(photo: p-damp/flickr)

According to estimates created using a microsimulation model created by the RAND Comprehensive Assessment of Reform Efforts (COMPARE) program, the number of Americans predicted to get coverage in 2016 under the Affordable Care Act would drop from 27 million to 15 million if the individual mandate were eliminated.

Despite that drop, the study estimates that eliminating the individual mandate would increase an individual’s cost of buying insurance through the individual exchanges by just 2.4 percent. [...]

“Our analysis suggests eliminating the individual mandate would sharply decrease coverage, but it would not send premiums into a ‘death spiral’ that would make health insurance unaffordable to those who do not qualify for government subsidies,” said Christine Eibner, the study’s lead author and an economist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization.

A premium death spiral is where only the sick buy insurance, causing premiums to rise which in turn causing only the super sick to buy insurance and so on. This is only even theoretically possible if people aren’t protected from getting caught in the upward price spiral.

The design of the Affordable Care Act, even without the mandate, would prevent this from happening because it insulates enough people from this price problem.

Because of the design of the premium support subsidies, many people using the exchange will effectively have the amount they pay capped at a set percentage of their income, and not based on the actually sticker price of the insurance. For these people an increase in premiums would not significantly change the amount they personally pay for insurance. So even if premiums do technically increase, it shouldn’t affect their financial decision on whether to buy insurance or not. The premium support subsidies work as a ceiling for a large share of the market, so there is no feedback loop or endless spiral.

The report found that while dropping the mandate would modestly reduce overall federal spending on the ACA, it would significantly increase the federal spending per new enrollee.

The law would be less efficient without a mandate, from some perspectives, but it would still function without it.

The deaths of 500 people following police use of Tasers underscores the need for tighter rules limiting the use of such weapons in law enforcement, Amnesty International said.

According to data collected by Amnesty International, at least 500 people in the USA have died since 2001 after being shocked with Tasers either during their arrest or while in jail.

On 13 February, Johnnie Kamahi Warren was the latest to die after a police officer in Dothan, Alabama deployed a Taser on him at least twice. The 43-year-old, who was unarmed and allegedly intoxicated, reportedly stopped breathing shortly after being shocked and was pronounced dead in hospital less than two hours later.

“Of the hundreds who have died following police use of Tasers in the USA, dozens and possibly scores of deaths can be traced to unnecessary force being used,” said Susan Lee, Americas Programme Director at Amnesty International.

I think this is an important moment to again highlight the fact that there is currently no such thing as “non-lethal” police weapons. Under the right conditions rubber bullets, pepper spray, beanbag rounds, electricity based weapons, etc., can result and have resulted in deaths.

This is critical to keep in mind as we continue to pay for a radical militarization of American police forces and tactics.  Police have shown a growing willingness to freely use these “less lethal” — but potentially still deadly — weapons in highly inappropriate circumstances, such as to simply inflict pain on non-violent protesters.

According to a survey, conducted between Feb. 8-13, 61 percent of Americans support federally-mandated contraception coverage for religiously-affiliated employers; 31 percent oppose such coverage.

The number is similar among self-professed Catholics surveyed: 61 percent said they support the Obama administration’s rule, while 32 percent oppose it.

Majorities of both men and women said they are in favor of the rule, though support among women is especially pronounced, with 66 percent supporting and 26 percent opposing it. Among men, 55 percent of men are in favor; 38 percent object.

It is important to note that this poll was asking about the original rule, which was clearly popular enough that no “compromise” should have been needed. Now that Obama has announced his compromise, and it has managed to satisfy at least some Catholic institutions, I imagine support for the new policy is marginally higher.

This birth control issue was never a political trap or massive misstep by the Administration, as some like Peggy Noonan and others claimed. The rule did not hurt Obama’s standing with Catholic voters. The concept was always broadly popular with the American people.

Finally, the poll shows roughly one third of the people questioned opposed the rule, but they likely consist of individuals who would never even consider voting for Obama anyway.

As important, the survey found Americans unconvinced that safety-net programs represent a major source of the deficit problem. When asked to identify the biggest reason the federal government faces large deficits for the coming years, just 3 percent of those surveyed said it was because of “too much government spending on programs for the elderly”; only 14 percent said the principal reason was “too much government spending on programs for poor people.” Those explanations were dwarfed by the 24 percent who attributed the deficits primarily to excessive defense spending, and the 46 percent plurality who said their principal cause was that “wealthy Americans don’t pay enough in taxes.” While minorities were more likely than whites to pin the blame on the wealthy avoiding taxes, even 43 percent of whites agreed.

That is basically 70 percent of the country that holds a progressive opinion about what is driving federal deficits, while just a tiny fringe minority of 17 percent primarily blame excessive social welfare spending.

This is important to keep in mind when you see polls ranking how important the deficit is as an issue. Just because some people might be concerned about the deficit doesn’t mean they support the Republican party on the issue. By far the most popular ideas for cutting the deficit, raising taxes on the wealthy and cutting military spending, are completely opposed by the GOP.

The simple fact is that the President’s budget is basically a long, vaguely political document that is effectively meaningless. After a few days of news stories about individual provisions and the Republicans’ perfunctory cries of “socialism,” “tax and spend liberalism” or “accounting gimmicks,” this budget will be quickly forgotten. It is basically dead on arrival in Congress, another package of ideas destined to go nowhere.

The fact that Republicans control the House of Representatives and have taken an uncompromising stance makes this particular budget especially meaningless.  But even back when Obama had some of the largest Democratic Congressional majorities in modern history, his budgets didn’t really mean much.

One of the biggest financial aspects of this budget, as well as Obama’s previous budgets and Obama’s political campaign, is ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and closing the carried interest loophole. Yet Obama and the Democrats made almost no effort to quickly deal with this big aspect of Obama’s budget plans during all of 2009 or 2010. Even when the Bush tax cuts were about to expire and Obama was forced to confront the issue, he broke his promise by extending them.

Of course there was always some excuse for not taking care of the huge tax issue, like the need to get 60 votes in the Senate or not wanting to risk letting the tax cuts on the middle class expire, but they were mostly face saving nonsense. These tax components could have been put in a reconciliation bill and taken care of in a day if the Democrats wanted. If Democrats had really wanted to, they could have used their majorities to pass almost all of Obama’s campaign platform into law in 2009.

As a result I feel little desire to evaluate the merits of proposals that the White House may never intend or attempt to advance or give Obama praise for restating the same tired old unfulfilled promises on taxes. Maybe some can glean some indirect insight into Obama’s true thinking from the budget, like a shaman reading the future in the entrails of oracle sacrifice, but it seems like a waste of effort. Too many broken and purposely unfulfilled promises have me concluding I should not bother judging until there are concrete actions.

I wish it weren’t this way. I would personally love it if these budgets really did matter. I think it would be great if the American people knew that if they gave Democrats a victory in the 2012 election, that the Democrats would quickly implement Obama’s whole budget plan.  One of the best things that I think could happen to our democracy is if it we considered it a huge scandal if a party didn’t quickly implement its platform if it won full control.

Sadly this basic democratic accountability isn’t how our system works. We are taught that it is naive to even expect politicians to do what they said they would, told there is always some insane rule or tradition that magically prevents the party that won from governing like it promised.

The doctors are challenging the government’s claim that the individual mandate is necessary to reach Congress’ goal of universal coverage.

“The court should decide the constitutionality of the individual mandate based on the best available evidence,” said attorney Oliver Hall.

“That’s why it is so important that these medical doctors provide the court with the information in their brief, which demonstrates that Congress can address the United States’ healthcare crisis by adopting a single payer system.”

“It is not necessary to force Americans to buy private health insurance to achieve universal coverage,” said Russell Mokhiber of Single Payer Action. “There is a proven alternative that Congress didn’t seriously consider, and that alternative is a single payer national health insurance system.”

The brief argues that Congress doesn’t need the new power to compel individuals to buy a product from a private company to effectively regulate the healthcare marketplace. It can easily do so with its current approaches, such as a single payer system, which is used for Medicare. The individual mandate is therefore neither a “necessary” nor “reasonable” expansion of authority to achieve the government’s stated objectives.

The policy argument for the individual mandate has always been extremely dubious. If the government wants everyone to be covered by health insurance, an individual mandate is an ineffective tool that will never fully achieve that goal. Other methods that have the government just directly provide insurance for those without insurance with very basic coverage would do a significantly better job. Congress only needs the mandate, because it actively chose not to use one of several more effective alternatives that are indisputably constitutional.

From March 26-28 the Supreme Court will be hearing 5 1/2 hours of oral arguments on the constitutionality of the ACA. This is one of a flood of amicus briefs filed for what is sure to be one of the most closely watched Supreme Court cases of the 21st Century.

The drop in the number of insured people is mainly the result of the large increase in the number of unemployed/underemployed adults and long term trends. The rapidly rising cost of health care over the past several decades has contributed to a long term trend of fewer and fewer companies offering health insurance to their employees. The economic downturn has only accelerated this trend.

This strong increase in the number of uninsured since President Obama took office is not the fault of his signature Affordable Care Act, but it does highlight what an historically bad unforced political error the design of the law was. The Act’s major increase in insurance coverage was delayed until 2014, over a year after Obama’s expected re-election, purely to make it appear cheaper in the initial years. As a result Obama will need to defend his signature law to expand health insurance, while dealing with the fact that the uninsured problem has gotten significantly worse since he signed the law over a year ago.

The “I know things have only gotten worse, but trust me, my plan to fix the problem should eventually start helping” is a terrible campaign message.

If the Obama team truly believes that ACA is good idea, then this decision was beyond idiotic. It is truly mindboggling that everyone in the Obama administration convinced themselves that a lower CBO score but no coverage expansion before the re-election was much smarter politics than a higher CBO score but coverage expansion before November 2012.

The Democrats’ terrible handling of the health care reform debate in 2009-2010 should be remembered as one of the greatest acts of political malpractice in modern American history.

Ray Suarez led them in a discussion about how “environmentalists and industry now cooperate” (I kid you not) and the icky negativity of the 70s isn’t needed any more.

So imagine how thrilled I was this morning when Greenpeace sent me photos of their activists scaling a 400-foot stack of the Progress Energy-owned Asheville Power station today, while others secured themselves to the coal loader and conveyers preventing coal from entering the facility.

From their press release:

Greenpeace activists are protesting the destruction and pollution caused by coal at the Progress Asheville Power Station this morning. Activists have secured themselves to the coal loader and conveyers, which will prevent coal from entering the facility.  Additional activists are scaling the 400 foot smoke stack to send a message to both Progress Energy and Duke Energy that communities and the climate can’t wait for a renewable energy revolution. Coal plants like the Asheville Power Station damage communities and the climate at every stage of their lifecycle: the destructive mining practices, the burning, and the storage of toxic coal ash.

Progress Energy is currently in a merger bid with Charlotte based Duke Energy, which would create the largest utility in the United States.

“This plant runs on destroyed mountains, it spews out air pollution, it causes climate change and it poisons the water and the earth. If Duke merges with Progress, the new owners have a responsibility to the people of North Carolina to move to clean energy,” said Greenpeace climate campaigner and activist Robert Gardner.

The Progress Energy owned Asheville Power Station uses the most destructive form of coal mining, mountain top removal, which is flattening mountains across Appalachia. The plant produces 1,994 pounds of sulfur dioxide, 788 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and 2,629,243 tons of carbon dioxide. Its coal ash ponds are designated ‘high hazard’ by the EPA, meaning they are likely to kill people if they spill. Like other coal plants across the country, the plant causes death and illness in the community.

“Duke Energy could be playing a leadership role in the energy sector, and CEO Jim Rogers talks a good game on the environment, but the reality is vastly different. With more than $5 billion dollars worth of new coal investment on the books, Duke is clearly committed to dirty fossil fuels that poison our communities and destroy the climate,” Mr Gardner said. “If Duke Energy wants to be considered a leader in the industry, they’re going to have to get serious about phasing out polluting plants like this one, and make some real investments in renewable energy that will protect America’s future.”

Thanks, Greenpeace activists.  For putting it all on the line and blowing the lid off of James Rogers’ expensive PR campaign to greenwash Duke with the help of PBS and Ray Suarez.  Why Robert Stone allowed his documentary to be used like that is anybody’s guess, but your timing was perfect.

Occupy Salt Lake City, Feb. 9 2012, by Gary M.

I was not looking forward to updating the State of the Occupation list but when I finally did, it was much bigger than I expected.  The first State of the Occupation list we published on December 20 included 61 encampments, and the list is now at 50.

I had expected a much lower number at this point in time just due to attrition, cold weather and February sluggishness.  The recent rash of crackdowns may actually have helped generate enthusiasm and support in places it was lagging.

Even as Occupy Nashville and Newark get their eviction papers, Occupy Berkeley has tents up once again in Sproul Plaza.  And Occupy Pocatello joins the list.  As the big occupations get torn down, new ones spring up to take their place, while others regroup and re-occupy.

My overall impression from talking to occupiers on a regular basis is that the movement is migrating across the country, growing stronger as it penetrates the “flyover states”  hardest hit by unemployment.   Even as urban middle-aged supporters grow bored with Occupy and their attention is once again diverted by the latest tribalistic rant in the horse race 2012 media cycle, young people with no jobs continue to find hope in a movement that isn’t so easily fooled.

It has actually been a blessing that fair-weather supporters have peeled off to harumph about the latest DNC outrage du jour, because it has left the most dedicated and idealistic occupiers to plan for the spring.

Occupy Supply is a project of the Firedoglake Membership Program. We hold webinar meetings each Sunday at 2pm and Wednesday at 8pm ET which are open to anyone who wants to discuss the future of the Occupy movement.

At upcoming webinars occupiers will be discussing:

• Wednesday February 15: Physical occupations – are they obsolete, or the sine qua non of Occupy? Panelists include Occupy Fairbanks, Occupy Erie, Occupy Scranton. (signup form)
• Sunday February 19: Where does Occupy go from here: A vision for the future (signup form)
• Wednesday February 22: Occupations that have prevented foreclosures, and how they did it (signup form)

You can find a recap of the recent Occupy Supply webinar on how to FOIA for Occupy here.

FDL OccupySupply State of the Occupation: Updated List of Encampments Across the Country

Current Encampments

Cuomo's Loot: Occupy Buffalo's belonging after raid

Our next Occupy Supply online meet-up is Sunday, February 12th, at 2:00 PM Eastern. Register now.

In an effort to share strategies and best-practices among Occupy groups, Sunday’s Occupy Supply town hall webinar discussion will be: “My Occupation Was Raided: Now What Do I Do?”

Occupiers who have lived through eviction and come back strong will join us to talk about their experiences and share what they’ve learned in the aftermath. The panel includes:

• Occupy Atlanta: After being evicted from Woodruff Park by Mayor Kasim Reed, OA moved to the King Center and occupied a homeless shelter to prevent it from being shut down. Their foreclosure work has galvanized community support by preventing banks from foreclosing on a historic black church as well as the home of an Iraq veteran. (See “Occupy Atlanta Gains Traction“)
• Occupy Salt Lake City: Following their eviction by Mayor Ralph Becker from Pioneer Park, Occupy Salt Lake City successfully negotiated an agreement with the city to encamp at the Gallivan Center in downtown Salt Lake. They continue to work on campaigns against private prisons, domestic use of drones, and the state’s anti-immigration bill HB497. (See Occupy Salt Lake City protesters plan for 2012)
• Occupy Buffalo: Raided in the middle of the night with no warning two weeks ago, Occupy Buffalo is so far inside Mayor Byron Brown’s head he should charge them rent. They have passed out 7000 flyers while riding buses that the local transit agency plans to shut down and have packed town hall meetings with angry residents. They’ve forced local schools to stop suspending children for non-violent offenses and “inspired” the Mayor to knock down 2 buildings and devote $1.8 million dollars to redevelopment on a street simply by calling a neighborhood meeting there. Their eviction prompted a groundswell of community support and has made things even hotter for the Mayor. They continue to organize in Niagara Square. (See From Occupy to cleanup)
• Occupy Syracuse: Occupy Syracuse was on Andrew Cuomo’s January bucket list of New York occupations to crush, but they have refused to leave. Despite Mayor Minor’s orders to take bulldozers to their encampment in the middle of the night and her corrupt, cronyistic diddling with public/private property laws at closed-door meetings and her order to police that chairs constituted “permanent structures” and were therefore not allowed in the park, Occupy Syracuse’s conviction ultimately backed her down and they continue their 24/7 occupation of Perseverance Park. (See Still Occupying: New city policy allows vigil to continue)

The panelists will discuss lessons learned, things they wish they’d done differently, the need for contingency planning and what held their groups together through tough times. There will be an open question-and-answer period after the panel discussion where webinar attendees can chat with the panelists.

With growing numbers of evictions and the introduction of anti-Occupy legislation in towns and cities across America, we hope this conversation will be helpful to occupiers with encampments that want to hear how other groups have faced the challenges they are currently experiencing, as well as those without encampments who are working to foster good community relations and sustain energy and enthusiasm in their occupy group.

This meeting is open to anyone – liaison, occupier, or otherwise – who wants to discuss lessons, strategies and ideas about what to do when your Occupation has been raided, and we hope you’ll join us to share your thoughts and experiences.

Occupy Supply holds webinar meetings each Sunday at 2pm and Wednesday at 8pm ET. They are open to anyone who wants to discuss the future of the Occupy movement.

At upcoming webinars where occupiers will be discussing:

• Wednesday February 15: Physical occupations – are they obsolete, or the sine qua non of Occupy?
• Sunday February 19: Where does Occupy go from here: A vision for the future
• Wednesday February 22: Occupations that have prevented foreclosures, and how they did it

You can find a recap of Wednesday’s very successful webinar on how to FOIA for Occupy here.

Click here to register for Occupy Supply meet-up & discussion on Sunday, 2/12 at 2:00 PM Eastern

You can also download a flyer on tomorrow’s webinar for distribution at your local occupy: [PDF]

Question? Contact us at occupysupply AT firedoglake DOT com.