Obama supports repeal of health insurance antitrust exemption

I thought this might be relevant to those of us in Econ, because it deals with antitrust laws. Basically, the health insurance industry is exempt from some of the antitrust regulations. This exemption has been in place since the end of World War II. It was instated in order to allow new competition in the health care industry and lower consumer costs.

The health care bill passed in the House would have repealed this, but the one in the Senate would not have.

Today, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said:

"At its core, health reform is all about ensuring that American families and businesses have more choices, benefit from more competition and have greater control over their own health care," Gibbs said.

"Repealing this exemption is an important part of that effort. Today, there are no rules outlawing bid rigging, price fixing and other insurance company practices that will drive up health care costs and often drive up their own profits as well."

Advocates of the repeal argue that the current exemption has allowed health care companies to divide the country into "local monopolies"

Opponents of the repeal, however, point to the state regulations still must follow. They believe that a complete repeal is unnecessary.

Obama's plan also calls for the secretary of Health and Human Services to work with a seven-member board made up of doctors, economists and consumer and insurance representatives to review the recent premium hikes.

I'm pretty undecided on this issue, and I don't have a lot of background information. Will this really make a huge difference in health care? I agree that insurers shouldn't be exempt from antitrust laws, but I don't really understand the difference this would make. Would premiums drastically go down? What do you think? Will this make a big difference on the insurance market? Is it just Obama's latest battle against privatized health care?

Obama's Persistant Health Plan

Obama is back for another attempt at health care reform, but he isn't being greeted too warmly. To me, it seems like an uphill battle after the Democrats lost the supermajority, and now he seems to be losing even more Democratic support. Congress is getting tired of debating a topic that seems doomed to fail, Obama needs to move on and accept that there is no support behind health care right now.

Consumers Fall

Yet again people are losing faith in the economy. The over all consumer confidence is at an all time historic low since april of 2009. People feel that things are worse now then they have ever been. With the consumer index showing that 19.4% out of 5,000 survayed homes think that the economy is ok. This is an all time low over the past 27 years. People bealive that things are worse than when the stock market crash of 2008. Expecatations for the future are to be low. The outlook on the over all labor maket was even worse then the economy standings in the eyes of americans. An over all 18.4% people bealive that the job market will get better, form the previouse month 24.6% of people thought it would get better. It seems that people are loseing hope in the job market as well as the economy. What has happened in this one short month to make people think that things cant change?

War on Terror v. First Amendment: What will the court decide?

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will examine the constitutionality of an antiterrorist law which "prohibits American citizens from knowingly providing 'material support or resources' to designated terrorist groups." The law in question was first passed in 1996 and later amended by the Patriot Act of 2001. The plaintiff, Humanitarian Law Project, filed suit based on the claim that the antiterrorist law violates their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. Other organizations have spoken out in support of Humanitarian Law Project, including the Carter Center. Both Humanitarian Law Project and the Carter Center have said that the problem with the law is that it is too vague. The law infringes on their ability to provide aide and work towards the "peaceful resolution of conflict."

The Obama administration has spoken out in defense of the law, claiming it is "a crucial tool in America's fight against terrorism."

In this case, I have to side with Humanitarian Law Project. While I do not have a problem with the concept of the law, I do not believe that it is narrowly tailored. Because the law is vague, it has implications in areas outside of the purpose for which it was explicitly designed. I think that the law needs to be revised such that it does not prevent the peaceful and legitimate actions of organizations such as the Humanitarian Law Project. As it stands, the law is a serious violation of the First Amendment.

NATO airstrike mistakenly targets Afghan civilians

On Sunday, United States Special Forces helicopters launched an airstrike against what they believed to be a group of insurgents who had "escaped the NATO offensive in the Marja area." Tragically, the forces mistakenly killed "as many as 27 civilians in the worst such case since at least September." The tragedy occurred in an area under the control of the Dutch military. While Dutch forces played no role in the airstrike, some are concerned about the effect it will have on the Dutch war effort. The Afghan war is extremely unpopular in the Netherlands, and this airstrike will only serve to increase that sentiment.

Of the 27 who are thought to be dead, 4 were women and one was a child.

I cannot believe that NATO forces allowed this to happen. What makes it even more tragic is the fact that it is not even considered an extraordinarily rare occurrence, it is just another part of the war effort. If something like this ever happened in the United States, it would be huge news. There would be trials and serious investigations into how such a horrible mistake was made. Those innocent people did not deserve to die.

Obama tries to get healthcare legislation back in motion

For the first time, President Obama has put forward some of his own proposals for healthcare reform. Obama has obviously made healthcare a top priority, and I think his choice to put forth direct proposals is probably reflective of his frustration with the rate at which the debate is moving. Perhaps the most notable of the proposals that Obama put forth would make it such that the federal government has the power to prevent health insurance companies from excessively increasing the cost of premiums.

The Republican response to Obama's proposals has been overwhelmingly critical. They have argued that it is too similar to previous Democratic bills, and not really a step towards a bipartisan solution. Obama has defended his plan, claiming it will both make healthcare more affordable and reduce the federal deficit.

Obama put forth these new proposals as a way to try "and revive stalled legislation on the issue." "On Thursday he will hold bipartisan talks at the White House on" healthcare. Obama has a lot riding on the healthcare debate. His approval ratings have already dropped considerably, and I think his chance of reelection hangs heavily on the healthcare issue. I feel like the debate has already lost a lot of momentum, and the process is not even close to being over. The House and Senate must still create a single bill, which may be very difficult to get passed at this stage in the game. The Democrats no longer have a filibuster-proof majority, which could prove to be very problematic. I feel that at this point, the bill is too weighed down by partisan politics. We need healthcare reform, but I'm not sure that it will be delivered.

Curling fans get crazy...

Here's a post from a Yahoo! sports blog that popped up on my homepage. It's completely unpolitical, but I found it interesting.

In a close women's curling match where Canada won 5-4 over Denmark, Danish Madeliene Dupont blamed the aggressive Canadian fans when she missed two potentially game-winning shots.

Curling is a sport that apparently requires intense concentration and the ability to hear your teammates. Dupont was practically in tears after 6,000 Canadian fans began stomping and making deafening noise. The noise was obviously intended to distract Dupont.

I understand such noise in sports such as basketball, hockey, and football, where the noise of the crowd is normal and expected by the players. But curling is tame sport, like golf, where it is the polite thing to be quiet, and only cheer when the players are finished. Even a Canadian curler agreed that the fans were loud, but excused their behavior based on the fact they "don't know the game." I think it's a lame excuse. They were obviously quiet when it was Canada's turn.

As an obnoxiously loud fan myself, I understand Canada's pride and desire for their home team to win. But I also find it embarrassing in a sport such as curling, where it is not appropriate. They're the hosts, and they should know better. Save it for the hockey rinks.

More jobs...yeah! Losing benefits...boo!!

Five minutes ago, I wrote a blog about the new bill that Senate passed and how it is going to benefit the unemployed. However, I guess everything comes with a price...(oh economy).

"More than 1 million people could lose their jobless benefits and health insurance subsidy in March if Congress doesn't act fast."

Right now, the Senate has until Feb 28 to help the jobless keep their benefits and health insurance.

If the Senate doesn't extend the deadline, people receiving jobless benefits won't be able to apply for additional federally paid unemployment insurance and anyone receiving those checks will lose those too!

When you think the economy is getting better, BAM! There is a trade-off. Oh opportunity cost! A bittersweet thing, no?

A step towards bipartisanship?

The senate's newest Republican member, Scott Brown, chose to side with the Democrats this week on a new bill directed towards job creation. Although the issue is pretty moderate, he joins only four other Republicans in his support. "I hope my vote today is a strong step toward restoring bipartisanship in Washington," Brown said in a statement. During the highly hyped election that he eventually won, he spoke of how he was not entirely devoted to Republicans on all issues.

I think this is an excellent way to (hopefully) begin some bipartisan efforts in congress. I'm tired of hearing both sides criticize one another, and optimistic about Brown's choice. I hope it sets the stage for more compromise in Washington. Obama called it a "major step forward" and has also promised to continue to incorporate Republicans into the creation of the bill.

The job creation bill proposes a $15 billion package of tax cuts and highway spending. It's also a good example of Keynesian economics, (government intervention during an economic crisis), on a more nerdy note!

More jobs!! Maybe the economy is getting better!

Today, the Senate voted to push forward a $15 billion jobs creation bill that will give businesses a tax break for hiring unemployed people. It looks like Obama's State of the Union had a profound effect on the government (considering how many times Obama took the time out from his speech to accuse the Senate/ persuade the Senate to support his ideas).

Even though the bill is helping reboot our economy, the bill does not "extend the deadline to apply for unemployment benefits." If the deadline of the bill isn't extended, 1.2 million people will run out of benefits after Feb. 28.

However, the bill isn't just a Christmas gift for everybody. The Senate measure does not provide "additional assistance for states." And because of that, many governors are asking for the Obama administration to fix the budget gaps by sending more federal dollars their way.

Even though the bill doesn't cover all the different angles, it is a good start for the 2010 year. It looks like Obama is going down is "To do list" that he created in the State of the Union Address and check marking boxes as the year goes on. Keep it up Obama!!!!

Republicans Talk About Health-Care Reform

I found this blog by Ezra Klein rather funny (link in title). We always here the Republicans complaining about the health-care reform and attempt to down grade is possible success. Who knew that the Republicans great reform changes were already in the bill? Ezra gets down to the truth of the matter when he states, "establishment Republicans are shying away from them to avoid letting the Democrats swing the spotlight around to the downsides of the real conservative alternatives."

New Credit Card Rules!!!!!!!!!

As the economy is slowly begining to show a positive change with these new rules families no longer have to worry about hidden clauses. With the CARD Act taking effect in stages people have the chance to make a positive change to there credit card statice. The credit card changes include:

-Credit card ssuers can no longer randomely increase intrest rates and fees on existing balances
-Intrest cannotbe charged when debt is paied on time
-Issuers must get the signature of a parent or guardian when extending a card to a consumer under the age of 21

There are more rules to this and are taking efffect slowly since monday. Witht these new rules I bealive that people will have an eaiser time staying out of debt and having a positive ways with there oveer all credit score.

New study disproves "don't ask, don't tell"

In Obama's State of the Union, he rejected "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the military, and called for it to be repealed immediately. Many military leaders and others have already expressed hesitation at the idea, and the stated views of Pentagon leaders is that repealing the ban would take a year or more and be a disruption to the entire armed forces.

However, a comprehensive study that updates existing studies on openly gay service members in Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa and other countries, holds the belief that gay soldiers do not cause a disruption. The study, “Gays in Foreign Militaries 2010: A Global Primer,” was conducted by the Palm Center of UC Santa Barbara.

The report found that there were no increased instances of harassment, none of the countries had to install separate facilities, and that transition was speedy and uneventful.

However, Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, a potential Republican candidate for president in 2012, said that he continued to support “don’t ask, don’t tell” because “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it.” Um, ignorance much?

Animal Abuse Registry

Many of us are familiar with the sex offenders registry. Basically, every person that is a known sex offender is recorded. Their names, along with home addresses and jobs, are listed in online registries. I'm sure you've all heard the stories where people put their address in and realize some of their neighbors are known sex offenders. Ahhhh!

In California, lawmakers are now trying to establish the same sort of system for known animal abusers. The proposal was made by State Senate’s majority leader, Dean Florez, and is the latest law in California to guarantee new rights to animals. The effort is also one of the only bipartisan efforts in the CA state government.

Many of you may remember California's Proposition 2, which gave hens, calves and pigs more room in their crates or cages. CA has also passed laws outlawing cruelty towards dairy cows for more efficient milking.

Under the proposed law, any person convicted of a felony involving animal cruelty would have to register with the police and provide a range of personal information and a current photograph. That information would be posted online, along with information on the person’s offense.

Something interesting mentioned in the article was a quote from a representative of the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

“We know there’s a link between those who abuse animals and those who perform other forms of violence,” said Stephan Otto, the group’s director of legislative affairs. “Presumably if we’re able to track animal abusers and be able to know where they live, there will be less opportunity where those vulnerable to them would be near them.”

I'm not sure this is a necessary for people to avoid when looking for a house, but I do think it's a new way to investigate possible employees. I find anyone willing to abuse a helpless animal absolutely disgusting and feel like they should pay an outrageous price. As an animal lover, I find it appropriate to list sex offenders and animal abusers in the same category. However, I can understand how some may think this is harsh.

Israel's latest weapon

Today, Israel unveiled its latest weapon: pilotless planes that can remain airborne for an entire day and fly as far as the Persian Gulf. The planes, known as the Heron TP, could play a significant role in the conflict between Israel and Iran. While Israel refuses to reveal what the new fleet was designed for, the fact that Iran is within the range of the Heron TP should not be overlooked. Israel considers Iran's nuclear program to be a significant threat. Israel has suggested that if Iran does not stop their nuclear program, Israel would be open to using military force.

While I don't think there is cause to worry yet, I think Israel's use of the Heron TP should definitely be closely monitored. The fact that Israel's Air Force is being so secretive about the purpose of the new aircraft is cause for suspicion.

Cold-blooded murder. Town says it was justified?

I read this very interesting article in the San Francisco Chronicle today. Unfortunately, there is no link for it online (SFGate says the article is only available in print). The article was titled "Town says abuse drove man to kill," and it was on the front page of the newspaper.

The article discussed the trial of 32-year-old Aaron Vargas who is accused of murdering his 63-year-old former neighbor, Darrell McNeill. On February 8th of last year, Vargas went to visit McNeill. After exchanging a few words with the man, Vargas proceeded to shoot McNeill in the chest with "a .44-caliber round from a Civil War-style cap-and-ball revolver." McNeill died slowly, and Vargas stayed and watched as he took apart his weapon. McNeill's wife, Liz, was present during the entire event. According to Liz, "Vargas told McNeill 'he was lucky' his wife was there." After shooting McNeill, Vargas told the dying man "you're not going to hurt anyone again." He then revealed to Liz that McNeill had molested him as a child.

Vargas returned home and told his mother, Robin Vargas, that he'd shot McNeill. He also revealed that McNeill had abused him during his childhood. Apparently, the abuse began when Vargas was 11-years-old and went on a fishing trip which McNeill also attended. Robin recalls that following this particular trip, Vargas's grades plummeted and he became very withdrawn. Apparently, the abuse continued until about 4 years ago, when Vargas finally stood up to McNeill. But, McNeill did not back down easily. He continued to call Vargas and drop by his house, even offering to babysit his young daughter.

Vargas was arrested later that night. However, over the course of the past year, support for Vargas has grown. Quite a few other men have come forward and revealed that they were also victims of McNeill's abuse. In fact, several people had filed reports against McNeill over a decade ago. None of the reports were ever followed up on. Many within the community, including McNeill's wife, Liz, think that it would be inappropriate to sentence Vargas to a life in prison. Liz has said that she would prefer Vargas to "receive counseling instead of a lengthy prison term." In fact, it seems that the only people pushing for a harsh sentence are the detectives investigating the case and the district attorney.

In this case, I have to say that I feel it would be inappropriate to sentence Aaron Vargas to a life in prison. He was abused by McNeill for 17 years!! I cannot even imagine the emotional pain Vargas must be experiencing. While I think he does deserve some prison time, I feel the focus should be on providing Vargas with the counseling and support he needs to move on. While we cannot condone murder, I think there needs to be proper attention paid to the fact that Vargas was clearly not in his right mind. He had been abused for so many years, he just wanted the pain to end. What really irritates me is that there had been previous allegations against McNeill, but nothing had been investigated or followed up on. If McNeill had been prosecuted a decade ago, so much abuse could have been prevented.

There is one point in the story that I find slightly confusing. Liz McNeill was present during the entire murder. She saw Vargas shoot her husband, and was there during the half hour in which Vargas waited for McNeill to die. I do not know the exact circumstances, but wouldn't it have made sense for her to call the police? Vargas's gun only had one bullet, which he used on McNeill. It seems like McNeill's death could have been prevented.

Is the End In Sight

Last Wednesday, the Obama Administration held a secret meeting to set the US Nuclear Policy for the next 5-10 years. Many believed it would test Obama's "sincerity and determination." They were meeting to "finalize the administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)" which is due to Congress by March 1. There were many in attendance including "secretaries of defense, state, energy, and the national security advisor as well as top military and intelligence officials." The treaty has now moved passed the Senate, where it was voted down ten years ago. Biden has also made clear his priorities when he stated, "We have long relied on nuclear weapons to deter potential adversaries. Now, as our technology improves, we are developing non-nuclear ways to accomplish that same objective." To read more on Biden and US Nuclear Weapon here is the link

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/19/biden-seeks-test-ban-and-end-to-all-us-nukes/?feat=article_top10_read.

As the nation to have created the first nuclear weapons, the first to use them, we should be the first to rid them. We are moving into a new age, an age in which we must face our creation and put an end to it before it puts an end to us.

Fight Against Obesity

Recently, the Obama Administration has been working on a new front against childhood obesity. The White House Office of Science & Technology Policy and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have continued to push for new technology that can help create a fun incentive for children to work out while playing games in a social network online. 31 experts were at a meeting earlier this month to "offer their knowledge and experience related to game design, entertainment technology, social media, and skill contests." Basically, they are having a contest in order to bring together the best ideas out there that will create an addicting game that convinces children to work out.

Also, Michelle Obama has been working on her "Let's Move" campaign across America that hopes to promote better nutrition for all families. She says that the first step is to stop eating "food desserts" in the next 7 year. Another issue she hopes to face head on is the lack of grocery stores in certain areas. Because of this, many Americans are unable to access fruits and vegetables for their healthy nutrition. That is why Michelle Obama ”pointed to a $400 million healthy food financing initiative as a way not only to help kids eat healthy but develop "an economic engine" in poor communities."

Although many of us live in neighborhoods that have farmer's markets, grocery stores, and other forms of accessing healthy foods, many individuals are stuck eating foods high in saturated fats with nothing to balance out their diets. We need to make a change fast if we want to prevent the exponential growth of obesity.

Newt Gingrich and the 2012 election

The link for this post is a pretty interesting post by FiveThirtyEight.com, one of the blogs that Mr. Silton reccommended at the beginning of the year. Most of their posts are polls and data, but this one focuses on Newt Gingrich, a possible GOP nomination for the 2012 election.

You may recognize Gingrich from the video we watched in class (I'm forgetting the name...but it was about him and Clinton) He's the former Speaker of the House and a real name in conservative politics.

When I first read the article about CPAC that I posted earlier this week, I saw Gingrich's name and thought he would be a front runner in the "straw poll" (mentioned by Sarah). However, as skewed as the results may be (by Tea Party activists or the lack of people that actually voted), Gingrich did pretty poorly.

Something interesting about Five Thirty Eight's post was how they counted Gingrich's professionalism as a weakness. Tom Schaller (author of the post) writes of Gingrich's speech at CPAC, "In little more than a half hour, Gingrich managed to reference the Judiciary Act of 1802, Camus’ The Plague, Orwell’s 1984, Hayek’s notions of centralized planning, and John Paul II. I was waiting for him to announced that copies of the speech's footnotes would be available in the lobby." Gingrich is obviously well educated, and it always suprises me how badly Americans react to this. How is that we go for the good ol' boy rather than the scholar? I mean, George W. Bush, really?

Regardless, I agree with the blog that Gingrich could present a challenge to Obama. And he certainly has the experience and track record to rival all the other potential nominees.

Zero Tolerance for doodling

I'm sure we've all done it. You're sitting in class, and you begin absentmindedly doodling on your desk during a particularly dry lecture or boring class period. Imagine if you had simply drawn your name or a phrase on a desk in marker, and suddenly you were arrested and taken down to the nearest police station. Sure, it's defacing school property...but is it really handcuff-worthy?

Alexa Gonzalez, a seventh-grader in New York, simply scrawled "I love my friends Abby and Faith. Lex was here 2/1/10 :)" on her desk in school, and was handcuffed in front of friends and teachers and escorted to the police station.

When I first read this article, I thought it was a joke. There's no way that I could ever imagine something like this happening at any middle school or Aragon. What's the legal criteria for this? Apparently, this is yet another example of the "zero tolerance" policy taken a few steps too far in schools. And it isn't the first time, the article cites several other instances where the police were called in situations that could have easily been handled by the teacher or the school's administration.

The "zero tolerance" policy is basically when automatic punishment is imposed when a rule is broken. It's intention is to stop unwanted behavior right away, and it leaves no room for exceptions.

I understand this policy in terms of students drinking, fighting, using drugs, or harassing one another. But isn't this way too far? I mean, calling the police because a seventh grader is doodling on desks? Is this just teachers and admins being lazy and not wanting to deal with discipline? She didn't even use profanity or hate language. Also, isn't it a complete waste of time to make police officers involved? Shouldn't they be directing their money and time to more important things that are bigger threats to our security? What are your thoughts?