In reading the many posts on net neutrality, I was delighted to see that a man who's work in the Clinton White House I greatly respected, Mike McCurry, took the time to post on MyDD the other day.  He responded to Matt Stoller's Attack with a response outlining why he opposes regulating net neutrality.

I have sat on the sidelines of the net neutrality arguments here on MyDD so far because it is a very confusing issue that I am still trying to fully understand.  However, I enjoyed reading McCurry's response, because it presents a lot of good arguments that many of us here at MyDD may not have been exposed too since the blog has taken a very strong position in favor of net neutrality.

While McCurry's comments are already out there on record, I feel this issue is well worth writing a diary about, in order to provide a forum in which to debate McCurry's arguments, particularly about why we should oppose government involvement in regulating the internet.  The points he raises are, at the very least, worthy of debating on their merits, rather than just selectively quoting McCurry to imply he is only motivated by money.  It's always nice to consider both sides of an argument especially when loyal Democrats like McCurry and Stoller have opposing viewpoints.

Having had a Grandfather with diabetes, my ears perked up about a month ago when I heard that diabetes advocacy groups were lobbying against a recent bill sponsered by Sen. Enzi entitled the "Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act."

The bill seeks to make it more affordable for small businesses to offer insurance plans, but does so, in part, by essenitally gutting state requirements for what sort of treatments insurance companies are required to cover.  Everything from treatment for diabetes to cancer screenings to coverage for contraceptives is at risk.  

These state requirements were passed for important reasons.  The legislatures and the people of these states have determined over many years that if insurance is going to be offered in their state, there are certain basic protections that states want to ensure all consumers have.  To allow insurance companies to ignore these requirements in the name of health insurance "modernization" is ridiculous.

Yesterday, the NY Times endorsed a unique new plan that has been introduced by the group National Popular Vote.  Their website is here: National Popular Vote

Frankly I'm sick and tired of 30-40 states being totally ignored by the candidates year after year.  They are being elected to be President of all 50 states, they should be forced to address the issues of all 50 states, not just Florida, Ohio and Pennslyvania.  Apparently the NY Times agrees with this problem.

Excerpts are below, check out the full editorial here:NY Times Editorial

Drop Out of the College

The Electoral College is an antidemocratic relic. Everyone who remembers 2000 knows that it can lead to the election of the candidate who loses the popular vote as president. But the Electoral College's other serious flaws are perhaps even more debilitating for a democracy. It focuses presidential elections on just a handful of battleground states, and pushes the rest of the nation's voters to the sidelines.

There is an innovative new proposal for states to take the lead in undoing the Electoral College. Legislatures across the country should get behind it.