August 24, 2009
August 5, 2009
So glad to have all you folks here. It shows what an important issue we are talking about today. Now because we are here to share views, I'd appreciate that everyone get a chance to say their piece without interruption.That includes me. Please give me a chance to answer your questions without interruption.Before we start, it will help me to know where you folks are coming from.Who here currently has some form of health insurance? Please raise your hands.Of those, who is covered under a plan provided by your employer?And who covers themselves, pays for insurance out of pocket?Next, who here gets their health care from the government, under Medicare, Medicaid, or the Veterans Administration?Finally, is there anyone here eligible for Medicare or VA coverage who has opted for private insurance instead? Please raise your hands.
July 31, 2009
July 29, 2009
Members of Congress have come up with one idea after another to pay for covering the uninsured. But they still haven’t put together legislation that could pass.
July 26, 2009
If congresspeople think that regardless of the success of the healthcare bill, they will be better off having voted against it, then they will.
- Vote for it, and be better off with their constituents, but worse off with their donors/future employers.
- Vote against it, and be better off with their donors/future employers, but worse off with their constituents.
July 4, 2009
July 1, 2009
Helen Thomas to Gibbs re: town hall format argument: "I'm amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency"
"If you establish a public option at the forefront that goes head-to-head and competes with the private health insurance market ... the public option will have significant price advantages," she said.
"Just conceptually, the notion that all these insurance companies who say they're giving consumers the best possible deal, if they can't compete against a public plan as one option, with consumers making the decision what's the best deal, that defies logic," Obama said.
June 27, 2009
June 25, 2009
June 19, 2009
May 21, 2009
does POTUS think it's safe to put detainees in US prisons?
@jaketapper You mean as opposed to safely jailing serial killers and domestic terrorists? What is wrong with you people?
May 8, 2009
DKos's public health expert DemFromCT has a link to a Nature editorial that starts out:
Complacency, not overreaction, is the greatest danger posed by the flu pandemic. That's a message scientists would do well to help get across.
As I've read in earlier posts by DemFromCT, the key to preventing a large number of deaths from a virulent swine flu virus is to get the reinfection rate down below 1 per infected person. Then it snuffs itself. The trouble is that this is nearly impossible to do if too many people are infected. So you need to act very early in the process of the flu's spread. Judging by the number of joke threads running through twitterstreams, this is not widely understood. The public health professionals appear to be overreacting to a small number of cases.
So if the CDC and the WHO are successful in limiting the spread of the disease, they will be seen not as successful managers but as nervous nelliew. And it will be harder, next time, to implement effective measures precisely because they were so effective.
This reminded me of the Y2K computer scare. In fact, a lot of work was done, a lot of money was spent, and the crisis was averted. But the very success of the effort led to many people concluding that there really hadn't been an incipient crisis after all.
Moreover, not only did the Y2K software repairs prevent a collapse of corporate computer systems, it also forced the creation of systems of off site backups and disaster recovery. This, in turn, was partly responsible for the speed with which Wall Street was able to restart their systems following 9/11.
Robust systems that prevent disaster are hard to justify to bean-counters, and taxpayers. But that is the right way to design a system.
Justice Antonin Scalia’s views about the importance of adhering to the text and original meaning of the Constitution and statutes, for instance, has come to dominate conservative judicial thinking.
Today, mainstream print and electronic media want to be neutral, presenting both or all sides as if they were refereeing a game in which only the players—the government and its opponents—can participate. They have increasingly become common carriers, transmitters of other people’s ideas and thoughts, irrespective of import, relevance, and at times even accuracy.
April 15, 2009
April 2, 2009
While some reinsurers are large, well-capitalized entities that generally avoid these pitfalls, AIG was already a troubled company when it began to write more and more of these risk-shifting transactions more than a decade ago. It is easy to promise the moon when people think that they can deliver, but because AIG and their clients saw how easy it was to fool regulators and investors, the practice grew and most regulators did absolutely nothing to curtail the practice.
It was easy for AIG to become addicted to the use of side letters. The firm, which had already encountered serious financial problems in 2000-2001, reportedly saw the side letters as a way to mint free money and thereby help the insurer to look stronger than it really was. AIG not only helped banks and other companies distort and obfuscate their financial condition, but AIG was supplementing its income by writing more and more of these reinsurance deals and mitigating their perceived exposure via side letters.
A key figure in AIG’s reinsurance schemes, according to several observers, was Joseph Cassano, head of AIG-FP. Whereas the traditional use of side letters was in reinsurance transactions between insurers, in the case of both CELL and PNC neither was an insurer! And in both cases, AIG used sham deals to make two non-insurers, including a regulated bank holding company, look better by manipulating their financial statements. Falsifying the financial statements of a bank or bank holding company is a felony.
(a) Covered Persons Who Are Not Members of the Senior Management Team.Subject to Sections 3.01(c) and 3.01(d), for the 2008 Compensation Year and the 2009 Compensation Year, each Covered Person (other than members of the Senior Management Team) shall be awarded a Guaranteed Retention Award for each of those Compensation Years equal to one hundred percent (100%) of such Covered Person’s 2007 Total Economic Award.(b) Covered Persons Who Are Members of the Senior Management Team.Subject to Sections 3.01(c) and 3.01(d), for the 2008 Compensation Year and the 2009 Compensation Year, each Covered Person who is a member of the Senior Management Team shall be awarded a Guaranteed Retention Award for each of those Compensation Years equal to seventy-five percent (75%) of such Covered Person’s 2007 Total Economic Award.