Is it because it's so easy to refute? Politico, CNN, MSNBC, and others don't even really mention this if at all. I'm sure Olberman has (I can't watch him anymore due to no cable) but I'm sure you are spending far too much time on this story.

They have nothing to go on and until Obama releases his original birth certificate, they won't shut up. So why give them free publicity? I think it's safe to say that the majority of us on Salon already know everything you typed up. Why are you going on and on about this?

because I have no idea what they are coming up with. Every time they do, the CBO says it won't cut costs and it's pointless.

What are they actually doing and why should I support it. People can tell me why it's good in theory, but what does the bill say and why should I call my reps to support it?

I feel a bit in the dark with this "overhaul" which is looking more like it'll be a watered down version of nothing, which the Dem's will take credit for and the GOP will rail against for doing nothing.

Anyone else feel like they are in the dark on this?

Just my gut feeling is to say no to this, which is something I absolutely hate and I hope to remedy soon. However, I see no convincing reason why we should or should not allow this change from the discussion here or through this article.

I think my first glance at this idea is that we shouldn't change the system because of changes in the wind where people want an Arnold or whomever. It's the same thing that drives me nuts when NYC changes it's term limit rules so they can let a popular mayor run again. That type of thinking leads to larger issues, one which I think we'll all witness in Venezuela as well.

It is a good question though and I'd like to see some more serious replies to answering it.

I'm very happy to see this response.

Your article basically said nothing. What are the Blue Dog's doing to be the "obstacle" you mention in the title? Why is this an issue? Joan's story was closer though since she actually asked - what is the plan? But even there it's just a bunch of text that really doesn't say anything.

The health care debate is much more complex than I think anyone really realizes and I think taking some time, working though different ideas, and having a debate are all good things. Arguing about the GOP, the Blue Dogs, whatever is missing the point that we need to have a good solution. Right now the CBO report seems to suggest that we do not. So while the news media might love the infighting/outfighting or whatever...we still don't have a bill we can actually look at or scrutinize with any depth.

I hope to see some better articles here that actually look into the issues in this debate more thoroughly instead of just commentary. I can go to cable news for that. I come here for something a bit more educated.

The cooling issue is of concern in some instances, however I am not convinced it is as big as problem as some may believe. I also believe the sources you have there are heavily biased against nuclear power (NRDC in particular), so I question their objectivity. I am aware and accept of some issues with cooling and the associated problems of water supply though.

As far as security, the Uranium we buy from Russia is likely part of reducing the amount of weapons grade nuclear fuel they have in stock. I don't have a link with numbers but we buy a large amount of their HEU for this purpose. The title name for this is megatons to megawatts but has a more official project name. There is also a similar program for downblending plutonium for use as MOX (mixed oxide) fuel for reactors. I believe they broke ground on one in South Carolina recently. Uranium supply though, is largely from Canada and Australia as you've noted, which is not a security concern.

On your second point, yes, we don't reprocess so it's not an issue. There is no security concern until we start to reprocess again. Yucca will eventually open, or something like it, and as long as uranium prices remain low, there will be no incentive to reprocess spent fuel. France and Japan have extensive reprocessing programs currently with no security issues. I'll reiterate again though, that theft of spent fuel rods, which contain plutonium, is almost impossibly difficult to do. When I say difficult, I mean you would literally die in less than a minute if you were to pick one up without serious protection. You would need equipment that a terrorist or anyone else is very unlikely to come across. Not to mention the security of these sites preclude diversion already.

There is an extremely low probability that someone would steal spent fuel and an even lower probability that they would be able to reprocess it to extract the plutonium (forgetting for a moment that it's not even the right type of plutonium), then even more unlikely that they could make a weapon out of it.

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate you having researched such a complex topic for discussion. Seems to be rare when people talk about nuclear power.