Did someone just chuck pre-existing conditions overboard?

So I'm reading the latest NYT article about the health care mayhem going on in Washington today, and the article throws out some possible "compromises" a new pared-down health care bill could contain. And I see this:

Lawmakers, Congressional aides and health policy experts said the package might plausibly include these elements:

¶Insurers could not deny coverage to children under the age of 19 on account of pre-existing medical conditions.

The only reason to specify that children under the age of 19 won't be denied coverage is because you plan on letting everyone 19 and over BE denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. Even the lousy Senate and House bills outlawed that. But here's the rub. If you ban pre-existing conditions for everyone, then you need to mandate that everyone get coverage, in order to keep insurance premiums down, and then you'd need to subsidize people who can't afford to buy coverage, and the vicious circle begins. It also wouldn't kill you to have some real competition in the market to help keep rates down for everyone, but that was called the public option, and we all know what happened to that.

Anyway, this new compromise talked about in the NYT article would only cover half of the 30 million that would have gotten new coverage under the Senate plan. So, if they're going to only cover half, they must figure they can't outlaw pre-existing conditions for everyone. Read the rest of this post...

Tapper: Senate Dems not sure they can get the votes to reconfirm Bernanke

One of the unexpected results of the Coakley defeat is, I think, a remarkable amount of spine suddenly arising from congressional liberals (i.e., refusing to accept the Senate HCR bill, and now, refusing to support Fed chair Bernanke's re-confirmation). At the same time, I think we're seeing both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi telling the White House "if you want something, fight for it, don't just ask us to do your dirty work." Democrats in Congress want to keep their jobs more than they want to keep the White House happy. It took Coakley for them to understand that clearly, but now they seem to. Read the rest of this post...

Josh Marshall: 'What seems unmistakably clear is that the White House is taking an extremely hands off approach to the whole situation.'

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo posted an update this evening of what he's hearing on health care reform. It's disturbing.

I've been poking around some sources in Washington, DC (and combining this with what I've heard from our TPMDC team) and my sense is that Health Care Reform is both dead and not dead. Let's say it's among the Undead. There does seem to be some continuing effort to see how a Senate bill plus amending bill deal might work -- both for what would be needed in political terms and what would be workable under reconciliation rules. But there's also a lot of happy talk about generally marginal and meaningless reforms that might be pushed through as consolation prizes. And what seems unmistakably clear is that the White House is taking an extremely hands off approach to the whole situation.

My strongest sense however is not so much that decisions have been made to drop reform as that it's something like a matter of survivors walking around -- half dazed -- after some sort of natural disaster. There is no plan. It actually seems highly, highly fluid and possibly susceptible to dramatic change if any of the key players assert themselves. But I'm not sure there's anyone really ready to do that, unless rank-and-file Democrats and Reform supporters assert themselves.

Read the rest of this post...

Nate Silver on debasing the base

Nate Silver is worried about what's going to happen if Democrats ignore the base any further:

What [Democratic members of Congress] need to remember is that while financial reform and the bank tax are the jobs bill are nice -- things that certainly ought to appeal to swing voters and which could mitigate some of the electoral damage -- they mostly fall into the category of cleaning up the mess. Financial reform isn't what gets any Democrat out of bed in the morning. Things like health care, a climate bill, expanded rights for gays, women, and lesbians, a fairer tax code -- those are the things that signify progress, the promise of which keeps people motivated for the long run. The risk is that, when we get to November, the base looks at the fact that significant progress has not been made on any of those core, defining issues, that the political and procedural hurdles are immense, that Democratic majorities will (at best) shrink, and that the party leadership seems nonchalant in good times and panicky in bad ones. And they'll conclude that the progressive party is incapable of making progress.

And in the short run, saying "ooh, Republicans are scary!" might not make as much difference as you think -- at least not to base voters. That works when Republicans have a chance to implement their agenda, an opportunity which -- even if Democrats were to lose 70 seats in the Congress -- they would not have because of President Obama's veto pen.

Now, look, political cycles are moving faster and faster, and the probability of a turnaround in the momentum back toward the Democrats, even in the near term, is probably greater than generally acknowledged -- even if we can neither identify nor predict the precise mechanism by which this occurs. But I worry that the upside is limited if the base is burned out -- at best toward a Clintonian second term (treading water, competent) and not Reaganesque one (realigning). And these things tend to have a self-fulfilling quality to them -- if the base doesn't believe that you can actually push the country in their direction, they become less likely to donate to you, work for you, and vote for you, and that in turn makes such successes harder to achieve. I don't know if the Democrats have any good moves right now, but watching the base give up hope isn't one of them.

Read the rest of this post...

Geithner reportedly told Wall Street that Obama is sacrificing good policy for politics

Reuters reported two hours ago that multiple financial industry sources claimed that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was unhappy with the President's plan he announced today to rein in the banks. The sources said that Geithner thinks Obama is sacrificing good policy for politics.

President Barack Obama's newest Wall Street crackdown was met with hesitation from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who is concerned that politics could be sacrificing good economic policy, according to financial industry sources.

Now, sure, we don't know the names of those sources. But for Reuters to run this piece, the sources had to be some pretty senior people on Wall Street with extremely close ties to Geithner, who came from the NY Fed before he took the job at Treasury. Even stranger, the Treasury refused to comment for the story.

Now, if a cabinet member reportedly leaked to his buddies in NYC that he thought the President, his boss, was harming the country for political expediency on a major policy initiative, and the story was wrong, the Treasury would immediately tell Reuters that the story is a bunch of BS. Instead, Treasury refused to comment.

Now there's an updated story that includes a White House official saying Geithner worked on the plan with Volcker and Summers. Though, what's not coming from the White House official in the Reuters story is an outright denial of the story itself - that Geithner told friends in NY that Obama was harming the country for politics.

Oh, and the updated story came out two hours after the first story. And guess what it doesn't include. A denial from Treasury either. Read the rest of this post...

Krugman says the economic recovery isn't looking so good

No one could have predicted this. Well, except Krugman and Stiglitz, who did. Read the rest of this post...

Defense contractor will stop putting secret Bible references on gun sights shipped to Iraq and Afghanistan

It's a sad day when a Christian can no longer kill in the name of his Lord. Background on this story here. Read the rest of this post...

Air America shuts down

From Air America's Web site:

It is with the greatest regret, on behalf of our Board, that we must announce that Air America Media is ceasing its live programming operations as of this afternoon, and that the Company will file soon under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code to carry out an orderly winding-down of the business....

When Air America Radio launched in April, 2004 with already-known personalities like Al Franken and then-unknown future stars like Rachel Maddow, it was the only full-time progressive voice in the mainstream broadcast media world. At a critical time in our nation's history — when dissent on issues such as the Iraq war were often denounced as "un-American" — Air America and its talented team helped millions of Americans remember the importance of compelling discussion about the most pivotal events and decisions of our generation.

Through some 100 radio outlets nationwide, Air America helped build a new sense of purpose and determination among American progressives. With this revival, the progressive movement made major gains in the 2006 mid-term elections and, more recently, in the election of President Barack Obama and a strongly Democratic Congress....

We will strive to assist affiliates and partners in achieving a smooth transition. Starting at 6 pm EST today, we will provide our affiliates, listeners and users a selection of encore programming until 9 pm EST on Monday, January 25, at which time Air America programming will end.

Read the rest of this post...

ADL goes off on Limbaugh after he talks about 'Jewish bankers' on the air

Even for Limbaugh, this is particularly bad:

“To some people, banker is a code word for Jewish; and guess who Obama is assaulting? He’s assaulting bankers. He’s assaulting money people. And a lot of those people on Wall Street are Jewish. So I wonder if there’s – if there’s starting to be some buyer’s remorse there.”

To some people? To anti-Semitic bigots, maybe.



The ADL responded:

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:

Rush Limbaugh reached a new low with his borderline anti-Semitic comments about Jews as bankers, their supposed influence on Wall Street, and how they vote.

Limbaugh’s references to Jews and money in a discussion of Massachusetts politics were offensive and inappropriate. While the age-old stereotype about Jews and money has a long and sordid history, it also remains one of the main pillars of anti-Semitism and is widely accepted by many Americans. His notion that Jews vote based on their religion, rather than on their interests as Americans, plays into the hands of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists.

When he comes to understand why his words were so offensive and unacceptable, Limbaugh should apologize.

Read the rest of this post...

Harold Ford says he's just like Scott Brown

Yes, they're both pretty boys.

But for Harold Ford, who's suddenly claiming that he's really a NY liberal, to now allege that he's really like Republican Senator-elect Scott Brown, really takes some chutzpah.

[W]hile I disagree with Brown about most issues of public policy, I absolutely agree that a United States senator has to put the people first when making decisions.

I have made it very clear that if I run for the U.S. Senate, and if I am fortunate enough to be elected, I will be an independent Democrat who puts the people of New York before the politicians in Albany and Washington.

All the time. Every time.

Oh, so you disagree with Brown about most everything, and now claim to be a raving liberal who's pro-choice and even pro- gay marriage, but at the same time you'd like us to believe that you're going to be independent of the Democratic party? Huh? So you are a liberal Democrat or you're not? And is this "putting people first" thing the way you're explaining away your massive flip-flops on social issues in just the past two years? Whatever the people want, Harold Ford will flip-flip in favor of? Read the rest of this post...

AIG retention bonus recipients no longer there

What fool approved this idea? The news from AIG never gets better.

A substantial number of AIG's Financial Products employees set to get some $195 million in retention payments no longer work with the bailed out insurer, sources familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.

This will be the latest round of retention payments to the staff of the American International Group unit that was behind the insurer's spectacular losses from credit derivatives and downfall in September 2008.

Read the rest of this post...

'How will Dems recover after losing majority?'

Atrios finds a funny headline. Remind me of this:



Must be a Republican, he hasn't got shit all over him. Read the rest of this post...

Roger Ebert, on no longer being able to eat, drink or speak

Film Critic Roger Ebert has thyroid cancer. As a result of surgery, he can no longer eat, drink or speak. He wrote a blog post a few weeks ago about what he did and didn't miss about eating. It's long and moving. Here's a small excerpt:

I mentioned that I can no longer eat or drink. A reader wrote: "That sounds so sad. Do you miss it?" Not so much really. Not anymore. Understand that I was never told that after surgery I might lose the ability to eat, drink and speak. Eating and drinking were not mentioned, and it was said that after surgery I might actually be able to go back to work on television....

What I miss is the society. Lunch and dinner are the two occasions when we most easily meet with friends and family. They're the first way we experience places far from home. Where we sit to regard the passing parade. How we learn indirectly of other cultures. When we feel good together. Meals are when we get a lot of our talking done -- probably most of our recreational talking. That's what I miss. Because I can't speak that's's another turn of the blade. I can sit at a table and vicariously enjoy the conversation, which is why I enjoy pals like my friend McHugh so much, because he rarely notices if anyone else isn't speaking. But to attend a "business dinner" is a species of torture. I'm no good at business anyway, but at least if I'm being bad at it at Joe's Stone Crab there are consolations....

So that's what's sad about not eating. The loss of dining, not the loss of food. It may be personal, but for, unless I'm alone, it doesn't involve dinner if it doesn't involve talking. The food and drink I can do without easily. The jokes, gossip, laughs, arguments and shared memories I miss. Sentences beginning with the words, "Remember that time?" I ran in crowds where anyone was likely to break out in a poetry recitation at any time. Me too. But not me anymore. So yes, it's sad. Maybe that's why I enjoy this blog. You don't realize it, but we're at dinner right now.

Read the rest of this post...

Pelosi: Don't have votes to pass Senate HCR bill in house

Wash Post:

"I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," Pelosi told reporters after a morning meeting with her caucus. "I don't see the votes for it at this time."

The problem, as I understand it, is that if the Senate bill is not passed verbatim in the House, then it will need to be voted on again in the Senate, and that will be a Senate that has 59 Dems and independents, one down from the 60 we had before Brown's election. And the Democrats have made clear, for whatever reason, they're afraid to have a vote on health care reform before Brown is seated. But, there's another possibility in the works. Perhaps some of these "fixes" can be passed in Reconciliation. Then the Senate bill could pass as is, and Reconciliation would include the changes the House wants. Still, it's not clear what portions of the bill would work in Reconciliation. So basically it's a bit of a mess at the moment. Read the rest of this post...

Name one thing

Sue in Maryland writes:

Let's start a Contest: NAME ONE THING REPUBLICANS HAVE DONE IN THE PAST YEAR!

This could be fun. Everyone is criticizing Democrats and Obama for not doing enough this first year but Republicans, as far as I can tell have done NOTHING.

Other than obstruct, whine, lie, and say NO NO NO.

Seriously, name ONE POSITIVE thing Republicans can point to.

Um, didn't filibuster aid to dying Haitians? Read the rest of this post...

Supreme Court ends ban on corporate spending in federal elections

From the Washington Post:

The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Here's the opinion:
Supreme Court ends ban on corporate spending in federal elections Read the rest of this post...

$13.4 billion in profits at Goldman Sachs, but 'only' $16.2 billion for pay and bonuses

Interesting timing.

As Chris noted below, Obama will be making a major announcement about the banks later this morning. He's scheduled to be speak at 11:40 a.m.

We just found out that Goldman Sachs made profits of $13.4 billion last year:

The bank said that for 2009, it earned a profit of $13.4 billion on revenue of $45.2 billion. For the fourth quarter, Goldman earned $4.95 billion on $9.6 billion in revenue.

The earnings of $8.20 a share easily beat analysts’ expectations of about $5.20 a share and compared with a loss of $2.12 billion, or $4.97 a share, in the quarter a year earlier.

The bank also disclosed that it had set aside $16.2 billion for bonuses and compensation for its employees in 2009. This was below the record year of 2007, when it devoted $20.2 billion to bonuses and salaries.

Yes, "only" $16.2 billion. Read the rest of this post...

Obama finally pushing Volcker's ideas

I was wondering if Volker was still even in contact with the Obama administration. He was used on the campaign trail but then ignored by the White House geniuses such as Larry Summers. As in the Larry Summers who has steered the economic direction that we have today. Hmm. The good news is that Volcker is back in the picture and Obama will be promoting at least one of his ideas. Are we finally seeing serious change or is this only a trial balloon?

Mr. Obama's proposal is expected to include new scale restrictions on the size of the country's largest financial institutions. The goal would be to deter banks from becoming so large they put the broader economy at risk and to also prevent banks from becoming so large they distort normal competitive forces. It couldn't be learned what precise limits the White House will endorse, or whether Mr. Obama will spell out the exact limits on Thursday.

Mr. Obama is also expected to endorse, for the first time publicly, measures pushed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, which would place restrictions on the proprietary trading done by commercial banks, essentially limiting the way banks bet with their own capital. Administration officials say they want to place "firewalls" between different divisions of financial companies to ensure banks don't indirectly subsidize "speculative" trading through other subsidiaries that hold federally insured deposits.

Read the rest of this post...

Thursday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

Today, the President is announcing a plan to regulate in the big banks. Could this be a break through on a key issuee -- and a sign of leadership from Obama? Chris will have more on that shortly.

Lots and lots of hand-wringing here in DC among the professional Democrats after Scott Brown's election. You'd think he is now the Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House by the way some people are acting. And, one might actually conclude that Brown's election gave the GOP a majority in the Senate, instead of leaving the Democrats with only an 18-seat advantage.

I just keep thinking about Obama's demand to have health care reform done by August -- and where we'd be if that had happened. Nice work delaying that by the House Blue Dogs and Senator Max Baucus, who were enabled by Rahm Emanuel, Jim Messina -- and Obama himself. Thanks again.

Let's get threading... Read the rest of this post...

NY Times to charge for content (but not sure how or what)

For a time, beginning in September of 2005, the NY Times charged for access to its op-ed readers. That didn't work and the Times ended the practice in September of 2007. But, the company is coming back with another scheme to charge for access to its content. But, details are vague:

The New York Times announced Wednesday that it intended to charge frequent readers for access to its Web site, a step being debated across the industry that nearly every major newspaper has so far feared to take.

Starting in early 2011, visitors to NYTimes.com will get a certain number of articles free every month before being asked to pay a flat fee for unlimited access. Subscribers to the newspaper’s print edition will receive full access to the site.

But executives of The New York Times Company said they could not yet answer fundamental questions about the plan, like how much it would cost or what the limit would be on free reading. They stressed that the amount of free access could change with time, in response to economic conditions and reader demand.

Read the rest of this post...

Scott Brown says GOP is beholden to special interests

And the Republicans are beholden to special interests, but it's interesting that Brown is admitting this before he's even been sworn in. Senator-elect Scott Brown:

I was asked many times what kind of Republican I would be and I didn't really know how to answer that so I just said I'm gonna be a Scott Brown Republican. Maybe there's a new breed of Republican coming to Washington, maybe people will finally look at somebody who's not beholden to the special interests of the party and who will look to, you know, just to solve problems.

Do we have another Michael Steele in the making? Ask him what he thinks about Rush Limbaugh! Read the rest of this post...