Another good week for President Obama according to US News and World Report.
Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu
Netcraft rank: 4274 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com
UA-9726592-1
This blog is dedicated to progressive and liberal thought. It also discusses new technology, how technology affects privacy and developments in Russia, China, Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Rightardia fully supports the rights of workers to organize, the feminist movement, and all Americans regardless or ethnicity, sex or gender.It uses humor, satire and parody to expose conservative thought for what it truly is: BS! Rightardia contributes to the DNC, DCCC, DSCC and MoveOn.Org.
By BRIAN STELTER
Published: December 30, 2009
The News Corporation said on Wednesday that it looked doubtful that it would sign a new distribution contract with Time Warner Cable by Thursday night. This has increased the likelihood that its Fox stations will be removed from cable lineups in millions of homes.
The News Corporation’s president, Chase Carey, declined an offer by Time Warner Cable to enter binding arbitration. The companies are fighting over how much the cable operator should pay Fox stations for the right to retransmit their shows, sporting events and local newscasts.
Fox is demanding about a dollar for each cable subscriber each month, which analysts say could set a precedent for broadcasters that want more money from cable and satellite operators.
The contracts expires midnight Dec. 31. Fox could then take its signal off Time Warner Cable systems in New York, Los Angeles, Dallas and other cities.
Time Warner Cable representatives arrived in Los Angeles early this week for the Fox talks. The renewal deal that also will affect several cable channels, including FX and the Speed Channel.
The companies traded barbs on Wednesday after the cable operator responded to a letter from Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and offered to extend talks into 2010.
Hours later, Mr. Carey said that the News Corporation would not provide an extension because it had been “trying since the summer to negotiate a fair deal.”
“At this time, it looks like we will not reach an agreement, and our channels may very well go off the air in Time Warner Cable systems,” Mr. Carey told employees.
“We deeply regret that millions of Fox customers will be deprived of our programming, but we need to receive fair compensation from Time Warner Cable to go forward with them,” he said.
Mr. Kerry said Wednesday night that he would press the Federal Communications Commission to intervene in the dispute.
Negotiations between programmers and distributors are often prolonged and painful, but they rarely occur in public the way the feud between Fox and Time Warner Cable has.
Each company has mounted a campaign for public support, with print ads and petitions. Fox says that it deserves to be paid more for its programming, while Time Warner Cable says Fox’s demands are excessive.
See the rest of the story at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/business/media/31cable.html
Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu
Netcraft rank: 4217 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com
House Republicans have released a two-page summary of their proposal, which CNN Radio obtained.
Some highlights include:
·~"Pools" of insurance. It would let states, small businesses and others group together to offer lower-cost, health care plans. Such pools would have to offer, at a minimum, any coverage that is provided in a majority of states.
This sounds suspiciously like a coop, a health care idea that never really caught on. One of the problems with this idea is that the 'pools' cannot cross state lines,. In addition, Blue Cross was once a cost effective non-profit coop, but to make more money it became a profit making health care corporation.
·~Medicaid transfer. It would allow Medicaid users to take the value of their Medicaid benefits and transfer/apply those to a private health care plan instead.
Wow! All this would do is weaken Medicare and make it more expensive. This is a really bad idea, but it is not surprising that the GOP would propose it with its support of corporatism.
·~Boosting of health care savings accounts. It would increase incentives for people, especially those in lower income brackets or over 55, to build up HSAs.
Again, this proposal would help people in the top tax brackets but would do little for the average American. Some of these plans require any money left over in them be turned into the federal government.
·~Automatic insurance. It would encourage employers to sign up their workers for health insurance automatically, so that employees would have to "opt out" of coverage if they didn't want it.
Finally, a good idea. But, what about employee choice?
This Republican alternative bill also contains several ideas that are increasingly championed by both parties.
·~Longer coverage for youths. It would allow dependent children to stay on their parents' policies until they are 25.
The Democrats support the same provision, but extend the benefit to age 26.
·~Promotion of wellness at the workplace. It would encourage employers to reward employees for improved health.
No argument here. The Democratic plan wants doctors to be reimbursed for wellness medical care.
·~Expansion of community health centers.
·~Mobile health care. It would allow Americans to maintain their specific health insurance policies when they lose or leave jobs.
·~In-home care. It would provide financial help and encourage more in-home care over institutions.
·~Limitations on malpractice lawsuits. There is general agreement over limiting such lawsuits, but a deep divide exists over exactly how much.
In Texas, they put a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages makes most claims unprofitable for trial lawyers to pursue. Statewide, malpractice lawsuits have fallen by half. But the cost of medical insurance has not fallen.
The CBO found that under the Republican plan, insurance coverage would increase by about 3 million and that the percentage of insured non-elderly adults would remain at about 83 percent after ten years. The House bill would increase coverage to an additional 36 million people, raising the number of insured to 96 percent. The GOP plan is cheaper because it only insures 10 per cent of Americans the Democratic plan would cover.
In a press release from the Democratic National Committee, Vice Chair Wasserman Schultz said the GOP plan, "would allow health insurance companies to continue engaging in unfair and discriminatory practices like denying coverage to people because of a pre-existing medical condition."
Politfact agrees that Wasserman Schultz's analysis is mostly true. The GOP wants to put people with pre-exisitng conditions into high risk pools.
The GOP want to "limit the pool premiums to no more than 150 percent of the average premium for applicable standard risk rates in that state." In other words, it might cost people with pre-existing conditions to pay 50 percent more than average premiums paid by healthy people.
-- CNN's Lisa Desjardins contributed to this report. To top of page
source: http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/17/news/economy/republican_health_care_bill/index.htm
Source: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/061707dnbusmedmal.3ce4922.html
Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu
Netcraft rank: 4217 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com