home

Wednesday Morning Open Thread

Hump day.

This is an Open Thread.

< Colorado Medical Pot Dispensary Robbed at Gunpoint | Obama's Gay Benefits Order to Exclude Health Care >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    So, Dems now own the war in Iraq (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:32:37 AM EST
    more than even before. I'm not sure how to react to that, really.

    Sometimes I wonder what exactly it is that we supposedly voted for.

    Thats what happens when you vote Dem... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:42:37 AM EST
    you spend 4 years wondering "I wasted an hour of my Tuesday for this?".

    The chances of us leaving Iraq were the same as the chances of Nader winning in '08...uber-slim to none.

    Parent

    Well, it's actually an argument (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:45:48 AM EST
    for not voting at all--or finding a way to change one of the major parties.

    Parent
    Voting is pretty pointless... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:52:55 AM EST
    but I've got time to kill one Tuesday a year...and I like pulling the levers behind the curtain, makes me feel like the wizard of oz:)

    Parent
    There's something to that (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:55:05 AM EST
    The chance that your individual vote will sway an election is quite small, but if nobody voted. . .

    Parent
    The only way (none / 0) (#8)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:55:20 AM EST
    to change major political parties' behaviors is to NOT SHOW UP en mass, and make sure they know why.  Make them lose and they'll change....although the change may mean they'll attempt to court the remaining voters and throw you under the bus anyway.

    It's futile to vote at the presidential level.  That office is determined by the media.  People might say, "but Bush v. Gore!"  The perception in that case was also determined by the media.

    Parent

    The problem is (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:37:05 AM EST
    a lot of people think they will change the system by making an individual decision not to show up and pretending it was "en masse."

    When people organize, they have political power.  Otherwise, not so much.  It's almost comical to imagine someone sitting at home on Election Day, relishing the message they're sending to the major parties, when the major parties don't have the faintest idea they even exist.

    Parent

    The problem is, though (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:14:46 AM EST
    that in most states, one-party dominance means there is no contest, anyway.  I long lived in one of the other sort of states, the state that was the closest of any in presidential elections -- until 2008.  It was interesting to see the campaigns as so many of my fellow Americans saw them in previous elections . . . or didn't see them, since the candidates don't bother to come around much to states where there is no contest.  

    It actually was a relief to not have our airwaves filled with campaign crap.  It was a relief to not have our phones called constantly for polling crap.  It was a relief to go shopping without being stopped by pollsters and pushers.

    And it was a relief, this time after the disgusting campaign, to go to the polls and not even bother about the presidential non-election in my state.  After all, my former party no longer exists, having violated its charter.  So I don't care what it thinks about my existence, as it made clear that it doesn't care what I think at all.

    This campaign turned off a total, lifelong political junkie -- and dried up my donations, once and for all.  Sure, one vote and several hundred dollars don't matter to the Dems.  But I'm not alone, and at some point, we just might add up to matter.  And then it will be too late.  

    Parent

    If you've got money to spend, or not spend, (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:58:09 AM EST
    you've got a little more leverage.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#11)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:03:21 AM EST
    But you have to have money at the Bill Gates level...that's only a tiny exageration.

    Parent
    Nah, money at the (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:06:08 AM EST
    spur of the moment BMW will do.

    Parent
    *level (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:06:23 AM EST
    Depends on how much (none / 0) (#63)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 01:30:53 PM EST
    All those small donations that Obama received didn't mean anything regarding a place at the table.  It was a laugh during the primaries and the general when his supporters and some seriouly stupid pundits made the claim that those contributions meant that Obama was independent of big money influence.

    The pile of jack he got from Wall Street spoke as one.  That he heard.

    Parent

    Probably ineffective as (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:55:40 AM EST
    the defeated Dem Candidate has no power abd the party never cared what indiv. Voters think/want. Just send money.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#30)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:07:08 AM EST
    it's a bit of a Catch 22.  If you ensure they don't win, they have no power, so you have no idea if they would have fulfilled their promises.

    Making an example of SOME Democrats might be a good idea via organized campaigns to stay home.  Of course, it's a lot to ask of citizens of any district or any state, because they lose for the sake of others.

    Parent

    When may we look (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:14:17 AM EST
    Forward to reading BTD's account of the invited bloggers mtg. With Bill Clinton?

    Parent
    Good question (none / 0) (#37)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:40:12 AM EST
    but in the meantime, a photo!

    Parent
    Is Bowers hidden in the back (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:50:05 AM EST
    because he couldn't be bothered to put on a tie? /channeling my Mother.

    Parent
    Were you a first generation (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 12:15:40 PM EST
    Twitter recipient?

    Also who are these people?  Maybe I will read their blogs for the info on the mtg.  Transparency!

    Parent

    I confess (none / 0) (#84)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 04:18:15 PM EST
    I have never ever Twittered, not once.  My wife is a pro though.

    Parent
    Actually I would be (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 04:38:30 PM EST
    Sorely disappointed to learn you were. Twitterer.

    Parent
    Losing doesn't spur change (none / 0) (#52)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 12:29:55 PM EST
    Make them lose and they'll change....

    Seen any change in Republicans lately?

    Political parties usually die when they're no longer relevent, then coalitions emerge to form a new party.

    In healthy times a third party can influence one or both parties.  These ain't healthy times.

    Parent

    Pretty disappointing (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:47:53 AM EST
    But--aren't you mollified by the temp grant of some benefits to same sex domestic partners of federal employees?

    Parent
    Heh, no! (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:57:56 AM EST
    Good -- a day's headlines (none / 0) (#64)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 01:34:55 PM EST
    do not mean real change in the lives of so many.  Let us not be fooled by the message of the day -- because, as Scarlett said so well, tomorrow is another day.  So tomorrow's headline will mollify media again, but not the thinking public.

    Parent
    Pay day! (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:59:46 AM EST
    For me at least - every Wednesday is.

    More fun local politics from Detroit - the city that brought you Kwame Kilpatrick. A city where, if you don't live there, the antics of the City Council would be sheer entertainment.

    Now Monica Conyers, wife of Congressman John Conyers, and President Pro Tem of the Council, has not responded to a plea deal offered for leniency in a possible federal indictment in a five year bribery felony charge. The irony would be especially rich, as her husband is chair of the House Judiciary Committee, which oversees the FBI and US Attorney's Office, which is doing the investigation.

    This woman is a piece of work.  Here's some background on the wonderful Ms. Conyers. The arrogance is unbelievable.

    And here's a video of her being schooled in manners by an 8th grader.

    To some extent (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:14:50 AM EST
    To some extent I can't wait until the Republicans take over power again.

    It seems so natural to be disgusted by Republicans.... feeling exactly the same about the Democrats is a little disorienting.

    So stop the tilt-a-whirl.  I want to get off  --and go find a party I can respect.

    Parent

    Wow, yes, what a piece of work (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:17:37 AM EST
    and her comments show that she has the awful combination of being not only arrogant but just, well, dumb.  The dysfunctionalism of Detroit's so-called leadership must be just stunning.

    But these are people returned to office again and again by the voters of Detroit.  There it is.

    Parent

    Doesn't it seem odd (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:34:14 AM EST
    that the plea offer would be public knowledge, in a case where she hasn't been indicted yet?

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#24)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:46:06 AM EST
    I think because the deadline passed last night for her to accept the deal, might mean that the feds are now going to go full guns after her (gosh, I hope so!)

    It's neater for the feds - so they don't risk another emabarassing loss, but they already got the guy who did the bribing - Rayford Jackson, so I'm sure it will be easy to take the rest of the house of cards down.

    Apparently the press learned of the deal recently.  From the Free Press:

    Federal prosecutors have offered Detroit City Councilwoman Monica Conyers a plea deal as part of their wide-ranging investigation of City Hall corruption, but she has not accepted it, the Free Press learned Tuesday.

    The development comes one day after the U.S. Attorney's Office revealed that two key figures in a sludge-disposal deal admitted paying Conyers thousands of dollars in bribes to secure her support for a $1.2-billion city contract with Synagro Technologies. Conyers, who initially opposed the 2007 deal, switched her position as the council voted 5-4 to let Synagro dispose of wastewater sludge.

    A source familiar with the inquiry said federal investigators also are talking to Conyers about investments by Detroit's public pension funds. Conyers is a former trustee for the city's general retirement fund.

    Several people familiar with the talks spoke with the Free Press but asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of ongoing negotiations.

    Conyers declined to comment.

    One source said the prosecutors offered her ex-aide, Sam Riddle, a deal if he would plead guilty to bribery and tax evasion.

    Riddle said: "I won't discuss the elements of any offers ... but a bad deal is no deal."



    Parent
    I am just saying (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:43:42 AM EST
    that while I do find Monica Conyers pretty embarrassing, it's still kinda scummy for the prosecutors to leak the existence of plea negotiations before there's even been an indictment.  Being under federal investigation is a big enough cloud and I don't really think it's appropriate for them to go around making it bigger.

    The whole situation is sad because, in contrast to cities like Chicago and New York that have thrived in spite of (and occasionally because of) widespread corruption, Detroit has been getting killed by corruption for my entire life.  It breaks my heart.

    Parent

    I find it sad too (none / 0) (#55)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 12:43:21 PM EST
    While it is great theater, but being from the area and seeing these clowns not do anything to help Detroit when it is on a respirator, it kills me. I don't know how the deal got out before and indictment was handed down, but she was sent a pre-indictment letter last week.  Her name, as well as others in the scandal, have been out there for months (she was referred to as "Council Member A").

    Between Sharon McPhail accusing Kwame of rigging her chair to electrocute her, to Joann Watson, who only paid $68 in property tax last year, to Barbara Rose Collins, who wears tiaras to council meetings on her birthday, these people are unfortunately too in love with their chauffeur-driven limos and perks of being on the council to deal with the mountain of problems that face the city.

    And Steve, you know as well as I do, that the well-being and reputation of Detroit affects not only the metro area, but the entire state, as well.

    Sad.

    Parent

    Detroit affects the entire Midwest (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 01:33:53 PM EST
    as we can see on the other side of the lake with our soaring unemployment, a lot of it from the loss of the auto and peripheral supplier industries.

    For that matter, recent events re GM, etc., make it clear that Detroit affects the entire U.S. And that has been true since the American Revolution -- an extraordinary history there.  And even before, as the hq of Nouvelle France.

    So it's a heartbreaker for a lot of us, believe me.

    Parent

    Sen. John Ensign - hypocrite (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:35:24 AM EST
    Link

    Nevada Sen. John Ensign, an emerging Republican leader who has been mentioned as a possible 2012 presidential candidate, apologized Tuesday for an extramarital affair with a former staff member but indicated that he had no plans to resign.

    "It's absolutely the worst thing I have ever done in my life," he said at a televised news conference. "If there was ever anything that I could take back in my life, this would be it."

    A grim-faced Ensign, 51, did not identify the woman he was involved with from December 2007 to August 2008, although he described her and her husband as close friends who had worked for him.

    "That closeness put me into situations during a very difficult time in my marriage, which led to my inappropriate behavior," he said. "We caused deep pain to both families, and for that I am sorry."

    SNIP

    The senator also could be vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy. He belongs to Promise Keepers, a Christian group whose members pledge, among other things, to abide by biblical principles to build strong marriages.

    As a candidate for the Senate, Ensign demanded that President Clinton resign after having an affair with a White House intern. He also voted to impeach Clinton.

    Years later, Ensign strongly suggested that Sen. Larry Craig resign in the wake of his arrest in a 2007 airport bathroom sex sting in Minneapolis. The Idaho Republican pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor.



    Glenn Greenwald on Obama's transparency (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Pol C on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:53:49 AM EST
    He provides a detailed rundown of the administration's secrecy efforts. In addition to Iraq, Afghanistan, related intelligence matters, and the White House visitors log, the administration is seeking to keep the public from knowing the location of 46 coal ash dumps. This secrecy is all for our own damn good, don't you know (cough, hack).

    Click here for Greenwald, and here for the report on the coal ash sites.

    Greenwlald is so consistent, (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:58:42 AM EST
    detailed, and persistent. Would that everyone read his work.

    Parent
    Interesting article... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:42:35 AM EST
    ...on the BigHealth's practice of recsissons and the potential inpact on the "public" option.

    Executives of three of the nation's largest health insurers told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick policyholders, despite withering criticism from Republican and Democratic members of Congress who decried the practice as unfair and abusive.

    The hearing on the controversial action known as rescission, which has left thousands of Americans burdened with costly medical bills despite paying insurance premiums, began a day after President Obama outlined his proposals for revamping the nation's healthcare system.

    Those who think that HMO's don't go out of their way to avoid paying claims should take note of this...

    An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.


    Well that's not entirely true..... (none / 0) (#67)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 02:09:15 PM EST
    rescissions are necessary to prevent people who lie about preexisting conditions from obtaining coverage and driving up costs for others.

    Interesting to note how the article doesn't talk about how much those same three carriers paid out in claims and how many new members were enrolled during the "five-year period."  At least one of the three paid out over $116 Billion on claims over a three year period and grew it's membership rolls by 900K subscribers in the same timeframe.  I wonder what the totals for all three are?  Bottom line is it seems to go against the idea that they are looking to save money by dumping subscribers.

    I'd agree rules around pre-existing conditions should be looked at, but there needs to be some protections against fraud built in as well.  You know, what would actually help are initiatives underway that enable us citizens to keep electronic copies of our records on websites (w/the appropriate security/safeguards) so they can be accessed by those need to see them.  Laws passed in the last few years that allow us to obtain hard copies of our records help also.

    Parent

    Protection from fraud? (none / 0) (#75)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 03:06:08 PM EST
    You mean aside from full medical underwriting for individuals, pre-existing limitations and the existing civil penalities for committing fraud in obtaining and utilizing health care coverage?  

    Sorry, but when you accept a risk and bind the contract by collecting payment of premium, you should uphold the contract.  Especially when the deck is stacked in favor of BigHealth already.  

    And we won't even talk about the myriad of other scams that the insurers use to delay or deny claims--"medical necessity", coding auto-adjudication systems to deny certain service codes without investigation and the like.  

    I've been keeping a paper copy of my medical records for over 40 years now--not sure how that helps get me coverage or gets my claims paid any easier.  

    Parent

    Insurers are not above claiming pre-exisiting (none / 0) (#78)
    by BernieO on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 03:24:02 PM EST
    conditions by stretching the facts, too.

    It appalls me that so many Americans passively accept the fact that pre-existing conditions make so many people ineligible for coverage. People act as if people are somehow to blame for not being in perfect health and insurance companies are doing us a favor by cutting into their profits when they do deign to pay. At least most people act like this until coverage is denied to them or one of their loved ones.

    Most people I know have no clue that people in the rest of the developed world do not have this problem. Since our "liberal" media doesn't bother to tell us anything but hyped up horror stories about other countries' health care, this is not likely to change any time soon. Meanwhile the idiots at the Chamber of Commerce are still opposing health care reform even though the current system is a huge burden for American companies. I am afraid we may have to wait until the vast majority of companies have dropped employee coverage before the public wises up and demands a fair, affordable system for all.

    As discouraged as I am (I have very little hope that Obama will stand up against pressure from industry and the media) I intend to put as much pressure as I can on my representatives and the media. I would appreciate suggestions for what else we can all do to put pressure on to fix things now. I wish someone would organize a huge march on Washington to demand universal, affordable health care NOW. From what I can gather there is no time to waste getting involved.

    Parent

    For what it's worth..... (none / 0) (#109)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 06:17:34 AM EST
    Whenever one of your representatives is scheduled to speak at a forum, like a Town Hall, or something like that, and they take questions,  try to get as many citizens to agree to ask the same question....and follow up.

    Example of question:

    Senator/Congressman/Whatever, "thank you for speaking with us today, and telling us how you're working so very, very hard to see to it that we get good, affordable Health Insurance. What would you think of the idea that a bunch of us came up with like why don't you and your colleagues forfeit your extremely generous health insurance that you all voted for yourselves, and that we, your constituents are paying for? Just until we get the same insurance you have, of course. You know, make a statement! Just think of the media coverage and all the publicity you guys would get! You'd all be heroes, and before you know it, it would spread like wildfire, coast to coast, until ALL our Senators and Congress critters would be just like us: desperate, destitute, and fearful of imminent bankruptcy should one of our loved ones get ill. And wouldn't it be even greater if the insurance company that cancels, or refuses to pay for one of your illnesses is the very one that gave you all that campaign money so that you could come down here and tell us how very, very hard you're working for us?"

    I'll sit down and let you answer because I see a long, long line of your supporters forming, and I bet they too just can't wait to share their ideas with you."

    Or something like that.


    Parent

    cha ching, costs, costs, costs (none / 0) (#80)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 04:03:01 PM EST
    You mean aside from full medical underwriting for individuals, pre-existing limitations and the existing civil penalities for committing fraud in obtaining and utilizing health care coverage

    Let's see, (20,000 civil penalty suits x salaries of full time employee's investigation of said suits) + (20,000 civil penalty suits x lawyer fees) = a lot of money that ulitmately gets passed on to someone.  I would think it's in everyone's interest to avoid those costs where possible.

    There's also a flip side to your point about the contract.  Sign one knowingly committing fraud, you're subject to it's penalties, of which I'm sure termination of said contract was one of them.

    Re: fraud, I'm not talking about people who genuinely have a claim of oversight on their part.  There needs to be a process/standard where prior conditions (if they continue to be criteria for determing whether someone is covered) are truthfully determined.  Denying the obviousness of this and saying "oh well, tuff for u big bad insurance company you're stuck now" doesn't solve the problem, it spreads the problem to all of us.

    I don't know about these scams you refer to, and you're right, let's not talk about them cuz it's a strawman I'm tired of hearing about.  I will give you a more plausible scenario however:  

    Hospital negotiates rates tied to specific code for specific hospital service.  Hospital fails to bill insurer w/the specific code.  Should the insurer then, 1-automatically deny the claim w/a message indicating the reason for the denial that advises the provider to resubmit correctly, 2-suspend the claim for manual review by an examiner who has more pressing claims (e.g. some of those medical necessity claims you refer to) to deal with, or 3-pay the claim at the wrong rate and try to recoup the money later from the hospital.  Which do you think is more cost effective?  The answer is 1 because 2 & 3 add cost and/or unnecessary administrative overheard to the system at either the insurer or hospital.

    Parent

    You're right... (none / 0) (#85)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 04:28:27 PM EST
    ...you don't know.  Civil penalties are not civil suits.  They are the penalties codified into statute for committing fraud.  See the difference?

    There is a process for "determining a process/standard where prior conditions (if they continue to be criteria for determing whether someone is covered) are truthfully determined".  As I said, it is called full medical underwriting.  It is too freakin' bad if the Company can't perform that function properly and limit its liability appropriately and wants a do-over when they figure out they screwed up and are facing high dollar claims.

    Speaking of strawmen, your negotiated rate scenerio has nothing to do with denial of service under a Member's contracted coverage.  Here's a hint for you--providers in this case are allowed to resubmit a corrected claim.  Not to mention that Companies are required to pend, not deny, a claim that is incomplete or incorrect.  

    Parent

    Excuse me for not being a lawyer (none / 0) (#90)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 05:04:52 PM EST
    I would think an insurance company's legal team would be the one pursuing "penalties codified into statute for committing fraud," no?

    High dollar?  20,000 subs over 5 years spread across 3 large insurers?  I'm not an Actuarial either, but that doesn't like a huge burden considering known outlays for shorter time periods.  I don't know about these cases in the article, but I would imagine based on the nature of their jobs the folks in underwriting tend to be pretty saavy.  That they would miss these conditions 20,000 times; which would imply a higher number, you really believe that?

    Corrected claim, i.e. those w/a specific bill type so they don't automatically deny as duplicates?  Do these corrected claims reference the original claim #?  You're implication about substantial requirements for timeliness of processing (both federal and state) is correct, hence my point that these claims don't just deny or people just get dropped w/o valid reason.


    Parent

    Not a lawyer either. (none / 0) (#101)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:50:41 PM EST
    No, fraud is reported to the Division of Insurance who investigates it and either hands out sanctions and or penalties for agents/companies or refers it to the AG's office for any action against the public/providers.  

    Very common industry practice to have a $ threshold that triggers an investigation--those claims being considered high dollar.  Not really  a "missing" something issue, it is an issue of someone developing a condition down the road and the Company revoking coverage using practices that don't meet the requirement of law.

    As the article points out, there wouldn't be the outrage if the industry limited recsission to those that truly involve fraud or misrepresentation.  They fact that they won't  and are being heavily fined by the states and/or sued for their practices tells me all I need to know.

    My example didn't have anything at all to do with negotiated rates or prompt payment requirements because that's not what I'm talking about.  Every Company is going to get dinged for late improper claims payment--guaranteed.  Predictable really.

    I'm talking about the liberties that Company's take with no auth, NMN, SIU referals, pre-ex investigations and WC/other coverage.  Maybe your Company is clean as a whistle, but I really doubt that.  Either way, that's what an audit is for.  

     

    Parent

    Meanwhile, lost in this blizzard of paper (none / 0) (#96)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 06:21:48 PM EST
    are real people - patients - who are not responsible for coding claim forms, but who are the ones who suffer as a result of denials.

    It doesn't take an advanced degree - just common sense - to understand that with hundreds of insurance companies, each with their own codes and forms and procedures, there are millions of hours and dollars being lost to administrative hoop-jumping, none of which is doing jack-squat to improve the lives and health of people who are shelling out an increasingly large percentage of their income for less and less coverage.

    It may be an astonishingly rewarding business plan - financially speaking - to sell expensive insurance to people who are already healthy and unlikely to be requiring much beyond routine physicals, but let's not kid ourselves that insurance companies are particularly interested in covering and paying out claims for people who actually need health care.

    So, what will happen if, under whatever reform is developed, insurance companies cannot refuse to insure those with pre-existing or chronic conditions?  Or drop anyone for getting an expensive illness?  Will that requirement be meaningless because the premiums will be so high that the coverage would be unaffordable?  And then what?  Oh, sure - the public option.  Will that be a gigantic pool of the sickest and poorest - and how much of a drain will that be on taxpayers?

    The system is very sick, and the reform I am hearing about is not going to heal it.  We are missing out on an opportunity to fix what's wrong, and do it in a way that will improve the delivery of and access to care, and ultimately, the health of the people - who are supposed to be what is at the heart of the whole thing.

    Parent

    Gyrfalcons (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:44:30 AM EST
    On a lighter note, if anybody wants to know what actual Gyrfalcons look like, here's a terrific article from the BBC.  They've done some carbon dating on nests up in Greenland and discovered they're hundreds and even thousands of years old.  Great pix of the birds, too.

    Very cool. (none / 0) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:56:59 AM EST
    The end of the world is near (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 01:10:59 PM EST
    McCaskill claims Obama did not follow the law when he fired Gerald Walpin, Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service last week.

    "The White House has failed to follow the proper procedure in notifying Congress as to the removal of the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service," McCaskill said. "The legislation which was passed last year requires that the president give a reason for the removal."

    McCaskill, a key Obama ally, said that the president's stated reason for the termination, "Loss of confidence' is not a sufficient reason."



    Ah, I knew it was too good to be true (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 01:15:06 PM EST
    Claire just Twittered that Obama finally did provide reasons because a request for investigation came from a Republican appointed US attorney.

    I'm still not buying it.

    Parent

    But if McCaskill buys it (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 01:30:25 PM EST
    then she has had her little show of independence and can go back to obsequiousness.  And the world can shift back onto its axis.  And both can just keep spinning, spinning, spinning. . . .

    Parent
    As one of Claire's constituents, (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 05:01:31 PM EST
    I'm definitely looking forward to 2012 when she is up for reelection. As a member of the Third Way, Claire should appreciate the fact that I will be looking for a third way (i.e. another option) in 2012.

    Parent
    does anyone else (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 04:18:11 PM EST
    suspect that in the next six months almost nothing will have been resolved with our financial systems and economy?

    No urgency until December (none / 0) (#91)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 05:14:17 PM EST
    -- correct.  That's when the federal extension of state unemployment compensation runs out.  So that's when Congress will be asked to extend it again . . . because nothing will have been really fixed with this economy.

    Parent
    recovery (none / 0) (#111)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 08:59:13 AM EST
    I think we are in for a surprise when the people who believe that the worst is over and that their jobs weren't going anywhere have gone.  Another 608k filed for new ue last week, which seems impossible to me but every week there it is.

    I cannot remember a weaker labor environment although continuing claims were higher in 82 and 73.  I think there are more two working families now which seems like a plus until you consider that most americans spent according to both incomes.  

    If the layoffs continue at this pace October will be red dawn dark.....

    Parent

    New state jobless totals out today (none / 0) (#116)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 01:36:25 PM EST
    in my state, and we're above 9% (adjusted and all that).  And we're not one of the worst, it seems.

    I know lots of people laid-off here, and that's how I know that their unemployment extension to come in a couple of weeks will run out in December.

    Some are back in school.  Some are just in denial, as you say.  It is going to be desperate in December.

    Parent

    Is radio going the way of newspapers? (4.50 / 2) (#19)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:26:41 AM EST
    It seems the they are facing similar problems as their cousins in the newspaper game.  

    Part of the problem: radio is no longer the center of the audio conversation. It's moved to downloads and the latest mobile device. Distracted, radio listeners have begun tuning in for shorter stretches.

    Per week, "the average amount of time spent listening to the radio is down significantly, dropping 5 percent from 19 hours and 32 minutes in 2007 to 18 hours and 30 minutes in 2008," according to MediaPost, which tied the decline to the growing popularity of MP3 players and iPods, "as well as non-radio audio delivered via the Internet."

    Analysts do predict the industry will hit bottom in 2010. But some doubt things will improve dramatically.

    I shan't weep for the lose of sterile programming like Clear Channel subjects us to here.  Hopefully, the door will open to more locally controlled stations--and if fact, my dial is now tuned to a new independent, local station.

    But not every market has that luxury--as anyone who's ever lived in Des Moines knows all too well.  You'd think it was still 1985 by the average playlist there.  

    Interesting. Shared this info (none / 0) (#92)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 05:16:49 PM EST
    from your comment when I ran into a friend who is very knowledgeable, tracks this stuff about the media industry.  Yes, you're spot on; the precipitous drop in ad dollars is hitting beyond print media.

    But this is really interesting, too:  It's not all going to online advertising, instead.  Online also is down 21 percent.

    So this economy is hurting all media.  Just some more than others.

    Parent

    Thanks for the prompt. (none / 0) (#99)
    by EL seattle on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:30:32 PM EST
    I did a quick search and came up with this link.

    One of my hopes is that someday maybe some of the smug know-it-alls that spend so much time deriding radio or newspapers or books or TV whenever there's a report about a media company's financial trouble will just shut up for a minute and recognize that there's more to these problems than just a matter of "obsolete" "dinosaurs" that "just can't compete" with "new media" anymore.

    But today I visited a media news website and read some really snide comments about the 30% layoffs at MySpace.  It's as though in the virtual world of 2009, empathy is something that's treated almost like a sign of weakness.

    (sigh)

    Parent

    Radio... (none / 0) (#106)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:33:17 PM EST
    ...like other media does, promotes a sense of community.  In the case of radio, it is through programming and sponsorship of concerts and events where people of various backgrounds come together share a mutual connection through their love of music.  That, in turn, can lead to the dreaded empathy.  And gawd forbid, things like creativity and exchanging of ideas.  The horror, the horror.  

    But then, I'm pretty old skool, so I like those kind of things.  If that makes me weak in the eyes of certain segments of humanity, well, that's just sad.

    I just hope it is an (de)evolutionary thing.  Nothing I'd better than see than locally owned and programmed radio stations who are invested in the community rule the airwaves like they did when I was a youngster. I think it would be good for all aspects of the music industry.  

    After all, the easiest way to find new music that you like (and might buy or pay a cover charge to hear) remains via the radio.  That directly affects the musicians, the clubs, the labels and if you put out a quality product that attracts listeners, the advertisers as well.

    Parent

    Well Obama continues to disappoint (none / 0) (#4)
    by kenosharick on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:51:05 AM EST
    on gay issues. This presidential memo is certainly the LEAST he could do.

    Seems to me he had (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:27:19 AM EST
    Little choice after his State Dept.stepped up to the plate.  

    Parent
    Good point. And it doesn't look (none / 0) (#65)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 01:36:19 PM EST
    like permanent policy.  The SoS can't effect that, but POTUS can.  Watching, waiting, watching. . . .

    Parent
    I just met (none / 0) (#6)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:54:55 AM EST
    On another blog, two former posters from here who recognized my handle as a regular on this site.  I use the same handle everywhere.

    Both said the same thing.  They left this site because of PPJ, who apparently only stalks people here.

    I don't have a dog in that fight, so I'm just sayin'.

    I just got some good press, so if anyone is interested in the origin of my handle, go here.  I'm the guy on the left.

    Ole Jimmy... (none / 0) (#14)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:06:39 AM EST
    ...jumped on the very first comment I ever made here.  However, since I'd been lurking for a long, long time before that, I knew what his game was and made it clear to him that I wouldn't be engaging him.  He tried again to bait me into a conversation a time or two, but once he realized I was serious about it, he's left me alone.  

    I've never felt like he was stalking me though.  Like most trolls, if you don't give them the attention they seek, they go away.  However, some people here enjoy pushing his buttons and that's fine for them and usually humerous to me.

    He's got as much right to post here as anyone--just as long as he follows the rules.  

    Parent

    Very cool Repack... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 10:17:20 AM EST
    Congrats on the cover man!

    I always get a kick out of PPJ...I kinda miss him and have to head over to his blog to say hi once in awhile.  I can't imagine why anybody would say they had to leave the TL community because of him, his views are whacky but he's harmless, and aces in my book.

    I know Dark Avenger has a hard-on for him for some reason...when PPJ does comment DA is never far behind...they're soulmates or something:)

    Parent

    Party on DA... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:00:59 AM EST
    I love ya both...don't take the old man to heart...we're all just knuckleheads spouting off on blogs, ya know?

    Parent
    Sometimes knuckleheads (none / 0) (#51)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 12:20:45 PM EST
    and sometimes we're self-righteous parties of one tilting at windmills thinking we speak for the majority. Okay, you're right, we're knuckleheads then too.

    And I've given much more thought to your bridge tending. Fireside poetry reading could certainly work under nearly any conditions. My problem of course, with credit due to some author other than myself, is that my romantic poetic approach might be less successful than yours when I come out with one combining my favorite pastime such as this.


    We've waited all winter, withstood snow and cold
    Thru free agent signings for millions in gold.
    "Play ball", "Batter up", the umpire will yell,
    Peanuts and crackerjacks the vendors will sell.
    Like Bogey has said with panache and glitz,
    "A hot dog at the ballpark beats roast beef at the Ritz!"

    I'm not so sure that will do a thing for my on base percentage.

    Parent

    It would work on me.... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 01:18:43 PM EST
    C.G...a stand-up double at least:)

    Don't feel bad, Whitman worked better than my sh*t ever did..."I Sing the Body Electric" is a guaranteed grand slam!

    I SING the Body electric;  
    The armies of those I love engirth me, and I engirth them;  
    They will not let me off till I go with them, respond to them,  
    And discorrupt them, and charge them full with the charge of the Soul.


    Parent
    Congrats.... (none / 0) (#42)
    by desertswine on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:47:03 AM EST
    I didn't realize that mountain biking was an Olympic sport. What a deal.

    Parent
    Washington Monthy/Political Animal down? (none / 0) (#31)
    by TomStewart on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:11:11 AM EST
    I'm getting a 'there is no website here' page when I try to call up Political Animal. Anyone know what's up?

    Ok (none / 0) (#86)
    by TomStewart on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 04:30:48 PM EST
    They got hacked, bad. They're back up, but not in firefox.

    Parent
    Bank reform coming? (none / 0) (#34)
    by CST on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:18:34 AM EST
    It's about time

    it includes raising capital requirements for banks, more regulation of hedge funds and derivatives, and gives shareholders more power over executive bonuses.

    It also creates a Consumer Financial Protection Agency to regulate mortgages, credit cards, and savings products.

    Not surprising:

    "The US Chambers of Commerce, a business lobbying group, has already said it opposes key parts of the reform. "

    The only reform... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:36:22 AM EST
    we need is a reform of our own habits...don't give the banks your money, problem solved.

    The words of Ryan Bingham...

    Man I never understand why all my money
    Goes down to man at the bank
    And all he does is sit and think
    About the money that I'm gonna make

    From "Dollar a Day" off of "Mescalito".

    Parent

    That simply, entirely ignores (none / 0) (#43)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:47:50 AM EST
    the systemic problems of the banking system as well as the realities of life for most of your fellow citizens.

    But -- understood.  Individualism is a fun 'tood for you, dood.

    Parent

    In my book... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:54:31 AM EST
    the banking system is the systemic problem Cream:)

    Parent
    Well, yes, a system is . . . systemic (none / 0) (#60)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 01:27:01 PM EST
    but the banking systemic need not be a systemic problem.  It has been improved before by strong regulations and enforcement of regulations.

    Of course, a real problem in a conversation can be the convenient resort to conversation stoppers such as "I don't do it, so I don't know why anyone does it, so I don't care about it," etc.  Tends to make one wonder why the stopper entered the conversation at all.  Bored today?

    Parent

    Bored of banks... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 01:37:44 PM EST
    yeah, and a little Bored with the USA.  Compared to Iranians we are so lame.

    The thing is I do care, why I don't know, but I do...hence the reminder that we have the tools we need to fix the banks already at our disposal, we just lack the will.

    But point taken, I'll shut up now and leave the grown-ups to it:)

    Parent

    Here's something... (none / 0) (#68)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 02:16:57 PM EST
    ...that might liven up your day.

    Starting July 2, Colorado casinos will be offering more games, like roulette and craps, as well as increasing their betting limits to $100. Voters approved the move when they passed Amendment 50 last fall.

    Plus, 24 hour gambling!  Too bad you can't find a nice $2 blackjack table to save your life up there these days.  Stupid poker!

    Parent

    Nice... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 02:40:31 PM EST
    Place a sawbuck on Red 30 for me when you play your first legal spin in Colorado!  I don't think I've ever seen a 2 dollar blackjack table outside of Vegas...Friday night in AC the minimum is 25, 15 if you get lucky.  

    Might have a place to legally play in my home state myself soon...the Shinnecocks are making headway, though it feels like I've been saying that for 2 -3 years.  I'm tired of trekking down to AC or up to Connecticut...it's so stupid, not to mention un-ecofriendly.

    Parent

    That's a shame. (none / 0) (#102)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:06:40 PM EST
    There used to be all kinds of $2 tables up in the Hills, but then the Poker craze broke out and all the available space was converted to that. Gone- like being able to smoke and play at the same time. Progress, free market capitalism or somesuch, I guess.  

    I always liked to play for a couple hours on a Twenty while my usual gambling partner sends all of her $ in 10 minutes at the slots and is hitting me up for cash soon thereafter.  At least that way I get a free beverage or two out of the deal.  

    The next time I'm up just might be when I'm taking your sorry behind on a road trip--ya' never know.

    Parent

    Then you do (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 03:00:25 PM EST
    want to fix the banks.  That's different.  That's agreement.

    Parent
    I want to fix them all right... (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 03:18:22 PM EST
    fix them good...fix the big bad ones right out of business by starving them of the fruits of our labor.

    I'm crazy, not stupid...I can understand the need for banking even if I have no personal use for it.  The sooner the Potters are replaced by George Baileys the better...and that is totally up to us.

    Parent

    Okay, we agree even more (none / 0) (#93)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 05:21:12 PM EST
    as I've written here before about the joys of having convinced my spouse to switch to my George Bailey sort of bank, some years ago, for our everyday accounts.  And that it got even better this year, when I got him to agree to switch our mortgage, too.  We are getting incredible, personal service along with great rates, after absolutely awful and impersonal non-service on the mortgage, our major investment, from the big bad bank.

    Spouse had fun the other day making quite a show of taking the last documents from the now-defunct mortgage to the shredder, muttering imprecations at our former mortgage bank as he did so.

    So -- you also see that we need banks, but we need good banks.  Or we end up with really lumpy mattresses and can not sleep in peace.

    Parent

    Actually... (none / 0) (#100)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:38:31 PM EST
    I sleep better with that lump...my meager life savings being a number on a spreadsheet in a database would keep me up nights...but to each their own:)

    So would you dare to say we don't need more regulations on banks, we just need to be smarter about which banks we use?  That what we have allowed our "banking system" to become is a systemic fraud?  Not because of a lack of regs so much as a lack of personal responsibility and street smarts?

    Parent

    We need to restore bank regulation (none / 0) (#117)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 01:40:41 PM EST
    and enforcement of regulation to what it was, pre-conservative ascendancy, for starters.  That much I know.  Whether we need more regulation than we had then, I'm not the one to know.

    And yes, even so, I'm all for wiser consumers of the banking industry, because I have seen good ones go bad.  So I keep my eye on even my wonderful neighborhood bank, you bet, for the first signs of slipping service -- or for being bought by a non-local bank.  Both of those were signs of slippage to come with the previous bank.  

    And that was sad, as it was the good bank that gave me my mortgage, as a single mom, when no one else would do so -- because it was a good local bank then and took the time to look into it.  That's why we need banks, and good ones, because they can do good things.

    Parent

    Re: Blogger/Clinton Summit (none / 0) (#45)
    by Idearc on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:51:22 AM EST
    Happy Hump Day!

    Dear BTD:

    Did any blogger ask President Clinton for his thoughts on DADT?  

    I'd really like to get his two cents on how the issue should be confronted and perhaps most importantly, given his history, when it should be confronted.

    If no one asked, that's okay.  Even the best people get nervous and forget in such situations.  

    Still, I found his remarks on health care and the Senate legislative process really interesting, and I wonder what his thoughts are on this issue.  

    After all, as I imagine he would tell anyone, based on his failure on this subject, process and timing are paramount considerations.  

    I doubt Bill could say what he (none / 0) (#53)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 12:41:33 PM EST
    must really think now about DADT...that the president should just issue an executive order.  Given Hil's position, Bill cannot be seen to contradict Obama on policy...

    And by the way...why is a meeting with some bloggers called a summit?

    Parent

    Obama is definitely (none / 0) (#69)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 02:32:24 PM EST
    in a stronger position to issue the exec order.  Back in 93, not that many Americans were in favor of changing the old rule and all of his Jnt Chiefs, including the popular Chairman, Colin Powell, were strongly against.  Moreover, probably a strong majority of Congress wanted to keep the status quo, and would have found a way to override any exec decision.

    Today, iirc, the vast majority of the public favors doing away with DADT.  I'll give O some small slack here with all he has on his plate to deal with, but this is under the assumption that he'll get around to doing the right thing by the end of the year.

    DOMA, and the way his DOJ has badly handled the substance and the PR, is quite another matter.  Puzzling political misstep, seems to me.

    Parent

    Brodie...agree with your 1st (none / 0) (#71)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 02:40:42 PM EST
    paragraph.  In fact, DADT was codified in legislation by the congress, was it not?  

    But as you say, things have changed and an exec order is called for.  NOW.  Just get it over with, fer crissakes...when everyone is too busy with other 'major' issues to trouble themselves with fighting against gays in the military.  This is the perfect time to do it IMHO. As a straight person, I cut Obama no slack on this at all.  If he doesn't do it now, I doubt he ever will.

    Obama's DOJ is a great disappointment on nearly every front.  Every day it's something.  Check out Greenwald for the list.

    Sheesh...these people are depressing...

    Parent

    But Bill Clinton was POTUS (none / 0) (#81)
    by Idearc on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 04:13:11 PM EST
    If it's possible to repeal DADT though a executive order, then why didn't President Clinton do so?  

    Parent
    See discussion two days ago (none / 0) (#94)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 05:22:04 PM EST
    on exactly this question -- what the realities were two decades ago.  As your current president would say, we're talking about the urgency of now.

    Parent
    Isn't he *your* president too? (none / 0) (#113)
    by Idearc on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 12:47:57 PM EST
    So did you vote for McCain, McKinney, Nader, or write-in?

    Wow, I've never actually come across a puma.

    Sad.

    But, the question stands.

    Bill Clinton left office 8 years and 5 months ago, NOT 20 years ago.

    He could have signed an executive order 8 years ago.

    I'm asking why he didn't?

    Parent

    My, but you assume a lot (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 01:42:21 PM EST
    Yeh, he's my president.  So was Bush, for that matter.  Didn't vote for either one.  Doesn't make me a "PUMA."  Don't go the way of certain bloggers who see things that aren't there.  Next, you'll be hearing voices. . . .

    Parent
    Methinks the lady doth protest too much (2.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Idearc on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 09:20:24 PM EST
    My, that was defensive response.

    I had no idea PUMA was such a cutting description.

    But on the other hand, I can see why.  

    I always found it hilarious how a voter, too left to identify with Democratic Party, hitched their wagon to Hillary, someone who voted for the Iraq war and who was a proud card carrying member of the anti-liberal, pro-war mongering DLC.

    The wages of sisterhood.

    Parent

    There you go again...YOU ARE OVERLIMIT (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 09:04:56 AM EST
    You were exposed as being a newbie with a very nasty tone just a couple of days ago. And, you've been reminded everyday to keep to 4 comments a day for the first 30 days.


    Parent
    Re: Blogger/Clinton Summit (none / 0) (#49)
    by Idearc on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 12:03:49 PM EST
    Any idea on why Clinton held this summit?

    It was a positive meeting.  But the last time held a blogger meeting was nearly 3 years ago.

    Since he waited so long to do this again, it begs the question why now?

    I mean he could have easily included a blogger conference as part of his yearly press availability for the Clinton Global Initiative conferences.  But he didn't.

    I wonder if it had anything to do with the Virgina Gubernatorial primary.   Over at MYDD, Jerome has a big post on he brought down TerryMc.    

    Given the timing, maybe the events are related.

    Is anyone concerned ? (none / 0) (#54)
    by samsguy18 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 12:43:07 PM EST
    About how the Obama administration appears to daily roll out a new czar.... new policy.... new program overhaul ETC......all with caveats if we don't act know disaster will occur. Speaking to the AMA he stated if we don't attend to healthcare reform NOW the country will go the way of GM. The situation with the IG in California and how they are now trying to destroy his reputation is disturbing. One would almost think the administration is deliberately trying to create chaos and keep the country in a state of anxiety to push forth their agenda regardless.!
    "When emotions overstimulate the brain,listening effectively becomes difficult "

    Activity looks like action (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 01:28:18 PM EST
    that's why.  But by that measure, a classroom full of kindergarteners constitutes audacious change.:-)

    Parent
    It looks like micromanaging (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 03:27:38 PM EST
    to me, or window dressing.

    Another layer of bureaucracy, too.  And since each czar needs a staff, maybe Obama was being literal when he said he was going to create millions of new jobs.  All by himself.

    Parent

    It's called (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 06:23:27 PM EST
    looking busy, while doing nothing.

    Parent
    Is that what Bill Maher said he should do (none / 0) (#82)
    by Idearc on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 04:17:07 PM EST
    Bill Maher said Obama should be more like Bush, which includes manufacturing fear and turmoil to shove legislation down Congress's throat.

    Maher received a positive response for opinion.

    Parent

    Obama on keeping his pledges (none / 0) (#56)
    by joze46 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 12:47:29 PM EST
    What can you do for your country? Not reporting the truth, and keeping high level government actions and decisions secret in details, and the devils in it, that's what we do best. There maybe the axis of evil but ladies and gentlemen an argument can be made most generously America greases that axis to keep it rolling. Many have drawn the conclusion in that hate radio and now broadband cable which is likely composed of huge biased political product commercials that stretch the truth or out right lie too deliberately mix confusion.  

    Most of the politicians say the American people are smart yet many operate within the notion Americans have a short memory and are stupid. Like an article I came across by Politics & Media , Michael Wolff, founder of Newser claims Americans are morons.

    http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/people-are-morons-an-interview-with-michael-wolff

    Sometime I tent to agree with him. Anyway check it out he has the view that print is dead. For me, it all reduces down to a simple theory. Most Americans now realize how the printed media has been biased in the news and reporting. The real reason they are going out of business or the "majority" going out of business is likely Republican owned rant machines.

    As far as Obama keeping his pledges one has to think it will take some time to dig into the secrets and understand who is to be trusted. For me, and agree with what is obvious is Obama is learning about the mix of the system he is in and likely needs more space to figure things out.

    Obviously Obama has a lot of crap flying at him, however, intelligent as he is, I consider that Obama will use the immediate resources in talent and personal advice needed to tool around this mess and try to do whats good for the majority.  

    Face it from the time after the civil war those southerners have been a rhetoric of no so why will they seem to change now after sacking the treasury likely creating a huge obstacle in the background that is not reported. But we should know the Democrats present some of the same.

    As Noam Chomsky writes about Americans fooling around in other countries affairs "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged", "thats pretty tough stuff" and maybe true and that would be Turing a page in history for sure. Yes, there are those who will challenge that.

    http://www.chomsky.info/talks/1990----.htm

    In that we do keep secret is ugly and counts, face it, Britain, France, Germany, the Russia, China, and America we have been screwing around in this Middle East for over many decades messing up their minds to get that oil. Greed screwed us all...Chomsky has an interesting thing on torture.

    The Fire Letterman Protest (none / 0) (#72)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 02:47:42 PM EST
    reached a crescendo today as the planned protest of angry citizens took place across the street from his studio in New York City prior to the taping of his nightly show.


    A crowd of 15 protesters upset with the late night comic held signs and occasionally shouted as they stood across the street from Letterman's studio.

    But they were often hidden from view by the more than 35 members of the media there to cover the protest.

    I'm fairly certain the Naked Cowboy draws a bigger crowd.

    Of course (none / 0) (#74)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 03:05:29 PM EST
    What they don't realize is that Dave owns his show and the theater, so he isn't going to go anywhere.  CBS isn't going to drop him - especially if Conan stays as bad as he's been.

    Parent
    He had just signed a 3yr deal (none / 0) (#77)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 03:20:25 PM EST
    before this went down.

    Parent
    If he can no longer get A-list guests, (none / 0) (#98)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 06:58:12 PM EST
    or bring in the advertisers, or enough viewers, CBS will have no choice.

    Parent
    He's got A-list guests this week (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:44:15 PM EST
    I do wonder, however, if some women backed out.  I noticed a whole lot of men in the preview I saw, and not very many women.

    Parent
    As most TV folks do ... (none / 0) (#107)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 09:52:14 PM EST
    just like Murphy Brown, Dave is benefiting from the free advertising and milking it for what it's worth. Tonight's Top 10 list is "Things Overheard at the Fire David Letterman Rally".

    Parent
    Clearly his apology was for (none / 0) (#108)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 12:15:16 AM EST
    show. He certainly doesn't recognize or respect the people who were offended.


    Parent
    Awwwwww (none / 0) (#88)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 04:48:52 PM EST
    Rep. Linda Sanchez brings her baby to the floor of the House.

    Ralph Nader (none / 0) (#95)
    by lentinel on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 06:02:47 PM EST
    Ralph Nader has written a very good article about Obama and single-payer health care.

    Nader on Obama and health care.

    Can't shake these doubts... (none / 0) (#103)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:22:48 PM EST
    about letting Democrats and Republicans staff the single-payer administrative system, or if we'll see new lifestyle restrictions or sin taxes when the benefactor is paying the medical bills, or if quality of care will suffer any...but its probably worth a shot...if President Nader was implementing the thing I'd feel even better about it.

    Parent
    I'll tell you who I want... (none / 0) (#105)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:54:12 PM EST
    ...staffing it.  Not lawyers, not doctors, not accountants, not career civil servants.  No, I'd want nurses.  The only group of professionals that I've found that I would absolutely, positively, without a doubt want to have on my side if my life/health was on the line.

    /nurses rock  

    Parent

    I'll tell my sister you said that.... (none / 0) (#110)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 08:04:57 AM EST
    she is an oncology nurse...and a damn good one if the heartfelt letters of appreciation she gets from the loved ones of her patients are any indication.

    I don't know how she does it, watching patient after patient she gets attached to die...she's twice as strong as I'll ever be.  

    Parent

    It takes a very special.... (none / 0) (#112)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 09:08:41 AM EST
    ...kind of person to be an oncology nurse--or a neonatal one or a trauma one or...

    I've been very lucky to have been cared by the best of the best--and to call many of them my dear friends.  

    So, by all means, pass my sentiments on to your sister.  She's aces in my eyes!

    Parent

    I am going to qualify your statement a bit... (none / 0) (#114)
    by vml68 on Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 01:22:44 PM EST
    I think it takes a very special kind of person to be a good nurse. My mom was a neonatal nurse and if I may so, a very good one. It was a long time ago in another part of the world. I still remember the gratitude of all the parents whose babies she cared for.
    She really loved her job, it was not just a profession to her.

    Parent