There’s One For You, Nineteen For Me

It’s coming around April 15th, so I am getting the taxes together, and I thought I would vent my spleen for a minute.

At some level, no one likes paying taxes. It’s your money, and it is being taken from you against your will. And every citizen has a long list of things the government does with that money that pisses them off. I’m no exception. But overall, I really don’t mind paying my fair share. I don’t mind paying income taxes, I don’t mind paying for medicare or social security, and I really don’t even mind minor regressive taxes like the state sales tax, the gas tax, sin taxes on things, etc. I don’t think of these things are punishments, I think of them as the price I get to pay to be in one of the best clubs in the world. When I pay my income tax, I think to myself, I’m so lucky to be able to have enough income that taxing it isn’t a burden, and I’m glad to help out. I’m not a joiner in civic causes, so this really is one way I am doing my part.

But there is one tax that just makes me sputter in rage every time I pay it, and that is when I have to go to the County Assessor and pay taxes on a car that was, in my case, purchased three decades ago. It makes no damned sense to me whatsoever. None. Why should I, in the year 2012, be required to go give 100 bucks to the Sheriff for a car that was purchased in 1997? Why? And why stop there? I purchased my current couch a couple years ago, why is my car being taxed and not my couch? Why not my tv’s? What about my laptop? Or my lawnmower? Or my bed- hell, I use that a helluva lot more than my car.

It’s a miniscule amount of money, but it just infuriates me to no end, because I just can not figure out the logic behind it. I had to spend a couple grand last year to replace two axles, a head gasket, and other repairs, the car is so god damned old. But you have the big brass balls to tax me on this 15 year old ride? This is literally the one tax that turns me into a teahadist, and again, it is miniscule compared to the amount of taxes I gladly pay every year.

But for some reason, this one, every time I think about it, just makes me angrier than I can describe. If they were to just charge me the same amount every year I pay in property tax and call it “the right to live in this county tax” I wouldn’t blink and I would write the check. But taxing me for something that was purchased in 1997 just makes a little part of me explode in rage every time.

▲

Get Whitey!

It’s a good thing this poorly camouflaged critter lives in my oak tree instead of the fictional setting of the Hunger Games, where he might have fallen under the pitiless gaze of movie huntress Katniss Everdeen. She would have put an arrow right through his little eyeball.

Speaking of those who are hard on the little things—the gentle, helpless creatures—it appears Herman Cain is still pretending to be relevant in the public arena (possibly as an excuse to get out of the house and escape the baleful gaze of Mrs. Cain). He has ads out that depict an adorable bunny being hurled upward and shot-gunned out of the sky and a fish being slowly suffocated to death to protest the stimulus. It’s such a pressing issue these days, you know.

Also, according to a CNN breaking news alert, a CNN/ORC poll finds that “nearly 75% of Americans” think George Zimmerman should be arrested for shooting unarmed teen Trayvon Martin to death. I’m guessing the precise number will turn out to be 73%. Maybe the 27% are the Orcs who were polled?

Please consider this an open thread.

[Cross-posted at Rumproast]

▲

Not Sure This Changes Much

Here we go, as we enter the inevitable “Trayvon had it coming” stage of this story:

Trayvon Martin may have attacked a Neighborhood Watch captain before the man shot dead the unarmed teen in a gated community in Florida, an anonymous witness who spoke to police claimed yesterday.

The witness, known only as John, told Sanford police that he saw Martin on top of George Zimmerman shortly before the fatal shot that has led to a national outcry, including a huge ‘hoodie’ march in Philadelphia last night. He recounted the details to Fox 35 News in Florida.

I don’t know how this changes anything for me. Even if there was a fight and Zimmerman was losing, the entirety of the blame lies with Zimmerman. He was the wannabe cop cruising around acting like a tough guy. He was the one who saw a black guy and immediately thought “crook.” He was the one who called 911. He was the one who pursued Trayvon, ignoring the explicit instructions of the cops. He was the one who confronted Trayvon. And he was the one who shot him.

Even if Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman got into a scuffle, Trayvon is the one who gets to claim self-defense here. He wasn’t the predator following Zimmerman with a loaded gun, it was the other way around.

Trayvon Martin is dead, and one person is responsible for all of the series of actions that led to his death. That person is George Zimmerman.

▲

Observing The Anniversary

As the Affordable Care Act turns two today, the Serious Village Types are contractually obligated to inform us that it was the worst piece of legislation ever conceived and that President Obama is the worst politician of all time for wasting time trying to get GOP votes for the bill, and then going it alone without them, assuring they would vow to destroy the law.

We are assured that everyone hates the bill, left, right, and center, despite the fact that elements of the bill are popular (particularly the parts involving coverage for pre-existing conditions and keeping kids on insurance plans to age 26.)  But at this point I think Republicans have vastly overplayed their hand on it for three reasons.

One is MetamorphoMitt.  The one thing from his past that he can’t shake away is MassCare.  Two, the GOP really can’t stop themselves from twirling their collective evil mustaches when doing things like voting to kill the Medicare cost review board while complaining that Medicare costs too much.  The other is the GOP assault on women’s rights, which is seriously driving away voters of both sexes.

All of these are going to seriously put a dent in the amount of damage the Republicans can do in November.  And call me crazy, but I think the Supreme Court may punt on the law until 2014 because the mandate isn’t in effect yet, and precisely because the GOP has done zero to replace the law should it be struck down, there’s a fair argument that nuking the law would be a massive burden for the states and for individuals.  Indeed, the government’s argument is that without a replacement set of laws, the entire health care system itself could be at risk if the mandate is severed.

Meanwhile, the parts of the law that are going into effect are working slowly and surely behind the scenes, and the law is rolling inexorably forward.  I think we’re going to be okay here.

[UPDATE]  Sarah Kliff over at Ezra’s House O’ Wonk has a detailed rundown of the changes already made by the law.

 

▲

Hey, Look, Another Decent Jobs Report

348,000 new unemployment claims, down 5,000 from last week.

▲

Family planning

There seems to be some mistaken notion out there that the the efforts to limit access to family planning by Republicans are purely abstract and hypothetical and “political” and unlikely to have any real effect on real women, if Democrats win the “message war” on the HHS contraception rule. That isn’t true.

Democrats portray Blunt’s measure as the latest example of a Republican attack on women’s access to health care.

Limiting access to family planning services isn’t a “losing” purely political ploy by Republicans that is then being countered by a “winning” purely political ploy by Democrats. Both sides aren’t doing it. One side is limiting access to birth control, now, today, and the other side is pointing that out. No “portrayal” about it. It’s happening.

We’ll go to Republican actions at the federal , state and then county level, so it’s clear.

First, Title X is a federal program that subsidizes access to contraception, which should be obvious to even the most even-handed, even-steven, fair and balanced political reporter, because this is the name of the Title X program:

The Title X Family Planning program [“Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs” (Public Law 91-572)]

Actions at the federal level taken by Republicans to limit access to contraception; Title X:

The Tea Party House attempts to gut Title X:

But when Boehner later asked for the elimination of funds for Title X—spending for women’s health and family planning organizations that also provide abortion services, the aide said the president flatly refused.

The two GOP candidates for the presidency both oppose Title X funding. That’s fact. If a candidate opposes Title X funding, that candidate is vowing to limit access to family planning. It isn’t that complicated. If Mitt Romney intends to eliminate Title X, Mitt Romney intends to limit access to family planning for 5 million people. Title X = family planning for 5 million people. No funding, no Title X.

Actions at the state level by Republicans to limit access to contraception:

Now in place, in Indiana and Texas;

The bill would cut $3 million in federal money the state currently allocates to the women’s health group. But the bill also puts Indiana in a financial tight spot as it risks losing $4 million a year in federal family-planning money that would be eliminated because of the state legislation.

Leticia Parra, a mother of five scraping by on income from her husband’s sporadic construction jobs, relied on the Planned Parenthood clinic in San Carlos, an impoverished town in South Texas, for breast cancer screenings, free birth control pills and pap smears for cervical cancer.

But the clinic closed in October, along with more than a dozen others in the state, after financing for women’s health was slashed by two-thirds by the Republican-controlled Legislature.
The cuts, which left many low-income women with inconvenient or costly options, grew out of the effort to eliminate state support for Planned Parenthood. Now, the same sentiment is likely to lead to a shutdown next week of another significant source of reproductive health care: the Medicaid Women’s Health Program, which serves 130,000 women with grants to many clinics, including those run by Planned Parenthood. Gov. Rick Perry and Republican lawmakers have said they would forgo the $35 million in federal money that finances the women’s health program in order to keep Planned Parenthood from getting any of it.

When Republican governors like Mitch Daniels and Rick Perry refuse to fund Planned Parenthood clinics with Medicaid funds, Republican governors like Mitch Daniels and Rick Perry are limiting access to contraception, because Planned Parenthood clinics are where certain women go to get contraception:

Contraception — 35 percent of services in 2008
Reversible Contraception Clients, Women** 2,263,776
Emergency Contraception Kits 1,436,808
Tubal Sterilization Clients 489
Reversible Contraception Clients, Men 109,823
Vasectomy Clients 2,979

Contraception is the single biggest service Planned Parenthood provides (pdf)

Planned Parenthood clinics = access to birth control for certain women. Again, not that complicated.

Actions taken by Republicans at the county level to limit access to contraception:

After yesterday’s post about county commissioners in New Hanover County, North Carolina, voting to reject state money for family planning, Amber Pickman wrote to tell us about a similar move in Miami County, Kansas.
The Miami County Commission voted 3-2 last week to exclude about $9,000 in funding aimed at covering contraceptives from the county’s state grant applications.

To recap: Republicans have been taking action to limit access to contraception at the federal level since 2010. All of the Republicans candidates for President have vowed to limit access to contraception through Title X. Republicans at the state level are right now, today, limiting access to contraception, because they are defunding the Plannned Parenthood facilities that provide access to contraception, and, finally, Republicans at the county level are limiting access to contraception by zeroing-out funding for family planning programs. Limiting access to contraception is conservative policy, in action, at the federal state and county level, now, today.

Further, these actions by Republicans at the federal, state and county level have nothing to do with President Obama’s announcement of the rule on contraception in the health care law or “religious liberty” because they were attempted, in place or in the works before President Obama’s announcement of the rule. These actions to limit access to contraception have nothing whatever to do with church-owned health care corporations or entities, so are completely unrelated to the nonsensical “religious liberty” smokescreen. Republicans have been and are taking action to limit access to contraception separate and apart from President Obama’s HHS rule.

The answer to the question “are Republicans limiting access to contraception?” is “yes”. The one and only question remaining is how far they’ll go. Will they go to employer-provided health insurance policies and all women, or will this conservative campaign to limit access to contraception remain confined to women who rely on Title X, Planned Parenthood and county-funded family planning services?

▲

That’s two: South Carolina and now Texas

Good, strong move:

The U.S. Department of Justice has rejected Texas’ application for preclearance of its voter ID law, saying the state did not prove that the bill would not have a discriminatory effect on minority voters.

“The department’s letter states that Texas did not meet its burden under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of showing that the law will not have a discriminatory effect on minority voters, and therefore the department objects to the Texas voter identification law,” said Xochitl Hinojosa, a Justice Department spokeswoman. “According to the state’s own data, a Hispanic registered voter is at least 46.5%, and potentially 120%, more likely than a non-Hispanic registered voter to lack the required identification.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney General Thomas E. Perez wrote in a letter to Keith Ingram, the director of Texas’ elections division on Monday:
“As noted above, an applicant for an election identification certificate will have to travel to a driver’s license office. This raises three discrete issues. First, according to the most recent American Community Survey three-year estimates, 7.3 percent of Hispanic or Latino households do not have an available vehicle, as compared with only 3.8 percent of non-Hispanic white households that lack an available vehicle. Statistically significant correlations exist between the Hispanic voting-age population percentage of a county, and the percentage of occupied housing units without a vehicle.
Second, in 81 of the state’s 254 counties, there are no operational driver’s license offices. The disparity in the rates between Hispanics and non-Hispanics with regard to the possession of either a driver’s license or personal identification card issued by DPS is particularly stark in counties without driver’s license offices. According to the September 2011 data, 10.0 percent of Hispanics in counties without driver’s license offices do not have either form of identification, compared to 5.5 percent of non-Hispanics. According to the January 2012 data, that comparison is 14.6 percent of Hispanics in counties without driver’s license offices, as compared to 8.8 percent of non-Hispanics. During the legislative hearings, one senator stated that some voters in his district could have to travel up to 176 miles roundtrip in order to reach a driver’s license office.

As I’ve probably made clear with my tens of voting rights posts, I think this is a really important issue, and worth fighting for. When conservatives say one fraudulently cast vote is one too many, well, I feel exactly the same way and just as strongly that one wrongfully disenfranchised voter is one too many. After years of looking at this, my conclusion is that conservatives are demanding that we on the voter access side accept a certain amount of risk and collateral damage with these voter ID laws that they would not and will not accept on their issue, which is (supposedly) voter impersonation fraud. I don’t know why I would accept any risk at all when they won’t. They’re demanding that their fears about voter impersonation fraud trump our concerns about voter access, completely and presumptively. I don’t accept that. If one is too many on the voter impersonation fraud side, then one is too many on the voter access side.
In addition. Because I’ve been on several conference calls this year with voting rights people who are members of and work on behalf of various minority communities, I have learned, listening, that this is an extremely important issue to the people in the Democratic base who are in the targeted minority groups. They want action on this. They want voting rights affirmatively protected. It’s good policy and good politics to do that.

▲

The Economy, Stupid

Another OK jobs report, with some graphs.  Time to put some more women up in stirrups and print more pictures of Obama hugging black people.

Update:  Or, you can just deny reality.  Reince Preibus is sure more of a Michael Steele than a Lee Atwater, Ed Gillespie or Ken Mehlman.

▲

Taking Obamacare on the road

I went to an HHS event last night on Obamacare and small business. Just to clarify, the federal regulation of large businesses is the actual issue behind the screaming about sluts, but this was on Obamacare and small business, so perhaps we’ll be listening to conservatives and media screaming about sluts who own small businesses rather than sluts who work for large businesses in a month or two and we’ll be better prepared this time.

To set this up, the man in the photo below is Kenneth Munson, the regional HHS director who presented the program and who is (possibly) the most patient and endlessly polite person in America:

Does he look tired? Yes, but it was the end of the presentation, and you would too, if you had his job.

I met my friend Ann at the event, and as soon as I sat beside her she told me “there are Tea Party people here”. The Tea Party leader apparently felt it was his job to fact-check the HHS director. Unfortunately for the Tea Partier, the HHS director wasn’t engaging in any kind of hard sell of the health care law, but was simply explaining how it works, a factual recitation with slides, so the cross examination by the Tea Person sounded a little silly.

I deal with county and state agency employees a lot in my work, so in my view this paranoid, combative approach is akin to my challenging an employee of a state or county agency who is explaining a rule change or some other incredibly dull process with “you, sir, are a LIAR”. In other words, he wasn’t there for information he was there to discredit the speaker, and that approach just sounds bizarre and unhinged outside of Fox-News-World.

As an example, The Tea Partier focused for a long time on an “inaccuracy” he had spotted, where he objected to the HHS director and other attendees stating that they “could not” purchase health insurance if they had a pre-existing condition prior to passage of the law. The Tea Partier insisted that they COULD have purchased a policy, but they couldn’t AFFORD a policy. I’m not sure why this distinction was so important to him, or why he seized on it in this sort of smoking gun, lawyer-on-The Simpsons way, returning to it again and again, but one of the attendees got tired of it, turned in her seat to face him and and shut Lionel Hutz up with “it was unavailable TO ME. Okay? TO ME”. He seemed smugly satisfied with that important concession. There was more along those lines, but I was really amused near the end when the Tea Partier volunteered that he had ten thousand dollars in a health savings account, because blurting out “look at me, LOSERS, I have TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS!” reminds me of Mitt Romney.

There was a lot of information presented, so I’ll just give you the outlines and an excellent link, to Small Business Majority, which is a national public policy advocacy organization which is not (yet) owned by the Koch Brothers. We can hash out the details some other time. There is a “tax credit calculator” at the link that is helpful, so have fun with that!

•If you have up to 25 employees, pay average annual wages below $50,000, and provide health insurance, you may qualify for a small business tax credit of up to 35% (up to 25% for non-profits) to offset the cost of your insurance. This will bring down the cost of providing insurance.
•Under the health care law, employer-based plans that provide health insurance to retirees ages 55-64 can now get financial help through the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program. This program is designed to lower the cost of premiums for all employees and reduce employer health costs.
•Starting in 2014, the small business tax credit goes up to 50% (up to 35% for non-profits) for qualifying businesses. This will make the cost of providing insurance even lower.
•In 2014, small businesses with generally fewer than 100 employees can shop in an Affordable Insurance Exchange, which gives you power similar to what large businesses have to get better choices and lower prices. An Exchange is a new marketplace where individuals and small businesses can buy affordable health benefit plans.
•Exchanges will offer a choice of plans that meet certain benefits and cost standards. Starting in 2014, members of Congress will be getting their health care insurance through Exchanges, and you will be able to buy your insurance through Exchanges, too.
•Employers with fewer than 50 employees are exempt from new employer responsibility policies. They don’t have to pay an assessment if their employees get tax credits through an Exchange.

This woman is self-employed, had a pre-existing condition, and was unable to purchase health insurance prior to passage of the law. She pays $315 a month for her policy. She brought her insurance card to show the HHS director, so I took her picture:

▲

All or Nothing At All

Via the Great Orange Satan, Cardinal Francis George has decided the Catholic church gets to dictate what happens to lady parts of they should just burn it all down:

What will happen if the HHS regulations are not rescinded? A Catholic institution, so far as I can see right now, will have one of four choices: 1) secularize itself, breaking its connection to the church, her moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop. This is a form of theft. It means the church will not be permitted to have an institutional voice in public life. 2) Pay exorbitant annual fines to avoid paying for insurance policies that cover abortifacient drugs, artificial contraception and sterilization. This is not economically sustainable. 3) Sell the institution to a non-Catholic group or to a local government. 4) Close down.

Actually, I quite like option #3. Sell it to a non-Catholic group, and use the proceeds to pay back the thousands upon thousands of the Church’s sexual abuse victims around the world.

▲

Or-LINE-do: My Very Own “Cab Driver” Anecdote with Profound Implications

Much as Tom Friedman gleans man-on-the-street wisdom from the cabbies who ferry him to and fro, I sallied forth from the Cracker Cloister yesterday to mingle with the common folk, securing priceless insights that I will share directly. Unlike Friedman, I didn’t board a G6 and fly to Aspen to pick up a $75,000 speaking fee.

Rather, I played hooky along with my teenage daughter to visit a couple of theme parks, including a park that has a section devoted to a fictional young sorcerer. The fiction-based city to which we traveled for this purpose should be renamed “Or-LINE-do” since visitors spend the majority of their day languishing in queues. There were lines to access the $15 parking lot. Lines to pay an outrageous sum to visit the parks. Lines to have our bags searched. Lines to hear a sales pitch before paying $29.95 for a plastic replica of a wizard’s wand.

There were even lines for lunch seating at The Three Broomsticks tavern and the privilege of paying $40.00 for a bagged salad that reeked of chlorine, a dollop of runny mac ‘n cheese accompanied by a sad cluster of grapes and souvenir tankards of “Butterbeer” (which turns out to be cream soda topped with an oilier incarnation of Cool Whip). Anyhoo, it was at The Three Broomsticks that I obtained “cabbie wisdom” by briefly eavesdropping on the conversation of a pair of 20-something women at the adjacent table.

As they consumed THEIR $20 bagged salads, the young women’s discussion turned to the upcoming Republican debate. They admitted to one another that they hardly pay attention to politics at all and hadn’t watched the previous debates, but both expressed interest in seeing that evening’s tussle. Why? Because they were alarmed about what they’d heard regarding the Republicans’ wholesale assault on women’s rights and birth control. More »

▲

Maybe You Should Have Asked Some Women

Hilarious:

Gov. Robert F. McDonnell is backing off his unconditional support for a bill requiring women to have an ultrasound before an abortion, focusing new attention on one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in Virginia’s General Assembly this year.

Until this weekend, McDonnell® and his aides had said the governor would sign the measure if it made it to his desk. McDonnell, who strongly opposes abortion, will no longer make that commitment.

But delegates and governor’s staff were scheduled to meet Tuesday night to strike a compromise after learning that some ultrasounds could be more invasive than first thought, according to two officials who were aware of the meeting but not authorized to speak about it publicly. Many of the bill’s supporters were apparently unaware of how invasive the procedure could be, one of the officials added.

Imagine that. Here are the chief sponsors of the bill in the Virginia Senate:

Jill Holtzman Vogel (chief patron)
Ralph K. Smith (chief co-patron)
Richard H. Black
Charles W. Carrico, Sr.
Charles J. Colgan
Thomas A. Garrett
Ryan T. McDougle
Jeffrey L. McWaters
Stephen D. Newman
Phillip P. Puckett
Frank M. Ruff, Jr.
William M. Stanley, Jr.

Here is the list for the House sponsors:

Kathy J. Byron (chief patron)
David B. Albo
Richard L. Anderson
Richard P. Bell
Robert B. Bell
Benjamin L. Cline
Mark L. Cole
Anne B. Crockett-Stark
L. Mark Dudenhefer
C. Matt Fariss
T. Scott Garrett
Chris T. Head
Gordon C. Helsel, Jr.
Riley E. Ingram
Joseph P. Johnson, Jr.
L. Scott Lingamfelter
Daniel W. Marshall, III
Robert G. Marshall
James P. “Jimmie” Massie, III
Rick L. Morris
Israel D. O’Quinn
Brenda L. Pogge
Charles D. Poindexter
Lacey E. Putney
Margaret B. Ransone
Nick Rush
Tony O. Wilt

Does something stand out about those lists of names to you? And again, let’s review what the bill does:

The ultrasound legislation would require women to undergo a test to determine the gestation age of the fetus, hear the heartbeat and be given an opportunity to see the images.

A woman who refuses to look at the ultrasound would have to sign a statement, which along with a print of the image would become part of her medical file.

The bill also would require women who live within 100 miles of their abortion provider to wait at least 24 hours before having the procedure, except in emergencies. Those who live farther would have to wait two hours.

Supporters of the ultrasound measure say it would provide crucial medical information to women seeking abortions; opponents say it would subject women to unnecessary tests and invade their privacy.

It is unclear whether insurance companies would cover the procedure.

Basically, you have a sausage-fest of obnoxious old men with nothing better to do than fuck with women simply because they can. That’s all this bill does. It won’t provide any additional information, it serves no medical purpose. It’s simply a way to screw with women who want to have an abortion. That’s why people who live 99 miles away have to wait 24 hours, but people who live 101 miles away only have to wait two hours. What changes in that two mile stretch? Nothing. It’s just a totally arbitrary way to fuck with women who want to control their own lives. That is all this bill does. It will save no lives, it will just make life miserable for some women who really just need to be left alone by the state. That’s all these assholes are doing.

Because Jeebus told them to.

▲

Try not to think of Olympia Snowe

I posted something on co-ops in Obamacare a couple of years back and many commenters were…skeptical, but I thought I’d update anyway:

Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans (CO-OPs)
The Affordable Care Act creates a new type of non-profit health insurer, called a Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP). These insurers are run by their customers. CO-OPs are meant to offer consumer-friendly, affordable health insurance options to individuals and small businesses.
The federal government is offering loans to non-profit organizations to help establish CO-OPs.
What This Means for You
By January 1, 2014, you may have the opportunity to buy health insurance coverage from a CO-OP for yourself or your family. If you’re a small business owner, you may be able to buy health coverage for your employees from a CO-OP.
In a CO-OP, your health insurance needs and concerns are a top priority because you and your fellow CO-OP customer/members elect the board of directors. A majority of these directors must themselves be CO-OP customers. CO-OPs must use profits to lower premiums, improve benefits, or improve the quality of members’ health care.

Seems the co-op idea is still an iffy proposition (we’ve tried this before) but they are moving forward with them:

Seven organizations will receive a total of $639 million in federal low-interest loans to launch new, consumer-governed health insurance plans in eight states, the federal government announced Tuesday.
The new plans, authorized by the 2010 health law, are scheduled to open for business in 2014. They will be available on the new state health exchanges, or marketplaces, mandated by the law, and primarily will serve Americans under age 65 in the individual and small-group insurance markets. More loan recipients will be announced in coming months, with the goal of launching at least one nonprofit co-op plan in every state, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the program.
The seven loan recipients are Freelancers CO-OP of New Jersey, New Mexico Health Connections, Midwest Members Health in Iowa and Nebraska, Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative in Wisconsin, Freelancers CO-OP of Oregon, Montana Health Cooperative, and Freelancers Health Service Corporation in New York
The new plans are being formed by public health activists, medical associations, business groups, hospital executives, labor unions and others. They’re betting that Americans want a local, consumer-friendly alternative to commercial insurers.
“People from all walks of life are dissatisfied with the status quo, and believe that our health care and health insurance system can be dramatically improved,” said John Morrison, a former Montana insurance commissioner who is on the board of the proposed Montana Health Cooperative and also heads the National Alliance of State Health Cooperatives.
The plans are being started under the health law’s Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program. The aim is to increase competition among insurers, potentially reducing premiums and improving health care quality and customer service. In many states, only one or two insurers control the bulk of the health insurance business.
Some co-op sponsors say their plans will be able to offer lower premiums because they won’t have to generate profits for investors. Under the law, co-op plans must apply any surpluses to lowering rates or improving benefits or quality for their members.

As an individual or small business owner, you may be able to join others in creating a CO-OP and apply for a federal loan to help get it started.

Someone here at BJ should start one. I draft Martin.

▲

Can PolitiFact Be Salvaged?

Rachel Maddow is fed up with PolitiFact. She’s not alone. PolitiFact’s galloping case of Broderitis seems to have worsened recently. Perhaps its most infamous foray into useful idiocy was its 2011 “Lie of the Year” award for Democrats who correctly characterized Paul Ryan’s “Coupons4Codgers” plan as the end of Medicare as we know it.

But PolitiFact routinely distorts the facts in ways large and small, as chronicled frequently at this blog and elsewhere. This morning brought a fresh example of PolitiFact’s moldy decay to my attention: It rated Florida Governor Rick Scott’s claim at CPAC that his administration is “poised to get rid of over 1,000 more regulations in 2012” MOSTLY TRUE despite the fact that the numbers simply don’t add up (by PolitiFact’s own account) and that they had to broaden the definition of “the Scott administration” to encompass the entire Florida legislature to even get within striking distance of TRUE. More »

▲

Tyranny of the Minority

Via Ezra Klein, this graph:

So 80% of the economists think the stimulus created jobs, yet for some reason these folks are still running the show globally:

Specifically, in early 2010 austerity economics — the insistence that governments should slash spending even in the face of high unemployment — became all the rage in European capitals. The doctrine asserted that the direct negative effects of spending cuts on employment would be offset by changes in “confidence,” that savage spending cuts would lead to a surge in consumer and business spending, while nations failing to make such cuts would see capital flight and soaring interest rates. If this sounds to you like something Herbert Hoover might have said, you’re right: It does and he did.

Now the results are in — and they’re exactly what three generations’ worth of economic analysis and all the lessons of history should have told you would happen. The confidence fairy has failed to show up: none of the countries slashing spending have seen the predicted private-sector surge. Instead, the depressing effects of fiscal austerity have been reinforced by falling private spending.

Furthermore, bond markets keep refusing to cooperate. Even austerity’s star pupils, countries that, like Portugal and Ireland, have done everything that was demanded of them, still face sky-high borrowing costs. Why? Because spending cuts have deeply depressed their economies, undermining their tax bases to such an extent that the ratio of debt to G.D.P., the standard indicator of fiscal progress, is getting worse rather than better.

Meanwhile, countries that didn’t jump on the austerity train — most notably, Japan and the United States — continue to have very low borrowing costs, defying the dire predictions of fiscal hawks.

Kthug goes on to ask “So what will it take to convince the Pain Caucus, the people on both sides of the Atlantic who insist that we can cut our way to prosperity, that they are wrong?”

The answer of course is nothing. Nothing will convince them they are wrong. This is not about facts or data our actual outcomes, this is about their religion. This is about faith. Nothing will prove to them that they are wrong, because they believe. You will have more luck convincing the Pope there is no God than you will convince a wingnut economist that no matter how low you cut taxes, government revenues will still increase. They just believe.

▲