Jack & Jill Politics

So folks what's the word on this case against a girl that could get her 15 yrs for cutting in line at WalMart?

http://www.saveheatherellis.com/

Late Night: Olympia Snowe Left Her Cake Out in the Rain
By: watertiger Monday October 26, 2009 8:00 pm

Crestfallen, President of the Universe Olympia Snowe tut-tutted and shook her head sadly late this afternoon after Harry Reid announced that the Senate bill would include a public option:

“I am deeply disappointed with the Majority Leader’s decision to include a public option as the focus of the legislation,” Snowe said in a statement. “I still believe that a fallback, safety net plan, to be triggered and available immediately in states where insurance companies fail to offer plans that meet the standards of affordability, could have been the road toward achieving a broader bipartisan consensus in the Senate.”

You’re not fooling anyone with your word salad, your highness. You’re deeply disappointed that Harry Reid finally learned how to count, mustered enough cartilage to stand up to the Rahminator, just this once, and left you hanging out to dry. You were rather enjoying all the forced attention and extruded praise the Democrats were lavishing on you in order to get your vote. The Democrats had ordered a sedan chair (and four Nubians) for you so you wouldn’t have to walk around Capitol Hill. Barbara Mikulski was going to peel you grapes. For the last month, Copernicus was wrong; the planets revolved around you.

Not anymore. You’ve had your day as the sun. Now it’s the public’s turn.

And spare us the sanctimonious, post-mortem clucking about sacrificing bipartisanship for a public option. Bipartisanship? With THESE Republicans? Riiiiight, if it’s one thing the Republicans have proven time and again over the past ten months, it’s that they’re deadly serious about working toward a “bipartisan” solution to health care reform:

“Senators and Congressmen will come back in September afraid to vote against the American people,” DeMint predicted, adding that “this health care issue Is D-Day for freedom in America.”

“If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him,” he said.

Now that’s hearty, bipartisany goodness!

But don’t worry, your majesty–you won’t be alone at your pity party. I understand AHIP’s Karen Ignagni is so exhausted from her good cop/bad cop routine, she’s in the corner, rocking back and forth and babbling nonsensically about “bipartisanship”, even as her minions, from whom she has had to distance herself, have accused fence-sitting Republicans of giving comfort to the enemy. If that’s how the health care reform opponents define “bipartisanship,” then I need to get a new dictionary.

Right now, though, in honor of the small step in the right direction the country took today, I’m going to enjoy a celebratory slice of freshly baked cake.


http://firedoglake.com/2009/10/26/late-night-ol...

Cake, "let them eat cake"
I am not so sure that is the metaphor I would ever use as a sign of celebration. Marie lost her head for her lack of awarenes.
the description of Reid is very good. He grew cartilage mind you and he is never going to be mistaken for a shark. He hasn't manned up yet.

Anybody else tired of the faux outrage over Obama not having any women play golf or basketball with him? The media is speculating about what message it sends and the relationship he has with women. Didn't we hash this out during the campaign last year, when Hillary was running? It seems like the media has a bag of memes, and ever so often they reach in and pull out another one. Two weeks ago, it was "is he tough enough?", now its "Does he value women?", how soon before "is he black enoug?h" or "is he too black?" makes a comeback?

Apparently all the women I saw in Essence magazine that work for his administration are an aberration. LOL My advice is to chalk this up to yet another distraction and ignore it. Besides, if he hung around women more than men they would accuse him of being afraid of men, or cheating on michelle. "He can't win" should be the name of his follow up biography.

It's a joke. I don't remember this being a concern of the MSM in previous administrations.

Now if Obama was spending too much time with women in his admin, they would have whispers. Now they are drumming up this fake BS. As I said online last night I did not like POlitico's headline Obama plays golf with a woman. Melody Barnes is a senior advisor she deserves a little more respect.

also how many women - besides Connie - did Bush play with ---- or Reagan? We won't discuss Clinton (LOL)

"We won't discuss Clinton (LOL)"

LOLZ No we won't. It took me years to look at pizza and cigar's the same way again.

Did any women in congress want to play?
Are any of the women part of the congressional basketball team?
Is it mandatory he spends his off days with women playing golf, it is his life right?
Name me some women in congress who play ball?
I don't watch TV but i heard Obama say this is bunk. Who is talking about it?

Yeah he denied it last week on NBC .

There was an article on it in the NY Times today, and it was discussed almost ad nauseum on MSNBC and on ABC.

it's complete and utter bullshyt.

Another moment of frustration with progressives: what do they want?

During the Bush administration progressives such as Arriana, DKos, Greenwald etc. complained that Bush was encroaching on the powers of the legislative branch, that is congress had become a rubber stamp. They later complained about the concept of veto threats as imperial. Next, they detested the notion of the president as an emperor.

Now you have a president who is at least trying to return the balance of power in legislative action to congress which has been absent for decades [ If you look objectively you will see the senate is like a dependent child constantly looking for apporval from the president instead of doing their jobs]. Now the progressives want the same exact shit you critized in the Bush administration.

I am particularly pissed on reading Ariana's new posting, she makes excellent points but the condescending nature of "the president is doing my Job, he needs to do his job" irritates me. And further shows me that the progressives/liberal are still stuck in the BUSH era. They want the chest ponder and never trully want the constitutional provisions they constantly argued during the BUSH administration. [It is all bull to me now].

What do they want in terms of rules and constitution mandate?

I say it again in 9 months of the presidency of Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II no one ever worked harder nor have people paid attention. I still wonder how things would have been substantially being different if people actually expected the world to be fixed in 9 months of those individuals tenure.

i think you're complaint about chest beating covers most of the phony complaint. The substance hasn't been addressed. You keep arguing that legislation is the responsiblity of the Congress. the reality is since LBJ the impetus for legislation has come out of the Presidency. The effectiveness of it is always open to question; Carter and Clinton come to mind. The Republicans have been remarkably steadfast in acting like a parliamentary party where they vote enmass for legislation, back benchers sling s@#$ in the hastings and the party line is adhered to like a 5yr plan from the Politburo. Often the legisaltion means you produce 100,000 sq yds of glass in panes the size of 10'x 10' x 1/8" when all the windows in the country are 8' x10' x 1/4". The problem isn't the outcome but that the other side didn't question the party chairman to produce that outcome. That has been the role of the Democrats since 1998. They rolled from d@#$ to d@#$ like crack whores when the fleet is in.

i much prefer that the Democrats act like a parliamentary party. An incremental approach to solving the problems the last guy left require a Cat to uncover the country not a Tonka toy steam shovel.

Women pay up to 50% more for health insurance premiums
By Jennifer Brown
The Denver Post

Checking the "female" box when buying health insurance is likely to cost extra — perhaps up to 50 percent more than a man would pay for the same coverage.

Gender-rating — or what some term as flat-out sexual discrimination — is linked to the simple fact that women, particularly those under age 50 or so, go to the doctor more often than men.

But outrage over how women are treated in the individual health insurance market is mounting as stories emerge of companies refusing to cover maternity benefits and denying coverage because of past domestic violence or cesarean sections, including a Colorado woman who was told she would have to get sterilized to qualify for insurance.

Federal proposals, as well as pending state legislation, would ban gender-rating and require maternity coverage, even as the insurance industry warns that lowering premiums for younger women could mean higher premiums for most everyone else.

Colorado women age 40 and under shopping for health insurance in the individual market, not through an employer, pay from 10 percent to 59 percent more than men, according to analysis by the National Women's Law Center.

They pay more even when maternity coverage is not included. And in many cases, a female nonsmoker pays more for health coverage than a man who smokes.

"Women should not be penalized because their plumbing works differently and needs ongoing maintenance," Colorado Insurance Commissioner Marcy Morrison told a state health care task force.

As a state lawmaker, Morrison fought insurance companies to stop "drive-through deliveries" so women could stay in the hospital longer after childbirth. She said gender-rating is discrimination tied to decades-old salary disparity, particularly in female-dominated professions such as nursing and teaching. And she is skeptical of insurance company claims that "the sky is going to fall" and premiums would rise if gender-rating were outlawed.

America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's national association, proposed ending gender-rating and the practice of rejecting customers based on pre-existing conditions. In exchange, insurance companies want powerful legislation that would compel everyone to buy insurance.

Discrimination against women in the insurance market goes far beyond premium rates, reform advocates said.

Sterilization suggested

Take, for example, Centennial resident Peggy Robertson, who was denied insurance by Golden Rule Insurance Co. because she delivered her second child by cesarean section in 2006. Maternity benefits weren't even part of the package.

Robertson, whose husband is a self-employed chiropractor, contacted the International Cesarean Awareness Network and filed a complaint with the state Division of Insurance, arguing the denial was unfair and that the company had asked her offensive questions during the application process.

Later, she received a letter from Golden Rule telling her the company would consider covering her if "some form of sterilization has occurred since the caesarean-section delivery."

"It was just really horrific and terribly insulting," said Robertson, a stay-at-home mom of two boys. "You felt like you were a herd of cattle or something."

Robertson's recent testimony before the U.S. Senate health committee in part prompted Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., to write a letter to Senate leaders adding his voice to the call for reform to ban gender-rating and other "harmful insurance industry practices."

Since denying Robertson, Golden Rule, an Indianapolis-based division of United Healthcare, now covers women who have had cesarean sections but only with increased premiums to cover the risk of a future cesarean birth or with exclusionary riders — clauses that deny coverage for cesareans for a certain number of years or forever.

"This helps us extend coverage to more people while keeping premiums lower for all of our customers," said Ellen Laden, public relations director for Golden Rule. "The real issue is how to deal broadly with providing access to health care for everyone while still keeping health insurance from being cost-prohibitive."

Bennet and others, including the National Women's Law Center, are calling for an end to coverage denials based on pre-existing conditions such as pregnancy and surviving domestic violence or sexual assault — a problem revealed in a recent report from the law center.

Lack of maternity benefits

Another common frustration among women who buy insurance individually — and there are 125,000 such women in Colorado — is that maternity benefits are almost nonexistent.

Suzanne Pariser, a Denver lawyer and mother of 2-year-old Willa, is putting off expanding her family because she cannot find an affordable insurance plan that includes maternity coverage.

"That's the main reason we're not having a baby right now," she said. "We definitely want to have another child."

Pariser is annoyed that insurance company executives, in essence, are determining her family planning.

"My anger is mostly that insurance companies view having a baby as a medical complication that costs them money," she said. "They view it as a disease."

The only plan she could find that offered maternity coverage was more expensive in the long run than paying out of pocket to have a baby, Pariser figured.

Costs vary by hospital or birthing center, but the average bill for a vaginal birth with no complications is about $7,500 and for a cesarean section, $13,200.

The insurance industry in Colorado has not taken an official position on statehouse bills that would ban gender-rating in the individual market and require maternity coverage. Their stance likely depends on national reform — and in particular, whether federal law will force everyone, even the healthiest people, to buy insurance.

But industry officials point out that higher premiums for women are based on analysis from actuaries, which show women are much more likely to visit the doctor. The rate at which women visit primary care physicians is more than 50 percent higher than for men, according to the New America Foundation.

By about age 50 or 55, men typically begin using health services more than women, and premiums for older men are typically more expensive than those for older women, said Ben Price, executive director of the Colorado Association of Health Plans.

"The insurance industry is engaged in its own internal discussion on this issue, and health plans here in Colorado are of course taking a fresh look at gender-rating and many other issues that have been raised as a part of the debate both in Washington and here in Colorado," he said.

Officials with Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Colorado have "strong reservations" about eliminating gender-rating and requiring maternity coverage. The practice is rampant in the auto insurance industry, they argue.

"The most expensive purchase in auto (insurance) is the young, invincible male; they are the risk-takers," said Rebecca Weiss, director of government affairs. "For some reason, auto insurance doesn't seem as inflammatory to people as health insurance.

"Shouldn't health insurance premiums be based on some degree on how many medical services you receive so that everyone is paying according to what they are using?"

http://www.denverpost.com/frontpage/ci_13636522

Bookmark this post. Next time someone talks about deficit put these facts in their face. Don't spare any Democrats either.

Read how Bof A and Countrywide systematically destroyed mortgage documents and subsituted their own info. How is someone supposed to a mortgage swap, refi or adjustment w/ this s@#$. This is why the failure to inclde cram downs in the bankruptcy reorganization was/is so vitally important. The judge gets to decide and they don't have to BS w/ this theft.

our mortgage got bought out by bofa and we just had to prove again that our home was insured or bofa threatened to buy insurance for us...we did prove we had insurance but during the conversation my husband had to decline at least 3 x the offer to refi??????

I say our legislators have legislated the worst leaches....hey, if you did businesss with the mafia at least you know who you are doing business with.

this is CRIMINAL

RNC Facebook Photo Taken Down: Racist Anti-Obama Picture

The Republican National Committee came under fire after a user posted a controversial photo on its Facebook page. The RNC "fan" upload features a picture of President Obama eating fried chicken with the slogan: "Miscegenation Is a CRIME against American values... Repeal Loving v. Virginia."

Loving v. Virginia is a milestone civil rights case that led the Supreme Court to rule that prohibiting interracial marriage violates the Constitution.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/26/rnc-fa...

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE

Coolest kid's book ever...

damn cool rikyrah....

ran 9.5 miles today

i'm still scared of you...lol