Yankees Win!

See you tomorrow morning for college football. Go Gators!

All I got to say is LET'S GO YANKEES!

This is an Open Thread.

You know what's interesting about this? Not the post, but the ensuing thread.

Klein writes:

Over on the HCAN site, they're arguing that "The House bill covers more people, is more affordable, and is just as deficit neutral as the Finance bill." The first two clauses are true. The third simply isn't. The House bill is funded through income taxes, which don't grow as quickly as health-care costs. In the second decade, the costs of the plan rapidly outpace the revenues, and the deficit explodes. Conversely, the excise tax is inside the health-care sector, and is designed to grow more quickly than health-care costs. It cuts the deficit in the second 10 years, which makes it quite a bit friendlier to the budget.

(Emphasis supplied.) Because the excise tax on health care is "designed" to grow more quickly than health care costs does not mean it will. Indeed, to assume, as the CBO does, that there will be no adjustments made by employer purchasers of health insurance to AVOID the excise tax is sheer nonsense. (Anyone ever hear of folks asking for paycuts to avoid income tax?) Moreover, Ezra has not seen even a CBO scoring of the House bill, which is pending("The [CBO] estimates [. . .] do not indicate what their impact would be on the nation's budget deficit"), (See also Scarecrow for a further debunking of Klein's claim) so he has no idea what even the CBO will say on that score.

This is part of a point I made earlier - "I urge people in the coming weeks of intense negotiations to read whatever [P]rogressive" Village wonks (Ezra, Jon Cohn, Steve Benen, [Yglesias], Kevin Drum etc.)[. . .] through that prism [their tacit support for BaucusCare.] Here is Ezra implausibly attacking the House bills because he prefers BaucusCare to the proposals from the House. It would be preferable if he just would say so imo.

Speaking for me only

Kos wrote two strange things about Rasmussen:

"I don't know if Ras' turn to wingnutia has affected their basic election polling yet [. . .]" and "now that Rasmussen has decided to skew questions in order to advance the conservative agenda[.]"

(Emphasis supplied.) Turn? Now? Ras has been a GOP hack since he started. What is this "now" and "turn to" stuff?

Speaking for me only

This is a loaded question, inspired by this from Matt Yglesias:

Al From has one of these op-eds where you urge liberals to drop hopes for a public option in the interests of being pragmatic and passing health reform. I sort of agree with this—reform is worth doing even without a public option.

(Emphasis supplied.) Matt expresses the view of the "progressive" Village wonks (Ezra, Jon Cohn, Steve Benen, himself, Kevin Drum etc.) and I urge people in the coming weeks of intense negotiations to read whatever they write on the public option through that prism - they do not really care about the public option.) I suppose I could imagine a health care "reform" (reform to me means more than just giving more money to Medicaid and subsidies for purchasing insurance to the less well off) proposal without a public option that would be worth doing. But my imagination is not the playing field - the actual health care proposals in play are. And there is not one of them, none, that is worth doing without a public option. Indeed, without a public option, they are very worthy of strong opposition. Most especially because of the individual mandates that they include.

I really think this is an important point, and one progressives in Congress need to make - that they do not see, say BaucusCare, for one example, as an improvement but rather as a step back and they would feel no compunction at all voting against such a bill. It is a bad bill. On policy and politics. If the choices are BaucusCare and nothing, nothing wins by a country mile imo.

Speaking for me only

Balloon Boy?

I got nuthin right now.

This is an Open Thread.

I figure people want to talk about it. But it was so obvious that to me the only thing worth discussing is what was a sharp guy like Dave Checketts thinking?

Checketts ran NBA teams. He knew what having Limbaugh would mean to his bid didn't he? Pretty surprising given the fact Checketts was really a very good executive in the NBA.

As for the whinefest over Limbaugh, well, there is nothing of merit to even address. The idea that the NFL would want Limbaugh associated with them was insane. It was a business decision. And an obvious one. Last I heard, businesses are allowed to make good business decisions.

Speaking for me only

The Phillies meet the Dodgers tonight in the start of the NLCS. The Yanks are supposed to play tomorrow night against the Angels but the weather is bad right now in NY and the forecast is too.

Thursday means Fringe for me.

What are you planning to watch?

This is an Open Thread.

David Vitter does not like that the Census counts all the "Persons" in the United States:

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who is sponsoring an amendment to an appropriations bill that would require illegal immigrants list their status on next year's Census, said late Wednesday that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wants them counted amongst the general population instead. The senator claimed that Reid wants illegals to be counted in the 2010 Census so that left-leaning states with high illegal immigrant populations could increase the size of their congressional delegations.

Senator Vitter does not like them brown people being counted. Unfortunately for him, the Constitution provides that "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State [. . .]"

So much for originalism (though Vitter seem unable to read English as he has said "“I don’t believe that this is what our founding fathers had in mind when they laid out our current system of representation[.]” BTW, what do the Texans have to say about this?

Speaking for me only

House Blue Dog leader Mike Ross:

I — speaking only on behalf of myself — suggested one possible idea could be that instead of creating an entirely new government bureaucracy to administer a public option, Medicare could be offered as a choice to compete alongside private insurers for those Americans eligible to enter the national health insurance exchange, but at a reimbursement rate much greater than current Medicare rates

How much greater? How about 5% Mike? We got a deal. Of course, in a few hours, Ross will have to walk this all back. But it is stunning how stupid these people are.

Speaking for me only

Brian Beutler:

Speaking at her weekly press conference just off the House floor moments ago, Speaker Nancy Pelosi made her most impassioned argument in weeks, for including a public option in comprehensive health care reform legislation, arguing against the idea, favored by some conservative Democrats, of mandating that people buy health insurance, and then throwing them into what she called the "lion's den" of the private insurance industry.

[. . .] The House, she said, "will not force America's middle income families to negotiate with insurance companies."

You go Madame Speaker!!

Speaking for me only