Where's the Outrage?

I’ll have more later but here’s the numbers.  It looks better but…

From NYT:

The rampant pace of job losses slowed in July, an encouraging sign that the labor market is nearing a bottom as the broader economy struggles to recover, the government reported on Friday.

The American economy shed 247,000 jobs last month, the smallest monthly toll since last August. While businesses are expected to keep cutting positions through the rest of the year, the Labor Department’s latest figures offered hopeful signs for the American worker and a measure of relief to the Obama administration, which has faced rising criticism as unemployment blew past its earlier projections.

“The trend lines are positive,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com. “We are going from massive job losses to just big job losses on our way to a stable job market, I think by next spring.”

The length of the workweek increased, albeit slightly, for the first time since August, a sign that businesses were not scaling back hours to cut their payroll costs. The government said fewer jobs were lost this spring than it had initially estimated, revising June’s lob losses to 443,000 from 467,000. (more… )

From EPI:

This recession is continuing to shatter records for long-term unemployment;  with roughly six unemployed workers per job, job seekers are not finding work. In July, the number of workers who have been unemployed for over six months increased by 584,000 to 5 million, so that now 3.2% of the labor force has been unemployed at least six months, far surpassing the record high of 2.6% set in June of 1983. Currently over one-third (33.8%) of this country’s 14.5 million unemployed workers have been unable to find work for over half a year, an all-time high. While the pace of layoffs is slowing, unemployed workers are not finding jobs. (more… )

It should be clear to everyone that this recession is going to take a while to ride out.  Hold on tight!!

Tags: Economy by ecthompson md
No Comments »

On one hand, you might feel as though you have to say something. On the other hand, though, sadly, you know it is futile. It’s like arguing with one of those folks who don’t believe that we landed on the moon or those who believe that we attacked ourselves on 9/11. There is no amount of evidence that will convince them that they are wrong.

I have gone out of my way to stay away from this craziness. This is the way that the conservatives have worked for over 40 years. It’s the Nixon playbook. If you can’t beat them on the facts… throw crap. This distracts the public and whips up the base, which seems to be exactly what they always want to do.

Update: I’m sorry I’m breaking protocol and sticking my update in the middle of post. (I would say sue me, but I think that someone would.)

Now even the conservative WorldNetDaily is backing away from the surprise birth certificate that some birthers are pushing. Here is the birth certificate that is supposed to be Barack Obama’s and it is supposed to be Kenyan. Here is a real birth certificate (part 1 and part 2)from the same time period from Kenya.

From Salon.com:

There are, sadly, a lot of Birthers out there. A recent poll showed that 11 percent of Americans — including 28 percent of Republicans — don’t believe President Obama was born in the U.S. Another 12 percent aren’t sure.

So, at some point, you’re likely to find out that a friend or relative is a Birther. Your Uncle Floyd will forward you a chain e-mail that says Obama was actually born in Kenya and there’s a Kenyan birth certificate that proves it and hundreds of government officials and reporters are in on a conspiracy to hide the truth of his ineligibility for the presidency from the public. And you will wonder: How can I possibly deal with all the falsehoods in this e-mail without disappearing down a rabbit hole?

Well, wonder no more. In the spirit of public service, Salon has compiled this list of the most popular Birther myths, along with all the debunking you could ever ask for. Now you can just  e-mail this list to Uncle Floyd and get on with your life.

Unfortunately, there is some small print involved in this offer. We can’t promise this article will convince Uncle Floyd that Obama was born in the U.S. and is the legitimate president. In fact, we can just about guarantee that it won’t have much effect at all. That’s just the way conspiracy theories work: Believers are unlikely to change their minds, no matter how much evidence you present.

Still, it’s worth a try.

Myth 1: Obama wasn’t born in the U.S.

This is the big one. It may also be the most easily refuted. First of all, during the presidential campaign, Obama released a certification of live birth, which is the official document you get if you ask Hawaii for a copy of your birth certificate. There are allegations that what Obama released is a forgery, but state officials have repeatedly affirmed its authenticity and said they’ve checked it against the original record and that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii.

If that wasn’t enough, two Hawaiian newspapers carried announcements of Obama’s birth in August 1961. (Read the Honolulu Advertiser’s item from Aug. 13, 1961, nine days after Obama’s birth, here.) The traditional joke that Birther debunkers make is that his grandparents must have placed those announcements because they knew that he’d want to run for president nearly five decades later. The truth, though, is that the notices are even stronger pieces of evidence than that. Obama’s family didn’t place them — Hawaii did, as it does for all births. The announcements were based on official records sent to the papers by the state’s Department of Health.

Myth 2: Obama can’t be president because his father was a British citizen

Some of the Birthers — like de facto leader Orly Taitz — believe that Obama wouldn’t be eligible for the presidency even if he were born in the U.S. That’s because, in their infinite wisdom, the Founding Fathers included in the Constitution a fair amount of phrases they never really bothered to define. One of those is this explanation of who can be president: ”No person except a natural born citizen.”

The Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the question of what “natural born citizen” means. So the Birthers have simply settled on their own definition — someone born to two citizen parents — and found a source,”The Law of Nations,” a 1758 book by the Swiss philosopher Emerich de Vattel, to back them up.

There are a couple of problems with this. Most important, Obama isn’t the first president with a non-citizen parent: Chester A. Arthur, the 21st president, was. His father was from Ireland and apparently did not become a U.S. citizen until more than 10 years after the future president’s birth.

Plus, even if the Founding Fathers did rely on Vattel as much as the Birthers say — always a dubious proposition — Swiss philosophy books aren’t legal precedent in the United States. British common law is. And in 1898, in the case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court looked into the meaning of “natural born” in the common law and concluded that a non-citizen’s mere presence in the U.S. is enough to make their child, if born here, a natural-born citizen. [Read more →]

Tags: Obama administration, Party Politics by ecthompson md
5 Comments »

If I’m found with $90,000 in my refrigerator, I will ask my resting police officer to call the media immediately. I will announce from the front steps of my house that I am too stupid to ask for or even need a lawyer or a trial. I just need a judge to tell me how long I’m supposed to be in jail for such rank incompetence. Former Democratic Congressman William Jefferson was found guilty yesterday of corruption (if I submitted a script of his story to Hollywood they would’ve thrown it back at me as being unbelievably stupid).

Watch the video:

From NOLA:

Former Democratic Congressman William Jeffersonwas found guilty of 11 of 16 corruption charges today by a federal jury.

The jury of eight women and four men returned a guilty verdict following five days of deliberation.

In the 16-count indictment, Jefferson was charged with soliciting bribes and other crimes for a series of schemes in which he helped American businesses broker deals in West African in exchange for payments or financial considerations to companies controlled by members of his family, including his brother Mose, his wife, Andrea, their five daughters and a son-in-law.

Jefferson, 62, who represented the New Orleans-based 2nd Congressional District for nine terms, will now face sentencing by Judge T.S. Ellis III, who earlier meted out stiff sentences for lesser figures in the case. According to the U.S. attorney’s office, Jefferson faced 235 years in prison if convicted on all counts, and will still face substantial prison time. (more… )

Tags: Congress, House of Representatives by ecthompson md
No Comments »

C-SPAN can be an awful thing. Now with the Daily Show, blogs and the like is really hard for a congressman to stand up and say something really stupid without somebody knowing. Senator Charles Grassley stood up and just made a complete fool (no that’s not it) moron (nope) ass (no that’s not it either) — you decide. How would you describe Charles Grassley’s performance besides laughable.

Tags: Senate by ecthompson md
No Comments »

I think it is probably okay for me to say Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor was as qualified as any Supreme Court nominee in recent history. Congratulations to her and her family!! She will be great.

Republicans were going to oppose anyone that Barack Obama had chosen. Their goal is to obstruct, obfuscate and delay. They could not delay or obstruct this nomination although they tried. Instead, the Republicans think they have changed the rules of the game. Now, they believe that no Supreme Court nominee can be empathetic. In my opinion, the Republicans painted themselves into a corner. I think it will cost them at the ballot box for years to come. They painted Sotomayor as dumb, stupid, a racist and a feminist. Minorities and women will not reward them for smearing her. In the end, it really doesn’t matter what she said outside the courtroom as long as her opinions and rulings were solid. They were solid. There is no doubt that they were. This is why the Republicans attacked her on her public statements.

Watch the video:

What’s next? This is one of the things that I’m concerning myself with at this time. Who is Barack Obama’s next choice to sit on the Supreme Court? I think that there is a lot to consider. Most importantly, unfortunately you have to take this into consideration, what will the Senate look like. If the choice is between now and the midterm elections, I would suspect that Barack Obama would pick someone who is a strong moderate. Again, I think you would pick someone who is relatively low profile. If the Democrats pick up a few more seats in 2010, I would look for Barack Obama to choose someone who is more liberal than Sonia Sotomayor. This would make things very interesting.

Here are a few names to keep in mind Elena Kagan, first woman to serve as solicitor general and was the Dean of Harvard Law school, Harold Koh, Dean of Yale Law school, Leah Ward Sears, Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court. I look for Obama to lean more towards women. Women are clearly underrepresented on the Court.

There are a few other names that are floating around which would include Janet Napolitano, former governor of Arizona and now Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and Governor Jennifer Granholm, Governor of Michigan. Although both of these women would be great I think they would have a hard time confirmation. The process has become so politicized and politicians are filmed constantly. I’m sure there’s some footage of each one of these women saying things that will inflame and incite conservatives. There’s no reason to go down that road.

Tags: Legal, Supreme court by ecthompson md
No Comments »

I’m sure that there are some free-market dudes out there who are all red in the face and I’m sorry. This isn’t about having a free market which has never worked for consumers. Instead this is about stimulus, about injecting some life into the auto industry and about cleaning up the environment. ”Cash for Clunkers” has worked. Republicans are pissed.

Watch the video:

I’m very happy to see some thoughtful analysis from the Economic Policy Institute. They seem to agree that this program has worked well.

From EPI:

The “Car Allowance Rebate System” (CARS) — better known as “cash for clunkers” — offers $3,500 to $4,500 to households that trade in an old car for a newer one with higher fuel economy. CARS has proven to be very popular, and the $1 billion originally slated for credits appears to have been all but exhausted less than a week after the program went into effect. By encouraging Americans to upgrade older, less fuel efficient cars, the CARS program is generating much-needed sales for troubled automobile manufacturers and related industries while decreasing gasoline consumption and improving environmental outcomes.

Reduced gas consumption means less dependence on foreign oil, and more money in the pockets of consumers that could be used for domestic consumption. According to the Department of Transportation, the average fuel efficiency of old cars traded in via the program is 15.8 miles per gallon, while new cars had an average MPG of 25.4. These fuel economy improvements will save an estimated $821 per traded vehicle annually.

On average, total gas consumption will drop by 87 million gallons per year, and American consumers will use 22.2 million fewer barrels of foreign crude oil. The environmental impact of reduced gas consumption is considerable as well. We estimate that the program will result in about 850,000 fewer tons of CO2 emissions per year (3.4 tons per vehicle annually). This reduction equals more than two-thirds of the annual CO2 emissions linked to household electricity, heating, and waste.

CARS is a success — the rare program that boosts U.S. manufacturing while simultaneously improving environmental quality. Congress should increase funding and extend the program. (more… )

Tags: Economy by ecthompson md
10 Comments »

Jeremy Scahill of The Nation has been on the Blackwater story for the last three or four years and has written the definitive work on Blackwater. He is currently breaking the story which suggests that Blackwater chief, Erik Prince, was responsible for smuggling weapons into Iraq. This is illegal. Weapons smuggling was also discussed in his book. Now, the allegation of murder has raised its ugly head.

Watch the video:

From the Nation:

The former employee, identified in the court documents as “John Doe #2,” is a former member of Blackwater’s management team, according to a source close to the case. Doe #2 alleges in a sworn declaration that, based on information provided to him by former colleagues, “it appears that Mr. Prince and his employees murdered, or had murdered, one or more persons who have provided information, or who were planning to provide information, to the federal authorities about the ongoing criminal conduct.” John Doe #2 says he worked at Blackwater for four years; his identity is concealed in the sworn declaration because he “fear[s] violence against me in retaliation for submitting this Declaration.” He also alleges, “On several occasions after my departure from Mr. Prince’s employ, Mr. Prince’s management has personally threatened me with death and violence.”

In a separate sworn statement, the former US marine who worked for Blackwater in Iraq alleges that he has “learned from my Blackwater colleagues and former colleagues that one or more persons who have provided information, or who were planning to provide information about Erik Prince and Blackwater have been killed in suspicious circumstances.” Identified as “John Doe #1,” he says he “joined Blackwater and deployed to Iraq to guard State Department and other American government personnel.” It is not clear if Doe #1 is still working with the company as he states he is “scheduled to deploy in the immediate future to Iraq.” Like Doe #2, he states that he fears “violence” against him for “submitting this Declaration.” No further details on the alleged murder(s) are provided.

“Mr. Prince feared, and continues to fear, that the federal authorities will detect and prosecute his various criminal deeds,” states Doe #2. “On more than one occasion, Mr. Prince and his top managers gave orders to destroy emails and other documents. Many incriminating videotapes, documents and emails have been shredded and destroyed.”  (more… )

Tags: Mess O'Potamia (Iraq/Iran/Israel/Palestine), Military by ecthompson md
3 Comments »

I saw this on TP over the weekend. For some reason I thought it wouldn’t be this bad. Conservatives have unleashed the dogs of their party. They have lived up to their reputation. This isn’t what America is about. We aren’t about shouting down someone we don’t agree with. WE are about discussion. Civil debate is what we are about, isn’t it?

From TP:

This morning, Politico reported that Democratic members of Congress are increasingly being harassed by “angry, sign-carrying mobs and disruptive behavior” at local town halls. For example, in one incident, right-wing protesters surrounded Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) and forced police officers to have to escort him to his car for safety.

This growing phenomenon is often marked by violence and absurdity. Recently, right-wing demonstrators hung Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) in effigy outside of his office. Missing from the reporting of these stories is the fact that much of these protests are coordinated by public relations firms and lobbyists who have a stake in opposing President Obama’s reforms.

The lobbyist-run groups Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, which orchestrated the anti-Obama tea parties earlier this year, are now pursuing anaggressive strategy to create an image of mass public opposition to health care and clean energy reform. A leaked memo from Bob MacGuffie, a volunteer with the FreedomWorks website Tea Party Patriots, details how members should be infiltrating town halls and harassing Democratic members of Congress:

– Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: “Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up. The Rep should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington.”

– Be Disruptive Early And Often: “You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”

– Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate: “The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions.”

The memo above also resembles the talking points being distributed by FreedomWorks for pushing an anti-health reform assault all summer. Patients United, a front group maintained by Americans for Prosperity, is currently busing people all over the countryfor more protests against Democratic members. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), chairman of the NRCC, has endorsed the strategy, telling the Politico the days of civil town halls are now “over.”

Tags: Healthcare, Party Politics by ecthompson md
6 Comments »

North Korea is a huge problem. With a leader who has proven that he will do any thing at any time, it is hard to figure out exactly what North Korea wants. Former President Bill Clinton and Former Vice President Al Gore were deeply involved in getting these two journalists released. I’m happy for them and their families. Congrats to everyone for bringing these Americans home safely.

From the LAT:

Reporting from Washington and Seoul — Bill Clinton is returning from North Korea after securing the release of two American TV journalists, according to a spokesman for the former president.

“President Clinton has safely left North Korea with Laura Ling and Euna Lee,” Matt McKenna said in a statement. “They are en route to Los Angeles where Laura and Euna will be reunited with their families.”

News agencies quoted the North’s state media saying the journalists were granted a “special pardon” after Clinton negotiated their release with officials in Pyongyang during a surprise visit.

Laura Ling and Euna Lee had been sentenced to 12 years in prison for illegally entering the secretive nation this year.  (more… )

Tags: North Korea, Obama administration by ecthompson md
No Comments »

Thanks for stopping by C&L readers.

I posted a little something on my Facebook page which stated if we went with single-payer would you save anywhere between $3 – 4 trillion over 10 years. Some of my friends began to seize when they saw that number. So I thought that I would take some time to explain where that number came from and answer some of other questions.

Are you dreaming?

Although it is nice to dream, I don’t think I’ve ever dreamed about healthcare or healthcare reform. As a matter of fact, I’m really not looking forward to dreaming about healthcare. I like dreaming about Tyra Banks, Cindy Crawford and/or Stacy Williams. On the serious side, in 2007, we spent $2.2 trillion on health care. This averages out to be about $7200 per American. If we go to a single-payer system (government payer system) this would eliminate a price when $700 billion which currently goes to health insurance overhead and administration. We can use half of the $700 billion to cover the 46 million Americans who are currently without health care. This leaves approximately $350 billion left over. Now, it is true that the folks in Washington seem to be able to find things to do with money that is left over. That’s not the point. The point is we would end up with $350 billion. Multiply that by 10 years and you get $3.5 trillion. That’s a lot of savings.

Healthcare reform is about control?

While I will grant the critics of the America’s affordable health choices act of 2009 that there is a lot of garbage in this bill, I’m not sure that you can make the leap that healthcare reform is about control. Currently we spend of roughly 16% of our gross domestic product on health care. We’ve seen healthcare expenditures skyrocketed over the last 10-20 years. There are estimates, that are legitimate, that suggests that by the year 2025, at our current rate, would spend approximately 25% of our gross domestic product on health care. There’s no way that this is acceptable.

I’m not sure how anyone could leap to the conclusion that this is about control since you will be able to keep your same hospital and your same physician. Maybe, it is about controlling health care costs. If one of the goals of healthcare reform is to control costs and the simplest way is going with single-payer which frees up $700 billion. If, on the other hand, you want to jerryrig the current system then you need to put more money in the system in order to cover the 46 million Americans who are currently not covered.  How much money will be needed?  46 million x $7200 = $330 billion.  For those folks that don’t want single payer they will need to figure out how to raise over $300 billion per year.

Where does the number 46 million come from? How many economic refugees (illegal aliens) are in the 46 million who don’t have insurance?

The US Census Bureau published a document in August 2008 called Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007. According to this document, 45.7 million Americans do not have health insurance in 2007. (Page 19) According to the same document 9.7 million economic refugees do not have health insurance. (Table on page 22)

Update: I thought of a few more questions that I have been asked over the last several months.

Should we all invest in a hospice?

Many conservatives are trying to get seniors worked into a lather. They claim that there is provision in the bill America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 which basically kills off seniors. The ridiculousness of this claim cannot be understated. In section 1233 (page 424), the bill talks about an advance care planning consultation. The bill provides funds for Americans to sit down with a health professional and talk about end-of-life issues. It isn’t mandatory. It doesn’t stop your healthcare, nor does it tell doctors never to treat you again. As a physician, I think that Americans need to talk with their spouses and their primary care physicians about end-of-life issues. We don’t do this enough in this country. I see way too many trauma patients who have told their spouses or partners nothing about their end-of-life wishes. So, if you want to invest in a hospice, do as you wish with your money. I don’t foresee any signifiicant uptick in the death rate if this legislation passes.

Isn’t this the same thing that they have in England? Isn’t this socialized medicine?

Yesterday afternoon, I was a guest on health care forum on a local radio show called Take A Stand. I was representing both healthcare and a progressive point of view. A caller related a very long story in which a friend of his had to wait a couple months for a particular procedure. During this long time period, this friend remained in the hospital. Isn’t that the same type of medicine that we’re bringing here? No! In England, they have a socialized medicine system. The doctors, the nurses, all of the healthcare professionals are employees of the state. With a single-payer system, the government pays the bills and we pay the bills. The hospitals remain privately owned. Doctors continue to be in solo or group practices as they see fit.  Nurses would continue to be employed by the hospital or doctor or nursing home.

Many politicians have pointed out the fact that we spend twice as much on health care as other industrial countries. Some have pointed to this as a bad thing. I don’t know whether it is good or bad, but I can tell you that some of the differences in expenditures are because we, Americans, expect a certain type of service. We don’t expect to be waiting in the hospital for procedures. We expect to have access to whatever tests we need, in a timely fashion. That will not change under a single-payer system. As a matter fact, the speed may actually increase with a single-payer system because you don’t have to wait for your procedure to be certified by your insurance company.

A variation on the same theme is that a single-payer system (government payer) will turn hospitals all across the country into VAs. I’m sorry, I don’t follow this line of reasoning. A hospital that was run for profit yesterday would still be for profit under a single-payer system. If the hospital was efficient before single-payer, why would it be less efficient after the implementation of a single-payer system in which the hospitals billing apparatus could be streamlined because the hospital only has to bill the government? Hospitals wouldn’t have to bill 15 or 20 different insurance companies. Finally, I would say that the VA was designed to take care of relatively elderly men. Therefore, the VA is very good at taking care of heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, prostate cancer and colon cancer. The VA has had a hard time taking care of patients who are young, who are female or who have something out of the norm, because it wasn’t designed to take care of these patients.

Tags: Healthcare by ecthompson md
20 Comments »

It seems to me that we can easily chart the decline of the evening news from the moment Walter Cronkite stepped down back in the early 1980s. Now, we get 10 minutes of “news”, 10 minutes of commercials and 10 minutes of goofy stuff — sports, entertainment news, what have you. Rarely do I see an interview with a real, honest to God, expert. Instead, we get interviews with commentators. We don’t ever get a clearer idea of what the issue is that instead we get a picture from the left and a picture from a right, like every issue only has two sides. It is completely ridiculous.

Last week, we learned that there was some deal made between General Electric, the parent company of MSNBC, and News Corp., the parent company of Fox News. Basically, a muzzle has been placed over the news anchors and commentators. Glenn Greenwald has much more to say on this:

I want to return to the subject of GE’s silencing of Keith Olbermann both because there are new facts I’ve obtained that shed light on what happened here and because this is one of the most blatant examples yet of pernicious corporate control over America’s journalism.  The most striking aspect of this episode is that GE isn’t even bothering any longer to deny the fact that they exert control over MSNBC’s journalism.  They’ve brazenly dispensed with the long-held fiction of the sanctity of journalistic independence from interference by the corporate parents that own America’s largest news organizations.

Instead, GE is now openly and proudly boasting of their editorial control over the news organizations they own, and publicly rubbing it in the faces of NBC News journalists that they’re subservient to GE’s corporate agenda.  Look at this smug, creepy quote from GE executive spokesman Gary Sheffer explaining in The New York Times why GE issued its gag order preventing Olbermann from criticizing Fox and O’Reilly, all but mocking NBC and MSNBC journalists as nothing more than GE’s office of corporate spokespeople:

“We all recognize that a certain level of civility needed to be introduced into the public discussion,” Gary Sheffer, a spokesman for G.E., said this week. “We’re happy that has happened.”

Why is GE even speaking for MSNBC’s editorial decisions at all?  Needless to say, GE doesn’t care in the slightest about “civility” in general.  Mika Brzezinski can spout that people who dislike Sarah Palin aren’t ”real Americans” and Chris Matthews can say about George Bush that “everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs,” and GE executives won’t (and didn’t) bat an eye.  What they mean by “civility” is:  ”thou shalt not criticize anyone who can harm GE’s business interests or who will report on our actions.”  Thus:  GE’s journalists will stop reporting critically on Fox and its top assets because Fox can expose actions of GE that we want to keep concealed.

Does anyone need it explained to them why it is so dangerous and destructive to have our political debates controlled by GE executives, sitting in their offices censoring the journalism of our leading media outlets in the name of “civility,” code for:  you will respect those who can harm us?  Our entire political culture is already designed to ensure corporate control of our political institutions.  Their lobbyists literally write the laws enacted by Congress and control their implementation.  The reason the journalism industry insisted for so long on the ludicrous fiction that corporate parents never violated the sanctity of journalistic independence is precisely because everyone understood why that would be so dangerous.  Apparently, they no longer feel a need to maintain that fiction. (more…)

Keith Olbermann has posted this at DK:

Primarily, there is no “deal” between MSNBC and Fox over what we can and cannot cover. This is part of a continuing strategy of blackmail by Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes, that reaches back to 2004, and has as its goal the cancellation of “Countdown.” This stuff has ebbed and flowed for five years, it’s part of my daily job to push it back with whichever strategy I think will best work at a given moment. For the last two months I’ve been employing “News Jujitsu.” If you watch tonight and catch the references to Fox and its rogues gallery you will know that the most recent tack has worked, but the fight is endless and there will be reversals in the future, I’m sure.

Ailes himself is tonight quoted as saying he tried to ‘broker peace’ by restraining his hosts. This is the same Ailes who insisted he would never interfere with what Bill O’Reilly said on the air. Even naked hypocrisy is not too much if Fox can make itself seem victimized, or can muzzle dissent.

But there is no “deal.” I would never consent, and, fortunately, MSNBC and NBC News would never ask me to. (more… )

This is of course great news but it makes me look at the NY Times and ask – What are y’all doing over there?  Are you just making stuff up?  Olbermann mentioned on his show that you (NYT) called him twice and he said that he wasn’t a party to any deal, twice.  Who were your sources for this story?

Tags: Media by ecthompson md
No Comments »

Congressman Peter King is very troubling. I wonder if the folks in his district are as embarrassed by him as I am.

From TP:

Republicans have worked hard to stall and kill health care reform while not trying to appear callous to the health care needs of Americans. This strategy was outlined by GOP consultant Alex Castellanos in a well-publicized memo. But earlier today, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) failed to stick to the talking points. On MSNBC, King declared most Americans don’t view reform as “a major issue”:

KING: This is not a major issue among the American people. I think the last poll showed 14 percent see health care reform as being a major issue. …I think this is a metaphor of the president having gone too far, too fast, and really not living up to his campaign promises of governing from the center. But we have to avoid acting as if we won this battle. Right now the voters are turning somewhat against Barack Obama. It doesn’t mean they are coming toward us. We have to play this, I believe, very effectively but not be going for the kill.”

Check out the vid:

King was referring to a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released last week that showed health care is the third highest priority for the public, behind job creation (38 percent) and the deficit (17 percent). But as HuffPost’s Sam Stein notes, “Being the third highest ‘top priority’ is hardly synonymous with being a minor issue.” When NBC/WSJ tallied the respondent’s first and second priorities, “health care shot up to a tie for second place, at 32 percent.” In addition, Time Magazine and Gallup found that more than 70 percent of the public wants health care reform.

Tags: Healthcare, Party Politics by ecthompson md
1 Comment »

I will be on Take a Stand today at 3 pm EST. This will be a panel and we’ll discuss healthcare with Matt.

I like what Political Animal wrote on the healthcare debate yesterday:

Newsweek‘s Jonathan Alter writes that when it comes to our health care system, “everything is just fine the way it is.” He added, “I’ve got health insurance and I don’t give a damn about the 47 million suckers who don’t.”

Fortunately, Alter was not only kidding, he was also offering a striking takedown of those who are fighting to kill reform.

I had cancer a few years ago. I like the fact that if I lose my job, I won’t be able to get any insurance because of my illness. It reminds me of my homeowners’ insurance, which gets canceled after a break-in. I like the choice I’d face if, God forbid, the cancer recurs — sell my house to pay for the hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatment, or die. That’s what you call a “post-existing condition.”

I like the absence of catastrophic insurance today. It meant that my health-insurance plan (one of the better ones, by the way) only covered about 75 percent of the cost of my cutting-edge treatment. That’s as it should be — face cancer and shell out huge amounts of money at the same time. Nice.

I like the “lifetime limits” that many policies have today. Missed the fine print on that one, did you? It means that after you exceed a certain amount of reimbursement, you don’t get anything more from the insurance company. That’s fair.

Speaking of fair, it seems fair to me that cost-cutting bureaucrats at the insurance companies — not doctors — decide what’s reimbursable. After all, the insurance companies know best.

Yes, the insurance company status quo rocks. I learned recently about something called the “loading fees” of insurance companies. That’s how much of every health-care dollar gets spent by insurance companies on things other than the medical care — paperwork, marketing, profits, etc. According to a University of Minnesota study, up to 47 percent of all the money going into the health-insurance system is consumed in “loading fees.” Even good insurance companies spend close to 30 percent on nonmedical stuff. Sweet.

Reading Alter’s piece reminded me a lot of President Obama’s revised pitch this week, framing reform in more of a consumer-driven context. The White House, shifting to address the concerns of those who already have insurance, started talking more about how reform would prevent coverage denials based on pre-existing conditions, impose caps on charges for out-of-pocket expenses on private insurers, prohibit dropping coverage for those who get serious illnesses, and bar annual and lifetime caps on coverage. (more… )

Tags: Healthcare, Obama administration, Party Politics by ecthompson md
6 Comments »

Welcome to the Wayback Machine. I couldn’t even remember the name of this group.

Artist: The Weather Girls
Tune: It’s Raining Men

Tags: Music by ecthompson md
2 Comments »

My special guests – Brian Katulis from the Center for American Progress, Middle East expert and Rick Newman, Senior Business Correspondent for US News and World Report.

I start the show by discussing healthcare. Since the discussion in Washington has become so confusing, I start at the beginning. I play a clip from Barack Obama’s news conference in which he lays out the facts of what happens if we keep the status quo. I think it is clear that the status quo will more than double our health care over the next 10 years. We know the statistics about bankruptcies and the crushing burden of healthcare on small businesses.

We need to do something different. The question is what? In my mind, in order to organize this process, I think it is important to lay out the goals. The goals that I have laid out for healthcare reform our portability, efficiency and cost effective. Many of the proposals that are currently floating around Washington are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The goals that I’ve outlined, in my opinion, are the minimum qualifications for healthcare reform.

Let’s simply look at the numbers. In 2007, we spent $2.2 trillion on health care. This averages out to approximate $7400 per American. Approximately $700 billion was spent on health insurance overhead. If the government takes the $700 billion and spends it on covering the 46 million Americans, we can do this and have money left over. We don’t need to inject any more money into the system. I then mention several ways that we can control costs. Finally, I discussed a few elephants in the room — immigration reform, which I think is intimately associated with health care reform and tort reform. One of the things that I didn’t mention, because of time, was that we should also look at Medicare and Medicaid fraud. How can we reduce the cheating in the system?

I chat with my special guest Brian Katulis, fellow at the Center for American Progress, Middle East expert. We begin the conversation by talking about Pakistan and what’s going on in Pakistan. We talk about this huge refugee crisis that has been caused by the military offensive against the Taliban. We also talk about the internal politics of Iraq and Iran. I appreciate Brian’s knowledge and his time.

I then talk to Rick Newman, Senior business correspondent for U.S. News & World Report. Malls. Rick has a series of columns on the health of our economy by looking at the health of several malls. Currently, malls are dying all across the United States. We talk about how we’ve got way too many retail stores and many of these malls are not going to survive this recession. We also discuss another one of his columns which focuses on several industries that are still don’t have a tough time even after the recession is over. This is a great discussion. I appreciate Rick’s insight into these topics.

This is a fun and informative show. Enjoy!

The Errington Thompson Show 7-25-09 [ 54:20 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Tags: Economy, Healthcare, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Podcasts by ecthompson md
No Comments »

I don’t pretend to know what the editors are thinking over there at the Times.  Recently, the New York Post has shown more journalist excellence.

From Scott Horton:

The dog days of the news season are just about to arrive, but the editors at the nation’s newspaper of record already seem to have gone on vacation. This morning’s issue leads with Michael Gordon breathlessly recounting a real scoop: a sensitive memo by a senior military advisor to the Baghdad command who advocates an immediate pull-out of U.S. forces from Iraq. Just one problem—which the Times later had to adjust their account to reflect—the memo was nothing more than the private thoughts of a blogger, Col. Timothy R. Reese, which had already been posted to the rightwing TownHall website, where he is a regular contributor. Although it was pulled from the TownHall site, it was reposted at several other sites, including the invaluable Washington Independent. Reese’s analysis is pretty interesting; it reflects far more serious thought than his recent tirade against healthcare reform, for instance. I agree that the memo is worth a mention and some discussion. What I don’t understand is the editorial judgment underlying making a rightwing blog post the lead news story of the day. Perhaps this should be balanced by giving tomorrow’s lead to a post at the Daily Kos…

Turning the page we find the Times punk’d yet a second time, in the more conventional way. Karl Rove, violating his agreement with the House Judiciary Committee (which I discussed here), gave “exclusive” interviews to the Times and the Washington Post, in a determined effort to spin the bad news about his role in the firing of the U.S. attorneys and his unseen hand in the work of the Justice Department generally. The Post’s piece, by Carrie Johnson, shows an appropriate level of balance and skepticism about Rove’s self-serving and highly misleading claims. Not so the Times. Indeed, the headline tells the whole story: “Rove Says His Role in Prosecutor Firings Was Small.” The problem, of course, is that the evidence the Judiciary Committee has collected, and the investigation by special prosecutor Nora Dannehy, show precisely the opposite. They put Karl Rove squarely in the center of the effort to remove the U.S. attorneys fired in the December 7, 2006 massacre, and they show that the firings were motivated by improper partisan political considerations. Rove was positioned as the enforcer of Republican Party discipline—ensuring that U.S. attorneys implement the party’s electoral program, including voter intimidation and suppression, or be forced to walk the plank.

I furnish some insights into the twin investigations and where they’re headed in “Will She or Won’t She?,”(sub. req’d) a piece appearing tomorrow in the August American Lawyer. Bottom line: the special prosecutor is studying possible indictments, recognizes that she is in essentially uncharted territory, and is still some distance short of a final decision to seek them. Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove, and New Mexico politicians Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson are names that figure prominently in the probe.

Tags: Media, US Attorneys by ecthompson md
3 Comments »