Health care reform was one of the reasons I was happy to help candidate Obama's campaign in 2008. It was at the top of my list of needed reforms then and, it seems, it will still be in the same spot come the next election cycle, due to the corrupt electoral process that rewards not the most honest candidates, those who really want to improve things for 99% of Americans, but those with the best fundraising ability, aided and abetted by the most entrenched special interests.
And I don't think the United States deserves to be called all nice the things Americans call it (uh, I don't know... "number one", "the best country in the world", and all such bombastic things) until it does what... oh, I don't know... the rest of the civilized world? has already done. Which is to say, give its citizens universal, affordable health care, and stop rewarding the special interests (PhRMA, insurance companies, greedy doctors, etc.) that have led the nation into the ridiculous predicament it finds itself in after decades of near unfettered free-market bullshit. What predicament? We spend almost twice as much as the next country in the world and, unlike any other CIVILIZED country in the world, cannot insure everybody. To what end? So that smug people can say that we have the best medicine money can buy in the world. For that matter,we also make the best Space Shuttle money can buy. Do you own one?
Where we stand is that we have 45 million uninsured and, even worse, an even higher number of underinsured (read people who have been ass-raped into paying premiums and who do not get the coverage they think they were paying for or who, in order to get it, need to pay unaffordable, bank-breaking amounts of money out of their own pocket, after which they get dumped by the insurance companies that happily collected their premiums while they were healthy.) The solution concocted by special interest representatives in Congress? Individual mandates and no alternative for those who are sick, literally, and sick, figuratively--of insurance companies. In other words? You think insurance is the problem? Here's our solution: buy it or... buy it! What a special country this is. "Number one!", really.
And this is the best our "change president" can do?
I want to puke.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Harry Reid's Fascism? No, Just Curmudgeonly Sloppiness.
It is nice to see that, with Christmas approaching, Mr. Groothuis of Denver Seminary has regained his fire for ignorant polemic.
In his latest post, hyperbolically entitled Harry Reid's Fascism (that would be Senator Reid's Fascism to you, Mr. Groothuis), the incorrigible professor going by the pseudonym The Constructive Curmudgeon, hardly one to bother fact-checking his sources, links to another website with the following hypertext: "If this is true, we no longer live in America, but something else, something terrible." My reply is: If what the Curmudgeon says is not true, then he is gullible, a sloppy researcher, or both, and he deserves no trust for what he posts on his blog.
I have to warn you that it took a bit of digging through several layers of sophistry and/or laziness to get to the bottom of this whole fiasco, but please bear with me: I promise you a happy ending.
The "this" in "If this is true" is a clause found in the following article by a fellow who misleadingly describes himself as "American Thinker."
The article says that The Weekly Standard reports (I know, I know, the deceitful hacks alert is already blaring in my ears, too) that Jim DeMint (I know, I know, the evil idiot alert is already blaring in my ears, too) "pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight."
In particular, Sen. DeMint was troubled by the fact "that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses". Really? Well, I did not know, so I read on and found out that Sen. DeMint identified the guilty sentence under section c, titled "limitations on changes to this subsection." The sentence reads (and I am going to block quote it for added clarity):
Sen. DeMint went on to rail that (and I block quote again to underscore Sen. DeMint's disingenuousness and deceitfulness)
(Apparently the Weekly Standard has a thing against proper capitalization.)
There are a few problems with Sen. DeMint's sloppy and deceptive paranoia, which the American Thinker and Mr. Groothuis, sloppy and less than discerning researchers themselves, have embraced without a trace of doubt or guilt. I shall point out the facts for you, so that you can form your independent opinion of the actual merit of the accusation.
First, the formula "it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection", or variants thereof, are pretty standard in bills of all kinds. The goal of such a formula is not to prevent a rule or law from ever being repealed; it is simply to require a supermajority (3/5's of the Senate) for a law or rule to be repealed. And, wouldn't you know it, it's been used by Republican Congresses too! Why, a search for the phrase "it shall not be in order" on thomas.loc.gov (the site of the Library of Congress) returns 84 hits for the 109th Congress, 47 hits for the 108th Congress, and 42 hits for the 107th Congress, all under Republican majorities. You'd think Sen. DeMint would remember it: he has been in Congress since 1999. But he's a Congressman, so we should expect selective memory.
Secondly, there is another problem: Sen. DeMint is guilty of omitting the context. Once the context is examined, the purpose of the sentence he rails against is obvious and not nearly so scandalous. Please bear with me.
The subsection that precedes the one quoted by Sen. DeMint is entitled "LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS IN OTHER LEGISLATION" and reads:
The key is knowing what the referenced subparagraphs say. It turns out that they deal with the cost of Medicare and cost control mechanisms for Medicare. So, then, the purpose of the sentences that made Sen. DeMint cry wolf is to prevent someone, predictably Republicans, from introducing future legislation that would have the effect of gutting the cost control provisions in the health care Senate bill so that they could later go on to say that health care reform has caused Medicare costs to skyrocket. You know Republicans would love nothing more.
That's it. Grounds for calling Sen. Reid a fascist? Hardly. But rascals like Groothuis do not stop short of publishing accusations they have not fact-checked. For them, it is sufficient to preface any accusation with the disclaimer "if this is true" to find cover and solace. After all, the goal is not to seek the truth, just to smear opponents. If they published a newspaper (and unfortunately some of them do) they would slap the accusation on the front page and the retraction at the bottom of page 17.
But this is a classic example of how Republicans operate: they fill the web and the airwaves with ridiculous drivel and utterly contemptible slime, aimed at filling the American people with doubts about the goals of Democrats in Congress, certain that sloppy researchers (or hacks) like Mr. Groothuis will provide these deceptive or false statements with the needed amplification.
Remember the lies the Right invented and collected into a supposed fact-checking document to scare Americans into opposing H.R. 3200 (the House version of the health care reform bill)? I debunked a handful myself before surrendering, vanquished by the sheer volume of Republican deceit and by the futility of combing through the giant pile of shit they had excreted. And now, consider this: a Google search for the phrase "repeal or otherwise" plus "Reid", which is at the core of this artificial controversy, returns--I kid you not--1390 hits in the past 24 hours! The Republican noise machine, their hacks, shills, and operatives, are very adept at producing bullshit out of thin air.
Now, remember what the exercise of this post was: "If what the Curmudgeon says is not true, then he is gullible, a sloppy researcher, or both, and he deserves no trust for what he posts on his blog." It took me two hours to come up with the research for this post. I am sure that Mr. Groothuis, what with his being a college professor (sigh!) and all, must be very a busy man. But I would hope that a Christian college professor would do a bit of due diligence before accusing the Senate majority leader of fascism. Sadly, he does not. Even more sadly, he is an example for the students who pass through Denver Seminary. I should hope, for their sake, that they see the man behind the mask of academic rigor and authority, and that they look for examples elsewhere.
In his latest post, hyperbolically entitled Harry Reid's Fascism (that would be Senator Reid's Fascism to you, Mr. Groothuis), the incorrigible professor going by the pseudonym The Constructive Curmudgeon, hardly one to bother fact-checking his sources, links to another website with the following hypertext: "If this is true, we no longer live in America, but something else, something terrible." My reply is: If what the Curmudgeon says is not true, then he is gullible, a sloppy researcher, or both, and he deserves no trust for what he posts on his blog.
I have to warn you that it took a bit of digging through several layers of sophistry and/or laziness to get to the bottom of this whole fiasco, but please bear with me: I promise you a happy ending.
The "this" in "If this is true" is a clause found in the following article by a fellow who misleadingly describes himself as "American Thinker."
The article says that The Weekly Standard reports (I know, I know, the deceitful hacks alert is already blaring in my ears, too) that Jim DeMint (I know, I know, the evil idiot alert is already blaring in my ears, too) "pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight."
In particular, Sen. DeMint was troubled by the fact "that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses". Really? Well, I did not know, so I read on and found out that Sen. DeMint identified the guilty sentence under section c, titled "limitations on changes to this subsection." The sentence reads (and I am going to block quote it for added clarity):
it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.
Sen. DeMint went on to rail that (and I block quote again to underscore Sen. DeMint's disingenuousness and deceitfulness)
this is not legislation. it's not law. this is a rule change. it's a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.
i'm not even sure that it's constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. i don't see why the majority party wouldn't put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates.
(Apparently the Weekly Standard has a thing against proper capitalization.)
There are a few problems with Sen. DeMint's sloppy and deceptive paranoia, which the American Thinker and Mr. Groothuis, sloppy and less than discerning researchers themselves, have embraced without a trace of doubt or guilt. I shall point out the facts for you, so that you can form your independent opinion of the actual merit of the accusation.
First, the formula "it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection", or variants thereof, are pretty standard in bills of all kinds. The goal of such a formula is not to prevent a rule or law from ever being repealed; it is simply to require a supermajority (3/5's of the Senate) for a law or rule to be repealed. And, wouldn't you know it, it's been used by Republican Congresses too! Why, a search for the phrase "it shall not be in order" on thomas.loc.gov (the site of the Library of Congress) returns 84 hits for the 109th Congress, 47 hits for the 108th Congress, and 42 hits for the 107th Congress, all under Republican majorities. You'd think Sen. DeMint would remember it: he has been in Congress since 1999. But he's a Congressman, so we should expect selective memory.
Secondly, there is another problem: Sen. DeMint is guilty of omitting the context. Once the context is examined, the purpose of the sentence he rails against is obvious and not nearly so scandalous. Please bear with me.
The subsection that precedes the one quoted by Sen. DeMint is entitled "LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS IN OTHER LEGISLATION" and reads:
It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report (other than pursuant to this section) that would repeal or otherwise change the recommendations of the Board if that change would fail to satisfy the requirements of subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2).
The key is knowing what the referenced subparagraphs say. It turns out that they deal with the cost of Medicare and cost control mechanisms for Medicare. So, then, the purpose of the sentences that made Sen. DeMint cry wolf is to prevent someone, predictably Republicans, from introducing future legislation that would have the effect of gutting the cost control provisions in the health care Senate bill so that they could later go on to say that health care reform has caused Medicare costs to skyrocket. You know Republicans would love nothing more.
That's it. Grounds for calling Sen. Reid a fascist? Hardly. But rascals like Groothuis do not stop short of publishing accusations they have not fact-checked. For them, it is sufficient to preface any accusation with the disclaimer "if this is true" to find cover and solace. After all, the goal is not to seek the truth, just to smear opponents. If they published a newspaper (and unfortunately some of them do) they would slap the accusation on the front page and the retraction at the bottom of page 17.
But this is a classic example of how Republicans operate: they fill the web and the airwaves with ridiculous drivel and utterly contemptible slime, aimed at filling the American people with doubts about the goals of Democrats in Congress, certain that sloppy researchers (or hacks) like Mr. Groothuis will provide these deceptive or false statements with the needed amplification.
Remember the lies the Right invented and collected into a supposed fact-checking document to scare Americans into opposing H.R. 3200 (the House version of the health care reform bill)? I debunked a handful myself before surrendering, vanquished by the sheer volume of Republican deceit and by the futility of combing through the giant pile of shit they had excreted. And now, consider this: a Google search for the phrase "repeal or otherwise" plus "Reid", which is at the core of this artificial controversy, returns--I kid you not--1390 hits in the past 24 hours! The Republican noise machine, their hacks, shills, and operatives, are very adept at producing bullshit out of thin air.
Now, remember what the exercise of this post was: "If what the Curmudgeon says is not true, then he is gullible, a sloppy researcher, or both, and he deserves no trust for what he posts on his blog." It took me two hours to come up with the research for this post. I am sure that Mr. Groothuis, what with his being a college professor (sigh!) and all, must be very a busy man. But I would hope that a Christian college professor would do a bit of due diligence before accusing the Senate majority leader of fascism. Sadly, he does not. Even more sadly, he is an example for the students who pass through Denver Seminary. I should hope, for their sake, that they see the man behind the mask of academic rigor and authority, and that they look for examples elsewhere.
Monday, December 21, 2009
"Obama Kills Old Lady"
OK. Now that I got your attention, I predict that the title of this post is going to be a feature on tomorrow's Hannity or Glenn Beck. That's how they HAVE TO spin this piece of news.
More on the Religious Idiots
It's been a while since I had to call attention to the religious derangement of The Constructive Curmudgeon, but then again--to his credit--it's been a while since he equated the U.S. government and Satan. Alas, that's what he did in his latest post, "What Next?".
Provoked by the Senate's 60-40 vote to move health care reform along, the Curmudgeon writes, in his typical level-headed fashion: "[T]he United States govenment is headed toward a statist takeover of the medical sector of the country. This involves tax payer money going to support abortion." And, he continues, "For the kind of state we are moving toward, read Revelation 13. I am not making an end-time prediction, but pointing out a biblical category: the state as a beast." How sober.
For those who do not know or remember Revelation 13, it is that scary little depiction of the devil incarnate: "[a] beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon." And also: "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six." I quoted a few verses not because they are profound, but to show what drivel and how inane they are, even when taken allegorically and not literally.
In other words, for (some) Christians, trying to reform health care so that everyone has equal opportunity to access health services is a mark of the devil. Anything short of letting the "free" market work its magic for cancer patients with no insurance is wizardry and the work of Satan. Any level of government intervention or regulation to ensure that insurance companies do not loot the United States of America and leave Americans to die is grounds for anathema.
If you thought Dana Carvey's Church Lady was a parody, I give you The Constructive Curmudgeon and religious lunatic fringe.
Provoked by the Senate's 60-40 vote to move health care reform along, the Curmudgeon writes, in his typical level-headed fashion: "[T]he United States govenment is headed toward a statist takeover of the medical sector of the country. This involves tax payer money going to support abortion." And, he continues, "For the kind of state we are moving toward, read Revelation 13. I am not making an end-time prediction, but pointing out a biblical category: the state as a beast." How sober.
For those who do not know or remember Revelation 13, it is that scary little depiction of the devil incarnate: "[a] beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon." And also: "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six." I quoted a few verses not because they are profound, but to show what drivel and how inane they are, even when taken allegorically and not literally.
In other words, for (some) Christians, trying to reform health care so that everyone has equal opportunity to access health services is a mark of the devil. Anything short of letting the "free" market work its magic for cancer patients with no insurance is wizardry and the work of Satan. Any level of government intervention or regulation to ensure that insurance companies do not loot the United States of America and leave Americans to die is grounds for anathema.
If you thought Dana Carvey's Church Lady was a parody, I give you The Constructive Curmudgeon and religious lunatic fringe.
The King of The Senate's Religious Idiots
As the time for a vote on health care reform in the Senate approached, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) invoked divine intervention to stop at least one Democrat from voting. That, he said, was what the American people should pray for. I am not in the camp of those who believe that Sen. Coburn was actually calling for god to strike a Democrat dead before the vote, but even the mere invocation of a deity to, let's say, have a Democrat be stuck in the snow and not making the vote is pretty vile.
Frankly, if I thought that prayer worked, I'd pray for Doc Brown to be real, so he could invent a DeLorean that could take Sen. Byrd back to the time when Sen. Coburn was being conceived and perform an on-the-fly vasectomy on Tom Coburn's father, but that's just me.
In any case, Sen. Coburn's prayer unsurprisingly did not work, which leads me to posit the following possible explanations.
1) It was 1 a.m. Eastern and the god of Republicans was fast asleep.
2) God is not partisan and, as he heard Sen. Coburn plea, he stopped what he was doing and exclaimed "Me, what have I done?"
3) God? What god?
In the face of such religious derangement, one has to wonder when people will realize that electing religious freaks is not good for democracy. Oh, that we did have a religious test for office: if you would bring your petty, anthropomorphic god into the hallowed halls of Democracy, then you cannot enter those halls yourself.
This is not the first time that Tom Coburn or other assorted religious idiots have come up with the idea of praying that health care reform go down in flames. Just a few days ago, Rachel Maddow showed a video where a panel of preachers and politicians, including Senators DeMint and Brownback, both Republicans from the heartland, were praying that God stop health care reform. I admit that I know very little about prayer protocol, but it would seem to me that if your prayer is that god should validate your point of view (in this case the idea that health care reform by Democrats is evil and wrong and must be stopped) your idea of prayer and god is that you, not god, know better and that god should humbly oblige in validating your point.
If I believed in an all-knowing, all-powerful god, my prayer might go something like this: "Oh lord, I pray that in your infinite wisdom you guide your humble servants in the Senate to vote your will. We are ignorant as to what that would be, but you know best. So, Lord, infuse their spirits with the wisdom they need to make the right decision for the lives of the people they represent, according to your divine will. Blah, blah, blah. Amen."
One word of caution. When you watch the video below, you might actually be deceived by Pastor Engle's words and think that his prayer is in fact like the one I described. In reality, the dear pastor and the politicians in attendance were not looking for inspiration (for they had already decided how a good, god-fearing Republican should vote), they were staging a photo/video-op for self validation.
File under religious lunacy.
Frankly, if I thought that prayer worked, I'd pray for Doc Brown to be real, so he could invent a DeLorean that could take Sen. Byrd back to the time when Sen. Coburn was being conceived and perform an on-the-fly vasectomy on Tom Coburn's father, but that's just me.
In any case, Sen. Coburn's prayer unsurprisingly did not work, which leads me to posit the following possible explanations.
1) It was 1 a.m. Eastern and the god of Republicans was fast asleep.
2) God is not partisan and, as he heard Sen. Coburn plea, he stopped what he was doing and exclaimed "Me, what have I done?"
3) God? What god?
In the face of such religious derangement, one has to wonder when people will realize that electing religious freaks is not good for democracy. Oh, that we did have a religious test for office: if you would bring your petty, anthropomorphic god into the hallowed halls of Democracy, then you cannot enter those halls yourself.
This is not the first time that Tom Coburn or other assorted religious idiots have come up with the idea of praying that health care reform go down in flames. Just a few days ago, Rachel Maddow showed a video where a panel of preachers and politicians, including Senators DeMint and Brownback, both Republicans from the heartland, were praying that God stop health care reform. I admit that I know very little about prayer protocol, but it would seem to me that if your prayer is that god should validate your point of view (in this case the idea that health care reform by Democrats is evil and wrong and must be stopped) your idea of prayer and god is that you, not god, know better and that god should humbly oblige in validating your point.
If I believed in an all-knowing, all-powerful god, my prayer might go something like this: "Oh lord, I pray that in your infinite wisdom you guide your humble servants in the Senate to vote your will. We are ignorant as to what that would be, but you know best. So, Lord, infuse their spirits with the wisdom they need to make the right decision for the lives of the people they represent, according to your divine will. Blah, blah, blah. Amen."
One word of caution. When you watch the video below, you might actually be deceived by Pastor Engle's words and think that his prayer is in fact like the one I described. In reality, the dear pastor and the politicians in attendance were not looking for inspiration (for they had already decided how a good, god-fearing Republican should vote), they were staging a photo/video-op for self validation.
File under religious lunacy.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Krugman On The Filibuster
Lately I have not linked to Paul Krugman's op-eds much, mainly because they were about things I did not feel particularly strong about. His latest op-ed, though, is about the filibuster, and that is definitely a subject I have a strong opinion about. Anyway, Krugman makes some good points, including how the use of the filibuster by Republicans since 2007 is at unprecedented levels.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Fire Rahm Emanuel
It is becoming painfully obvious that the White House's main concern is to keep the interests that will finance President Obama's re-election campaign in 2012 happy. It is also becoming increasingly evident that Rahm Emanuel is the architect of the disgusting mess of a health care reform bill that the Senate is regurgitating.
Much has been made of the fact that Lieberman's opposition to Medicare expansion is a reversal of what the senator from Connecticut said just three months ago. Not enough has been made of the fact that Rahm Emanuel penned an op-ed for the Washington Post in November 2007 in which he himself was in favor of expanding Medicare to those 55 to 64. In fact, it is Emanuel who pressured Senate majority leader Harry Reid to cut a deal with Lieberman after the latter threw his despicable egocentric tantrum in opposition to the public option and Medicare expansion, and it is he who has sternly rebuked progressives on several occasions for not toeing the White House line on watered down reform.
Emanuel's focus is on getting the president re-elected, and his strategy for achieving the goal rests on not disturbing the powers that can help the president financially in 2012. That is what led to the White House striking "non-competitive agreements" with PhRMA and with insurance companies. That is why the White House has agreed to expand our nation's commitment in Afghanistan when the right thing to do, both morally and financially, would have been to scale down our involvement in the Middle East, even according to several military experts. That is why the President can go on 60 Minutes and say that he did not get elected to help a bunch of fat-cat bankers, and the next day he is photographed in a room full of--guess who?--fat cat bankers. That is why the White House has done everything it could to bail out the big, crooked financial institutions that all but destroyed our economy while doing little or nothing for those who were/are about to lose their homes to foreclosures. The man pulling the strings behind all of these PR maneuvers aimed at maintaining the semblance of reform while gutting it behind the scenes is Rahm Emanuel.
Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake has a timeline of how out of touch Emanuel is with the country's more progressive instincts.
Perhaps Obama is truly a reformer at heart, in which case his failure to achieve any meaningful reform can be blamed on Emanuel's tazering the President into submission as his best instincts threaten to prevail. In any case, I think that as long as Rahm Emanuel keeps his post as President Obama's Chief of Staff, the latter's credibility as a liberal paladin of the middle class will remain in shambles.
Much has been made of the fact that Lieberman's opposition to Medicare expansion is a reversal of what the senator from Connecticut said just three months ago. Not enough has been made of the fact that Rahm Emanuel penned an op-ed for the Washington Post in November 2007 in which he himself was in favor of expanding Medicare to those 55 to 64. In fact, it is Emanuel who pressured Senate majority leader Harry Reid to cut a deal with Lieberman after the latter threw his despicable egocentric tantrum in opposition to the public option and Medicare expansion, and it is he who has sternly rebuked progressives on several occasions for not toeing the White House line on watered down reform.
Emanuel's focus is on getting the president re-elected, and his strategy for achieving the goal rests on not disturbing the powers that can help the president financially in 2012. That is what led to the White House striking "non-competitive agreements" with PhRMA and with insurance companies. That is why the White House has agreed to expand our nation's commitment in Afghanistan when the right thing to do, both morally and financially, would have been to scale down our involvement in the Middle East, even according to several military experts. That is why the President can go on 60 Minutes and say that he did not get elected to help a bunch of fat-cat bankers, and the next day he is photographed in a room full of--guess who?--fat cat bankers. That is why the White House has done everything it could to bail out the big, crooked financial institutions that all but destroyed our economy while doing little or nothing for those who were/are about to lose their homes to foreclosures. The man pulling the strings behind all of these PR maneuvers aimed at maintaining the semblance of reform while gutting it behind the scenes is Rahm Emanuel.
Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake has a timeline of how out of touch Emanuel is with the country's more progressive instincts.
Perhaps Obama is truly a reformer at heart, in which case his failure to achieve any meaningful reform can be blamed on Emanuel's tazering the President into submission as his best instincts threaten to prevail. In any case, I think that as long as Rahm Emanuel keeps his post as President Obama's Chief of Staff, the latter's credibility as a liberal paladin of the middle class will remain in shambles.
Obama Is Losing (Has Lost?) His Base
Read this excellent summary of all the things President Obama did since he took office that have pissed off the base that helped him get elected. I, for one, belong to the ranks of people who would support a primary challenger to the president's re-election bid (Gov. Dean, you'd have my full support).
Friday, December 18, 2009
Thank Your Media Watchdogs
This is a very interesting take, by Media Matters, on the Franken v. Lieberman incident, in which Sen. Franken, while holding the gavel during Senate speeches, denied Sen. Douche Evilman Lieberman the chance to finish his statement. The incident was highlighted by media all over the political spectrum as an unprecedented incident or as a way for Sen. Franken to rebuke Sen. Lieberman, who has irked many Democrats with his recent anti-health care reform behavior.
Read this, and you might be surprised by what you learn.
Read this, and you might be surprised by what you learn.
A Terse, Convincing Refutation of the "Hitler Was a Darwinist" Meme
Pharyngula had a contest on who could better refute two Creationist claims:
1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?
2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?
The winner has been proclaimed and you can read his answers here.
1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?
2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity?
The winner has been proclaimed and you can read his answers here.
Taibbi, Kuttner Discuss Health Care, Financial Reforms with Bill Moyers
What will Friday nights be without Bill Moyers after he retires from PBS in April? I don't even want to think about it. In the meantime, please enjoy this discussion on topics ranging from health care reform to financial sector regulations. My favorite moment is when Rolling Stone magazine's Matt Taibbi posits that a sound electoral defeat for Democrats in 2010 and 2012 might be a good thing, a learning opportunity, and Robert Kuttner of The American Prospect replies with classic disillusionment "Boy, you are younger than I am!"
Watch the discussion here.
Once you reach the Bill Moyers Journal website, you might want to do yourself a favor and learn about Boston community organizer Steve Meacham and the amazing work of his organization City Life/Vida Urbana. It's hard to be cynical about the human race, but it can truly be a reservoir of goodness, as shown by Meacham and his collaborators.
Watch the discussion here.
Once you reach the Bill Moyers Journal website, you might want to do yourself a favor and learn about Boston community organizer Steve Meacham and the amazing work of his organization City Life/Vida Urbana. It's hard to be cynical about the human race, but it can truly be a reservoir of goodness, as shown by Meacham and his collaborators.
Loopholes and the Shitty Senate Bill
Writing about the supposed prohibition on rescissions (the practice that allows insurance companies to cancel coverage on a customer for a number of less than honest reasons, including simply being sick), the always sharp McJoan at the Daily Kos points out that "[i]t's all going to boil down to how "fraud" and "intentional misrepresentation of material fact" are going to be interpreted in the regs written for this bill. Because insurance companies have been using "fraud" as the means for cutting people off for a long time." Do we really want insurers to define what constitutes fraudulent intent?
Brace yourself, for the bill the Senate is about to pass contains no effective cost control measures, (intentionally?) insufficient consumer protections, and a shitload of new money for insurance companies in the form of an individual mandate, all because too many Americans are too gullible, too conniving, too stupid to know or care, or all the above.
Politicians are not stupid, and the crooks amongst them take advantage of a lazy, uninformed or misinformed public to give back to their wealthy patrons.
More at the Daily Kos.
Brace yourself, for the bill the Senate is about to pass contains no effective cost control measures, (intentionally?) insufficient consumer protections, and a shitload of new money for insurance companies in the form of an individual mandate, all because too many Americans are too gullible, too conniving, too stupid to know or care, or all the above.
Politicians are not stupid, and the crooks amongst them take advantage of a lazy, uninformed or misinformed public to give back to their wealthy patrons.
More at the Daily Kos.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Going Massachusett's Way
Mark Moulitsas at the Daily Kos has an interesting reminder that what the Senate is about to do closely resembles what Massachusetts did a few years ago. Which is not good.
The President as an Innocent Bystander On Health Care Reform
After months and months of closed-door negotiations among themselves, Senate Democrats are about to pass a nauseating health care reform bill that does little or nothing to contain costs and the greed of the insurance companies and their political allies. We are told that the bill is imperfect, but that its opponents should still vote for it because “it will save lives.” That is certainly a worthy goal, but one that can be achieved without pickpocketing the American people's already thinning wallets.
Gov. Dean is right when he says that the reconciliation route must be entertained to outflank health care reform opponents, the thieving and immoral senators, like Joe “Douche Evilman” Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Tom Carper, Kent Conrad, and Mary Landrieu, who are putting their political future and their sponsors' interests ahead of the American people's. Use reconciliation—says Gov. Dean—not as Sen. Landrieu says “to create a new government bureaucracy, but to expand an existing one: Medicare. The Senate had the right idea when it considered letting people 55-65 buy into Medicare. It should go even further: it should let anyone choose to buy into Medicare, regardless of age. As Gov. Dean tried in vain to explain to Sen. Landrieu during yesterday's Hardball with Chris Matthews, the Senate is about to force 300 million Americans (through the insertion of an individual mandate) to buy a product they might not want, or openly despise, and depriving them of real choice by taking a way a government-administered health care option.
There are other ways of reforming health care, of course. Medicare for all or a public option are not the only ways to ensure that people have guaranteed, affordable access to health care. Other countries have shown us the way. You can keep a private insurance-based system in place and provide efficient, reasonably cheap care to your people, but you have to support it with fierce regulation, for example by denying insurance companies the right to make a profit on basic health care services. In other words, they must operate as a non-profit for basic care. Switzerland and, I believe, the Netherlands, already do that. Other countries, like Japan, have decided that the way to go is to set the rates providers can charge patients, thus limiting the profit potential of providers. And yet, there are over 6,000 insurance companies in Japan, so the argument that negotiating rates or setting strict market rules is an insurance company killer is in fact just a meme, advanced by reform opponents here in the U.S.
But what about the argument that any reform that saves lives is worth passing, regardless of its pitiful shortcomings, made by many liberals such as Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein, Josh Marshall, etc, not to mention the White House? That may be true, but that is also precisely why Democrats should go the reconciliation route. Use reconciliation to do what it is supposed to do: save money and achieve budget neutrality. Then come up with an insurance regulation bill, one that bans exclusions for pre-existing conditions, or that prevents insurance companies from charging sick people three or four times the going rate. Prohibit insurance companies from dropping people's coverage at their whim. Mandate a medical loss ratio of at least 85% (preferably less: casinos make tons of money on the slots by keeping 2% of what gamblers bet), meaning that the industry must spend 85 cents of every dollar it takes in. And remove the monopoly exemption that, under the misused McCarran-Ferguson act, allows insurers to act as an organized crime cartel at the expense of American patients. Then, on the pharma front, allow drug re-importation so that Americans, like citizens of other countries, can reap the rewards of government negotiated rates for drugs. The key is competition, and the Senate bill (and, to a lesser degree, the House bill as well) contain no provisions in support of competition. It was not long ago that the President told us health care reform should include some mechanism to keep insurance companies honest. The current bill has none.
Going back to the “saving lives” argument: Use reconciliation to expand Medicare, and let a “regulation” bill take care of saving lives. The advantage is that only 51 votes are needed to pass reconciliation, making the passage of a Medicare for all bill a very achievable goal, without having to worry about reform-killing maneuvers by the likes of the despicable Liebermans, Landrieus, etc. Then let politically suicidal Republicans or Democrats rise in opposition of a life-saving, insurance regulation bill ahead of the mid-term election cycle, and—should they choose to call the all-in bet—enjoy the ensuing carnage.
None of this had to be difficult, had the White House decided to exert its power and influence on fence-sitting, obstructionist Democrats. But that great disappointment of a president we now have has decided to act like an innocent bystander, rather than as the leader we though we had elected in Nov. 2008. On health care reform, as on Afghanistan and on too many other important matters, he has spoken out of both sides of his mouth leading us to doubt his true motives for not offering leadership where leadership was needed.
We can apply to President Obama the same yardstick that Vice-president Biden reminded us we should apply to Sen. Lieberman's opposition of reform: question not the man's motives, but his judgment. By that measure, President Obama does not come out of this legislative effort as the squeaky clean paladin of the American people's best interest he purported to be during the campaign.
Gov. Dean is right when he says that the reconciliation route must be entertained to outflank health care reform opponents, the thieving and immoral senators, like Joe “Douche Evilman” Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Tom Carper, Kent Conrad, and Mary Landrieu, who are putting their political future and their sponsors' interests ahead of the American people's. Use reconciliation—says Gov. Dean—not as Sen. Landrieu says “to create a new government bureaucracy, but to expand an existing one: Medicare. The Senate had the right idea when it considered letting people 55-65 buy into Medicare. It should go even further: it should let anyone choose to buy into Medicare, regardless of age. As Gov. Dean tried in vain to explain to Sen. Landrieu during yesterday's Hardball with Chris Matthews, the Senate is about to force 300 million Americans (through the insertion of an individual mandate) to buy a product they might not want, or openly despise, and depriving them of real choice by taking a way a government-administered health care option.
There are other ways of reforming health care, of course. Medicare for all or a public option are not the only ways to ensure that people have guaranteed, affordable access to health care. Other countries have shown us the way. You can keep a private insurance-based system in place and provide efficient, reasonably cheap care to your people, but you have to support it with fierce regulation, for example by denying insurance companies the right to make a profit on basic health care services. In other words, they must operate as a non-profit for basic care. Switzerland and, I believe, the Netherlands, already do that. Other countries, like Japan, have decided that the way to go is to set the rates providers can charge patients, thus limiting the profit potential of providers. And yet, there are over 6,000 insurance companies in Japan, so the argument that negotiating rates or setting strict market rules is an insurance company killer is in fact just a meme, advanced by reform opponents here in the U.S.
But what about the argument that any reform that saves lives is worth passing, regardless of its pitiful shortcomings, made by many liberals such as Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein, Josh Marshall, etc, not to mention the White House? That may be true, but that is also precisely why Democrats should go the reconciliation route. Use reconciliation to do what it is supposed to do: save money and achieve budget neutrality. Then come up with an insurance regulation bill, one that bans exclusions for pre-existing conditions, or that prevents insurance companies from charging sick people three or four times the going rate. Prohibit insurance companies from dropping people's coverage at their whim. Mandate a medical loss ratio of at least 85% (preferably less: casinos make tons of money on the slots by keeping 2% of what gamblers bet), meaning that the industry must spend 85 cents of every dollar it takes in. And remove the monopoly exemption that, under the misused McCarran-Ferguson act, allows insurers to act as an organized crime cartel at the expense of American patients. Then, on the pharma front, allow drug re-importation so that Americans, like citizens of other countries, can reap the rewards of government negotiated rates for drugs. The key is competition, and the Senate bill (and, to a lesser degree, the House bill as well) contain no provisions in support of competition. It was not long ago that the President told us health care reform should include some mechanism to keep insurance companies honest. The current bill has none.
Going back to the “saving lives” argument: Use reconciliation to expand Medicare, and let a “regulation” bill take care of saving lives. The advantage is that only 51 votes are needed to pass reconciliation, making the passage of a Medicare for all bill a very achievable goal, without having to worry about reform-killing maneuvers by the likes of the despicable Liebermans, Landrieus, etc. Then let politically suicidal Republicans or Democrats rise in opposition of a life-saving, insurance regulation bill ahead of the mid-term election cycle, and—should they choose to call the all-in bet—enjoy the ensuing carnage.
None of this had to be difficult, had the White House decided to exert its power and influence on fence-sitting, obstructionist Democrats. But that great disappointment of a president we now have has decided to act like an innocent bystander, rather than as the leader we though we had elected in Nov. 2008. On health care reform, as on Afghanistan and on too many other important matters, he has spoken out of both sides of his mouth leading us to doubt his true motives for not offering leadership where leadership was needed.
We can apply to President Obama the same yardstick that Vice-president Biden reminded us we should apply to Sen. Lieberman's opposition of reform: question not the man's motives, but his judgment. By that measure, President Obama does not come out of this legislative effort as the squeaky clean paladin of the American people's best interest he purported to be during the campaign.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Tonight's Special Comment by Keith Olbermann Is One for the Ages
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Note: At one point, while Keith is talking about Sen. Nelson (D-NE) a picture of Senate Majority Leader Harry Read is erroneously shown.
Three Excellent Posts on Health Care Reform
You MUST read these three posts which have just appeared on the Daily Kos: 20 Answers, The Cost of Employer-Based Health Care, and Insurance Reform?; they are an excellent reminder of why the Senate Bill is a disaster and why the country needs refom now more than ever.
Glenn Greenwald Tells It Like It Is
President Obama's decision to sit back and let Congress shape health care reform legislation had two rationales:
1) To let Congress take the blame for the likely shortcomings of any health care reform bill to pass; and, most importantly
2) To get exactly the sort of bill that Congress will vomit out after months of kabuki theater.
Ergo, President Obama is not a victim, rather he is a culprit of this shameful result. Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com had the foresight to say so months ago.
1) To let Congress take the blame for the likely shortcomings of any health care reform bill to pass; and, most importantly
2) To get exactly the sort of bill that Congress will vomit out after months of kabuki theater.
Ergo, President Obama is not a victim, rather he is a culprit of this shameful result. Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com had the foresight to say so months ago.
My Letter To The White House
Dear Mr. President:
I am writing to express my disappointment in the health care reform bill that is emerging from the Senate, thanks in part to what the White House did, or did not do.
News agencies have reported that your Chief of Staff has asked Sen. Reid to "cut a deal" with Sen. Lieberman, thus rewarding the latter's obstructionism and blackmail. Had the White House been as determined in enforcing the wishes of its progressive allies as it has been in enforcing those of the "wolves in sheep's clothing" we might have a bill to be proud of.
The White House will no doubt spin whatever reform emerges from Congress as a momentous event in our nation's history. What it is, instead, is a perfect summation of what is wrong in a country that sees no evil in spending billions of dollars on war while refusing to spend a fraction of that money on taking care of its own citizens.
The bill is a huge boon to insurance companies, who will see the ranks of its captive customers grow, while all meaningful cost control measures that could have infringed upon the industry's ability to make money at our expensive have been stripped out of the bill: no single payer, no public option, no Medicare buy-in, no drug reimportation...
It seems that in Washington D.C. no one knows the meaning of shame. Do you?
With great disappointment,
I am writing to express my disappointment in the health care reform bill that is emerging from the Senate, thanks in part to what the White House did, or did not do.
News agencies have reported that your Chief of Staff has asked Sen. Reid to "cut a deal" with Sen. Lieberman, thus rewarding the latter's obstructionism and blackmail. Had the White House been as determined in enforcing the wishes of its progressive allies as it has been in enforcing those of the "wolves in sheep's clothing" we might have a bill to be proud of.
The White House will no doubt spin whatever reform emerges from Congress as a momentous event in our nation's history. What it is, instead, is a perfect summation of what is wrong in a country that sees no evil in spending billions of dollars on war while refusing to spend a fraction of that money on taking care of its own citizens.
The bill is a huge boon to insurance companies, who will see the ranks of its captive customers grow, while all meaningful cost control measures that could have infringed upon the industry's ability to make money at our expensive have been stripped out of the bill: no single payer, no public option, no Medicare buy-in, no drug reimportation...
It seems that in Washington D.C. no one knows the meaning of shame. Do you?
With great disappointment,
Joe-Mentia
Stephen Colbert pours ridicule on the mose despicable person in the Senate (and, trust me, it's a fierce contest).
Karma must have special retaliation for people like Douche Evilman Lieberman, a veritable bullshit geyser.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| For He's a Jowly Good Fellow | ||||
| ||||
Karma must have special retaliation for people like Douche Evilman Lieberman, a veritable bullshit geyser.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Sen. Franken Continues To Make Us Proud
Before winning a seat in the Senate, Sen. Franken was known to most as a comedian. What many don't know is that he is a Harvard graduate, cum laude nonetheless. He is, in sum, a sharp individual, with a prime intellect, and supreme powers of logic, which he used to his advantage against Senator John Thune (R-SD). Watch him call the South Dakota Senator to task.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)