Mike Stark catches up with Blanche Lincoln in Congress and asks her if she'll join the Republican filibuster. She has been virtually silent throughout the whole health care debate and Mike does a great job of getting her to say something on the record. What she said of course was nothing.

Stark: Can you see yourself filibustering or joining a filibuster?

Lincoln: I don't even know what the bill is going to be and I'm going to do what I think is most important for Arkansans and that is to look at the bill, to see if it's going to be helpful to Arkansans and the country in expanding health care...

She knows what's going on in this debate and gives a typical non-answer about supporting the public option like many have given up to this point. We at Blue America are running a brand new ad all over her state starting today so we can help her decide that filibustering health care is not in any one's best interests except the health insurance corporations that she's taken huge contributions from.

Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post writes:

The squeeze is on for Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) on health care in the form of a new series of ads paid for by the liberal Blue America PAC that cast the Arkansas Democrat as bought and paid for by insurers. "Blanche Lincoln claims to fight for health care reform but whose interests does she really represent," asks the ad's narrator before noting that Lincoln has taken more than $2 million in campaign contributions from the health and insurance industries. The narrator concludes the ad by asking viewers to call Lincoln and "demand she allow an up or down vote on the public option." (This is the fourth ad paid for by Blue America targeting Lincoln this year.)

Polling shows Lincoln, who is up for re-election in 2010, holding relatively slim margins over a series of unknown Republican candidates. Lincoln's dilemma? How to walk the line between the conservative leanings of the Razorback State -- Obama took just 39 percent there in 2009 -- and the increasingly vocal and well-funded left within her own party who see the inclusion of a public option as a sine qua non for health care reform.

Her primary is the reason we targeted her originally and it's worked out very well so far.

Please help us continue running this ad and many more to come and join in on Blue America's Campaign for Health Care Choice. Donations are much appreciated.

And Digby writes:

Perhaps Lincoln should start worrying just a bit about what will happen if her Democratic base stays home. The numbers aren't looking all that good for her right now.

She's between little rock and a hard place but it seems to me that's easily solved at this point. She should vote for cloture, thus appeasing her base and then she can vote against the bill if she needs to appeal to neanderthals who want people to die quickly.

Believe me, none of her constituents will hold it against her. Most people think cloture is unpasteurized sour cream. And they like it.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1128)

PLAYS: (2446)

Rush Limbaugh isn't endorsing Sarah Palin for president in 2012 but he says she's ready for the job now.

"One thing I do not do is follow conventional wisdom, and the conventional wisdom of Sarah Palin is "She's not smart enough. She needs to bone up on the issues. She's a little unsophisticated. Alaska, Where's that?, [She] doesn't have the pedigree,'" Limbaugh told Fox News' Chris Wallace. "She's the only thing that provided a spark for the Republican Party. This is not an endorsement, but i do have profound respect for Sarah Palin. There are not very many politicians who have been through what she's been put through and still able to smile and be ebullient and upbeat. This woman, I think, is tough," he said.

There are some amazing technological innovations in education right now, and of course the education establishment is doing their darndest to obstruct them in any way they can. (Remember the newspaper industry?)

This is just one fascinating example, and the story's too complex to excerpt - go read the rest:

Like millions of other Americans, Barbara Solvig lost her job this year. A fifty-year-old mother of three, Solvig had taken college courses at Northeastern Illinois University years ago, but never earned a degree. Ever since, she had been forced to settle for less money than coworkers with similar jobs who had bachelor’s degrees. So when she was laid off from a human resources position at a Chicago-area hospital in January, she knew the time had come to finally get her own credential. Doing that wasn’t going to be easy, because four-year degrees typically require two luxuries Solvig didn’t have: years of time out of the workforce, and a great deal of money.

Luckily for Solvig, there were new options available. She went online looking for something that fit her wallet and her time horizon, and an ad caught her eye: a company called StraighterLine was offering online courses in subjects like accounting, statistics, and math. This was hardly unusual—hundreds of institutions are online hawking degrees. But one thing about StraighterLine stood out: it offered as many courses as she wanted for a flat rate of $99 a month. “It sounds like a scam,” Solvig thought—she’d run into a lot of shady companies and hard-sell tactics on the Internet. But for $99, why not take a risk?

[...]The same courses would have cost her over $2,700 at Northeastern Illinois, $4,200 at Kaplan University, $6,300 at the University of Phoenix, and roughly the gross domestic product of a small Central American nation at an elite private university. They also would have taken two or three times as long to complete.

And if Solvig needed any further proof that her online education was the real deal, she found it when her daughter came home from a local community college one day, complaining about her math course. When Solvig looked at the course materials, she realized that her daughter was using exactly the same learning modules that she was using at StraighterLine, both developed by textbook giant McGraw-Hill. The only difference was that her daughter was paying a lot more for them, and could only take them on the college’s schedule. And while she had a professor, he wasn’t doing much teaching. “He just stands there,” Solvig’s daughter said, while students worked through modules on their own.

And then there's Flatworld Knowledge, a company offering free online college textbooks (and customized textbooks for a low fee). Anyone who's gone to college (or paid for their kid) knows how expensive textbooks are:

Flat World Knowledge is the brainchild of two industry veterans who, back in 2007, decided to reinvent their industry from the bottom up. Co-founder Eric Frank explained to me how the company’s model works. “We still produce books in the traditional way, i.e., we approach top scholars, conduct peer review, and integrate all of the elements (photos, charts, graphs) into a high-quality textbook. But then we flip the model on its head.”

As opposed to publishing a paper edition under copyright, the company applies a creative commons open source license. It then publishes each title online, where every single book in its catalog can be read for free. (They are also presently free on iPhones, though I suspect that will eventually have to change.) There also are a number of paid options available to the professors and students who sign up with the company:

* A black-and-white soft cover edition will be printed on-demand and delivered within five days for $29.95.
* A color edition produced in the same manner costs $59.95.
* An audio book, in mp3 file format is available for $39.95. (Individual chapters cost $2.99 each.)
* A PDF costs $19.95. (Chapters are priced at $1.99 each.)
* Study aids that include sample quizzes and other helpful material can be purchased for $9.95. (Chapter study aids are priced at $1.99.)

So how is this model working out to date? “Our data indicate that 65 percent of the students choose to buy at least one of our products, with 35 percent choosing the free option,” says Frank. “The average amount spent by a student is about $30 a semester, or factoring in the free use, $20 per student per class per semester.”

The important thing is that consumers should get to have choices. All other things being equal, if these products are as good as the ones offered in a standard academic setting, the establishment is only delaying the inevitable by fighting them.

Distributor Cap brings us Peggy Noonan as Mary Poppins (click here for larger):

"In every job that must be done, there is an element of greed. You find the greed, and - SNAP - the job's a game!"

Open Thread below....

You have to give him pundit props: Krugman said from the start (this video is from February) that Obama's stimulus package was too small, and he was right. As expected, the unemployment claims went up to record-breaking levels this week. Via Bloomberg:

The unemployment rate rose to 9.8 percent, the highest since 1983, from 9.7 percent in August, the Labor Department said today in Washington. Payrolls fell by 263,000, following a revised 201,000 decline the prior month that was less than previously reported.

As someone who's sent out 250+ resumes in the past year and gotten one face-to-face interview and one phone call in return, I can tell you first-hand it's not looking good on the job front.

Krugman says if we don't do something about this, not only will the human costs will be high but our economic growth will be depressed for a long, long time:

Wait. It gets worse. A new report from the International Monetary Fund shows that the kind of recession we’ve had, a recession caused by a financial crisis, often leads to long-term damage to a country’s growth prospects. “The path of output tends to be depressed substantially and persistently following banking crises.”

The same report, however, suggests that this isn’t inevitable: “We find that a stronger short-term fiscal policy response” — by which they mean a temporary increase in government spending — “is significantly associated with smaller medium-term output losses.”

So we should be doing much more than we are to promote economic recovery, not just because it would reduce our current pain, but also because it would improve our long-run prospects.

But can we afford to do more — to provide more aid to beleaguered state governments and the unemployed, to spend more on infrastructure, to provide tax credits to employers who create jobs? Yes, we can.

The conventional wisdom is that trying to help the economy now produces short-term gain at the expense of long-term pain. But as I’ve just pointed out, from the point of view of the nation as a whole, that’s not at all how it works. The slump is doing long-term damage to our economy and society, and mitigating that slump will lead to a better future.

What is true is that spending more on recovery and reconstruction would worsen the government’s own fiscal position. But even there, conventional wisdom greatly overstates the case. The true fiscal costs of supporting the economy are surprisingly small.

You see, spending money now means a stronger economy, both in the short run and in the long run. And a stronger economy means more revenues, which offset a large fraction of the upfront cost. Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that the offset falls short of 100 percent, so that fiscal stimulus isn’t a complete free lunch. But it costs far less than you’d think from listening to what passes for informed discussion.

Look, I know more stimulus is a hard sell politically. But it’s urgently needed. The question shouldn’t be whether we can afford to do more to promote recovery. It should be whether we can afford not to. And the answer is no.

Robert Reich agrees, saying this is certainly not the time to worry about the deficit, and predicts if we do, the politics are going to get much uglier:

Let me say this as clearly and forcefully as I can: The federal government should be spending even more than it already is on roads and bridges and schools and parks and everything else we need. It should make up for cutbacks at the state level, and then some. This is the only way to put Americans back to work. We did it during the Depression. It was called the WPA.

Yes, I know. Our government is already deep in debt. But let me tell you something: When one out of six Americans is unemployed or underemployed, this is no time to worry about the debt.

[...] People who now obsess about government debt have it backwards. The problem isn’t the debt. The problem is just the opposite. It’s that at a time like this, when consumers and businesses and exports can’t do it, government has to spend more to get Americans back to work and recharge the economy. Then – after people are working and the economy is growing – we can pay down that debt.

But if government doesn’t spend more right now and get Americans back to work, we could be out of work for years. And the debt will be with us even longer. And politics could get much uglier.

I found this in the comments over at Corrente and wanted to share it:

Insurance companies reserve the right to make changes to their formularies at any time, but are supposed to notify you and allow you one month's supply of your current drug in order to give your medical provider the opportunity to "pre-authorize" your access to said drug. Your doctor cannot simply write a letter saying "I'm the doctor by god, and I want the patient to have this drug". No, he must provide evidence that he has "stepped" you. Stepped means that he/she has tried you on "approved" A, B and C drugs to little or bad results first.

Now, A and C may no longer be on the formulary, so they don't count, so he/she has to find out what approved drugs are on the formulary so that he/she can say that they have been tried and if that is true, or he/she will say it is true, then it will go to the Pre-Authorization department.

If the PA department can't sort it, say because your diagnosis does not fit neatly into what the insurance company says the drug can be used for, albeit that it works for what ails you, the application goes to the in-house pharmacist. The in-house pharmacist (average salary $90,000 per annum) will make the final decision based on following company guidelines and keeping his/her job. If the decision is that you get the drug, then said drug will be approved for you as "off formulary", moved to class 3 and if your co-pay was $25.00, it will now be $60.00 or more.

If the drug is not approved, then you will be properly stepped with the ineffective, approved drugs before your pre-authorization can be reconsidered. After you have been stepped, the drug will still be off formulary and the co-pay will still be increased. It sucks and I am so sorry.

Signed Anguished in the PA Department - United Health Insurance Inc

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (139)

PLAYS: (653)

Michael Moore hits back at Wolf Blitzer for his question about "the charge that either has been made or will be made that (he) is being hypocritical". Blitzer seems to have a bit of trouble understanding that someone can be wealthy themselves and still care about the poor and as Moore notes, those two things don't have to be at odds with each other.

BLITZER: But let's talk about -- most people going to see this movie who don't like you are going to say, you know what? Michael Moore has done pretty well in this capitalist or free market system. You've become a fairly rich guy yourself.

MOORE: Well, first of all, Wolf, there's nobody that doesn't like me. I don't know who these people are.

BLITZER: There are a few.

(CROSSTALK)

MOORE: If you have a list of names...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: A tiny number out there.

MOORE: Provide me with those names, and I will go to their homes and cook them dinner. And perhaps they will like me better.

(LAUGHTER)

MOORE: So, yes. Your point was, I have done well. Yes, for a documentary filmmaker, I have done very well.

BLITZER: You've done very well. And the allegations of...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: ... you're being hypocritical.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Explain, because you're hearing a lot of that.

MOORE: Why am I against capitalism if I have done so well?

BLITZER: Right.

MOORE: Isn't the question better put -- and I'm not trying to do your job for you -- but wouldn't the question better be, gee, Mike, you have done so well. Why don't you just kick back at the lake and enjoy life? Why are you caring about all these people losing their health care and their jobs and all that? You're not losing yours?

I wonder if there was like a Wolf Blitzer like 200 years ago who asked Thomas Jefferson or John Adams or George Washington, hey, you know, you guys are wealthy landowners. You have benefited from the king's system. What are you complaining about? What is this revolt all about?

It's like, sometimes, people, even people who have actually had the good fortune and blessings in life to not have to struggle with worrying about their health care, whether or not it's going to be here tomorrow or the next week, sometimes, those people actually are willing to take great risks and create sacrifices for themselves, in the hopes that others will have it just as well.

Continue reading »

I was watching MSNBC the other day and I saw Chuck Todd looking a bit annoyed when he talked about this new poll that said Americans didn't believe the Beltway elite media after they repeatedly slammed the president for going on TV too much. So I looked for the poll and here it is. Sorry, I don't have the video of Todd.

There's a new NBC/WSJ poll out and it has some interesting information. For weeks now the Beltway gasbags have been singing in concert that President Obama is doing way too much media: he's overexposed, he's on TV too damn much, blah blah blah. Well, they are yet wrong again.

Here's the question:

When it comes to doing his job as president, do you feel that you see and hear President Obama too much, about the right amount, or too little?

Too much..........................................34
About the right amount .....................54
Too little ............................................9
Not sure ..........................................3

After all the hubbub made by the pundit class, Americans feel that the President is doing the right amount of media exposure. What a shock.
I do enjoy watching the overwrought Peggy Noonan say that Obama was just sooo boorish, darling.

Noonan: This is his way. Because everybody will say yes. I don't think it's about the media environment but I do think the media environment allows a modern leader to be something subtly damaging and that is boorish. They get their face in your face every day all the time. It's boorish and it makes people not lean towards you, but lean away from you, no matter what the merits of the issue and the merits of this issue are not such great merits.

She's proven wrong, like the huckster she is. Why Noonan is taken seriously is beyond me anyway. She was already caught off camera talking to Chuck Todd and Mike Murphy and just bashing Sarah Palin and the Republican Party, but she would never say that on TV, live that is. She exposed herself as a hypocrite and a liar. Why is she considered a trusted source of conservative opinion?

Howard Kurtz wrote a pretty good article on this:

I raised the question a few months back whether Obama was diluting his impact by constantly popping up on the tube. He'd already done ESPN, Leno, the network anchors, "60 Minutes" and a slew of other programs. Then there was NBC's day in the life, ABC's town hall forum, the four prime-time news conferences, the comedy bits for Conan and Colbert, and on and on.
--
"Is this a good idea? Should he just but a 24-hour webcam in the White House and be done with it?

"I kid, but I am on record as saying that those who knock the President for 'overexposure' miss an important fact about the media today. Overexposure is the point. The audience is fragmented. The way to get through is to reach this audience here and that one there, and that one there...read on

Kurtz believes Obama should have gone on FOX too, but I don't. Obama was wise not to reward foul and destructive behavior by the anti-Obama network and grant an appearance to Chris Wallace on FOX so that he coould ask Obama about FOX' phony breaking story about Death Panel books.

Anyway, every time you hear a pundit complain about Obama doing too much media, just tell them America isn't listening to them.

h/t ThoughtProfiles's:

A juxtaposition of the past and current use of McCarthyism.

A must watch. They did an excellent job with this mash up. Maybe someone could get George Will to watch it.

Tell us your thoughts.

Here's some transcripts:

Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan: First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have. What this plan will do is to make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime.

We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies – because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives. That’s what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan – more security and stability.

Now, if you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans who don’t currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It’s how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it’s time to give every American the same opportunity that we’ve given ourselves.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1341)

PLAYS: (2986)

Chris Matthews talks to the AFL-CIO's Richard Trumka about the need for at minimum to have a public option in the health care bill. Trumka does a great job despite Matthews' badgering and taking a shot at union members by asking him if they're going to "pummel" (Democratic Senators who won't go along) during the interview. Way to advance that "union thugs" meme there Chris.

Matthews: Can you pass a bill like that?

Trumka: Absolutely.

Matthews: How?

Trumka: We’re working on it.

Matthews: Where are you going to get the votes in the Senate?

Trumka: Well I think the President coming out helps us.

Matthews: You think you can get sixty votes in the Senate?

Trumka: I do.

Matthews: Where? Name the Republicans. Name one Republican.

Trumka: Snowe.

Matthews: Okay, name another one.

Trumka: Well, we don’t need another one do we?

Continue reading »

There's the "official" unemployment rate, based on claims for unemployment benefits - and the more accurate U-6, which looks at discouraged workers who have stopped looking:

They were left out of the latest unemployment rate, as they are every month: millions of hidden casualties of the Great Recession who are not counted in the rate because they have stopped looking for work.

But that does not mean these discouraged Americans do not want to be employed. As interviews with several of them demonstrate, many desperately long for a job, but their inability to find one has made them perhaps the ultimate embodiment of pessimism as this recession wears on.

Some have halted their job searches out of sheer frustration. Others have decided it makes more sense to become stay-at-home fathers or mothers, or to go back to school, until the job market improves. Still others have chosen to retire for now and have begun collecting Social Security or disability benefits, for which claims have surged.

[...] The official jobless rate, which garners the bulk of attention from politicians and the public, was reported on Friday to have risen to 9.7 percent in August. But to be included in that measure, which is calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from a monthly nationwide survey, a worker must have actively looked for a job at some point in the preceding four weeks.

For an increasing number of people in this country who would prefer to be working, that is not the case.

It is difficult to assign an exact figure, because of limitations in the data collected by the bureau, but various measures that capture discouragement have swelled in this recession.

In the most direct measure of job market hopelessness, the bureau has a narrow definition of a group it classifies as “discouraged workers.” These are people who have looked for work at some point in the past year but have not looked in the last four weeks because they believe that no jobs are available or that they would not qualify, among other reasons. In August, there were roughly 758,000 discouraged workers nationally, compared with 349,000 in November 2007, the month before the recession officially began.

The bureau also has a broader category of jobless it calls “marginally attached to the labor force,” which includes discouraged workers as well as those who have stopped looking because of other reasons, like school, family responsibilities or health issues. But economists agree that many of these workers probably would have found a way to work in a good economy.

I'm not as optimistic as this reporter, but then, I don't live on Planet Beltway, either. George Bush's legacy lives on - we still have a commercial real estate crash to get through, and the banks have only postponed their day of reckoning. (Although the Onion has a slightly brighter forecast):

Despite an emerging economic expansion, businesses were sufficiently skittish about the future that the job market continued its long, steep decline in August, according to a new government report Friday. The unemployment rate rose to 9.7 percent, from 9.4 percent, as employers shed jobs for the 20th straight month, the Labor Department said.

The increase was greater than many analysts had forecast, and it undermined hopes that the corporate sector will rapidly rebuild its workforce following the economic trauma of the last year. That in turn could keep a self-sustaining recovery from taking hold, as Americans have less money to spend and less confidence about their own job prospects.

"Our clients tell us they will not hire in anticipation of a recovery, but will wait until they see it," said Jonas Prising, an executive vice president at Manpower, the giant employment services firm. "In a normal recession, people would now start to feel more comfortable and start hiring, but nobody is doing that today. They'll do it when they see real orders and real business."

The new numbers included some silver linings: The 216,000 jobs that employers shed in August was the slowest rate of job loss in a year, which drove the stock market up 1.3 percent, as measured by the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index.

Companies are not laying people off at the same furious pace they were a few months ago -- the number of people to lose their jobs in mass layoffs fell 26 percent in July. But neither are they willing to take the risk of bringing on new workers, despite signs that there could be better times ahead.

As always, Thom Hartmann makes a lot of sense:

One of the most powerful forms of stimulus we could apply to our economy right now would be to lower the current Social Security retirement age from the current 65-67 to 55, and increase the benefits back to where they were in inflation-adjusted 1960s dollars by raising them between 10 to 20 percent (so people could actually live, albeit modestly, on Social Security).

The right-wing reaction to this, of course, will be to say that with fewer people working and more people drawing benefits, it would bankrupt Social Security and destroy the economy. But history shows the exact reverse.

Instead, it would eliminate the problem of unemployment in the United States. All those Boomers retiring would make room in the labor market for all the recent high-school and college graduates who are now finding it so hard to find a job.

Hartmann goes on in the article to discuss in detail about how lowering the retirement age would open up thousands of jobs nationwide, and how wages for working class Americans have been devastated since the days of Ronald Reagan and our old pal Alan Greenspan started gutting unions and trying to lower our standard of living:

In September of 2007, in an interview on C-SPAN for Book TV, Greenspan said: “We pay the highest skilled labor wages in the world. If we would open up our borders to skilled labor far more than we do, we would attract a very substantial quantity of skilled labor which would suppress the wage levels of the skilled, because the skilled are essentially being subsidized by the government, meaning our competition is being kept outside the country.”

It’s shocking that ideologues like Greenspan, Reagan, and Clinton believe this, but they do. And the only way to reverse the past 29 years of Reaganomics/Clintonomics is to tighten up the labor market again. While a great start would be to pull out of our insane trade treaties and begin again protecting American manufacturers, that will take a decade for the impact to be truly felt even if we were to go back to our 1980 tariff levels today. Read on...

Thom finishes by stating that his plan would ultimately "take us to nearly zero unemployment and dramatically stimulate the economy." I happen to think it's a good idea. What say you?

Paul Waldman in the American Prospect:

"Illness doesn't care where you live," the narrator says sympathetically, "or if you're already sick, or if you lose your job. Your health insurance shouldn't either." The ad ends with the hope that "the words ‘pre-existing condition' [become] a thing of the past." So say the people who won't insure you if you have a pre-existing condition and who will cut you off if you get a serious illness. It's kind of like a gang of home invaders expressing the fervent hope that people will get better alarm systems and stronger deadbolts.

What's going on? In simple terms, they cut a deal. It may not be written down on paper, but it goes like this: If the government imposes an individual mandate, forcing all Americans to buy health insurance – and thus guaranteeing us millions of new customers – we won't stand in the way of new regulations curbing some of our worst abuses. And this is their defense when those abuses are brought up. We've already agreed to those new regulations, they'll say, so why do we need to talk about it anymore? Let's just make sure there's no public option people can choose, because that would just be a step too far.

But here's a question: If the insurance companies have finally come to understand that it's wrong to kick people off their coverage when they get sick; and it's wrong to deny coverage to people who have previously been sick; and it's wrong to hide lifetime limits in the fine print, forcing people into bankruptcy if they face a serious illness; and it's wrong to discriminate against pregnant women and their families; why don't they stop doing these things? Like, how about today? Why are they waiting for Congress to outlaw their most abominable practices?

Continue reading »