Newsbound Blog

The Degree Divide

Tue, 28 May 2013 08:29:00 -0700

After The Century Foundation released its community college report last week, this Twitter exchange took place between the Washington Post’s Dylan Matthews, Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum, and New America Foundation’s Kevin Carey:

So what about Kevin’s question? If roughly 11 percent of community college students go on to receive a bachelor’s degree from a 4-year university, how many receive a AA degree?

The answer is … approximately 14 percent. In short, about a quarter of the students who start at community college end up with an AA or BA degree within six years.

By contrast, about 58 percent of students starting at a 4-year school end up getting a BA within the same timespan.

Learn more about why the degree gap exists and how it can be bridged in TCF’s new report and this accompanying Newsbound stack:

- J.K.

The flow of oil around the world, via Wonkblog.

Fri, 10 May 2013 05:02:29 -0700

The flow of oil around the world, via Wonkblog.

The New World of Youth Concussion Management

Thu, 09 May 2013 12:24:00 -0700

This week, the New York Times devoted several articles to an emerging medical field: “youth concussion management.”

Our recent explainer on the concussion crisis in sports focused largely on professional football players. But as the Times reminds us, this is an issue that spans numerous sports (basketball, soccer, lacrosse, hockey) and that can affect players at a surprisingly young age.

I found this comment particularly fascinating:

“A concussion might be the only injury where the younger you are, the longer it takes to get better,” Dr. Cynthia Stein said. “Anything else, if you cut your hand or whatever, the younger you are, the quicker you heal. But for a concussion, recent studies indicate that a 10-year-old heals slower than a 14-year-old, and a 14-year-old heals slower than a 17-year-old.”

If there’s a theme that permeates the Times reporting this week, it’s uncertainty. The one thing doctors know for sure is that during the period after a person experiences a concussion “they are especially vulnerable to catastrophic injury if subjected to another blow to the head.” But determining the appropriate length of that period is extremely subjective.

It’s a reminder of how much work is yet to be done in the area of concussion science.

- J.K.

buzzfeedpolitics: This population graph really gives you...

Thu, 09 May 2013 11:39:50 -0700

buzzfeedpolitics:

This population graph really gives you perspective on the world.

What's A Chargemaster Anyway?

Wed, 08 May 2013 10:47:00 -0700

Until I got around to reading Stephen Brill’s TIME article “Bitter Pill” a couple months ago, I’d never heard the word “chargemaster” before. Chances are, if you’ve come across the term, it’s probably because: A) you work around the health care industry or, B) you’re uninsured and have had the misfortune of dealing with a medical bill that’s based off of one of these documents.

Today, the Obama administration unveiled a federal database that brings the country’s chargemasters out of the dark and into the light.

But before we get to that, here’s Brill’s brief explanation:

The chargemaster, I learned, is every hospital’s internal price list. Decades ago it was a document the size of a phone book; now it’s a massive computer file, thousands of items long, maintained by every hospital.

It would seem to be an important document. However, I quickly found that although every hospital has a chargemaster, officials treat it as if it were an eccentric uncle living in the attic. Whenever I asked, they deflected all conversation away from it. They even argued that it is irrelevant. I soon found that they have good reason to hope that outsiders pay no attention to the chargemaster or the process that produces it. For there seems to be no process, no rationale, behind the core document that is the basis for hundreds of billions of dollars in health care bills.

Brill encountered the irrationality of the chargemaster after getting his hands on numerous individuals’ medical bills and trying to make sense of the individual charges. He found that it’s common for hospitals to exorbitantly mark up the price of a particular procedure or medical supply. With the release of the database, lots of other reporters are zeroing in on the issue today. Here’s the Huffington Post:

Americans have long become accustomed to bewilderment and anxiety when confronting health care bills. The new database underscores why, revealing the perplexing assortment of prices for medical care, with the details of bills seemingly untethered to any graspable principle.

And the New York Times:

Data being released for the first time by the government on Wednesday shows that hospitals charge Medicare wildly differing amounts — sometimes 10 to 20 times what Medicare typically reimburses — for the same procedure, raising questions about how hospitals determine prices and why they differ so widely.

In his TIME article, Brill tried to get individual hospitals to explain the mark-ups, but most just deflected his questions or offered up easily-debunked excuses.

In the end, here’s what he proposed:

We should outlaw the chargemaster. Everyone involved, except a patient who gets a bill based on one (or worse, gets sued on the basis of one), shrugs off chargemasters as a fiction. So why not require that they be rewritten to reflect a process that considers actual and thoroughly transparent costs? After all, hospitals are supposed to be government-sanctioned institutions accountable to the public. Hospitals love the chargemaster because it gives them a big number to put in front of rich uninsured patients (typically from outside the U.S.) or, as is more likely, to attach to lawsuits or give to bill collectors, establishing a place from which they can negotiate settlements. It’s also a great place from which to start negotiations with insurance companies, which also love the chargemaster because they can then make their customers feel good when they get an Explanation of Benefits that shows the terrific discounts their insurance company won for them.

But for patients, the chargemasters are both the real and the metaphoric essence of the broken market. They are anything but irrelevant. They’re the source of the poison coursing through the health care ecosystem.

With this database, the government has now forced this poison into public view. It’s an important step. Watch closely to see what happens next.

- J.K.

futurejournalismproject: CISPA Is Not Dead Visit Fight For The...

Fri, 03 May 2013 10:55:26 -0700

futurejournalismproject:

CISPA Is Not Dead

Visit Fight For The Future and CISPA Is Back for an overview and actions you can take, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation for background on the bill since it passed the House and what happens next as it moves to the Senate.

If you found our recent explainer on privacy policies interesting, you should be concerned about CISPA. It would pretty much make the assurances in those privacy policies meaningless, at least when it comes to government agencies gaining access to your personal information.

We teamed up with Harvard Business Review on this new explainer,...

Thu, 02 May 2013 14:07:00 -0700

We teamed up with Harvard Business Review on this new explainer, written by James Allworth. It explores how big corporations use their lobbying power to slow the growth of disruptive startups like Tesla and Uber. Take five minutes and learn how our campaign finance system stifles innovation.

Today a bill to extend gun background checks was defeated by the...

Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:14:00 -0700

Today a bill to extend gun background checks was defeated by the U.S. Senate — despite the fact that a MAJORITY of senators support it (not to mention the large majority of Americans).

This is part of a larger phenomenon. In recent years, the Republicans have created a 60-vote threshold in the 100-member Senate for even the most uncontroversial bills. This has led to unprecedented gridlock.

Here’s how they do it.

Our latest explainer tackles the concussion crisis in...

Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:39:00 -0700

Our latest explainer tackles the concussion crisis in professional football. It’s a tragic story and one we’re going to be hearing a lot about this offseason, thanks to a class-action lawsuit against the NFL. Over 4,000 former players have joined the suit. It kicked off earlier this week.

explore-blog: Gorgeous 1862 diagram of the federal government...

Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:24:10 -0700

explore-blog:

Gorgeous 1862 diagram of the federal government and the American Union. Complement with these vintage ISOTYPE infographics explaining British vs. American politics and this vintage illustrated guide to the American government.

A Tale of Two Filibuster-Fatigued Presidents

Fri, 08 Mar 2013 14:14:00 -0800

“We have tried at the beginning of this Senate session to avoid this kind of filibuster confrontation … I hate to suggest this, but if this is an indication of where we’re headed, we need to revisit the rules again.” - Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) on March 6, 2013

If you paid passing attention to the news out of D.C. this week, you might think that Durbin is responding here to Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) 13-hour filibuster on Wednesday.

In fact, Sen. Durbin commended Paul’s “talking” filibuster, saying from the floor Wednesday night, “I stand with the senator.”

In the above statement, he was actually referring to the other filibuster that happened this week — the “silent” kind, which the Republicans used to block President Obama’s nomination of Caitlin Halligan to U.S. Court of Appeals.

As we laid out in our recent explainer, the rise of the silent filibuster in recent years has resulted in an unprecedented situation in which almost all bills and nominations must receive 60 votes — rather than a simple majority of 51 — to pass the Senate. Efforts by reform-minded Democrats to change the Senate rules to require talking filibusters have generally been met with incremental bipartisan changes. This is what happened in January, as Durbin noted. Now that those minor changes have once again proven ineffective, he is floating the idea of “revisit[ing] the rules.”

One thing worth remembering here: the last time the Senate took drastic action to curb minority obstruction (the passage of the cloture rule in 1917), they did so only after President Woodrow Wilson threw his weight behind the issue. From the book “Filibuster,” by Gregory Wawro and Eric Schickler:

Wilson had gone to unprecedented lengths for a president to vilify filibustering senators, launching an all-out public relations campaign against those who defeated the Armed Ship Bill and the rules of the Senate that allowed them to do so.

In this context, its worth looking at President Obama’s response to the Halligan filibuster. Does he sound peeved? Absolutely. Does he sound ready to “vilify filibustering senators” like his predecessor Woodrow Wilson? Hard to tell ….

February '13 Drone Update

Mon, 04 Mar 2013 10:18:25 -0800

Changes are afoot in the U.S. drone program. No, the government hasn’t decided to stop using its flying killer robots to hunt down “militants” in other countries. (According to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, 4,700 people have been killed by U.S. drones so far.) Instead, the drone war appears to be moving north…to Afghanistan.

The UN Mission in Afghanistan recently released data showing a significant increase in the number of American drone strikes there over the past 12 months. Afghanistan has always been the largest target for U.S. drones, but the UN report indicates that the U.S. government is increasingly relying on drones to fight insurgents as it prepares to withdraw troops from the country.

This news comes at the same time that the number of documented drone strikes in other countries appears to be falling. Between 2008 and 2012, the U.S. carried out 343 drone strikes in Pakistan (an average of seven per month). In the first two months of 2013, the U.S. carried out a total of eight drone strikes in Pakistan. Perhaps more surprisingly, there were no reported drone strikes in Yemen in February, as compared to eight in January.

Documented drone strikes, February 2013 (data from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism)

Pakistan

February 6: 3-5 killed

February 8: 6-9 killed

Yemen

None reported

An infographic we threw together to help explain the upcoming “sequester.”

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:32:00 -0800

An infographic we threw together to help explain the upcoming “sequester.”

explore-blog: The U.S. Census explores immigration by the...

Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:29:37 -0800

explore-blog:

The U.S. Census explores immigration by the numbers with some fascinating infographics on America’s foreign-born in the last 50 years.

Rewind by a century for a curious contrast, then see David Brooks on why immigrants are essential to the U.S. economy.

Your Monthly Drone Update (January '13 Edition)

Wed, 06 Feb 2013 12:00:17 -0800

Those of you who read our explainer on drone warfare may remember that the U.S. carried out an estimated 343 drone strikes in Pakistan between 2008 and 2012, with 2010 being the most active year (128 strikes). During this same period, the drone program and the Obama administration’s secretive “targeted killing” policy came under increasing scrutiny. But as the slide above suggests, drone warfare is only going to become a bigger story as the year progresses. Indeed, as the Defense Department deals with tighter budgets, the cost-effectiveness of drones could make them even more attractive to military planners — despite the fact that they are extremely unpopular around the globe.

With all this in mind, we’re going to check in on the topic every month and provide the latest numbers and news.

This past January, the U.S. government carried out 14 drone strikes of suspected “militants” in Pakistan and Yemen, according to data compiled by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. As many as 100 people may have died in the attacks (see the full list below). It is unclear exactly how many drone strikes took place in Afghanistan in January, but the numbers there are probably much higher.

Meanwhile, NBC News published a confidential Justice Department memo this which argues that the U.S. government has the legal authority to kill American citizens if they are “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force.” The argument rests on the notion that targeted killings of American citizens who are terrorists is a form of self-defense permissible under the laws of war. However, the Justice Department also considers these killings legal even if the government has no evidence that the person is plotting to attack the United States.

These issues are likely to be a major topic of conversation during the Senate confirmation hearing of John Brennan, the White House’s counterterrorism adviser and President Obama’s pick to head the CIA, that will kick off Thursday.

Documented drone strikes, January 2013:

Pakistan

January 2: 6-11 killed
January 3: 3-6 killed
January 6: 8-18 killed
January 8: 4-9 killed
January 8: 2-4 killed
January 10: 3-6 killed

Yemen

January 4: 3 killed
January 19: 0-5 killed
January 19: 2-4 killed
January 19: 2-10 killed
January 21: 2-4 killed
January 22: 3-5 killed
January 23: 5-8 killed
January 23: 2-6 killed

motherjones: Everything you need to know about the GOP’s plan...

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:10:38 -0800

motherjones:

Everything you need to know about the GOP’s plan to rig the Electoral College (Spoiler: Romney would have won).

MoJo goes deep on the Republican Electoral College gambit we wrote about last week.

How The Silent Filibuster Survived

Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:48:00 -0800

Today’s HuffPost Hill includes some background on the fizzle of the filibuster reform effort earlier this month. It all comes down to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, it seems:

The Post reported this morning that Chuck Schumer told Jeff Merkley to go out and get 51 votes for the talking filibuster and they’d do it — but Merkley couldn’t get the votes. … That misses the reality. Merkley and the reformers had 51 votes ready to move if Reid decided to go that direction. … Reid decided that it was better for the health of the institution long term to reach a deal with [Republican Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell. That’s really all there is to it. If the chamber is still broken in two years, bigger reforms will be back on the table.

As the 113th Congress gets to business, we’ll be counting the silent filibusters — the obstructionist tactic we broke down in detail here — and occasionally updating you on the latest numbers. Will Reid’s threat of more severe rules changes make a difference this time around? We’ll have to wait and see.

The Continuing Effects of Citizens United

Sun, 27 Jan 2013 18:19:00 -0800

You might remember this slide from our Super PACs explainer back in October noting that Super PACs and other “dark money” groups would probably shift their focus to lobbying members of Congress following the 2012 election:

Now comes news that dark money groups are leading the campaign against Chuck Hagel, President Obama’s nominee to be Secretary of Defense. One major source of concern: many of these groups are financed by anonymous donations, meaning that we have no way of knowing who is behind the push.

The rise of Super PACs is one consequence of the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Our explainer goes over the basics of Citizens United and the major role that dark money groups are coming to play in our political system.

Talking About the Talking Filibuster

Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:09:00 -0800

It turns out that there won’t be any serious filibuster reform for the time being.

Why is this a problem?

Over the past decade, the minority party in the Senate has used the threat of the filibuster to prevent votes on hundreds of bills and presidential confirmations. In fact, the filibuster is one of the main reasons that the last Congress passed fewer bills than any in the last sixty years, as this slide from our filibuster explainer shows.

Gaming the Electoral College

Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:32:00 -0800

A little over a week ago, the head of the Republican National Committee came out in support of a plan to reform the Electoral College. Instead of the current winner-take-all system, in which the candidate who wins the majority of a state’s popular vote is awarded all of that state’s electoral votes, certain states would start doling out one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district in the state.

As our explainer on the College laid out, Maine and Nebraska currently reward their electoral votes in this manner. The following slide from that piece shows how the Cornhusker State divvied up its votes in 2008:

So what’s the problem? Republicans apparently intend to push through this change only in those states — Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Virginia — that President Obama won in 2012 and whose legislature and governor’s mansion the GOP currently controls.

Hence, if the plan went through (and it is only an idea at this point), Republican candidates would have a much better shot at winning the overall electoral vote.

Fortunately, there are more sensible proposals to reform our wacky Electoral College system, including the National Popular Vote. Instead of trying to game the system, the National Popular Vote plan would ensure that the winner of the country’s popular vote would also win the all-important Electoral College vote.

Our Electoral College explainer, adapted from Victoria Bassetti’s Electoral Dysfunction, provides some more information about the National Popular Vote proposal and the strange way in which we elect the President.