The bottom line is that it's all about the bottom line:

If one company's medical loss ratio was 77.9 percent, for example, in one quarter, and the next quarter, it was 78.2 percent. It seems like a small movement. But investors will think that's ridiculous. And it's horrible.

In other words, the insurance industry refers to money actually spent on our healthcare as "medical loss." Wall Street judges insurance companies and their CEO by how much "loss" they incur.

To minimize "loss," insurance companies set up "rescision departments." When someone gets expensively ill, their case is turned over to those rescionists to see if they can find any technicality by which to avoid "incurring that loss," i.e., paying that person's medical bills, by retractively cancelling their insurance. Per the LA Times:

Executives of three of the nation's largest health insurers told federal lawmakers in Washington on Tuesday that they would continue canceling medical coverage for some sick policyholders, despite withering criticism from Republican and Democratic members of Congress who decried the practice as unfair and abusive.

The hearing on the controversial action known as rescission, which has left thousands of Americans burdened with costly medical bills despite paying insurance premiums, began a day after President Obama outlined his proposals for revamping the nation's healthcare system.

An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period.

It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses.

[...]

The executives -- Richard A. Collins, chief executive of UnitedHealth's Golden Rule Insurance Co.; Don Hamm, chief executive of Assurant Health and Brian Sassi, president of consumer business for WellPoint Inc., parent of Blue Cross of California -- were courteous and matter-of-fact in their testimony.

But they would not commit to limiting rescissions to only policyholders who intentionally lie or commit fraud to obtain coverage, a refusal that met with dismay from legislators on both sides of the political aisle.

[...]

So, how are any of us to know whether we actually have insurance or not? Making payments each month is certainly no guarantee.

The bottom line from that Wendell Potter interview and the congessional testimony of the health-insurance CEOs is that there is no way in hell that a free market inhabited by for-profit insurers can provide for the healthcare needs of this nation.

There’s a fine line that separates civil discourse and constructive criticism from sniping and undermining. I’d be hard pressed to map that, but I know it when I see it. My tolerance for poo-flinging is reaching an unprecedented low-mark.

Here’s my current working theory about all of this. We spent eight years building up a wildly outspoken snark machine concerning the egregious misdeeds of GWB and company. We had to, went the reasoning, because the media were not doing their job. Most weren’t. Sometimes, we snarked reflexively. As time passed, snark became the default and civil discourse fell by the wayside. And yes, along with sticks and stones, words do immeasurable harm sometimes.

...

Then, along came the most unlikely of candidates and, ultimately, our new POTUS. He speaks eloquently. He made a boatload of promises that even I knew would be difficult to keep. Even if he had the full backing of his party, which he doesn’t. There’s the matter of the fractious, barely Democratic Blue Dogs Americans voted into office in the interest of pandering to, well, to everyone. And good luck with that. You get what you vote for if you don’t vet your candidates thoroughly.

I don’t know from personal experience whether Barack Obama knows his butt from his elbow. But I have known all along the way that he’s definitely smarter about politics than I am, and likely smarter than the majority of his most outspoken critics. Critics who, for the most part, sit on their elbows much of the day, pounding out merciless attacks on pretty much anything that crosses their line of sight or can be heard.

...

I do understand that it could be dangerous to let the leash play out too far, whatever that means. To “allow” the administration to do its thing, to see how it rolls. Who decides when to reel ‘em back in? And what should that look like? When do watch dogs need to become pit pulls? Or do they?

That’s my issue, I guess. Some progressives came off the blocks as pit bulls last fall and ramped up the rhetoric as the months passed. I’m all for accountability. But there are ways and there are ways. I realize that for some, civil discourse rankles. Sounds to them like backing down, making nice, playing dead. I don’t think that’s true. And I absolutely believe that perpetual attack mode undermines all of us. It’s not productive. Is, in fact, counter-productive.

What are we progressives supposed to do when our President, someone who had - as Scarecrow notes - impossibly high hopes attached to him, doesn't live up to those hopes? It's a great question.

I remember discussing that very one with Alex Thurston during the election. The progressive blogosphere grew up in opposition to both George Bush and our own party. The Democratic Party of John Kerry lacked a message and a plan to make this country work (and that the country could support). Howard Dean started to change that, and Barack Obama in a lot of ways is the expression of that rhetoric, at least the way he talked during the campaign. It's been clear for a while that it's going to be way harder for us progressives to figure out how to keep making change when we're up against our friends instead of our enemies.

Here are the realities, as I see them. Barack Obama is President. He's popular, and he'll likely get re-elected (knock on wood). These are good things, as I'd take him over whatever the Republicans cough up in 2012 any day. So, given that we've got Obama until 2016, or at the very least until 2012, where does that leave us?

It seems to me, and some other commenters, that cutting down Obama just for the hell of it isn't necessarily constructive. Being right isn't quite the end it was during the Bush years. Maybe, we have to be more surgical, targeting Rahm, as Jane Hamsher suggests, or Members of Congress. No matter what we do, it's a fine line. And "we" won't necessarily be all in sync with the strategery, if we ever are or were.

That doesn't mean there isn't room for pressure. I'll throw out an example: The stimulus was too small. How do we get another one? I say, maybe we applaud the stimulus as a step in the right direction (as Obama himself is doing this weekend), and push for things like health care, green jobs, and a second stimulus as the only way to finish the job and really get this country back on track. And then hit those who oppose such measures as against the economic survival of America.

But what do you all think? What can we do - either collectively or individually - for the next seven years under Obama? I'm sure you all have some ideas...

I am the creator, producer and host of the radio program “Soul Talk” in its 13th year of broadcasting.  The program currently airs on Progressive Blend Radio based in Washington, D.C. 

As well, I am the Founder and President of The Free Souls Project, promoting the integration of spirituality, democracy and ethics from a liberal faith perspective.  My personal blog is The Free Souls Connection.  I have been a regular author on The Seminal for the past year in the area of Religion and Politics.

I will be a panelist in the workshop, "A New Progressive Vision for Church and State" at Netroots in August. Below, is something I wrote in 2005.  This will give you a flavor of where I am coming from.  Lets work together on repairing our terribly damaged democracy that has been devolving since Reagan enabled the birth of our theocrat/imperialist nightmare. 

Soulfully,

Chuck Freeman

"After the November 2004 Presidential election I was deeply disturbed that America had put the Bush Administration back in office.  I viewed John Kerry as the lesser of two evils, but at least he wasn't cynically pandering to the "Christian" theocrats.   On November 14, 2004 I preached a sermon entitled, "Walkin’ the Strait and Narrow."  This was my response to 22% of voters who claimed to be followers of Jesus and voted for Bush on the basis of "moral values." 

I began to feel a call to enter the public debate on spirituality and morals more explicitly as a Preacher of Liberal Religion.  Having cut my teeth in the literalist Bible tradition, I knew the strength of passionate belief and gaping intellectual blindness in this approach to Religion and Society.  

I kept hearing this passage in my head about Jesus after he "cleansed" the temple, in relation to my sense of responsibility for the Soul of America.  "Zeal for your house will consume me."  

I was, and continue to be troubled that progressives have largely abandoned Spirituality in the ethical considerations of our time.  I saw that Religious bigots like Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson were household names, and that few if any Ministers of a more sane, humane Religion were known beyond their relatively small spheres of influence.  I saw how the narrow-minded teachers were shrewdly using media to spread their fearful God, and that we progressives were scarcely using the potent tool of mass communication. 

I am emboldened by the faith of Edward Everett Hale.  'I am only one but still I am one.  I cannot do everything, but still I can do something.  And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do.'"  

According to news reports, Israel and the US have reached an understanding, or at least a backroom handshake, which would grant a limited and all-too-caveated settlement freeze.

Maya Bengal reported in the Israeli daily Ma’ariv earlier this week:

The agreement was secured after Defense Minister Ehud Barak was able to convince the Americans to allow Israel to continue and build those units whose construction had already started. In other words, the Americans gave their consent to letting the construction continue of some 700 buildings, which amount to some 2,500 housing units.

The State Department has denied reports that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Special Envoy George Mitchell have struck a deal, but it seems to me that the settlement freeze policy has already begun to thaw. My colleague Amjad Atallah practically predicted this scenario just over two months ago:

[T]he question is what is the U.S. goal?  If it is to use a settlement freeze to manage the conflict, then Washington could find itself involved in a full time and protracted negotiations over the definition of a freeze.  Indeed, Netanyahu may come here in a few weeks and offer to negotiate over settlement construction and taking down a few outposts as a way of protecting his interest in retaining the West Bank and most of the settlements.  Netanyahu would much prefer such negotiations to confronting a U.S. request to end the occupation and create two states.”

If stalling a long-awaited two-state deal is what Mr. Netanyahu is going for, then aye. The Israeli opposition has called it, “One hundred days, zero achievements.”

Several weeks ago the Washington Post reported on the Department of Justice's (DOJ) efforts to keep Dick Cheney's voluntary statements to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald from being made public. A year ago Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a lawsuit seeking this information and the Bush DOJ vigorously opposed it. After the election there was a possibility that the Obama DOJ would stop opposing it and allow the information to be released, but in this as with other issues there has been remarkable continuity between administrations. Perhaps we should call the new Attorney General Eric Holdover.

I am not a lawyer but the original reason given for keeping notes of the statements out of CREW's hands ("that it's going to get on 'The Daily Show'") does not seem especially persuasive, and fortunately the judge agreed. Last week David Corn reported the DOJ took another stab at it, this time claiming their release "could cause public officials in the future to not cooperate with criminal investigations." Jeralyn Merritt agreed that CREW's motion should be denied "in order to protect the privacy and reputation of those who are mentioned or discussed by the subject of a law enforcement interview...I'd rather have that than a precedent that allows reports of law enforcement interviews of the average citizen who ultimately is not indicted, and who may have slandered Tom, Dick and Mary during their interview, subject to public disclosure."

Cynthia Kouril then took issue with Merritt, writing that Cheney's interview was not Grand Jury (GJ) material, which "consists of information, including testimony, that is presented to the Grand Jury as well as material that has been subpoenaed by the GJ, whether or not the Grand Jury actually ever sees it. Everything else is regular investigative material and therefore subject to the Freedom of Information Act." Later she adds, "this whole mess exists because Congress did not do its job as a co-equal branch of government and appoint a special prosecutor of its own." Ahem. Marcy Wheeler then blew everyone out of the water by pointing out the debate was a purely academic exercise because Cheney's lawyer had already leaked the content of the interview. Still, I suspect we have not seen this kind of issue raised for the last time, so it still may be worthwhile to continue bouncing ideas around.

I side with Kouril for several reasons. First, her reasoning is more persuasive to me than Merritt's. We already have a good, longstanding definition of what gets protected by the GJ. If anyone thinks it needs to be changed then start lobbying to have the law changed to cover it, but do not go with an ad hoc sort of "oh, that too" approach. I am not as concerned with the precedent Merritt cites as I am with the precedent of allowing the cover of secrecy to be further stretched in such an informal way.

Another danger to keeping it from public view is that it will validate a key strategy of Cheney: Never testify to anything. He bent over backwards to be able to work behind the scenes and not be subject to formal processes and procedures. Overall that seems like a bad long term strategy because scrutiny is inevitable. If, for example, you think torture is fine then you need to make that case to the public instead of adopting tricky legalisms in classified memos. Policies implemented in furtive back channels will likely not be very durable when exposed. For purposes of this discussion there is another drawback, namely the protection frequently provided by formal channels. He did not want to testify to the GJ; fine. But then he forfeits GJ protection. We cannot allow people to game the system by providing the wiggle room of unofficial statements with the privacy protections of official ones. Cheney decided not to testify. His interview is therefore not protected.

Finally, I disagree with Merritt's conflation of average citizens with high public officials. If her concern is for equality under the law then it seems more urgent to provide for that by investigating the possibility of war crimes committed by White House officials, not by allowing creative interpretations of existing standards in ways that might theoretically benefit ordinary people down the road. More importantly, vice presidents should expect for there to be a bias towards openness in the conduct of official business. In this instance we are talking about an investigation into the outing of a CIA operative, not some personal affair. He and his successors should get the unambiguous message that under those circumstances transparency will be expected and that the law will be interpreted with an eye towards disclosure. Secrecy has ruled for long enough.

1. Do you support a public healthcare option as part of reform?

2. Do you support a public healthcare option that is ready on day one?

3. Do you support a public healthcare option that is national, available everywhere, and accountable to our government?

4. Do you support a public healthcare option that has the clout to establish rates with providers and big drug companies?

These questions, of course, are designed in a specific way to get Senators on the record about not just whether they support a public health insurance option, but what kind they support. A Senator answering yes to all four questions supports a strong public health insurance option with no trigger that is available in all corners of this country (ie. is not a regional co-op).

Over the last few weeks, tens of thousands of constituents have emailed their Senators asking these four questions. And lo and behold, the Senators have started answering. Chris Bowers has been collating the answers and keeping the chart up to date. As you can see, he's gotten a ton of answers back from Senators, but a lot of those answers are emails that don't really answer the question:

Unfortunately, as the chart in the extended entry also shows, most Senators are still dodging on those type of specific questions on what sort of public option they support. Based on responses you have sent in, DFA, HCAN and Open Left have compiled all of the "dodge" statements that these Senators have given on the public option, which you can read here.

Let your Senators know that vague, open-ended answers may be good enough for most political news media, but it isn't good enough for their constituents. If you are from a state with a Senator or Senator who is still dodging specific on the public option, send an email telling them to clarify their position now. We are winning this fight.

We are going to win this fight. Send an email to your Senators now, and let's bring this one over the finish line.

He's right. These questions are clearly worded, and the tens of thousands who've emailed in deserve answers to them. Take a moment to email your Senators so we can get even more answers.

And check out the full chart below of where your Senators (at least those likely to support a public option) stand on the public option:

(also posted at the NOW! blog)

A massive army surge has failed to calm raging drug gang violence in Ciudad Juarez, a Mexican city on the U.S. border that is at the heart of President Felipe Calderon's drug war.

An influx of 10,000 troops and federal police in March brought temporary calm, but three months later drug murders have resumed and are overtaking 2008 levels, according to police and media tallies.

Calderon, whose party lost heavily in mid-term weekend elections, is under extra pressure to deliver on security as Mexico's slumping economy hits his popularity.

In Ciudad Juarez, corrupt police still openly work openly for gangs despite ubiquitous army patrols. And local newspapers constantly show images of bullet-ridden vehicles and bleeding bodies on busy streets.

After a few quiet weeks, the city's death tally from cartel violence has risen to 900 this year, compared with 800 in the first six months of 2008.

Washington was also hoping the use of force would help solve the drug problem and model an approach for other areas. The failure of that tactic owes in part to the interrelated problems on both sides of the border:

Slow progress on weeding out corrupt police and stopping the flow of smuggled U.S. guns are hindering the military.

Washington has pledged to crack down on arms smuggling, but corrupt Mexican customs officials are plentiful and AK-47s and U.S. gun shops are within easy reach.

Back to the drawing board?

The politics of this are getting nasty in Mexico. These failures are eroding the legitimacy of the government at the local and national level, and recession is pushing more recruits into the arms of drug gangs. Chronic violence and discontent make for a pretty explosive mix, the effects of which are felt on our side of the border as well.

She's against genocide. She's against gender inequality. She's against domestic and gang violence.

Most importantly, she's about truth, using her patented "Lasso of Truth" to clean up DC and bring honesty to our city.

Wonder what the world (or city or politics in general) would be like under Wonder Woman? Check it out:

This is why I'm wholeheartedly endorsing Wonder Woman for mayor of DC. Click here to vote today.

Ok, so, this isn't a real campaign. It's a game, but an important one. This campaign is part of the New Organizing Institute's Bootcamp program. Every year, NOI brings 60 dedicated and up-and-coming progressive organizers together for a week of intense training. Over the course of the week, they learn how to run a campaign by participating in a mock campaign. 

This is what movement building is all about. NOI is training the next generation of progressive campaign workers - the people who'll be out helping to elect better Democrats, pushing for progressive legislation, and building our movement for the long haul. This campaign may be fake, but this is really important work.

In a week, the Wonder Woman team built a website, started an email list, reached out on blogs, Twitter, and Facebook, and even built a get out the vote operation. It's been a whirlwind week for them, but they've managed to turn their candidate into someone I'd like to see as mayor of DC. So, click here to vote for Wonder Woman today, and participate in NOI's movement building.

P.S. If you agree with me, can you tweet about it? Tweet this:

Want to bring truth back to politics? Vote Wonder Woman for DC mayor today: http://vote.wonderwomanfordc.com/ (retweet?)

But despite repeated assurances from Chairman Baucus that wonderful bipartisan progress was coming, all these people have been able to come up with so far is a list of options.

It's not that different from lists reputable analysts had already compiled and published. But the Committee apparently hasn't been able to agree on anything, because, as Olympia Snowe so thoughtfully explains, deciding how to raise taxes to keep 20,000 people from dying every year is hard work.

According to various reports -- Ezra Klein, Jonathon Cohn, NYT -- the list includes about 20 options, including the following possible new taxes/savings (estimates are over 10 years): (big thanks to Ezra Klein for the summaries)

1. A tax surcharge on those making $250,000 and above. The surcharge might be 2 percent for the amounts above $250,000, more for amounts above $500,000 and 4 percent for amounts above $1,000,000. The House is seriously considering a surcharge. Estimated revenues = $350 to $500 billion.

2. A tax on health benefits above a very high level. If, for example, the upper-end cost of insuring members of Congress were $17,000/year (Via Kaiser study of employer-provided plans, in 2008, the national average insurance for a family of four cost about $12,800), then a tax would kick in when the benefit exceeds that amount by, say 50 percent. Baucus and economists like the concept, but Obama, labor, and many Dems don't. Estimated revenues = $90 to $234 billion.

3. Limit the tax deductions for itemized deductions for those with very high incomes. If their marginal tax rate moves from 35 to 39 percent (when Bush tax cuts expire) then limit the deduction to 28 or 35 percent. This Obama proposal is disliked by Sen. Baucus but is still on the table. Estimated revenues = $90 to $267 billion.

4. Raise the current payroll tax on employees/employers by, e.g., 0.3 percent. Estimated revenues = $275 billion.

5. Consumption or value/added taxes. E.g., tax sugary drinks, beer, etc. These are not progressive measures, and their effect on reducing consumption is unclear. Estimate revenues = $30 to $100 billion.

6. Tax insurance companies for each person they insure. Estimated revnues = $75 to $100 billion.

7. And there are various proposals to cut federal payments to Medicare, which WH Budget Director Orszag is pushing on the grounds, e.g., that once more people are insured, current payments to providers for caring for uninsured people will decrease. Estimated savings = several hundred billions.

Under the current less than full coverage proposals, all they need to do is come up with about $1.2 trillion in taxes or cost savings over ten years, in a system that is costing us $2.2 trillion every year and escalating at 3 to 4 times the rate of inflation.

If the nation were in wars that would likely cost $3 trillion, and thousands of our troops were endangered because the Senate Finance Committee couldn't agree on a revenue plan to pay for their safety, the American people would wonder why these scoundrels weren't run out of town with pitchforks. Of course, Senate Finance, and Congress generally, still haven't come up with a plan to pay that $3 trillion.

So when nearly 20,000 people die every year because they can't afford health insurance and a million people a year face bankruptcy driven in large part because they were uninsured or fraudulently insured by an industry whose persistence depends on denying coverage, we probably shouldn't be surprised by all the Senate dawdling, but the same accountability principle should apply.

We need less stalling from the Finance Committee, less whining from its members and more results. There are people dying while these Senators dawdle.

To briefly summarize what I'm going to say below, my goals here are twofold:

1. Contribute to a conversation about cutting-edge forms of activism.
2. Call attention to structural problems in our country that affect politics but do not receive the attention they deserve.

Now, a little background on my path as an activist and a thinker.

2006-2008

For me, blogging was easier when George Bush was president. Deeply disenchanted with the political process after 2000 and 2004, I re-engaged with politics after the 2006 mid-terms and found blogging an exciting medium for activism. My morale never let up until after the election.

Then, I felt lost. Not because I am disappointed by President Obama, whom I have supported since Iowa with the understanding that his stances do not always reflect my convictions, but rather because blogging has become more complex, and the netroots more fragmented.

The question for me is not, "What should he do?" but rather, "What do we do?" Assuming our aim in the netroots is to effect change, the answer is not immediately obvious to me.

A New Phase for Netroots Activism

Several brilliant activist strategies have emerged since the election. Right here at FDL, Jane (with help from bloggers like Chris Bowers) has broken ground in pressuring progressives in Congress to act as a bloc(k) on critical legislation. Stephanie Taylor, Adam Green, and Change Congress have targeted conservative Democratic senators like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu with success.

Bloggers are also innovating on the journalistic side and, like Marcy Wheeler, gaining well-deserved recognition. The media landscape continues to change, with increased accountability for bad journalists.

But other strategies are in doubt. By 2008, many activists were skeptical that "electing more Democrats" could, on its own, bring about real change. So some bloggers hatched a strategy of "electing better Democrats." The full results of this ongoing effort remain uncertain, but bloggers like Jane and Bowers have already expressed sharp disappointment with "better Democrats" like Donna Edwards and Eric Massa. If mounting primary challenges against obstinate incumbents proves difficult, and the better Democrats who do reach Capitol Hill prove inadequate, I fear despair will grow.

Going Beyond Elections

I hope activists will continue searching for new and more effective tactics. But the train of thought I have followed here leads me to the conclusion that some of us must also call attention to structural problems in this country. The capacity to influence elections may not be sufficient in moving our country forward if we cannot also alter the environment in which elected officials operate. That means addressing issues of corporate power, social inequality, discrimination, media bias, corruption, militarization, and so forth.

Bloggers have done an admirable job tackling many of these topics, but the battle is still raging at full tilt. That's why we hope our efforts here will call attention not just to "politics" - defined as elections, candidates, pundits, and legislation - but also the deeper politics of life in this country, from our overcrowded prisons to our fruitless drug war to the way we eat and consume. If we can play a part in broadening the political discourse to include topics like that, I'll be well satisfied.

A critical component of that effort, though, is community, and I approach this new stage of the Seminal with eagerness to learn from all of you here. Reading diaries in the past weeks and months I have been impressed and inspired by the range of interests contained in this community, from health reform to the financial crisis to foreign affairs. I look forward to exchanging ideas with all of you, and working together to make a powerful contribution to the progressive movement and to our country.