TampaYankee

Calif. gay marriage ban focus of televised hearing SAN FRANCISCO – A federal appeals court is set to hear arguments on whether California's same-sex marriage ban is constitutional in a hearing to be televised nationally. The three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will hear arguments Monday on Proposition 8. A trial court judge overturned the voter-approved ban as a violation of gay Californians' civil rights in August. The panel will first consider if the group that put the measure on the ballot is eligible to appeal since its members aren't responsible for enforcing marriage laws. Outgoing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to challenge the ruling. The panel will then hear arguments on the proposition's constitutionality. The court last month granted C-SPAN permission to broadcast the proceedings live. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below. SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal appeals court is set to hear arguments on whether California's same-sex marriage ban is constitutional in a hearing to be televised nationally. The three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will hear arguments Monday on Proposition 8. A trial court judge overturned the voter-approved ban as a violation of gay Californians' civil rights in August. The panel will first consider if the group that put the measure on the ballot is eligible to appeal since its members aren't responsible for enforcing marriage laws. Outgoing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to challenge the ruling. The panel will then hear arguments on the proposition's constitutionality. The court last month granted C-SPAN permission to broadcast the proceedings live. See original article at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101206/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trial

I believe that if this doesn't pass the Senate now then it will be on the Democrats, not the Republicans. I suspect that 2-4 GOPers will vote for cloture, the way it looks now. What is less sure to me is what action Nelson, NE, Prior and Lincoln, AR and Webb/VA will do. There comes a time when the Dems need to impose party discipline just as the Republicans do every week on votes. I wouldn't demand they vote one way on the bill but clouture is a different issue altogher. If the Party's own members cannot support the Party to exercise its duly elected majority power then why accept them as members. They really are not members of the Party but independent actors using the good graces of the party only for their own parochial purposes.

Thanks for the Lion's Club info. I will look into it. As for Obamacare, the best thing about it is that it actually happened. We got past decades of organized intransigence from special interests opposed to it and significant GOP ideology-based obstruction. It was an ugly process and some regrettable political deals had to be made to get the votes. Also some real sacrifices of progress and improvements had to be made for the same reason. American politics is neither a pretty process or a totally lofty endeavor. Would that our politicans were statesmen and our special interests were willing to compromise their interest with the country's interest, but that ain't the way the system works. Much needs to be fixed in it. Most notably, getting real cost control measures implemented. That should be easier to accomplish on an incremental basis now that we have moved beyond that institutional intransigence and given the public a real program to benefit from rather than a scary bogey man conjured up by the opposition. The program does contain some real insurance reform and expands access to many previously uncovered, if implemented properly. I would prefer a single-payer system but that is down the road, maybe 15 - 20 years, maybe longer. A public option that offers competition to private plans in order to reign in cost is doable in the next several years, to get costs under control. There really is no other way to attack costs and maintain affordable access short of price controls which reduces access. It is not sufficient to cut costs if that cuts access. Else we can cut everybody's access, by going to a 100% free market system requiring everyone pay full price out of pocket and save the whole kit and caboodle.

Was it good for the horse too? Sorry, just couldnt control myself. On a serious note, based on what was said and what was not, it sounds like an amazing experience. It is nice to have one of those exceptional encounters to remember. I'll never forget my own. Although a less exceptional setting the experience simply the best ever.

I disagree. I have two hands and a mouth to bring to bear. I haven't got the flexibility to engage my feel too. That does not mean I'm a size queen but I do know how to accommodate it if it is a feature of the package.

Don't fret, you seem to have found what was important.

A380 engines may have manufacturing fault By ROHAN SULLIVAN, Associated Press SYDNEY – Australian officials investigating the mid-air disintegration of an engine on a Qantas superjumbo said Thursday they identified a potential manufacturing defect in Rolls-Royce engines used in 20 A380s worldwide that could cause engine failure. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau said it recommended a new round of safety checks for planes fitted with the engines, and that Rolls-Royce, affected airlines and other safety regulators were taking action to ensure the A380s involved were safe to fly. The ATSB has been leading the investigation into the disintegration of a Trent 900 on a Qantas A380 shortly it took off from Singapore on Nov. 4. Shrapnel speared through the wing, caused structural and other damage that set off a cascade of problems for the pilots before they made a safe emergency landing in Singapore. Three airlines using Trent 900 engines have conducted extensive checks and modified some parts since European regulators issued a safety directive following the Nov. 4 blowout — the most serious problem for the world's largest and newest jetliner. But ATSB safety bureau chief commissioner Martin Dolan said Thursday's safety recommendation was based on a conclusion reached only a day earlier, in conjunction with Rolls-Royce, as investigators prepared to release their preliminary report into the Qantas incident. "We considered it was a sufficiently significant safety issue that we should immediately release it to parties who were operating with these engines," Dolan told The Associated Press on Thursday. In a statement, the ATSB said there is "a potential manufacturing defect" with an oil tube connection in the Trent 900 engine. "The problem relates to the potential for misaligned oil pipe counter-boring, which could lead to fatigue cracking, oil leakage and potential engine failure from an oil fire," the statement said. It recommended close inspection of engines "and the removal from service of any engine which displays the counter-boring problem." The European Aviation Safety Authority issued an emergency order on Nov. 11 requiring airlines to re-examine their Trent 900s and ground any planes with suspicious oil leaks. It said a preliminary probe showed an oil fire broke out in the section housing the turbines — shafts that power the engine when they are spun at great speeds by combusting jet fuel. An oil pump and network of tubes lubricate and cool the turbines. EASA said the blaze may have caused the breakup of the intermediate pressure turbine disc, a heavy metal plate that holds the blades of the middle of three turbines. Turbine engines are known to generate vibrations that can cause parts to wear prematurely. The EASA order indicated that oil tubes may have fractured as a result of such vibrations and spewed oil in an extremely hot section of the engine, causing a fire. The resulting heat could have caused the rotor to which the turbine blades are attached to expand, bringing the turbine blades into contact with the casing that encloses the engine. The ATSB statement refers to the same part of the engine as the European directive, and goes further than the EASA's directive by attributing the problem to a likely manufacturing defect. Qantas grounded its fleet of six superjumbos immediately after the Nov. 4 incident while it conducted exhaustive checks and modifications, including replacing 16 Trent 900 engines. The Australian airline returned two A380s to service last weekend. The airline said Thursday it would conduct detailed one-off inspections as a result of the ATSB recommendation. But Qantas spokesman Simon Rushton said the airline was not pulling its A380s from service and the latest checks were not expected to interrupt services. Two other airlines use Trent 900 engines on their A380s — Singapore Airlines, which has 11 of the superjumbos, and Germany's Lufthansa, which has three. ___ Associated Press writer Rod McGuirk in Canberra, Australia, contributed to this report. See original article at:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101202/ap_on_bi_ge/superjumbo_woes

Unlike the American Model, Big Business does not call the tune quite so predominantly over there. I wonder if Business can make unlimited contributions to political candidates over there? Just a thought.

Tomcal, You make some accurate observations and raise some practical points. Definitely hard choices have to be made. Realistic benefit limits have to be formulated. Insurance companies already ration access based on cost and profit motives. Everybody cannot have everything but everybody should have access to standard health care and medical treatment. Extraordinary end-of-life treatment has to be reigned in. Our resources are finite and limits have to be established without pulling out politics to scare people in an attempt to maintain the status quo or political doctrine. If people desire extra benefits they should resort to private medigap policies as is done by many Medicare members. It keeps the present feature that those who can afford the very best coverage including extraordinaty end-of-life care will continue to have that option. It will be costly whatever we do. I've argued that the present system is not sustainable in cost. I do not believe it is. As cost grows those who can maintain access will decrease. Businesses will drop it. I don't believe that the end of that road is an acceptable outcome. You question if the country can afford quality health insurance for all. England, France, and Canada manage to afford it. Not sure what Germany and Japan do. Sure it is expensive it. It is very expensive here if you look at the numbers. We spend more per capita with worse health care stats nationwide. However, over there everyone has access and here many millions don't. What are they doing right that we are't? I think it is obvious by inspection. I've also argued that the government has been in the business of picking winners and losers. The government subsidizes those with employer provided benefits by not taxing those benefits as earned income. It also allows business to deduct those payments too. The goverment also provides for senior citizens through Medicare and selected indigent through Medicaid. For those who cannot afford insurance or otherwise access it and who pay what they can out of pocket there is a capped tax write-off if one can itemize deductions and if health costs exceed the 7.5% income floor minimum expenses. The latter condition implies that they can afford some access. Most uninsured cannot afford that much or any access. The itemized deduction write off amount is miniscule by comparison to the empolyer benefit exclusions, in the large. Uncle Sam definitely already has its thumb on the balance in this health care system. He subsidizes all the employer-insured, the aged and many indigent. That leaves between 30 million and 50 million working poor and uncovered indigent to fend for themselves and who many think don't deserve a government subsidized access to health care. If nothing is done then that number will grow as insurance coverage increases and becomes more restrictive and businesses bail on that costly perk. As for illegals, it is an expensive proposition as you point out. It already is as you observe. It needs to be dealt with in a financially manageable and responsible manner, now and in the future. It plagues the present system and any future system the same. That should not be an impediment to improving health care access in America. I don't believe that any reasonable and informed person can deny that the present road the heath care system is on is NOT sustainable. Thus if my general prescription for reform is not the solution then what is the solution? Who will have access? How expensive will it be allowed to become? Will insurance companies be allowed to continue theft by deception when denying claims, or throwing small businesses and individuals off their roles? Who will pay when businesses opt out of employee coverage? Will the government still choose winners and losers through tax policy? How rational is that process for providing health care? I think I have some broad ideas for answers. The devil is in the details. I'm sure my ideas far short of universal acceptance. Ok. What is the alternative? If that alternative doesn't involve susidized health care access for all then let's make sure that we don't subsidize anyone between 18 and 65. I know this is a very difficult problem and an expensive one. Ignoring it wont make it any simpler or cheaper. Hanging a facade on it that only pretties up the pig but does not cure the ills that unfold along the present course is shortsighted head-in-the-sand thinking IMO and kicks the can down the road to more extreme problems and unnecessarily larger deficits. I welcome any better ideas. If someone can make the insurance companies honest and responsbile, provide access to all, and make it affordable to all, keep it affordable for business support then I can sign on to that. I'm all ears and eyes with open mind.

lol... looks like twins.

I appreciate your sincere good wishes and don't doubt them in the least. However, they don't go very far in obtaining relief. That is not your fault but it is a shortcomimg of observers expressing beliefs that cannot be turned into actions.

Sure, I understand that. What I don't understand is that they think they understand the problem without having a full picture of what is out there and dismiss the other sides out of hand. That smacks of the detachment that comes with the attitude 'that is not my problem'. That is why my new philosophy is to make it their problem by stopping the freeloading on the government via tax free status and their employer's handouts. Yeah, it will cost me too but that is the price for spreading awareness. As for Haiti, it is sad but what you say it true, and I am not really surprised and sort of expected what has happened. At the time I called for a Marhall-Plan-like-program authorized by the the Haitian Government and the UN and then have them get out of the way while a UN sanctioned org structured and manned by NATO (mainly the US and France) and funded more widely was left unfettered to restore and rebuild Haiti. Instead we got the usual politics and corruption and management by committee. No suprise that people stand back and shake their heads.

Please tell me where and when my daughter should show up to schedule eye retina surgery without being required to provide verifiable documentation of insurance coverage or a mulithousand dollar cash deposit and I will have her on a plane in two shakes. I would be most grateful.

I salute your community. I wish every community shared the standards of your's, but believe me, your's is the exception not the standard according to my experience having lived in the South, MidAtlantic and Northeast, not NYC. It seems so for your emergency rooms too. It would be great for women get pap smears every couple of years and ostomy patients getting regular check ups and if someone is diagnosed with cancer they can schedule surgery at the emergency room or a child with a heart defect. I assure you my daughter would make use of the ER for detatched retina surgery and depression drugs if they were handing them out. I do salute your community. It far exceeds what many other communities provide. It gives insight into my perception of why you dont sense the urgency that I do.

Quite the contrary, he thinks he has been wrongly punished. He feels he has done no wrong. Any punishment is not only too much, it is totally unwarranted. That includes driving him from office. Maybe not but it does seem to lessen the number of cases of 'kin' seeking their own brand of justice. I disagree about the pols. Usually a stint in the Big House and they almost never run for office again. Even fewer get elected. No signs that most, on the outside as civilians, continue their illicit behavior after serving time. Not sayin' it doesnt happen. Just no significant track record of it out there.

You are right about that. Yes, I would think that part of the system would be a revision of malpratice recourse. It would have to be, because part of providing access to all while controlling costs would be protecting competent doctors from nuisance law suits and establishing a fair compensation program for legitimate claims that takes the profit motive out of the equation for both sides unlike the present system. I would like to think that malpractice would drop and lawsuits would be replaced by mediation and arbitration boards. Part of the reason is that doctors and hospitals with questionable track records would be dropped from participation in a universal plan which would pretty much be the kiss of death. Removing attorneys from the mix would remove the profit motive from the mechanics of the process. Because there would be no insurance company on the doctor/hospital side there would be no profit motive there either. It would make no sense to keep the present malpractice system in a universal system.

That is simply untrue. If you think this true then you are woefully ignorant of the American health care system. My daughter is self-employed and uninsured. She has had a partially detached retina for a few years now. She has no insurance to seek treatment. This is not an emergency room malady. She lives with it as it slowly deteriorates more. She also suffers from chronic depression of the seasonally affective variety. Again, this is not an emergency room treatment issue unless and until she would become a danger to herself or others. Emergency rooms are just for emergencies. Sometimes they treat nonemergency, cases if they can, out of compassion but if they do it is a one time treatment. There is no follow up, no continuing care for chronic illness. What about drugs? Emergency rooms do not dispense drugs except temp short-term if needed. Longer term prescriptions may be written but are not filled at the hospital pharamacy. A prescription without the money to fill it is just a piece of paper. Not everyone qualifies for coverage under Medicaid. It is usually mothers with children. That leaves a lot of other very poor without coverage, not to metion the milliions of working families who do not have coverage and cannot afford insurance or the resources to pay for signifiicant medical treatment that requires more than a doctor visit and an xray or two. These myths based on half-truths make it easy for many of us to embrace the status quo. Unfortunately, reality is painted with millions of counterexamples.

What goes around comes around.

Translation of the statement in bold font: Definition of a data clerk. Yes, classified installations need clerks to handle classified data. They do not put many Captains or Generals in charge of that task. There is a big need to keep inventories of docs, routing records, process incoming and log obsolete inventory to be destroyed, etc. For some that is all they do. Intelligence analysis is unlikely to be done by the average Private. That is not to say they may not play a role in processing information via sorting, classification with respect to type etc. There may be more critical instances where an individual such as former combat troop may have special knowledge of an intelligence issues associated with given area, or critical language skills. Most of your article points out problems with the overall security set up. Privates don't set that up. This was a big screw up at much higher levels. The problem was not assigning a lowly private to a classified data clerk station but in the whole set up that he was allowed to work in or possibly in his background check. No doubt there are many competent Privates serving in critically sensitive jobs in the military. That is not to say that they are chosen for such jobs by picking names out of a hat.

Hey there Crazy! I think you are right. Sooner or later, but eventually. I see the potential for private insurance to play a role in supplemental care policies just as they do for Medicare, but eventually there will be a single payer basic policy if health care is to have broad access beyond the rich. I know some don't want to hear that. Some didnt want to give up the horse and buggy. Some thought we didnt need phones. Times change as has medical technology. It is just too expensive for individuals to pay for and too expensive an overhead for business in today's competitive markets. I was very comfortable with health care as practiced in my adolescence. Office visits were affordable. Insurance was affordable. Insurance companies didnt try to shirk their contractual obligations all the time or issue big increases on a yearly basis. The primary purpose was to see that doctors and hospitals could be compensated. Quarterly profits statements didnt exist. The goal was simple: serve the need for which they were created and stay in the black, year to year, in order to do it. But then there were not a whole lot of expensive treatments like chemo or organ transplants and similar extraordinary treatments by the standards of those times' Drugs weren't priced in the hundreds of dollars and more for individual or monthly doses. Machines that cost tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars were not used for diagnosis and treatment. All of this is more or less commonplace today if you have access to the health system. I saw the same GP who birthed me for my college phsysical. He was as old as Methusala by then. He was affordable. He didnt do any unnecessary tests to cover his ass. He just did the doctor thing. He died a few years later. Those times have died too. There were not miracle machines. The miracle drugs were the polio vaccines. They were administered for a few dollars or given away free in school clinics to everyone. Times were simpler. Technology was simpler. Most all the players were focused on delivering health care and medicine and paying for it, not on profit sheets. To close the circle, modern medicine and health technology is just too expensive for individuals to pay for and too expensive an overhead for business in today's competitive markets.

This really cannot be a serious question, can it? Security clearances are not granted on the basis of rank but on the basis of job, need to know, and detailed background investigation. There is never any gurantee that someone may not make a bad judgment or sell out for money or ideology even though there is nothing in their background to point to it. As a democracy we take a measured risk every time one is granted. Else we could let one know that their actions hold their families at risk.

Backlash Feared As Some In GOP Push Social Issues JOHN HANNA | 11/26/10 03:06 PM AP| TOPEKA, Kan. Although fixing the economy is the top priority, Republicans who won greater control of state governments in this month's election are considering how to pursue action on a range of social issues, including abortion, gun rights and even divorce laws. Incoming GOP governors and legislative leaders across the nation insist they intend to focus initially on fiscal measures to spur the economy, cut spending and address state budget problems. "At this point, the economy dominates everything, and until the economy is turned around and our fiscal house put in order, there's not going to be a lot of appetite for anything else," said Whit Ayres, a pollster in Alexandria, Va., whose firm did research for several GOP candidates in the midterm race. But the pressure to go further, as soon as possible, is only slightly below the surface in states where conservatives' top social goals have been foiled for years by Democratic vetoes and legislative obstacles. The tension is particularly visible in Kansas, where the victory by Gov.-elect Sam Brownback, a strong opponent of abortion and gay marriage, has created strong expectations among evangelical supporters. A similar scenario is taking shape in strongly conservative Oklahoma, where a Republican governor will replace a Democrat, and to a lesser extent in Michigan, Wisconsin and several other states. Some Republican legislators are already worried about getting bogged down in volatile issues or conflicts between wings of the party. But, if the different agendas can be harnessed, an election largely driven by voters' economic concerns could wind up having much broader social consequences. "I'm a little bit nervous," said Rep. Dean Kaufert, a Republican state House member in Wisconsin, where Republicans, including incoming governor Scott Walker, campaigned on enacting tough immigration legislation and banning embryonic stem cell research. If Republicans overreach, "the danger is the citizens of the state will just say we'll clean house again and we're going to keep doing it until we get it right," he said. But some conservatives said they won't wait forever. "We're not going to spend the next 18 months doing nothing but economic issues," said Wisconsin Republican Sen. Glenn Grothman, an advocate of tougher abortion restrictions. GOP candidates in the midterm election successfully wooed independent voters and those upset with President Barack Obama and the agenda of the Democratic-controlled Congress. But abortion opponents and socially conservative evangelical Christians are a key party constituency. This year's vote gave Republicans control of 29 governorships, including 11 held previously by Democrats. The GOP significantly strengthened its position in many state legislatures. The GOP won all statewide races on the ballot in Kansas for the first time since 1964. Republicans picked up 16 seats in the state House, giving the GOP an overwhelming 92-33 advantage. Abortion opponents now plan to make the state as close to an abortion-free zone as possible. Proposed measures would impose new regulations for clinics, restrictions on late-term procedures and increased reporting requirements for physicians. Vetoes by outgoing Democratic Gov. Mark Parkinson and his predecessors blocked such action in the past. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lance Kinzer, who serves on Brownback's transition team, said action against embryonic stem cell research and to allow "covenant" marriages, which are harder to dissolve than standard marriages, are likely to be considered, too. "There's a lot of unfinished business out there, isn't there?" Kinzer said. In Oklahoma, where Republicans won all eight Democrat-held statewide offices, GOP lawmakers are planning to bring back firearms bills vetoed last year by outgoing Democratic Gov. Brad Henry. They include a bill to allow the open carrying of firearms. A move to legalize concealed weapons is expected in Wisconsin, where the Republicans scored their most dramatic victory, seizing control of both the legislature and the governor's office. Some Republican lawmakers hope to repeal a law that extends benefits to gay state employees and their domestic partners. It's not clear whether Republicans could win approval of such measures or would wind up in protracted battles not only with Democrats but among themselves. Wisconsin Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus insists the party can manage the competing demands. The economy "doesn't mean we have to exclude tackling every other issue facing the voters of Wisconsin," he said. In Michigan, Iowa and Ohio, where Republicans are replacing Democratic governors, legislative leaders are all under pressure to back anti-abortion legislation but insist they will focus on the economy. Brownback's economy-first approach in Kansas has put him in the rare position of disappointing conservative allies. Rep. Owen Donohoe, a Republican from the Kansas City-area suburb of Shawnee, sent colleagues an e-mail saying Brownback's legislative agenda "may not be as conservative as we wish." ___ Scott Bauer in Madison, Wis.; Kathy Barks Hoffman in Lansing, Mich.; Sean Murphy, in Oklahoma City, and Ann Sanner, in Columbus, Ohio, contributed to this report. See original article at:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/27/backlash-feared-as-some-i_n_788753.html

What a novel idea.

Job-Based Health Care Threatened RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR | 11/28/10 01:21 PM | AP WASHINGTON — Job-based health care benefits could wind up on the chopping block if President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans get serious about cutting the deficit. Budget proposals from leaders in both parties have urged shrinking or eliminating tax breaks that help make employer health insurance the leading source of coverage in the nation and a middle-class mainstay. The idea isn't to just raise revenue, economists say, but finally to turn Americans into frugal health care consumers by having them face the full costs of their medical decisions. Such a re-engineering was rejected by Democrats only a few months ago, at the height of the health care overhaul debate. But Washington has changed, with Republicans back in power and widespread fears that the burden of government debt may drag down the economy. "There is no short-term prospect of enactment," former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a leading Democratic adviser on health care. "However, in a tax reform (and) deficit reducing context in the long term, the prospects are much better," said Daschle. He opposes repealing the tax break by itself, but says he would be "willing to look" at it with other changes that improve access to quality health care while reducing costs. Labor unions believed they had squelched any such talk. Now, they're preparing for another fight. Tampering with health care tax breaks is "a terrible step in the wrong direction," said Mary Kay Henry, the new president of the Service Employees International Union, which represents many hospital workers. "We want the middle class stabilized, not destabilized." Employer-provided health insurance is part of a worker's compensation. Unlike wages, it isn't subject to income and payroll taxes. Repealing the tax break would raise several hundred billion dollars a year, depending on how it's done. Many economists believe employers would boost pay if they didn't provide health care. Proponents of repeal usually call for a tax credit to offset part of the cost of individually purchasing coverage. The leaders of Obama's deficit commission – Democrat Erskine Bowles, a former Clinton White House chief of staff, and Alan Simpson, a former GOP senator from Wyoming – have proposed to limit the tax break or eliminate it along with other cherished deductions, such as the one for mortgage interest. That would allow for a big cut in tax rates. The commission is supposed to report its plan on Wednesday. It's unclear if leaders have the votes to back their sweeping changes. A separate group, the Bipartisan Policy Center, is proposing to cap the health care tax break in 2018 and eliminate it over the next 10 years. That's part of a deficit reduction strategy from Democrat Alice Rivlin, a former Federal Reserve vice chairman, and former Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N-M., who once led the Senate Budget Committee. "The problem of rising debt is so serious that Republicans and Democrats are going to have go back and look at almost everything to see how we solve this," said Rivlin. Simpson calls the health care tax break a "tax earmark." He said that "you cannot get anything done in this game unless you deal with every single aspect of the federal budget, and the biggest thing to wrap our arms around is health care." Democrats struggled with proposals to curb the tax break during the health care debate, but strong opposition from organized labor won out. The compromise was a tax on high-cost health insurance plans, which won't go into effect until 2018. In a twist, the health care law eventually may make it easier to pry people away from employer insurance, a system that dates to World War II and has sustained three generations. Starting in 2014, new insurance markets will make it easier for people to buy coverage on their own. These state-based "exchanges" would work like the federal employee health plan. Taxpayer subsidies will help individuals and families with low to moderate incomes pay premiums. "Before health reform, a declining role for employers would have raised concerns," Rivlin and Domenici said in their proposal. But well-run exchanges "will provide a viable – perhaps even superior – alternative." One Democratic member of Obama's deficit commission is wrestling with the idea. California Rep. Xavier Becerra says it's a very different situation from the health care debate. Back then, policymakers were looking for money to pay for covering the uninsured. Now, they're looking at rebalancing the role of government in the economy. He's not considering health care tax breaks in isolation. "What we are saying is that we are going to examine every tax earmark," Becerra said. "They are all on the table. If you want to keep one, then show us how you are going to come up with the money. That's where you really have to put your money where your mouth is." See original article at:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/28/health-care-tax-break-deficit_n_788852.html