today, yes."

then for gods sake, if you're serious, take it up today before anything changes. doesn't anyone know how to play this game?

No, right-wing media, the president is not trying to ban sport fishing.

Even by the right-wing media's low, low (if not nonexistent) standards this has to set a new record for sheer stupidity. Is there anything they won't fall for? I can already hear the next one: "Next on Fox and Friends: Is Obama Trying To Ban Walking?" Just when you think they can't get any more idiotic...

reposted because its worth it-

Grayson just introduce a bill to create a public option through medicare buy in. It's 4 pages long and doesn't include anything compromising.

http://crooksandliars.com/node/35510

Now if the dems actually bring it to a vote the reps have to choose between letting it pass or voting against an incredibly popular option.

Was that really so hard? This could have been done a year ago. It would have been win-win. Either we'd have gotten a public option which we can then try to expand into single payer, or the reps make this a hill to die on and subsequently died politically at which point we could pass the bill without them.

One bill. 4 pages- voila public option. Instead we went the omnibus route and have gotten a bill so bad a good portion of the base is in revolt.

then for gods sake, if you're serious, take it up today before anything changes. doesn't anyone know how to play this game?

They don't take it up today because they aren't serious (i.e., she doesn't have the votes). If she had the votes - the House would already have voted. She's just trying (rather ham-handedly, I might add) to build a sense of inevitability around it.

With the arrest of the blond-haired, blue-eyed Colleen Renee LaRose, it looks like all terrorists don't look alike. Someone ought to let Steve Doocy know.

So where are the right-wing calls to ship her to Gitmo, deny her access to a lawyer and torture her for information?

Oh, I forgot, she's white not brown. The law can apply to her.

* Good for the House: "House Democratic leaders banned Wednesday the practice of doling out multimillion-dollar, no-bid contracts to private contractors [...] -- Steve Benen

And the Senate will block it, when?

Solving the Limbaugh Syndrome: We let him fly to Costa Rica, and then put his name on the no-fly list, and revoke his passport. Given his diatribes against the Government and the majority of Citizens, we might even be able to have him declared a terrorist sympathizer, thus barring any means to reentry....

Understand that Ms LaRose was from the suburbs of Philadelphia. She wasn't hiding out in a certain 3 car garage by any chance, was she?

Unemployment: Better, Worse or Less Bad?

Unemployment rates worsened in 30 states in January.

In other words, unemployment increased in the majority of states.

However, CNN is seeing the glass as half full, noting in a report entitled "State unemployment picture brightens":

A total of 30 states and Washington, DC, reported rising unemployment rates in January, down from the number in the previous month, according to a government report released Wednesday.

Jobless rates decreased in nine states, according to the Labor Department's monthly report on state unemployment. Eleven states reported no change.

In December, 43 states reported monthly jobless rate increases.

In other words, the January numbers were less bad.

The real situation is that there has been a permanent loss of jobs in America. And the administration has not taken the necessary steps to allow the creation of a substantial number of long-term jobs.

---------------

when we read this blog, especially in the last 6 months or so, these little really pro-admin things that you post just jump out at us.

and your choice to parrot cnn was one of them.

do you really think that you are fooling your readers ????

I'm glad to hear our economy is getting back on its feet for now, but in the medium term the peak oil problem is coming back to roost. Oil is pushing past $81, and demand will push it higher, dampening the recovery. Dumb voters will blame the Party in power even though anyone neither an idiot nor crank knows that three key right/libertarian tropes made this the mess it is:
1. Increasing population (one leg of increasing demand): cons/fundies like this for religious and nationalist "volk" romancing type reasons and oppose birth control and abortion; libertopian crackpots like late Julian Simon think it's effects can always be ameliorated by cutting government and the magic of the marketplace.
2. Inadequate conservation: regulation blocked by their legislative wing, spurned by their cultural wing and US business. Hence most cars still use lots of gas (and BTW Toyota, "thanks" for effing up the reputation of Prius etc.)
3. Speculation bubbles: righties love to make money off and hate to tax, this very unproductive (really, destructive) activity despite their supposed hatred of "nonproducers."

If conservatives had failed for the past 40 years, oil would cost much less because there'd be less consumers, less consumption per capita, and less speculation. The extra supply from more drilling wouldn't near make up for the losses their way causes. Can we make a campaign out of that?

P&SFTM, what could Obama actually do about that?

Job Openings In January Almost Up to February 2009 Level

Yep, the good news according to the headline of the USA Today article is that the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that job openings in January were at their highest level since last February of 2009. That would be the month when the economy lost 726,000 jobs.

The numbers are going in the right direction -- it's good to see the number of job openings increase. And the number of layoffs and discharges fell to 1,890,000, the lowest level since April of 2008, a month when the economy shed 149,000 jobs.

*** But we still have a long way to go before we are going to see healthy job growth. These numbers must be put in context. ***

[pick a handle and stick with it -- mod.]

All the Economic Cheerleading Isn’t Fooling Americans

While economists got out their pom-poms last week to celebrate the news that official unemployment is only 9.7 percent ( while skillfully ignoring the increase in underemployment and the 40% of the unemployed who have been that way for six months or more ), Americans weren’t buying their routine. A new Rasmussen poll shows that despite official optimism, 34% of Americans think unemployment will be worse in a year. While 29% of those polled think that unemployment will go down, another 29% think that unemployment will remain more or less the same — which it what economists think, too, when they are not cheering on the markets.

Those with experience job hunting do not care if official statistics say that job openings were up 7.6% in January: 53% of the unemployed think the job market is worse than last year, and they’re right. The Labor Department says that there are 5.5 unemployed people competing for every opening, up from 1.7 at the the beginning of the recession. Some 15% of unemployed people say it’s better now and 29% think it’s similar.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm

Straight From The BLS ( without any gd media or blogger spin - jeebus. knight ridder would have never reported this the way mcclatchy did in the story linked in this post - jaysus )

Thirty states and the District of Columbia recorded over - the - month unemployment rate increases, 9 states registered rate decreases, and 11 states had no rate change, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.

*** Over the year, jobless rates increased in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. ***

The national unemployment rate fell from 10.0% in December to 9.7% in January, *** but was
up from 7.7% a year earlier. ***

I prefer Bandzel's piece to Moulitsas -- thanks for the link, Steve.

normally associated press is the worst at pimping and shilling. but its story from this morning was actually decent and Reality based.

however, mcclatchy's effort from later in the day just flat out sucked and almost deceitful in its effort to spin and twist the numbers.

Unemployment rises in 30 states in January

Unemployment rose in 30 states in January, the Labor Department said Wednesday, evidence that jobs remain scarce in most regions of the country.

The data is somewhat better than December, when 43 states reported higher unemployment rates, but worse than November, when rates fell in most states.

Still, five states reported record-high joblessness in January: California, at 12.5 percent; South Carolina, 12.6 percent; Florida, 11.9 percent; North Carolina, 11.1 percent; and Georgia, 10.4 percent.

Michigan's unemployment rate is still the nation's highest, at 14.3 percent, followed by Nevada, with 13 percent and Rhode Island at 12.7 percent. South Carolina and California round out the top five.

Shoot, I had the U-haul rented and I was ready to drive down 95 to Florida to do the move myself . . .

Planet Reality on March 10, 2010 at 8:08 PM,

When you copy and paste someone else's article, *the very least* you can do is give the author credit or, still better, link to the original. Rank plagiarism is not the kind of "reality" that the readers of this blog appreciate, even though it might make you looks more literate than you probably are.

The original is an article by Megan Carpentier, at he Washington Independent:
http://washingtonindependent.com/78869/all-the-economic-cheerleading-isnt-fooling-americans

I'm making a list, checking it twice and looking around for a good supplier of coals and switches, since that's the best that I can offer to *both* of my Senators (Warner and Webb, of Virginia) in response to their asking for support. Yesterday, they laid a rotten egg on the subject of summer jobs for young people. Today, they're trying to lay another, on SAFRA. One can't help but wonder... just what in hell do those two have against young people???
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/10/six-democrats-side-lenders/

I didn't see this in the campaign thread, but it's definitely related: Meg Whitman invites the press to an open event, doesn't let them go with her, and sends out her spokescritter to say she won't talk to them. link. Apparently her primary opponent already has an online ad out about "Runaway Meg".

Since Dr Biobrain requested it.

With regard to limits on benefits-

The bill bans lifetime limits in section 2711. It does not however ban annual limits unless they are "unreasonable." Some sources claim this loophole has been closed but it remains in the most recent version of the bill according to democrats.senate.gov (title X does not modify this portion, I checked):

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act. pdf

Without banning annual limits banning lifetime limits is pretty meaningless. Insurance companies can simply actuarial out your expected life span and set your annual limit so that you're certain to come under any lifetime limit they want.

This section has no enforcement or reporting condition and describes no penalties for breaking the law. Nor is any funding earmarked for enforcement.

With regard to recission-

the bill says this:
"SEC. 2712. PROHIBITION ON RESCISSIONS.
A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall not rescind such plan or coverage with respect to an enrollee once the enrollee is covered under such plan or coverage involved, except that this section shall not apply to a covered individual who has performed an act or practice that constitutes fraud or makes an intentional misrepresentation of material fact as prohibited by the terms of the plan or coverage."

However fraud is precisely the claim that is almost always made by insurance companies and their defense of the practice.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/07/AR20090907 02455.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/17/business/fi-rescind17

In other words this is like saying "you can't speed- unless you're in a car or other vehical." Thanks a lot, that really helps. In addition the insurance companies now have an additional weapon because of the mandate- if they cancel your coverage for "fraud" (completely legal on their end) you are now in violation of law for not having insurance!

This section has no enforcement or reporting condition and describes no penalties for breaking the law. Nor is any funding earmarked for enforcement.

With regard to Medical loss ratio-

the bill says this (sec 2718 part b):
"(b) ENSURING THAT CONSUMERS RECEIVE VALUE FOR THEIR PREMIUM PAYMENTS.—
(1) REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE VALUE FOR PREMIUM PAYMENTS.—A health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, with respect to each plan year, provide an annual rebate to each enrollee under such coverage, on a pro rata basis, in an amount that is equal to the amount by which premium revenue expended by the issuer on activities described in subsection (a)(3) exceeds— 19
(A) with respect to a health insurance issuer offering coverage in the group market, 20 percent, or such lower percentage as a State may by regulation determine; or
(B) with respect to a health insurance issuer offering coverage in the individual market, 25 percent, or such lower percentage as a State may by regulation determine, except that such percentage shall be adjusted to the extent the Secretary determines that the application of such percentage with a State may destabilize the existing individual market in such State."

This section has a reporting mechanism ("A health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, with respect to each plan year, submit to the Secretary a report concerning the percentage of total premium revenue that such coverage expends..." sec 2718 part a) but still no enforcement and it describes no penalties for breaking the law. Nor is any funding earmarked for enforcement.

with regard to premiums-
in section 2794 the bill creates a system for the secretary to review premium increases. This section is less of a joke than the preceeding sections. It provides for a reporting mechanism and funding through grants to the states who would do the actual data collection. On the other hand the only power the secretary has appears to be the ability to exclude an insurer from the exchange. Whoop de doo.

By the way there's no similar system for looking at deductibles, There is a section in the bill limits employer insurance plan deductibles to $2,000 or $4,000 (sec 1302 part 2). For the high risk pool (sec 1101 B ii):

"(ii) that has an out of pocket limit not greater than the applicable amount described in section 223(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for the year involved, except that the Secretary may modify such limit if necessary to ensure the pool meets the actuarial value limit under clause (i);"

the relevant IRS section can be found here:
http://www.myhsabenefit.com/Section%20223/Internal%20Revenue%20Code.pdf

it says they can only charge a single insuree $5,000 a year for out of pocket expenses NOT INCLUDING PREMIUMS, or twice that limit for families.

Call me crazy but 5,000 a year plus premiums doesn't seem all that afordable.

With regard to preexisting conditions-
The bill says this (sec 2704):

"(a) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not impose any preexisting condition exclusion with respect to such plan or coverage."

You know the deal-
This section has no enforcement or reporting condition and describes no penalties for breaking the law. Nor is any funding earmarked for enforcement. There is rference to a (2)(A) in section 2701 (42 U.S.C. 300gg) that this section is modifying. Maybe that has the enforcement mechanism but I can't actually find any such section online. 42 USC 300gg is the Public Health and Welfare law but the only sec 2701 I find says it is repealed.

Let's make this short, shall we?
sec 2702 guaranteed availability of coverage
sec 2703 guaranteed renewability of coverage
sec 2705 prohibiting discrimination against individual participants and beneficiaries based on health status

None of these have enforcement measures, reporting measures, listed penalties for breaking the law, or money earmarked for enforcement. The last section does have reporting structure detailed but only for the wellness programs that are an exception to the law, not for the law itself. Go figure.

sec 2706 nondiscrimination in health care
sec 2708 prohibition on excessive waitin periods

ditto

The closest thing we seem to have to an enforcement mechanism is this (sec 1559):
"SEC. 1559. OVERSIGHT.
The Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services shall have oversight authority with respect to the administration and implementation of this title as it relates to such Department."

That's it and honestly I'm not even sure if it applies to the whole title or just those parts that have to do with HHS (given the last clause).

There's a good portion of why I don;t trust the HCR bill to do the things the proponents claim it will do. Ball's in your court PTDB-iacs.

on a related note:

"A congressional investigation into three insurers found that they canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people in a five-year period, allowing the companies to avoid paying $300 million in claims, the paper reported."
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/17/business/fi-rescind17

that's 4,000 a year just from 3 insurers. Assume that rate will go way up when we force those who normally can't get insurance to buy it anyway and include other insurance companies. Hell lets just say it doubles to be nice. That's 8000 cases a year.

How many government lawyers do they plan to hire to enforce the law? Oh, yeah. NONE.

Now who here with a straight face thinks the DOJ can take on 8000 more cases a year and shepherd them through trials and appeals to a just conclusion before the claimant dies? Especially when the claimant hasn't been getting treatment this whole time...

What if your genes could be used as a pre-existing excuse for insurance companies?

The health care fiasco is too intertwined with layers of human beliefs and predilections to be easily solved.

It's not government control of your health care that has folks un-easy, it's the religious stances on stuff like abortion, contraception, etc.

We need to zoom out away from the HRC and see the greater human conflicts, the macro.

Powerful forces are opposing each other like magnets, each side not possibly yielding to the other pole, no way do we have commonalities, etc.

The stagnation in Washington is deep, entrenched, and somewhat annoying, but that's humanity for you.

Liberal progressives.

If you hate us, those words evoke bile to rise.

If you are a sentient human with a shred of compassion, those words are manna.

If health care passes, will it be Jim DeMint's waterloo, and will it break him?