(Evelyn)My son was out of a job for 2 yrs and kept COBRA (guess who paid?;-)) Your son's former employer was generous. The law states they only need to offer it for 18 months, but emplioyers can be more magnanimous--few are--than what the law requires. (Dorine)didn't take it as I couldn't afford it. I wasn't workin'!! Of course you couldn't! I pay over $1,500 per year to cover just myself (most employers require an employee contribution--few free rides left unless you're in a union). If I add in what my company contributes, it's well over $6,000 per year, just for one person. For COBRA, you'd be paying that full $6,000. Not many unemployed people can afford that. Now, under Obama's Recovery Act, the government is now subsidizing 65% of that (for a 9-month max) for people who were laid off from 9/08 through 12/09. After that, who knows, unless Congress extends it. At least this is somewhat of a helping hand for working people who have been so hurt by this recession. I'm tellin' ya--I like the big O. He is trying. Move! Now there's practical solution.;-) I just checked their website and plugged in about a half dozen states at random--no AARP major medical offered. Yeah, I even checked OK.

(Mari) I'm tellin' ya--I like the big O. He is trying. LOL, Leslie doesn't share your sentiment, I'll tell ya. Ran into her the other night and had a brief conversation where I mentioned healthcare was being discussed here and too bad she didn't have time to join in. She said I didn't want to get her started, but I did anyway. :-O Oh boy, I may have been right, LOL!! She was like a racehorse out of the gate on it. But, she's coming at it all from a medical business perspective and what she/her practice stands to lose in the end with this reform ($$). She's not happy with the excessive price tag this is seemingly going to cost as well. I can't say I agreed with her on everything she said (except the part about needing to see an increase in social/personal responsibility in the whole process and the final reform), but it was interesting to hear her point of view. Basically, too, she's thinking this reform will end up like credit card reform also, sounds great, less filling...if you know what I mean. She sent me a WSJ article to read that I haven't gotten into yet. I'll post it another time.

LOL. Hey, I'm mild compared to Leslie;-) She doesn't want to come on here...do you blame her? I'm the only chump;-)LOL. I do think O is trying...as long as he puts potential solutions out there to be discussed, not hamfisted through. I know folks who have the AARP insurance.Doctors hate it. The Cadillac insurance is the premium Blue Cross.Pricey. Hey you get what you pay for. Ya' think you'll be able to walk into any private hospital carrying your little government insurance card in your clammy little hand ? Get thee to Bellevue;-) The $9. T debt is obscene; the only ones who seem concerned were the ones at the Tea Party.

Not that she doesn't want to, just no time. I didn't realize how much that practice had grown til she mentioned it the other night, plus she does a variety of things after work, too (though not screenings so much as I rarely see her). She did mention you, Evelyn, and admiring your chutzpah for posting here though. ;-D Re: AARP...if you need home care here (after a hospitalization or not) and have it as your secondary insurance, you're out of luck. You'll only get what Medicare or whatever your primary insurance will cover.

(Dorine)She did mention you, Evelyn, and admiring your chutzpah for posting here though. ;-D Chutzpah?...ROTF ,you mean "boba"! The insults, sarcasm and snarkiness goes a little over the top at times ...but as I said, I blow it all away. I know that deep down inside you like me;-D Homecare is v. expensive, Dorine. I don't have it as a secondary either. I'm at the mercy of the Mr Obama;-)

I found this very interesting and his opinion seems to be echoing the concerns that I have mentioned here about the reform ending up as basically a sham in the end because no one wants to give up their share of the pie. I found his story about how CA insurance companies have been getting around the mandate that premiums can be increased only a limited amount per year very interesting. Quite clever, yet so simple. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/18/744056/-Without-a-Public-Option,-Its-Not-Really-Reform

And I wonder whether health reform will stop this kind of behavior. Ties into Mari's comments about health care bills causing personal bankruptcies. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-rescind17-2009jun17,0,3508020,full.story

Good article, Dorine. Proponents of a public plan seized upon the hearing, saying it showed why access to healthcare cannot be left to private insurance companies. The insurance companies are their own worst enemy. I'm glad they got blasted from both sides of the aisle. They want a seat at the table but the way some of them have conducted business is unconscionable. People paid premiums in good faith and had their coverage cancelled when they needed it most. A disgrace. Another problem with trying to get isurance on your own is they don't want to cover pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies want people who don't need insurance. :-( I'm hoping that competition from a public plan will put a stop to this nonsense.

And I'm sure it will. Competition can alter people's behavior. Of course they are a for-profit business, and have shareholders to answer to. Perhaps it's the shareholders' fault for wanting dividends and profits;-) Enter: Co-op non-profit... But I digress.... Love this jacket. She uses belts over jackets.(Note to self, must get some belts) Yesterday at a Volunteer Award ceremony

(Evelyn) Of course they are a for-profit business, and have shareholders to answer to. I can't speak for other not-for-profits, but I can tell you our board of directors are not happy at the moment and might as well be shareholders. We just had some more layoffs this week. Don't let anyone tell ya that because healthcare is always needed that jobs in that industry are safe. I like the belt/shirt color.

(Dorine)but I can tell you our board of directors are not happy at the moment and might as well be shareholders No job is safe in this climate; healthcare or not. DIL was laid-off from Houston hospital. But why is your board of directors not happy? Any reason? Not enough reimbursements?

Losing money, period. It's do or die time for my job, too. Not sure the time frame.

This is starting to take a nosedive fast, all in the name of bipartisanship (F that!) and expediency (why is there such a quick time table?). The employer taxes bit is one thing that got Leslie's goat and I see where she's coming from on that. Democrats pare back subsidies in health care bill AP By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent � 23 mins ago WASHINGTON � Key Senate Democrats, bidding for bipartisan support on health care, pared back subsidies designed to make insurance more affordable on Thursday and floated a compromise that rules out direct government competition against private insurers. Despite the cost-cutting, the proposal backed by Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, requires most individuals to purchase coverage and forbids insurance companies from denying it on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. The brief outline did not specify how the government's costs would be covered, although Baucus and many Republicans favor a tax on certain employer-provided health benefits. The Montana Democrat has said he intends to hold the cost of the legislation to about $1 trillion, well below the $1.6 trillion estimate the Congressional Budget Office made of an earlier set of options. Across the Capitol, Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee privately circulated a list of possible tax increases to pay for expanded health care. They ranged from raising the Medicare tax, slapping a 10 percent tax on a can of sweetened drink, raising the alcohol tax, imposing a new tax on employers equal to 3 percent of payroll and taxing employer-provided health insurance benefits above certain levels. Also under consideration was a value added tax, a sort of national sales tax, of up to 1.5 percent or more, with housing, education, financial services and medical care potentially exempt. House Democrats were expected to unveil an outline of their own to expand health coverage on Friday, although several officials said they did not plan to include mention of the tax increases under consideration. Taken together, the developments reflected an eagerness by congressional Democrats in both houses to meet a self-imposed deadline of having health care legislation to the floor of both houses of Congress by summer. President Barack Obama has made the issue one of his top priorities. Neither the Senate Finance Committee outline nor the list of tax options under review by House Democrats was made public. The Associated Press obtained copies of both. "There's no doubt in my mind we're going to get a bipartisan bill," Baucus told reporters as he emerged from a meeting with a small group of Republicans he referred to as a "coalition of the willing." The senior Republican on the Finance Committee was not nearly as bullish. "I'm still at the table. I wouldn't be at the table if I didn't think there was some hope for it," said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. "But tomorrow it could be an entirely different story." According to a 10-page outline that described the proposal, federal subsidies would be available to help families up to 300 percent of poverty, or $66,000, purchase insurance. An earlier proposal set the level at 400 percent of poverty, or $88,000. At the same time, the new outline could require higher out of pocket costs from individuals because companies would be permitted to offer policies that cover less of an insured's anticipated medical costs than was earlier proposed. Many Democrats want the government to be able to offer insurance in competition with the private industry, a provision they say would hold down costs. But most Republicans are opposed. The outline presented at meeting with Republicans left the matter open, but suggested creation of nonprofit co-ops to offer insurance, rather than the government. The co-ops could accept federal loans for startup operations, but would have to repay the money. Similarly, the outline leaves open the question of requiring larger employers to provide insurance. As an alternative, it suggests requiring companies to pay a portion of the cost of insurance for lower income workers not offered coverage at work. While Baucus supports a tax on health benefits, Obama opposed it in last year's presidential campaign and attacked his rival, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., for proposing it. Administration officials have refrained from criticizing it in recent weeks, but organized labor is opposed, fearing it would mean higher taxes for some of its members. Congressional aides say Democrats are eager to exempt union contracts from the proposed tax, but Republicans want to include them. In its most recent form, the proposal would impose a tax on plans in which the combined employer and employee premiums are above about $17,000. That would raise an estimated $270 billion over a decade, less if union-negotiated plans were exempt. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090619/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul;_ylt=Ai65845kPwsheCPx18LolvSs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJqZGdpc2JwBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNjE5L3VzX2hlYWx0aF9vdmVyaGF1bARjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDZGVtb2NyYXRzcGFy

(Me) Losing money, period. From a variety of reasons... - state Medicaid cuts - having too many cases with HMO's/managed Medicares/Medicaids and not enough straight Care/Caids - decreased reimbursement from HMO's, etc. - poor internal management (for too long) of cases to maximize reimbursement and cut losses and/or shift potential losses (ie, chronic cases) to programs with better reimbursement. - poor intake management (taking everything to get a leg up on competition including obvious money losers rather than being more discerning) - lots of competition

And more Medicaid and Medicare cuts are in the pipeline I read. Folks on chemo are going to get hit. Medicare doesn't want to pay for infusion of chemo drugs..and want the drugs at the cost price to the hospital. Hospitals say, they lose $$$ now. Doctors (who take Medicaid) tell me it's a pro bono deal. They lose $$$. Raising taxes is a given. I said that when the guy was running. You people kept telling me "only for those earning over $250K." Ha! He shouldn't have boxed himself in . I understand.

(Evelyn) Folks on chemo are going to get hit. They already do as well as others on other infusion treatments like IV antibiotics. If they want to go home for it, they're looking at potentially thousands of dollars a day for the meds alone. The insurance pays for the nurse and other services, but they still have to pay for the drugs somehow and they aren't covered much if at all. So they have to stay in a facility usually. Occasionally a deal is worked out with certain pharmacies and sometimes the hospital.

House targets Fed in Bank of America investigation By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON � A House panel has subpoenaed documents that lawmakers say could shed new light on Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's role in Bank of America's acquisition of Merrill Lynch. The subpoena comes ahead of a hearing next week in which Bernanke is scheduled to testify. Lawmakers have accused Bernanke and President Bush's treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, of pressuring Bank of America Corp. Chief Executive Kenneth Lewis into the deal and urging him to keep quiet about Merrill's financial problems. Not divulging that information would have violated Lewis' fiduciary duty to the bank's shareholders. Lawmakers also have questioned whether Lewis threatened not to go through with the merger in order to squeeze money from the government. Bank of America ultimately received $45 billion from the government's bank bailout program, $20 billion of which was tied to its acquisition of Merrill Lynch. The subpoena is the second of its kind by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Last week, chairman Rep. Ed Towns, D-N.Y., and ranking member Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said the panel had reviewed documents that proved the merger was a "shotgun wedding" that came at the expense of the taxpayer. "The question may be ... who was holding the shotgun?" Towns asked at a June 11 hearing. In one e-mail reviewed by committee staff, Bernanke said he thought Lewis' threat to pull out of the deal was a "bargaining chip" and "we do not see it as a very likely scenario at all." In testimony before the committee, Lewis said publicly for the first time that his job was threatened after he expressed second thoughts about the merger. Lewis said then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and federal regulators made clear that if the bank reneged on its promise they would force his ouster and that of board members at the bank. "What gave me concern is that they gave that threat to a bank in good standing," Lewis told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. "So it showed the seriousness with which they thought that we should not" back out. Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke also pledged government aid to Bank of America to help absorb the losses, Lewis said. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_bank_of_america

Forgot to post this, Stephen did a really funny bit on Silvio a couple days ago: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/230970/june-17-2009/alpha-dog-of-the-week---silvio-berlusconi

Cute. But did they have to find such an ugly pic of Silvio? Think that's really him "starker"? He's done this before..remember the one i found for someone's b'day? wonder how long before Stephen's hair grows back. I miss the long black locks.

The guy standing up is Mirek Topolanek, the former Czech prime minister.

They (pharma) are getting something out of this (or at least not losing anything). What is it? Someone will dig hard enough to find out. Eventually, when it's too late I'm sure. Baucus, White House in deal with drug industry AP by DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent 17 mins ago WASHINGTON � The pharmaceutical industry agreed Saturday to spend $80 billion over the next decade improving drug benefits for seniors on Medicare and defraying the cost of President Barack Obama's health care legislation, capping secretive negotiations involving key lawmakers and the White House. "This new coverage means affordable prices on prescription drugs when Medicare benefits don't cover the cost of prescriptions," Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said in a statement announcing the accord. The deal marked a major triumph for Baucus as well as the administration. Obama praised the deal. "The agreement by pharmaceutical companies to contribute to the health reform effort comes on the heels of the landmark pledge many health industry leaders made to me last month, when they offered to do their part to reduce health spending $2 trillion over the next decade," Obama said. "We are at a turning point in America's journey toward health care reform." Baucus, a Montana Democrat, has been negotiating with numerous industry groups for weeks as he tries to draft legislation that meets Obama's goal of vastly expanding health coverage, has bipartisan support and does not add to the deficit. Baucus' announcement said drug companies would pay half of the cost of brand-name drugs for seniors in the so-called doughnut hole � a gap in coverage that is a feature of many of the plans providing prescription coverage under Medicare. Other officials said wealthier Medicare beneficiaries would not receive the same break, but there was no mention of that in the statement. In addition, the entire cost of the drug would count toward a patient's out-of-pocket costs, meaning their insurance coverage would cover more of their expenses than otherwise. Billy Tauzin, president and CEO of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), said, "Millions of uninsured and financially struggling Americans are depending on us to accomplish comprehensive health care reform this year. Today, America's pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies are signaling their strong support for these critically important efforts." While none of the changes in the prescription drug program would directly lower government costs, several officials also said the industry agreed to measures that would give the Treasury more money under federal health programs. In particular, officials said drug companies would likely wind up paying pay higher rebates for certain drugs under Medicaid, the program that provides health care for the poor. Those funds would be used to help pay for legislation expanding health insurance for millions who now lack it. One official said the deal was agreed to late Friday night when Tauzin called Baucus. The senator's statement said the White House was involved in the agreement. It was not clear what leverage the agreement would give Baucus with other health care providers with whom he is in negotiations. But at a minimum, the agreement served as an effective counter to impression that the drive to enact health care legislation was sputtering. The disclosure of negotiations came near the end of an up-and-down week for the administration and its allies on health care. Congressional Budget Office estimates showed early versions of two major Senate bills were either too costly or failed to make a large enough dent in the ranks of the uninsured. Republicans seized on the reports as evidence that Democrats were losing traction. They leapt again when it was disclosed that House Democrats were considering a wide array of tax increases to finance their legislation, including an income tax surcharge, a tax on employers based on the size of their payroll and a value-added tax, a form of a national sales tax. House Democrats on Friday unveiled draft legislation they said would cover virtually all of the nation's nearly 50 million uninsured but it came without a price tag or an indication of how it would be paid for. Major provisions of the 850-page measure would impose new responsibilities on individuals to obtain coverage and on employers to provided it. It also would end insurance company practices that deny coverage to the sick and create a new government-sponsored plan to compete with private companies. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she hopes the legislation can clear the House before lawmakers leave for their annual August vacation. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090620/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul;_ylt=ApHLSw.wErrYMDGje6MZ2Fes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJrZjZnb210BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNjIwL3VzX2hlYWx0aF9vdmVyaGF1bARjcG9zAzMEcG9zAzEwBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA2JhdWN1c3doaXRlaA--

Data like this is exactly why I've been skeptical on healthcare reform of late and illustrates a bit my comments about various entities not giving up their piece of the pie. http://www.lavidalocavore.org/diary/1937/why-american-policy-sucks

And keep in mind, that data is from just one quarter (Q109). The mind reels.

And they didn't even list the UAW;-)

I didn't honestly get past the healthcare companies to see who else is on it.

And they didn't even list the UAW;-) Perhaps because they didn't spend $1 million or more for lobbying in one quarter. That was the criteria and methodology or did you scroll over it as well as the signficance of the entire list?

Quite a good piece on the young people (estimated at 30% of the uninsured) without health insurance on CBS News the other night. I didn't get the sense that they didn't feel they needed it, but that they couldn't afford it and their employers weren't providing. The insurance companies have named this group (19-29 year olds) the "young invincibles." You can read and watch the vid here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/20/eveningnews/main5100607.shtml?tag=stack

Well I did google and found this... "In 2008 alone, the UAW gave $4,161,567 to the Democratic Party, including Barack Obama." http://osmoothie.com/2009/06/10/uaw-gives-23-million-to-democratic-party-receives-55-of-chrysler-175-of-gm-and-billions-of-dollars/ Not that I blame them. I would sell a kidney if my job was at stake. He rescued them. Now we'll see if he has to rescue them again.

The list Dorine posted was for lobbying members of Congress, not political contributions to a party. I'm sure those corporations also gave a gazillion through various and sundry ways to the RNC.

Somehow in all this talk of the UAW, the point of my post was lost. :-((

And I love it, the article Evelyn googled happens to be written by Newt, of all people.

But then, no matter about that or the UAW. The comments are quite interesting at that link I posted. Someone broke down the #'s and figured out the total figures would = $84,000 per each of the 535 members of Congress. And that's just one quarter! We do need some serious campaign reform. And also, if you really look at it, not only was the PHRMA lobbying group the top contributor, look how many others are from individual pharma co's as well. And they say they came to some kind of deal to help out with covering drugs in the donut hole of Med D coverage? As I mentioned before, they have to be getting something for it (tax breaks maybe?). There's no way they'd be so magnanimous after spending all that money lobbying Congress. They aren't so generous.

Someone broke down the #'s and figured out the total figures would = $84,000 per each of the 535 members of Congress. And that's just one quarter! In healthcare only.

(Evelyn) Well I did google... I suppose you're looking for applause, well, you also need to find things on the same subject. (Dorine) Somehow in all this talk of the UAW, the point of my post was lost. :-(( Not to those who read it. ;-) (Dorine) As I mentioned before, they have to be getting something for it (tax breaks maybe?) Extensions on patents, plus prohibiting the ability to import drugs from, say, Canada. That was a huge one they got.

I actually find this hysterical. From Montana, of all places, a state that boasts about its individualism. LOL! City asks applicants for Internet passwords By MATT GOURAS, Associated Press Writer - Fri Jun 19, 2009 HELENA, Mont. - Job applicants with the city of Bozeman are finding that their private Internet discussions and pictures may not be so private after all. The city is asking job seekers for the user names and passwords to Internet social networking or Web groups to which they belong. The decision is sparking an outcry from those who say the policy goes way too far. The issue has spawned hundreds of comments on Web forums and sharp criticism from legislators and the ACLU. "I liken it to them saying they want to look at your love letters and your family photos," said Amy Cannata, with the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana. "I think this policy certainly crosses the privacy line." The city argues that it only uses the information to verify application information � and says it won't hold it against anyone for refusing to provide it. City officials say such checks can be useful, especially when hiring police officers and others in a position of public trust. Bozeman officials have been hammered with e-mails and phone calls ever since KBZK-TV of Bozeman reported the policy on Wednesday, including an excerpt from the city application form that states "Please list any and all current personal or business Web sites, web pages or memberships on any Internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums, to include, but not limited to: Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube.com, MySpace, etc." Bozeman City Commissioner Jeff Rupp said he was unaware city officers had implemented the policy, and expects the city commission will be talking about it. But Rupp said it is not as bad as it sounds since applicants are not scored negatively for refusing to answer the question. "I can tell you I would not provide it in an application I submit," Rupp said. "I have been told repeatedly it is not scored, and the application is not discarded if not provided." Rep. Brady Wiseman, a Bozeman Democrat, led the state's fight against the Patriot Act when the Legislature issued a harsh critique of the federal act, arguing it trampled civil liberties and put the government into a position of snooping on citizens. Wiseman said Bozeman now is going too far. "Asking for passwords is over the line," Wiseman said. "I think that this notion opens up a whole new line of debate on privacy." The intense pressure generated in just a couple days is hitting the city hard. Bozeman City Attorney Greg Sullivan told the Bozeman Daily Chronicle Thursday that the city may look at changing the policy so that they could view an applicant's social networking sites without asking for login information. One option would be to have an applicant add the city as a "friend" on such sites as Facebook. "We've already began that discussion," Sullivan said. Cannata, with the ACLU, said her organization has not found another government body that asks for such information. And even though the ACLU has not done a full legal analysis, she said the Bozeman policy doesn't pass the smell test. "It's one thing, and I think totally reasonable, if someone has a public profile to go check it out," Cannata said. But private groups and profile could reveal information employers could not legally base hiring decisions on, such as a person's religion, she added. "Are they going to go in and look at those things?" Cannata said. "And even if they don't intend to look at those things, it's still there for them to see." http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090619/ap_on_hi_te/us_internet_background_checks

I saw that! I can't believe that anyone would have the sense to give them that info. I'd give them all fake info. Or set up fake accounts (under my name, but that are virtually inactive) and give them passwords to those. What a can of worms that opens up.

Bozeman City Commissioner Jeff Rupp said he was unaware city officers had implemented the policy Really on the ball! ;-) The city argues that it only uses the information to verify application information Anybody buying this one? Is it cheaper than hiring someone to do background checks? *snort*

We do need some serious campaign reform. ROTF Foolish antelope. That's campaign rhetoric. Do you really think all those congressmen are going to give up all that cashola ? Who's gonna finance those campaigns? Who's gonna buy those seats in the senate?

No, I certainly don't think they will at all (I could use that 84K a quarter, too ;-)). But I still think it's needed. A pipe dream for sure.

The same with lobbyists. "K" Street is here to stay. Some of those congressmen's wives and relatives are lobbyists, fergodsake. *shaking head* Hopeless.

They aren't really lobbyists, all of them. Just on the payroll. ;-)

Can't say I agree or disagree with all of this as I haven't read it all so far, but I don't disagree with the first point at the moment. 5 keys to getting health care deal Politico http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23995.html

I don't think you can even say competition is driving people away from the VA. Incompetence is. Not the only place. Some other states people were getting HIV or Hepetitis or something from colonoscopies. Or something like that (not looking it up now). Even when they were admonished by the VA administration to in general straighten up their acts, they did nothing to improve things it turns out. But Karen was right about the funding. Been a problem for a long time. Newspapers: VA in Penn. botched cancer treatments http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/20090622_Phila__VA_errors_went_uncorrected_for_years.html

Could they finally be growing some? I have been skeptical of the co-ops, with good reason IMO, depending on how it/ they're set up. Democrats may go it alone on gov't insurance plan AP By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 1 min ago WASHINGTON � Democrats generally are standing behind their position that a health care system overhaul must include a government-sponsored plan that would be available to middle-class workers and their families. A key Democrat, New York Sen. Charles Schumer, said this option now seems even more of a necessity in view of unsuccessful behind-the-scenes attempts to get a deal with Republicans on nonprofit co-ops as an alternative to a public plan. Schumer told The Associated Press Sunday night that those efforts have proved frustrating, saying that he and his Democratic colleagues now may have to go it alone. The co-ops were seen as perhaps the last hope for compromise on the notion of a public health care option, a contentious issue that threatens any remaining prospects of bipartisan support for President Barack Obama's sweeping plan to remake the health care system. "I don't think I could say with a straight face that this (co-op proposal) is at all close to a nationwide public option," Schumer, D-N.Y., told The Associated Press on Sunday. "Right now, this co-op idea doesn't come close to satisfying anyone who wants a public plan." The public plan that most Democrats envision would be offered alongside private plans through a new kind of insurance purchasing pool called an exchange. Individuals and small businesses would be able to buy coverage through exchanges, but eventually businesses of any size might be able to join. Proponents say the option of a public plan in the marketplace would put a brake on costs and check the power of insurers. But Republicans, insurers and many business leaders say a government plan could drive private insurance companies out of business. "The most important thing for us to make sure is that we do increase coverage to a basic plan for more Americans and the way we're going to do that is starting with where people get most of their health care, and that's their employer," House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., said Monday. "We've got to be sure to make it so those employers can keep their health care costs down." Cantor, appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America," said that "a government plan, no matter what you call it, will increase costs" and limit choices. Two recent news media polls have found public support for a government plan, even if many people are unsure about its implications. The most recent survey, a New York Times-CBS News poll released Sunday, found that 72 percent supported the idea, including half of those who identified themselves as Republicans. "The polling data backs up our subjective view that to make health care reform work, you need a public option," said Schumer. Schumer's role is important because he had been acting as an intermediary between liberal Democrats and moderates who are trying to strike a deal on the issue with Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee. Of the five House and Senate committees working on health care, Finance is the only one that appears to have a chance at reaching a bipartisan agreement. Schumer said Finance Republicans had rejected several proposals designed to beef up the suggested nonprofit insurance co-ops. These included setting up a national structure for the co-ops, $10 billion in government seed money, power to negotiate payment rates to medical providers nationwide and creation of a presidentially appointed board of directors. Without "dramatic" changes, Schumer said he would oppose the co-ops deal and urge other Democrats to do so as well. The Finance Committee compromise could be unveiled as early as this week. Senators were forced to start again last week because initial cost estimates were well above their 10-year, $1 trillion target. The next few weeks will be pivotal in the debate. Democrats want to push ahead as far as they can before the July 4 congressional recess. Over the break, comments from constituents could determine whether Congress sticks to its goal of passing legislation this summer. Both sides are nervous. Some Democrats say they doubt the plan has enough Democratic support to clear the Senate. "I think there's a lot of concern in the Democratic caucus," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, said lawmakers are rethinking their wish list, which includes coverage for all and slowing the rate of medical cost increases � goals that may be in conflict. "So we're in the position of dialing down some of our expectations to get the costs down so that it's affordable and, most importantly, so that it's paid for because we can't go to the point where we are now, of not paying for something when we have trillions of dollars of debt," said Grassley, also appearing on CNN. Associated Press writer Philip Elliott contributed to this report. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090622/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul

(AP)Democrats may go it alone on gov't insurance plan (Diana Feinstein)"I think there's a lot of concern in the Democratic caucus," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." "Even when they were admonished by the VA administration to in general straighten up their acts, they did nothing to improve things it turns out." They're a gov't entity. V. difficult to fire a civil service employee. (Dorine)But Karen was right about the funding. Been a problem for a long time. All government hospitals are short of funds. Horror stories from the Indian Health Service Hospitals. Shortage of physicians for one thing. Most of the times one sees a PA or Nurse Practioner. Healthcare assistants are the wave of the future. I see them now for colds, sinus etc. They can prescribe most meds in some states.

I read this in my morning WSJ and just found the article online. Iran's Web Spying Aided By Western Technology "The infiltration of Iranian online traffic could explain why the government has allowed the Internet to continue to function -- and also why it has been running at such slow speeds in the days since the results of the presidential vote spurred unrest. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562668777335653.html#mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular Now there's a cause for LaBB.

(Evelyn) "Even when they were admonished by the VA administration to in general straighten up their acts, they did nothing to improve things it turns out." They're a gov't entity. V. difficult to fire a civil service employee. It wasn't about firing people. It was about following the proper policies and procedures in a number of facilities. All government hospitals are short of funds. Many hospitals period are short of funds, too. We had 2 in Queens close at the beginning of the year and another in the city a year or so ago. Even after consolidation into larger entities, some still can't survive.

It was about following the proper policies and procedures in a number of facilities Think that scares the staff? There are too many hospitals. Esp private hospitals that specialize in procedures (hips, knees)and surgeries (heart) that bring in the most money. Leaving gall bladders , hernias , hemorrhoids and ERs to the general hospitals. Big article in WSJ last week.

This pretty much puts in a nutshell the reservations I've had with those healthcare co-ops. "As envisioned, the co-op proposal would create a bunch of member operated plans around the country, none of which would have the clout to compete with private insurance or really lower prices with providers and drug companies. [Ed. note - So why bother then?] Also, another note of caution: A co-op is a legal structure. In a co-op, members of the co-op are legally liable for the co-op. That means that if a co-op was, say, sued for doing something wrong, its members might be liable for the legal bills and damages." http://blog.healthcareforamericanow.org/2009/06/12/a-co-op-for-the-public-option-lets-talk-principles/ Sen. Kay Hagan is apparently upset the private insurers might lose some business with a public option. "Hagan worries that such a federally run insurer may prompt companies to drop their private plans, or prompt individuals to run to a cheaper alternative, and destabilize the insurance market." http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/06/22/article/hagan_says_she_wants_a_health_bill_that_can_pass

"Hagan worries that such a federally run insurer may prompt companies to drop their private plans, or prompt individuals to run to a cheaper alternative, and destabilize the insurance market The president addressed this issue in this mornings news conference. If you are happy with your insurance..[ (me)as 73% or the people are] they you don't have to take the fed's insurance The federally run plan is bound to be a bare-bones health care, with limitations; similar to some HMO's, PPO and some v. low-cost premium insurances . Some folks might like to have a choice of doctors, hospitals and accessibility to tests etc. The option is there. Only one hospital in our area will take Community Care (a Medicare Advantage) because they reimburse at a loss to the hospital.

Only one hospital in our area will take Community Care (a Medicare Advantage) because they reimburse at a loss to the hospital. Of course, because it's nothing but an HMO (federally subsidized). The federally run plan is bound to be a bare-bones health care, with limitations; similar to some HMO's, PPO and some v. low-cost premium insurances . Some folks might like to have a choice of doctors, hospitals and accessibility to tests etc. The option is there. On basic care, there shouldn't be limitations IMO. The question then becomes, what's "basic" care? But I've been an advocate of a plan like that with more catastrophic/chronic care requiring some other kind of policy. Perhaps publically funded, perhaps not.

Euro-Care.

Ok.

These are perilous times. I understand. He wants to cut down on entitlements to pay for ObamaCare. I'd rather he raised my taxes. Too many folks rely on entitlements for their sole income.

FLOTUS is in Californai this week Mrs. O is in California this week to kick off the 2009 National Conference on Volunteering and Service. Joined by the first lady of California, Maria Shriver Mrs. O spoke at the conference wearing a sleeveless dress that combined print and texture. Above: Mrs. O wears the Reid dress by Rachel Roy Dunno if I go for this one. Original price $1195. But one website has it on sale for $575.

I like it. But not the price. Guess Old Navy or wherever it was isn't cuttin' it anymore.

Is anyone following the story on Mark Sanford, Republican SC Governor (whose name was bandied about for 2012 Pres race), who up and disappeared for 5 days without telling anyone where he was going, including staff and wife apparently? Have no idea what TV news is or is not saying. This guy's kind of nuts. First decides to turn down stimulus money for his state, but is court ordered to take it. Then, he disappears for 5 days...to Argentina! Because of an affair with an Argentinian woman started over an email! *runs to make buttered popcorn and watch replay of news conference on FOX (where they conveniently mislabel him a Dem)*

(Dorine) news conference on FOX (where they conveniently mislabel him a Dem) LOL! Naturally. Yeah, I started picking up on him yesterday, when his staff were staying he was "on walkabout" on the Appalachia Trail. Didn't know it (the trail) went all the way down to Argentina. Old Navy *snort* Close, it is and was J. Crew.

LOL, I didn't think that was right, but nothing else was coming to mind. :-) I'm enjoying some of the comments at Firedoglake on Sanford: "It is easy to understand how the staff and all could have mixed up Ar-gen Tina and Ap-a-la-chan Trail. So similar." "I think it is outrageous that Sanford outsourced his adultery to a foreigner." "Sanford was so overflowing with Family Values he needed to share them with another family, far away in the Argentine!" "I�m so glad that only gays can destroy the institution of marriage." "Sanford�s killing the Dow today. I thought only Obama could do that?" and of course the obvious... "Don�t Cry for Me Argentina!" As they also noted, his poor family. How humiliating for his wife and for the kids, since he disappeared for Father's Day. I see a rumor some paper down there was sitting on the story about him and his mistress. No idea if that's so or not.

My favorite line: I went down to Argentina....it's a beautiful city, you know" Yeah...sure. He went down there to do some sightseeing! Another one..."I started to go hiking, but then changed my mind" He's toast....finished. Should resign from office. Republicans aren't as tolerant about "it's his private life"as Democrats were about Clinton and all his affairs before running for president. Never mind while in office. I will say , at least Sanford was a little more discreet and went to another continent. But not only were his actions immoral, but there is direliction of duty involved. He is the head of his state and should be on call all the time. I agree ...he's irrational; career-suicidal. Investigations are sure to follow...whose money did he use for the high-dollar air ticket? Kudos to his wife, for not standing next to him at the news conference. The ultimate humiliation for a woman. I'm glad she threw him out. First inkling of something "rotten"was when she said she didn't know where he was and "didn't care"!

"Don't Cry for Me, Argentina" LOL! Good one. Can't wait to see Stephen tonight, as this is SC, his home state. Should be great. BTW, this is why ALL political parties need to get off the family values soapbox. Not one of these jerks can pass the scrutiny. They're all hypocrites of the highest degree. Why anybody follows a politician or party professes to stand for family values is beyond me. Politics and families (or values for that matter) don't mix and shouldn't. I've held this view consistently for yonks.

He's never been popular with the "family values" guy. A political maverick. The Family Values crowd will throw him out. What's wrong with family values? If you don't profess such, why hit-up on people who do? They don't do me any harm; anymore than atheists, or no-family -values folks. Let people profess what they want, I say. I ....don't....care...

What's wrong with family values? She's not talking about family values in general or per se. If you don't profess such, why hit-up on people who do? Really....you don't get what she's saying? Or are you just playing?

Republicans aren't as tolerant about "it's his private life"as Democrats were about Clinton and all his affairs before running for president. Never mind while in office. Yeah, Larry Craig and David Vitter got raked over the coals by their Republican colleagues for their indiscretions. Not. He definitely should resign for dereliction of duty. What's worse, is if his Lt. Gov did know and considered himself in charge, then didn't tell anyone. I bet this isn't the end of this story.

I bet this isn't the end of this story. That's what I said. Neither Craig nor Vitter got a free pass. No one excused their behavior as being "private life". When one runs for public office, one doesn't have a "private life." Period. Only the tax cheats seem to get away with it. No I'm not "playing". If family values means a lot to people then they have the right to subscribe / vote for a candidate that professes such. Personally, it's no biggie with me. I prefer honesty & integrity.

they have the right to subscribe / vote for a candidate that professes such But that's kind of the point, or a point. The candidates shouldn't be professing such.

Someone will have to let me know how O does on his town hall tonight. I'm recording as I'm all over the house doing things before going away for a few days and being out tomorrow night. I can't watch the TV at the same time.

LOL!! An anonymous reader writes: Subject: Inside word from Sanford It was a slight miscommunication between Sanford and his staff. He told them he'd be "spiking some Argentina tail," and they thought he'd said, "hiking the Appalachian trail." It was an honest mistake. I think they handled it well...family values and all.

(Evelyn) He's never been popular with the "family values" guy. A political maverick. I'm not sure why or where you came to this opinion, but apparently someone doesn't agree with your assessment. Sanford Affair a Blow to GOP Values Brand June 24, 2009 04:59 PM ET By Dan Gilgoff South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's admission today that he had an extramarital affair strikes another blow to the GOP's brand as the party of family values, particularly in a region of the country�the Deep South�that has become ever more critical to Republicans, who've lost ground recently in the Northeast and the West. Outside South Carolina, "Sanford is most well known in states like North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, which are growing more competitive for Democrats," says Cornell Belcher, a Democratic pollster who worked for Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee during the 2008 campaign season. "This is devastating for the Republican Party in the very region where it has to make gains." Fast on the heels of an admitted affair by Nevada Sen. John Ensign�another emblem of the GOP's values brand�Sanford's announcement also makes it harder for the national Republican Party to maintain credibility with the values voters who've been most loyal to it. "As far as the Republicans go, this raises the issue of how marriage is treated by political leaders," says Wendy Wright, the president of the conservative group Concerned Women for America. Belcher, the Democratic pollster, says the recent string of Republican sex scandals is redolent of the run-up to the 2006 midterm elections, when former House Leader Tom DeLay resigned after being indicted in a campaign finance investigation and Florida Rep. Mark Foley was caught sending lewd text messages to young male congressional pages. Both were Republicans, and Belcher, who was then pollster for DNC Chair Howard Dean, watched the Republican advantage on values issues shrink from more than 20 percentage points to around 5 points over the course of the '06 election cycle. The Democrats won 31 seats in the House, regaining control of the chamber. Belcher says he has not conducted national polls since last year's election. "But at this point, when it comes to values, the Republican brand has deteriorated more, and their hopes of making gains in the coming midterms has to be dramatically undermined," he says. "My guess is that we've now gone from a tossup on values with the Republicans to [Democrats] having at least a 4- or 5-point advantage." Sanford, who was considered a potential 2012 White House contender, has long been a darling of "pro-family" religious conservatives. In the 2008 election, Christian right activists who were unenthusiastic about the Republican presidential field tried unsuccessfully to draft him as a presidential candidate. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/06/24/sanford-affair-a-blow-to-gop-values-brand.html

Family Research Council removes Sanford�s picture from Values Voters Summit website. Previously, the website for the Family Research Council�s Values Voters Summit 2009 featured a picture of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, advertising that he was a potential speaker. But Pam Spaulding points out that following Sanford�s announcement of an affair, his picture was quickly removed from the website. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/24/sanford-frc-website/ (there are before and after pictures of the website in question at the link)

I thought this was an interesting comment at the NYT in an interesting piece about politicians surviving sex scandals. "Of course Demos have been caught in sex scandals, but there is a key difference: Dems don�t lecture Repubs re. their lack of Christian values and morals, whereas GOPsters can hardly draw a breath between their harangues damning Demos as immoral. And isn�t it a blast and a half that it�s always the most puffed up GOP blowhards that are the most often caught. Such fun to see each one of these monumental hypocrites hoist with his own petard." http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/how-do-politicians-survive-sex-scandals/

BTW, I only had to google "sanford family values" to find such info. http://news.google.com/news?q=sanford+family+values&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&ei=eOxCStXjNIKJtge47JiXCQ&sa=X&oi=news_group&resnum=1&ct=title

Ah, I see. This sheds light on his maverick reputation. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/mark_sanford/index.html

The burning question is: Who leaked the emails, which came from Sanford's private email account ,to the SC Carolina newspaper. Apparently , they had them for a year and couldn't confirm them. Also; Who tipped off the newspaper that Gov Sanford was coming into Hartsfield airport in Atlanta ...instead of the Columbia SC airport. Could be inside job: "Morning Joe".

They had them from December I read.

@#$% One of those links shut down my window and I've lost all my comments/responses. *sniff sniff* Anyway, the NYT excerpt you posted, Do, pretty much says everything I had in response. "Of course Demos have been caught in sex scandals, but there is a key difference: Dems don�t lecture Repubs re. their lack of Christian values and morals, whereas GOPsters can hardly draw a breath between their harangues damning Demos as immoral. And isn�t it a blast and a half that it�s always the most puffed up GOP blowhards that are the most often caught. Such fun to see each one of these monumental hypocrites hoist with his own petard." Amen, sistah! Also, BTW, Larry Craig served out his term.

What I find incongruous is that the party that rails against Big Government holds the banner for family values and morals, areas which are and should always remain outside legislation.

it�s always the most puffed up GOP blowhards that are the most often caught Even with some of the Dems. Spitzer was an even much bigger blowhard than Guiliani. I guess it's the play harder, fall harder scenario. Or Icarus, or whatever. :-)

(Evelyn)But not only were his actions immoral, but there is direliction of duty involved. He is the head of his state and should be on call all the time. As a citizen, it's the dereliction of duty that to me is the deciding factor on whether he's fit to continue. His affair is a private, family ordeal, though very ironic for someone who called for Clinton's impeachment. I understand the wife kicked him out 2 weeks ago. Could be inside job That's what I think and it goes to whether or not he was accessible. I think someone on his staff dropped the dime on him. I think there were people who knew exactly where he was. Had to be. There are so many of these hypocrites getting caught. My question is: when people vote for "family values" what is it they are voting for? I'm not trying to be snarky, I just want to understand. (Karen)What I find incongruous is that the party that rails against Big Government holds the banner for family values and morals, areas which are and should always remain outside legislation. The most horrible example of government intrusiveness: Terri Schiavo. The FL legislature passed a law to force them to keep her alive and Jeb Bush championed it.

(Mari) My question is: when people vote for "family values" what is it they are voting for? I'm not trying to be snarky, I just want to understand. Mainly, or for starters, they want a candidate who is pro-life (anti-abortion), pro-abstinence (pre-marital) and anti-gay rights (in order to preserve the sanctity of marriage, of course).

Here are the titles of the breakout sessions of that Family Values Voter conference where Sanford was to possibly speak. (Excuse the capitals, I just cut and pasted, no editing to small letters) * SPEECHLESS - SILENCING THE CHRISTIANS * THUGOCRACY - FIGHTING THE VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY * DEFUNDING PLANNED PARENTHOOD * ACTIVISM AND CONSERVATISM: FIT TO A TEA (PARTY) * THE THREAT OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION * OBAMACARE: RATIONING YOUR LIFE AWAY * MARRIAGE: WHY IT'S WORTH DEFENDING AND HOW REDEFINING IT THREATENS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY * THE NEW MASCULINITY * WAIT NO MORE: FINDING FAMILIES FOR WAITING KIDS * TURNING THE TIDE IN YOUR GENERATION http://www.valuesvotersummit.org/

Sorry, here's the link with the descriptions of all the sessions. There's even an anti-feminism one. http://www.valuesvotersummit.org/schedule

Rachel Maddow interviewed the reporter from The State, who had the Sanford emails and found him at the airport. "Some very interesting revelations: 1. Smith said The State received the Sanford e-mails in December from an anonymous source, though she hadn't had them the entire time. 2. Because of the e-mails, Smith had a hunch that Sanford might be in Argentina. As a result, she decided to drive to Atlanta and wait outside the gate where a flight from Argentina would land. 3. Sanford was surprised when he saw Smith and took several minutes to compose himself before claiming that he had initially intended to go hiking, but instead went to Argentina to enjoy the coast. 4. Smith did not confront Sanford about the e-mails at the airport, and Sanford did not confirm an affair. 5. After interviewing Sanford at the airport, The State communicated with Sanford's office about the existence of the e-mails. So here's the question raised by Maddow: if The State hadn't been in possession of the e-mails (which they apparently received anonymously, which could have explained why they hadn't been published earlier), would we ever have found out that Sanford had gone to Argentina -- and the reason why? Or, as seems probable, would Sanford and his office have continued their stream of lies concerning the his whereabouts and availability to act as governor?" http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/25/746533/-Maddow:-E-mails-may-have-forced-Sanfords-hand

I post this finding it is one of the worst loading websites I've ever been to. Social conservatives fall from moral high ground Republicans retreat from values claims By S.A. Miller (Contact) | Thursday, June 25, 2009 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/25/social-conservatives-fall-from-moral-high-ground/

(Dorine)I post this finding it is one of the worst loading websites I've ever been to. Really? I get it via email and never have a problem. Good quotes in that article. A couple of guys don't reflect the who party. ...but instead went to Argentina to enjoy the coast. I posted my remarks on that one yesterday;-) (Mari)My question is: when people vote for "family values" what is it they are voting for? I'm not a single issue voter, so I wouldn't know. None of the ones Dorine posted fit me. Sorry. Actually, I'm a hybrid. There are some good Democratic viewpoints that I agree with: Joe Lieberman. Mostly I dispise their righteousness and intolerance for anyone who doesn't fall inline. And all of their blogs;-D

Well, if the stadiums and Bowls did it...why not? New York Subway Goes the Way of Lehman Brothers http://www.minyanville.com/articles/INTC-GE-KO-Budget-bcs-New/index/a/23274/from/yahoo LOL.I can hear the directions now... "You get on at Procter and Gamble, change at Cambell Soup and get off at Heinz Ketchup."

(Evelyn) A couple of guys don't reflect the who party. Come on. The point of the article (and my posting it) is not about "a couple of guys". Surely you got that.

(Evelyn), "You get on at Procter and Gamble, change at Cambell Soup and get off at Heinz Ketchup." For what it's worth, a new Monopoly game, LOL!

The subway stops were the only thing left. There are ads in all the stations on the walls, on the side of subway cars, plastered all over the inside of Penn Station (giant poster size) and the bars of the turnstiles.

I hope they left Grand Central unscarred by those dreadful posters.

For all the money they spent restoring it, I'd certainly hope so.

Thanks to Jackie Kennedy who had it declared a landmark in the 60's. Otherwise it was have suffered the same fate as Penn Station that was torn down in the name of progress. Paris made a spectacular museum out of their RR station no longer used, but no, we demolish.

Well, Penn Station was to be restored to its original glory, glass roof and all and renamed Moynihan Station, but I think that's pretty much dead in the water now due to funding issues.

Sanford Wife Shocked by Argentine Trip By BRUCE SMITH,AP SULLIVANS ISLAND, S.C. (June 26) - South Carolina first lady Jenny Sanford sat in her oceanfront living room Friday, recalling how her husband repeatedly asked permission to visit his lover in the months after she discovered his affair. South Carolina first lady Jenny Sanford said she learned about her husband's affair in January, when she found a letter from him to the other woman. "I've done everything in my power possibly to keep him from going to see her and to really make sure she was off the table, including asking him to leave," she said in an interview Friday. Click through to read more about the scandal. "I said absolutely not. It's one thing to forgive adultery; it's another thing to condone it," Jenny Sanford told The Associated Press during a 20-minute interview at the coastal home where she sought refuge with their four sons. They were her first extended comments on the affair. She said that when her husband, Gov. Mark Sanford, inexplicably disappeared last week, she hoped he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail, as his staff told those who inquired about his absence. That he had dared to go to Argentina to see the other woman left her stunned. "He was told in no uncertain terms not to see her," she said in a strong, steady voice. "I was hoping he was on the Appalachian Trail. But I was not worried about his safety. I was hoping he was doing some real soul searching somewhere and devastated to find out it was Argentina. It's tragic." The Sanfords had separated about two weeks ago. She said her husband told the family that he wanted some time away to work on writing a book and clear his head. The first lady said, "I had every hope he was not going to see her." "You would think that a father who didn't have contact with his children, if he wanted those children, he would toe the line a little bit," she said. Sanford, who is staying at the official residence in Columbia, returned Wednesday to end days of speculation on his whereabouts, publicly confess his cheating and emotionally apologize. Jenny Sanford, a Georgetown-educated, former Wall Street vice president, did not stand next to her husband Wednesday during his pained public confession. Sanford said she discovered her husband's affair early this year after coming across a copy of a letter to the mistress in one of his files in the official governor's mansion. He had asked her to find some financial information, she said, not an unusual request considering her heavy involvement in his career. She would not comment on what was in the letter except to say "enough to figure out an affair was going on." She felt "shocked and obviously deeply hurt. I didn't think he had it in him," she said. "It's hard to find out your husband is not who you thought he was." The first lady said she confronted her husband immediately, and he agreed to end the affair. She said she wasn't sure Friday whether he had done so. "I guess that's what we will have to see. I believe he has," she said. "But he was down there for five days. I saw him yesterday and he is not staying here. We'll just see what kind of spirit of reconciliation he has himself." The governor declined to discuss details of the letter and how he handled it with his wife. "This goes into the personal zone," Sanford said Friday. "I'd simply say that Jenny has been absolutely magnanimous and gracious as a wonderful Christian woman in this process." Jenny Sanford cried at the end of the interview, and said the couple have been to counseling. "When I found out in January, we both indicated a willingness to continue working on the marriage, but there's not room for three people in a marriage," she said. "I've done everything in my power possibly to keep him from going to see her and to really make sure she was off the table, including asking him to leave." About an hour after Jenny Sanford talked of her pain and feelings of betrayal, her husband brushed aside any suggestion he might immediately resign, citing the Bible and the story of King David � who continued to lead after sleeping with another man's wife, Bathsheba, having the husband slain, then marrying the widow. "What I find interesting is the story of David, and the way in which he fell mightily � fell in very, very significant ways, but then picked up the pieces and built from there," Sanford told members of his cabinet in a session called so he could apologize to them in person and tell them the business of government must continue. Meanwhile, questions grew about a trip to Argentina he took last summer. While Sanford has agreed to reimburse the state for part of a more-than $8,000 tab that enabled him to see the mistress, state officials indicated they never intended a South American economic development trip to hold meetings in Argentina. That was only done at the governor's behest, said Kara Borie, a spokeswoman for the state Commerce Department. Sanford spokesman Joel Sawyer said he did not immediately know whether Sanford's request for business meetings would have allowed him to have taxpayers cover the entire Argentina visit. Some Republican leaders have called for Sanford to resign and some lawmakers and watchdog groups are pressing for investigations into whether he improperly used state money. For Jenny Sanford, the focus is the couple's four sons. During her interview, she wept as she displayed the stellar report cards earned by her eldest two sons at their exclusive private school in Columbia. On the coffee table was a collection of devotional books, including a book of commentary on the Bible's Book of Job, the story of a man whose faith God tests to the extreme. "Parenting is the most important job there is and what Mark has done has added a serious weight to that job," she said.

"Jenny Sanford, a Georgetown-educated, former Wall Street vice president, " With Lazard Freres as VP of M&A, no less. "....recalling how her husband repeatedly asked permission to visit his lover in the months after she discovered his affair. " The cheek of him. He has to be deranged. Wealthy in her own right. Why does she put up with this slug.

Since it is now public, she won't. They're done. She doesn't need him anymore. I'm sure that when she initially found out about it, she thought she could end it and keep it all private, which wouldn't harm any national plans they had. I looked up Sullivan Island. It is part of Charleston county. Must be right off the coast of Charleston.

She seems like a classy lady who wanted to keep her marriage vows ...for whatever reason...children, "national plans", religion (she's RC)... I hope she doesn't write a book.

Today's WSJ. I have the hard copy and just found it online. SEX AMERICANA Infidelity is no longer a career-killer for politicians. But weirdness, mendacity and ineptitude just might be. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204120604574252223853818460.html Who doubts that part of the considerable popular appeal of President Barack Obama is that he is an evidently decent family man; a husband clearly in love with his wife and devoted to his daughters. Polls still show that overwhelming majorities of voters believe character is important to their assessment of a politician�s appeal. Personally, I think if you lie to your spouse, you're going to lie to the public. But lying/cheating , as long as one doesn't get caught, seems to have public approbation today. I suppose I'm too old-fashioned. LOL, but I'm working on it:-))))

Coleman Concedes to Franken in MN Senate Race: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/06/minn_supreme_court_declares_fr.html?hpid=artslot Happy to have another comedian in DC. ;-)

*Finally* A bit of levity... http://news.aol.com/article/obama-duck-phone-ring-tone/550066?icid=main|main|dl3|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fobama-duck-phone-ring-tone%2F550066