For some time now discussions have been going on in the blogosphere about the filibuster and whether or not to get rid of it.

The corporatist-centrist politicians, such as Judd Gregg, Kent Conrad, Evan Bayh, no longer afraid of a total collapse of the world economy, are using deadly innocent frauds, scare, myths, and lies about the deficit and the national debt to undermine the possibilities of progressive change in the United States.

For the Democrats in Congress, winning in November isn't rocket science; it's about having the will to pursue survival ruthlessly. The key to winning is giving the American people what they'll like, and not allowing any of the normal Washington obstacles to stand in the way. But, for Dems to act that way depends on them changing both their beliefs and their behavior. Let's start with the beliefs.

JSOnline:

U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials say they are powerless to regulate BPA, although they have declared the chemical to be a safety concern for fetuses, babies and young children.

A quirk in the rules allows BPA makers to skirt federal regulation.

"We may have to go after legislation to change it," Joshua Sharfstein, the FDA's principal deputy director, told the Journal Sentinel. The newspaper has been investigating the government's lack of regulation regarding BPA for three years.

Wall Street Journal:

Some married couples would pay thousands of dollars more for the same health insurance coverage as unmarried people living together, under the health insurance overhaul plan pending in Congress.

The built-in "marriage penalty" in both House and Senate healthcare bills has received scant attention. But for scores of low-income and middle-income couples, it could mean a hike of $2,000 or more in annual insurance premiums the moment they say "I do."

Natural News:

Children can suffer cognitive and behavioral damage from lead exposure at half the blood levels currently considered safe, according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of Bristol Center for Child and Adolescent Health and published in the journal Archives of Disease in Childhood.

"Lead in the body is one of many factors that [has an] impact on education, but this is a reminder that environmental factors are important and pediatricians must test more children with behavioral problems for lead," said lead researcher Alan Emond.

Surprise, surprise.

Nation:

Taken at face value, Senator John Ensign's amendment which was included in the final Senate healthcare bill sounds pretty decent: by meeting "wellness" standards people can receive discounts on their employer-based healthcare premiums. Stop smoking--pay less. Hit a certain weight--pay less. Meet a cholesterol target--you get the idea.

Dems probably should have stopped and realized since the amendment was offered by Ensign it probably wasn't motivated by "wellness" at heart.

While a new article in Science confirms what anybody driving through coal country can see,

our "new" EPA decides to be 50% less evil than the old one:

Before I share some incredible quotes from a profound article by Ted Rall, I just heard talk on MSM news about the depressing jobs situation. WH response is “muted” the reporter said. A clip of Obama was then shown speaking with “respectful” concern, reminding us of the slow trek to recovery. After all, all that money gone. That darn deficit.

Let’s see, best he had for Main Street was “Cash for Clunkers” and asks us now to use whatever is left of our “audacity of hope” for those eventual “green jobs”. Right! Best for Wall Street, however, here’s all our cash along with the national credit card and the power also to continue unencumbered to shake down the broken citizenry. Knock yourselves out as much and long as you guys want!

The New York Times throws our War President a bone — scary news about underground nukes in Iran:

“It complicates your targeting,” said Richard L. Russell, a former Central Intelligence Agency analyst now at the National Defense University.

Wired:

Published in 1958 under the auspices of the Atomic Energy Commission as part of its Atoms for Peace program, Fluid Fuel Reactors is a book only an engineer could love: a dense, 978-page account of research conducted at Oak Ridge National Lab, most of it under former director Alvin Weinberg. What caught Sorensen’s eye was the description of Weinberg’s experiments producing nuclear power with an element called thorium.

In an earlier post evaluating the House Health Care Reform Bill, I raised the question of the morality of voting for the bill, and argued that voting for it was an immoral act. Now that the Senate bill has been passed and includes many of the same features of the House bill including a “band-aid” period before the bill takes full effect in 2014, and the likelihood that a final Conference compromise will incorporate features of both bills, it's time to raise the question of morality again. In connection with the House bill I said:

”So, what should we think of this bill, evaluating it from the perspective of what it provides in the band-aid period. Does it improve things in that period or not? Is it better than nothing at all? Is it an immoral and an intolerable bill, in some ways like Alan Grayson's Republican plan saying to thousands of people each year, “If you get sick then die quickly.”

”The truth is that the bill does improve things immediately in 2010. It prohibits rescission. It provides a way, through the high risk pool, for people with preconditions to get insurance, even if it is at a high price. It also does some good things for Medicare recipients, and a number of good things that are part of the “goody bag.” Yet even though this bill is an improvement compared to the status quo, I think that both putting it forward and voting for it are immoral acts, if the bill, in any way, creates a dynamic that prevents us from, or weakens our efforts to, take up the health insurance reform problem in the next session, and thereafter, for as long as it takes to get a bill that will end fatalities, bankruptcies, and home foreclosures, due to lack of insurance.”

And to add a point Kip Sullivan made in a comment on one of my earlier posts on the House bill, one very important way in which both House and Senate bills hurt future efforts for health care reform is that they fail to provide legal protection against insurance company law suits, based on ERISA legislation, for States enacting single-payer reforms. Going on with my earlier statement:

”The overriding problem with the bill is that it prioritizes deficit neutrality over the deaths of many thousands of Americans per year. Yes, I said earlier that the bill will reduce the 45,000 annual deaths by some substantial amount, but in the “band-aid” period before the exchange takes effect in 2013, we’re still looking at 31,000 or so deaths per year from lack of insurance. And, even after that at current death rates due to lack of insurance we’re still looking at 11,000 annual deaths. These likely forecasts suggest that the current bill is a great moral failure of the Democratic Party and progressives who support it.”

Of course, the Senate bill provides an effective date of the exchange, the mandates, and the subsidies of 2014, which means that the fatalities to be expected before the effective date will rise to roughly 140,000, from the previous expectation of 108,000, under the House bill. In addition, the latest estimates on the Senate bill forecast 23,000,000 still uninsured by 2018, meaning that my previous estimate of 11,000 fatalities per year after the band-aid period due to lack of insurance for the House bill will rise to 23,000 per year in the Senate bill, which translates to another 127,000 expected fatalities, a grand total of 267,000 expected fatalities by the end of 2019.

Banks Roll Out New Check, Card Fees

The nation's banks will be bombarding customers with new fees and products in 2010 as they try to replace more than $50 billion in revenue wiped out by new rules that clamp down on certain business practices.

Seems like a good time to repost this link:
Move Your Money: A New Year's Resolution
Find community banks in your neighborhood now! The banks listed have received a grade of “B” or above.

Natasha on the complete failure (and lies) of the Democratic Party - "I Don't Know How Many More Progressive Victories I Can Take." I hear ya, Natasha.

There's a reason why they lie, of course. Part of the problem with lying by the elites is that it prevents the nation from dealing with its very real problems. James Howard Kunstler (via Yves Smith) on Obama's lies as well as those we tell ourselves:

By David Swanson

In 2004 I began speaking at rallies and forums around the country on issues of peace and justice, something I've done off-and-on ever since. Up through 2008, it was extremely unusual for questions from the audience to consist of pure defeatism. In 2009, it was rare to get through a Q&A session without being asked what the point was of trying.

And the defeatism is so contagious that it will be hard for me to make it through 2010 if people don't shut up about how doomed we are. If current trends continue, by 2011 the only people showing up at forums on peace and justice will all be old enough to tell my grandparents they're too young to understand how pointless it is to try. And my grandparents are dead.

Here are nine reasons the Senate health care reform bill should be killed:

1) The bill gives almost no real help 'til 2014. In the short term, the bill does nothing about the fatalities, bankruptcies, and foreclosures that come from lack of insurance. Therefore, the very title of the bill -- "The Affordable Health Choices Act" --is a lie, despite band-aids for children and young adults, because the bill doesn't get people care in the short run at an affordable price that will protect them from financial ruin.

This is an appeal to all Progressive Senators, whom I, perhaps mistakenly, list as including: Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Russ Feingold, Pat Leahy, Al Franken, Sheldon Whitehouse, Tom Harkin, Ron Wyden, Patty Murray, Dick Durbin, Barbra Boxer, Byron Dorgan, Barbara Mikulski, Ben Cardin, Jay Rockefeller, Chuck Schumer, and Paul Kirk. My apologies to Amy Klobuchar, Maria Cantwell, Carl Levin, Debbie Stabenow, Michael Bennett, Jon Tester, John Kerry, and Jack Reed, if I've done one or more of you an injustice by not including you in this first list. And if I have, I wish you'd consider this post as an appeal to you too.

The number one thing I came away with tonight is a feeling of pity that these well-meaning hard-working folks in Obama's national security team have to deal with such complex problems.

Really?

Insurance premiums for small businesses are being driven higher not just because of an increase in healthcare costs, but also because Wall Street wants higher returns:

The higher premiums at least partly reflect the inexorable rise of medical costs, which is forcing Medicare to raise premiums, too. Health insurance bills are also rising for big employers, but because they have more negotiating clout, their increases are generally not as steep.

Higher medical costs aside, some experts say they think the insurance industry, under pressure from Wall Street, is raising premiums to get ahead of any legislative changes that might reduce their profits.

Now, you might think with health insurance reform pending in Congress, the industry would be concerned about screwing its customers. But you'd be wrong because Washington doesn't run this country, Wall Street does:

“There’s no one out there who hasn’t had to do a mea culpa to Wall Street,” said Sheryl Skolnick, an analyst for Pali Capital who follows the companies. While the industry is particularly vulnerable now in Washington, she said, “it seems like they’re more afraid of Wall Street.”

Fox Fabricates 'Death Book' for Vets

So when do we start filing complaints with the FCC in a systematic effort to get Murdoch's FCC license pulled? And when do we start to contact his institutional investors and bond holders and suggest that investing in lies might not be consistent with their fiduciary responsibility? When do we start to exact a serious price for this sort of editorial subversion?

Claiming it's losing money on individual policies, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan was approved for a 22% rate hike on premiums a few days ago. In an example that shows how bizzare our health care system is in this nation, the rate hike was hailed as a victory by state officials since the company had originally requested hikes of 56 percent for nongroup rates and 41 percent for group-conversion rates.

Consumers who buy their own medical insurance through Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan will see their monthly premiums rise in October by an average 22 percent.

Welcome tp Appropedia page.

Looking through it: good stuff here.

via Douglas Rushkoff's Mediasquat. (Playlist with comments.)

but I'm sure that's nothing to worry about. We've only had 69 failures so far this year and it's not like the rate of failure is increasing or anything.

Oh, wait.

Well, at least we have an administration that understands the problems and is looking to overhaul the system.

Oh, wait.

(chart link - Calculated Risk)

Here's the full text of the letter signed by 23 members of Congress who are veterans and who took umbrage at Lt. Col. Peters' remarks on Fox News broadcasts. Thanks to Ohio's 16th District Congressmember, John Boccieri:

Roger Ailes
Chief Executive, Fox News and Chairman, Fox Television Stations
Fox News Channel
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036

21 July 2009

Chairman Ailes,

As members of Congress and veterans of the United States Armed Forces, it was with incredulity and disgust that we watched Fox News Strategic Analyst Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters (Ret.) suggest on your airwaves that Private First Class Bowe Bergdahl, "abandoned his buddies, abandoned his post, and just walked off," and stated that, if this is true, "the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills."

Mr. Peters' comments are so far beyond the pale that they don't even approach the decorum and respect deserved by a member of the United States Armed Forces. Mr. Peters' indefensible comments call into question, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, PFC Bergdahl's patriotism and commitment to his country, and suggest in a non-subtle way that he deserved to be captured. The events surrounding the capture of PFC Bergdahl are irrelevant at this point. The only priority should be his safe and immediate release to U.S. forces.

Mr. Peters further complained that PFC Bergdahl was openly questioning U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and cooperating with the Taliban, showing that Mr. Peters' has conveniently forgotten that soldiers in captivity are often forced to make statements contrary to their beliefs simply to stay alive. Senator John McCain has often discussed his decision to do so while a captive of the Vietcong. Perhaps Mr. Peters would choose to question his patriotism as well. Regardless, we have every reason to believe that the comments made by PFC Bergdahl do not reflect his true feelings and are being forced by his captors. The truth is that Mr. Peters' words give more aid and comfort to the enemy than any forced statement by a captured soldier, and put PFC Bergdahl at additional risk of harm.

Finally, his implied suggestion that the Taliban should simply kill PFC Bergdahl to, "save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills," was repulsive and deserves to be repudiated by your news organization. We recognize and credit anchor Julie Banderas' efforts to make it clear that Mr. Peters' positions were not that of Fox News. However, that does not remove the responsibility your network has for the statements of one of its own analysts; especially those that suggest a member of the United States Army should be killed by his captors.

We demand an apology to PFC Bergdahl's family and to the thousands of soldiers who put their lives on the line for our country. As a member of the military family, Mr. Peters should measure his remarks and remember that the United States will never abandon one of its own.

We look forward to your response.

Respectfully,

John Boccieri (D-OH)
Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Patrick Murphy (D-PA)

Thomas Rooney (R-FL)
Joe Baca (D-CA)
Brett Guthrie (R-KY)
John Shimkus (R-IL)
Christopher Carney (D-PA)
Ted Poe (R-TX)
Timothy Walz (D-MN)
Darrell Issa (R-CA)
Jim Marshall (D-GA)
Gene Taylor (D-MS)
John Spratt (D-SC)
Jose Serrano (D-NY)
Joe Sestak (D-PA)
Bill Delahunt (D-MA)
Don Young (R-AK)
John Conyers (D-MI)
Edolphus Towns (D-NY)
Eric Massa (D-NY)
David Roe (R-TN)
Joe Pitts (R-PA)

Again, I do apologise to Rep. Poe and his constitutents for my mistake earlier today in not recognizing his participation in signing this letter.

Boccieri's office released this statement today in conjunction

Insurers defend rescissions, take heat for lack of transparency

Rep. Joe Barton (R, Texas), followed that response: "Doesn't it bother you that people are going to die because you insist on reviewing a policy somebody took out in good faith and forgot to tell you they had been treated for acne?"

Don Hamm, president and chief executive officer of Assurant Health, gave the only reply: "Yes, it does. We regret the necessity it has to occur even a single time."

Of course Joe Barton could do something about that by co-sponsoring HR 676.