If the Senate Fin Comm bill outlaws pre-existing conditions as a reason for insurance companies to deny coverage to anyone, then if the bill passes, where is the motivation for young people to sign up for coverage UNTIL they need it? I understand there are "penalties" for not having some form of insurance, but are they powerful enough to overcome the inclination to not buy insurance when young people think they don't need it?

Is the converse true? Have insurance companies historically rejected people due to pre-existing conditions because there were never enough healthy people to cover them or are they just greedy bastards?

Nice post. You put the Broadsheet broads in their place for spinning this thing into something other than what it is. Who cares what some blogger said when anything whatsoever can be said in the blogosphere.

The 2025 report did not cover the loss of military effectiveness despite the US great advantage in conventional firepower. It did not mention that asymetrical warfare is being perfected by countries like Iran and China that are devising ways to limit the movement of the US Navy. Once the Navy cannot establish forward bases in the conflict area, we are no longer in the fight. Making it impossible for a floating navy to wade into an area where long-range surface to surface missiles can sink a destroyer or large mine fields means a big problem for planners.

One more reason to reduce the big military footprint. It is expensive and ineffective against future enemies.

A previous post said that people of color are more spiritual and that the CA Prop 8 opposition did not adequately address the spiritual values that go along with marriage equality. That caught my attention for the following reason. In CA, whites in general are being outnumbered everyday by minorities who, for the most part, are not socially liberal at all. Due to immigration, whites make up less than 50% of the population and declining fast, which is why the UC system threw out affirmative action in the bluest of blue states. Why? Because the UC system is 60% Asian yet they make up 13% of the population. And guess what? Asians (when they do vote which isn't often) tend to vote conservative. Now we have Hispanics, who make up 35% of CA population tend to vote Democratic on money matters but as a group, they are quite conservative (90% Catholic). Not exactly a reliable group to swing an election on gay marriage. So who's left to vote No on Prop 8? Whites and blacks. I believe these groups split along educational lines with educated whites/blacks more socially liberal while those uneducated are substantially less likely to vote for social reform. The bottom line is those who oppose gay marriage are more likely to take their cues from the culture in which they were raised, but with the benefit of better education, they are more capable of moving beyond their childhood values.

This is tricky to deal with because of all the cross-currents going on. I was not surprised that Prop 8 passed in CA, but I thought that it would fail in Maine because ME has a stable white population that is solid ground for gay marriage to pass.

Obama needs to copy Clinton's "third way" or was it Tony Blair who first coined that phrase? A deal has to be struck where the US hands over Afghanistan to the Taliban in exchange for the Taliban handing over al-Qaeda to the US (or perhaps to the UK where they will not be summarily executed).

It's really that simple with a "win-win" outcome for everyone. Where am I wrong?

I sense in all this that Iran will inevitably test a nuclear weapon, Iran will inevitably make all the important decisions in neighboring Iraq in the years ahead and the Taliban will eventually prevail in Afghanistan. So the US will eventually strike out, in fact, we are in a slump batting 0.000.

If the Israelis thought that genuine negotiations could resolve the existential question of their right to exist, they would cease building settlements, release prisoners immediately and the palestinians could have all the water they want. You are seeing the trees and not the forest. But the Israelis don't trust any bilateral negotiations with any of the Palestinian factions at this time and for good reason. There is simply zero trust because the assumption is that Iran will corrupt the process (just like the Saudis did 15-20 years ago when Arafat was trying to cut a deal, any deal). The Palestinian factions have always been just proxies for the bigger picture i.e. the permanent right of Israel to exist on what has been historically Arab and Muslim lands since 700 AD. Until that question is settled, once and for all by all parties big and small, everything else is a detail subject to negotiation.

Your posts are superfical and inaccurate. Following 1948, the Palestinians fled to Egypt (Gaza), to the west bank (Jordan at the time), Lebanon and to Syria. In almost all cases they were confined to camps because the assumptions were (i) they would soon return to Palestine and (ii) they were not really welcomed in those societies and (ii) they were more useful as pawns in the bigger struggle if they were "oppressed" in camps. Jordan booted out the Palestinians in 1970 because Arafat was unruly and causing trouble. they were then booted out of Lebanon and went to North Africa for the same reason. Now they are the "useful idiots" of Iran so the cycle of mistrust just repeats itself. The world pays lip-service to the Palestinians because they make the headlines but the real power brokers live far away.