Now I remember why I was an independent all those years.

[Central Scrutinizer]

that is between me and my death panel

I'm having our rec room redone in death paneling.

[jff]

I'm having our rec room redone in death paneling.

 

Not a bad idea. Suicide started looking like an increasingly attractive option a few years ago when I was painting the paneled walls in my rec room.

[ih8music]

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN2.aspx

 

2am DC time and the Senate is still voting down all of the republican amendments to the reconciliation bill. Reid apparently has said they're going to stay until they get through them all. Nothing like watching 70 & 80 yr old lawmakers pull an all-nighter. truly bizarre.

 

I guess perhaps there still are the remnants of a democratic spine in that body after all...

[ih8music]

... and apparently they found "two minor provisions" in the recon bill that violated the budget rules, so they will have to be removed from the bill and it'll be sent back to the House for final passage.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36016267...h_care_reform/

 

and the beat goes on...

[Good Old Neon]

The conservative movement continues to eat its own - this time, it's David Frum for daring to speak his mind/tell the truth.

 

David Frum, AEI SPLIT: Conservative's Position 'Terminated' By Major Think Tank

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/25/david-frum-aei-split-cons_n_513544.html

[LouieB]

It gives the conservatives a chance to catch up with the left.

We have been eating our own for years.

 

 

LouieB

[MattZ]

At the risk of making a sweeping overgeneralization, between zero Republican votes on healthcare and Frum getting canned, it's really quite stunning how good Republicans are at getting their party to toe the line. Compare that to the Dems, who, with vast majorities in the Senate and House, had to water down their own health care bill to get enough votes to pass it. There's no public option in this bill because of the Dems, not the Republicans.

[Edie]

At the risk of making a sweeping overgeneralization, between zero Republican votes on healthcare and Frum getting canned, it's really quite stunning how good Republicans are at getting their party to toe the line. Compare that to the Dems, who, with vast majorities in the Senate and House, had to water down their own health care bill to get enough votes to pass it. There's no public option in this bill because of the Dems, not the Republicans.

 

I think that you could exchange "Republicans" with "minority party" in the first sentence and that would generally be true. But I agree, Repubs are better at it the narrower the definition of "Republican" becomes.

 

Also, since I got fired from my job yesterday after 7+ years, I am thrilled that healthcare for all is now law, even though the provision that would help us is years away. I am searching for a good quality, high deductible short term medical insurance policy that will work for our family, and scrambling to get doctor appointments scheduled before the 31st when my current policy is up. Booyah.

[bjorn_skurj]

At the risk of making a sweeping overgeneralization, between zero Republican votes on healthcare and Frum getting canned, it's really quite stunning how good Republicans are at getting their party to toe the line. Compare that to the Dems, who, with vast majorities in the Senate and House, had to water down their own health care bill to get enough votes to pass it. There's no public option in this bill because of the Dems, not the Republicans.

That would be how the GOP does so well, even though more people are registered Democrats - discipline and better turnout at the polls.

[bjorn_skurj]

Also, since I got fired from my job yesterday after 7+ years, I am thrilled that healthcare for all is now law, even though the provision that would help us is years away. I am searching for a good quality, high deductible short term medical insurance policy that will work for our family, and scrambling to get doctor appointments scheduled before the 31st when my current policy is up. Booyah.

Shit - vibes, Edie. COBRA?

[Edie]

Shit - vibes, Edie. COBRA?

 

Thanks a million Bjorn. I am not sad. The job had become increasingly unfun in recent months. I will not miss it. I am nothing if not a survivor

 

But from what I recall, COBRA is expensive -- all we really need is major medical covered.

[bjorn_skurj]

Thanks a million Bjorn. I am not sad. The job had become increasingly unfun in recent months. I will not miss it. I am nothing if not a survivor

 

But from what I recall, COBRA is expensive -- all we really need is major medical covered.

Obama has made it so the employer has to now pick up 65 percent of the COBRA costs (which are the full, non-subsidized costs of the health insurance policy) for a certain time period. I think that is still in effect.

[mountain bed]

Hang in there, Edie. I probably won't be too far behind you in the unemployment line.

 

I want to say this, as well: this bill (mediocre as it is) would not have gone anywhere if it wasn't for the tenacity of one Madame Speaker. Hate all you want, but that woman has more spine than any 2 men you could name in Congress. So I'm gonna wish her a happy 70th birthday today. Cheers, Nancy.

[Oil Can Boyd]

Things only get sillier: Rachel Maddow vs. Scott Brown. Today's Boston Globe included this article:

 

Rachel Maddow criticizes Sen. Brown in ad

 

MSNBC-TV talk show host Rachel Maddow is lambasting Republican Senator Scott Brown in a full-page ad in the Globe today, saying he used a "made-up" rumor that she would run against him for Senate in an e-mail to raise funds.

 

"I'm running this ad not because I'm running against Scott Brown -- I'm not, he made that up -- but because he's the senator for all of us," Maddow, a western Massachusetts resident, says in the ad, "and maybe this will make him think twice the next time he wants to smear one of his constituents to raise money out of state."

 

In a fund-raising e-mail sent out Tuesday, Brown says that "liberal MSNBC anchor" Maddow is being recruited by the "political machine in Massachusetts."

 

"I'm sure she's a nice person -- I just don't think America can afford her liberal politics," Brown said in the e-mail.

 

"It was an open secret that the Democrats were trying to recruit Rachel Maddow to run against Scott Brown in 2012. Now that she’s said no, I’m sure they’ll scurry around looking for someone else. Maybe Keith Olbermann’s available," Brown adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said this morning in a statement.

 

Maddow says in the ad today, "I'm not running against Scott Brown. I never said I was running against Scott Brown. The Massachusetts Democratic Party never asked me to run against Scott Brown. It's just not true. Honestly. I swear. No, really."

 

Her ad also included a plug for her show as she challenged Brown to appear on it.

 

"My show airs at 9 p.m. Eastern in Massachusetts on MSNBC. So far, Scott Brown refuses to come on. Maybe he'll change his mind -- I hope he does," the ad said.

[Edie]

Obama has made it so the employer has to now pick up 65 percent of the COBRA costs (which are the full, non-subsidized costs of the health insurance policy) for a certain time period. I think that is still in effect.

Really -- I'll look into it. Thanks for the tip

 

It's amazing what you don't pay attention to when you don't have to.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Also, since I got fired from my job yesterday after 7+ years

wtfbbq!

[Edie]

No shit norbs... I am absorbing it.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Health Care Plan goes into effect 2014.

 

The Earth comes to an end 12/21/2012.

 

Problem solved.

[Guest Jules]

Someone please explain the logic behind eliminating the pre-existing conditions thing.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Someone please explain the logic behind eliminating the pre-existing conditions thing.

 

As I understand it:

 

If you were treated for depression or plantar faciitis on your parent's policy with BCBS when you were a teenager, and now want treatment for depression or plantar faciitis as a 30 year-old with Aetna, Aetna could deny you coverage, citing your depression or plantar faciitis as a pre-existing condition. Even if you hadn't experienced any symptoms between now and then, they could deny you. Under health care reform, that will no longer happen, thank god.

 

Further, if you get hit by a car in April and start a new job in May, you can still receive treatment and care for your injuries on your new plan, where formerly, an insurance company could deny you coverage.

 

Are you asking why covering pre-existing conditions is a bad thing?

[Guest Jules]

As I understand it:

 

If you were treated for depression or plantar faciitis on your parent's policy with BCBS when you were a teenager, and now want treatment for depression or plantar faciitis as a 30 year-old with Aetna, Aetna could deny you coverage, citing your depression or plantar faciitis as a pre-existing condition. Even if you hadn't experienced any symptoms between now and then, they could deny you. Under health care reform, that will no longer happen, thank god.

 

Further, if you get hit by a car in April and start a new job in May, you can still receive treatment and care for your injuries on your new plan, where formerly, an insurance company could deny you coverage.

 

Are you asking why covering pre-existing conditions is a bad thing?

I don't really know what I'm asking.

 

I heard an argument that this basically eliminates the main concept of what "insurance" is, and what insurance companies do. No one seems to care that car insurance companies can deny (or charge you more) due to previous accidents or a poor driving record. How is this different?

[Guest Speed Racer]

Oh, I forgot to mention they can deny you coverage if you have HIV or a recurrance of cancer.

 

I heard an argument that this basically eliminates the main concept of what "insurance" is, and what insurance companies do. No one seems to care that car insurance companies can deny (or charge you more) due to previous accidents or a poor driving record. How is this different?

 

This legislation is obviously a move in the direction that makes health care a right instead of a privilege, which cars and houses are. For the most part, people with pre-existing conditions aren't being denied health care because of choices they made, but because of circumstances. As you well know, sometimes shit just happens.

 

The pre-existing condition policy is one of the most abused by insurance companies, from what I understand. It would be like if a car insurance company denied you coverage, because you used to own a blue car under a separate policy, and the new company therefore won't insure your red car because they don't cover blue cars. Companies have long abused this policy as a way of saving money: they might partially cover someone, except when this so-called "pre-existing condition" flares up. Again, it would sort of make sense if it were applied only based on lifestyle decisions (e.g., a life-long smoker denied coverage for their lung cancer treatment), but the instances I mentioned are how it more likely occurs.

[Good Old Neon]

From Salon:

 

Do Hannity and North operate a "charitable" fraud?

 

Sean Hannity and Ollie North say they collect millions of dollars for veterans' kids. But where did the money go?

 

A potentially damaging scandal erupted today that implicates Fox News Channel personalities Sean Hannity and Oliver North in the worst kind of charitable fraud. According to complaints filed with the Federal Trade Commission and the IRS, the two right-wing icons have exploited American veterans for personal and partisan gain. The actions filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington accuse Hannity and North of misusing millions of dollars collected by the Freedom Alliance, a charity they promote and control.

 

Similar accusations were aired recently by right-wing blogger Debbie Schlussel, who complained that the "Freedom Concerts" sponsored by the Freedom Alliance and headlined by Hannity were not donating all proceeds -- estimated at more than $10 million -- to scholarships for the children of wounded and killed service members, as advertised. But now CREW, which had been investigating the same allegations independently before Schlussel posted her warning, has completed its own probe and filed legal actions before the two federal agencies.

 

The CREW complaint to the FTC charges that "Hannity and Freedom Concerts have engaged in illegal and deceptive marketing practices by suggesting that all money generated by ticket sales for the Freedom Concerts he sponsors each summer goes to scholarships for children of killed and wounded service members." Duane Ward, the promoter who heads Premiere Marketing, which produces the concerts, also runs Premiere Speakers Bureau -- which exclusively represents Hannity and North. "After staging the concerts, Premiere donates an unknown portion of the concert proceeds to the Freedom Alliance," according to CREW.

 

CREW points out that Hannity often promotes the concerts on his radio and television broadcasts, claiming: "Every penny, 100 percent of the donations are applied to the Freedom Alliance scholarship fund." Appearing with Hannity, North has said: "There’s no overhead. There’s no expenses taken out. Every penny that’s donated or that’s raised through things like the Freedom Concerts goes to the scholarship fund."

 

In its IRS complaint against Freedom Alliance, CREW says that the group’s charitable tax status should be voided because it has engaged in "prohibited political activities" such as its annual "Freedom Cruise" with Republican politicians, including Newt Gingrich and Michael Steele.

 

"There is little more despicable than preying upon the generosity of Americans by deceiving them into believing they are aiding the children of killed and wounded service members when the truth is most of the money is going to a for-profit venture," said CREW executive director Melanie Sloan in a press release. "Americans deserve to know whether this high-profile charity allegedly dedicated to helping veterans and their families is really doing what it says it is."

 

Not surprisingly, Hannity and North and their allies have sought to refute the charges first lodged by Schlussel. But one of the researchers who worked on this matter says there is much more that will be revealed in the coming days.

 

link - http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joe_conason/2010/03/29/hannity/index.html

 

Meanwhile, Palin ratchets up the stupid and the crazy:

 

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/29/on-facebook-sarah-palin-mixes-gun-imagery-march-madness-in-exh/

[Guest Jules]

This legislation is obviously a move in the direction that makes health care a right instead of a privilege, which cars and houses are. For the most part, people with pre-existing conditions aren't being denied health care because of choices they made, but because of circumstances. As you well know, sometimes shit just happens.

 

The pre-existing condition policy is one of the most abused by insurance companies, from what I understand. It would be like if a car insurance company denied you coverage, because you used to own a blue car under a separate policy, and the new company therefore won't insure your red car because they don't cover blue cars. Companies have long abused this policy as a way of saving money: they might partially cover someone, except when this so-called "pre-existing condition" flares up. Again, it would sort of make sense if it were applied only based on lifestyle decisions (e.g., a life-long smoker denied coverage for their lung cancer treatment), but the instances I mentioned are how it more likely occurs.

Makes sense. I see both sides, I guess. Seems like this will create cost increases across the board.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Makes sense. I see both sides, I guess. Seems like this will create cost increases across the board.

 

You're right, but to me, saying that in this context is like saying, "Gee whiz, feeding all of my kids instead of just the ones who don't eat much sure will cut into our child-rearing budget."

 

This was a corner-cutting measure, and the government is now regulating the industry such that health care providers actually have to go all the way around the block.