Entries Tagged as ''

This Senate compromise is beginning to smell

doctor patient 2The more I read on this compromise, the less I like it. It is like that stuff I used to get at the fair – cotton candy. It looks interesting. It tastes nice, but in the end it is mostly nothing but air.

From FDL:

I contacted Dr. Ida Hellander, Executive Director of Physicians for a National Health Program, to get her feedback on whether or not PNHP thought lowering the Medicare age to 55 was a good idea. I respect Ida and the PNHP folks a lot, and wanted to see what they thought.

Here is the PNHP Statement:

Lowering the eligibility age for Medicare to 55 only works if it is mandatory. Otherwise it becomes the place where all the sickest patients get dumped. That might be okay for the sick people since Medicare is often better and more secure than private coverage, but it would drive total health care costs (and premiums) up, not down.

I know Anthony Weiner is saying that lowering the eligibility “would perhaps get us on the path to a single payer model.” That would be the same Anthony Weiner who pulled his single payer amendment when asked by Leadership to do so, while Bart Stupak got waived through.

We don’t know what the restrictions on access to Medicare will be, so I question why anyone is out there promoting a pig in a poke.

Senator Hatch – If only R’s ran things

I might be wrong, but didn’t the Republicans run things for a few years there? We got tax cuts for the rich, which didn’t pay for themselves and only made the rich, richer. We got two wars, which were not paid for. We got the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression. Yet Senator Hatch is pining for the good old days. Not a chance.

From TP:

Last night, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) delivered an hour-long speech on the Senate floor condemning the Democratic health care reform bill and accusing Democrats of displaying “the arrogance of power” in trying to pass health reform before the holiday recess. Hatch predicted that if Republicans had 60 votes and control of all three branches of government, they would “get this country under control”:

This will become one more example of the arrogance of power being exerted since the Democrats secured a 60-vote majority in the United States Senate and took over the House and the White House. I dream some day of having the Republicans have 60 votes. I’ll tell you one thing, I think we would finally have the total responsibility to get this country under control and I believe we would. But we never come close to that. There are essentially no checks and balances found in Washington today just an arrogance of power with one party ramming through unpopular and devastating proposals on after the other.

This is a very short clip and not much of what he says is true. He is PO’ed that he is on the outside looking in. I think that we should all cry a river for the poor Senator.

Senate Democrats cause me to reach for my Pepto Bismol

This could be so simple. We can provide a safety net for all Americans. Medicare for all. Unfortunately, life isn’t simple. Whenever you get 50 or more folks together with newspaper reporters and cameras and people’s jobs at stake, it isn’t that simple. So we’ve been playing around with the public option. Remember, the public option is a watered-down version of what most progressives want, a single-payer program like Medicare for everybody. The public option seems to be too liberal, too expensive… too something for some Democrats. So tonight a compromise has been reached.

Older Americans between the ages of 55-64 can buy into Medicare. Details of this buy-in remain somewhat sketchy. The buy-in seems to start in 2011. This will be available to everybody within the age restrictions who are also under 150% of the poverty line. Also, there appears to be an extension of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. This plan will be allowed to enter the exchange if insurance companies don’t create a nonprofit insurance plan for it. Remember that the exchange does not start until 2014.

These new proposals will send the Congressional Budget Office back to the drawing board. They need to come up with cost estimates before the Senate is able to proceed.

I’m sorry, but this just looks like garbage to me. Let’s tweak this and let’s hope that that somehow we get decent health insurance coverage for everyone. It’s not going to work. The whole thing is too piecemeal and too complicated. Medicare for all… what is so hard about that?

Update:

McJoan adds -

The NY Times Prescription blog has some more details:

But Democratic aides said that the group had tentatively agreed on a proposal that would replace a government-run health care plan with a menu of new national, privately-run insurance plans modeled after the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, which covers more than eight million federal workers, including members of Congress, and their dependents.

A government-run plan would be retained as a fall-back option, the aides said, and would be triggered only if the new proposal failed to meet targets for providing affordable insurance coverage to a specified number of people.

The agreement would also allow Americans between age 55 and 64 to buy coverage through Medicare, beginning in 2011.

Great, the compromise for a strong public option is even more private plans. That triggered, maybe public option could be the public option Reid said was still in there. If it’s an extremely robust public option, and the trigger is set at a level that could really be triggered, well, it’s silly to speculate on that because the ConservaDems would never have agreed to that.

A Senate leadership aide tells me that “there is a public option in the compromise,” but won’t be able to provide more details until it is scored by the CBO.

Healthcare is only for those with money

Limbaugh is good at attracting attention.

From C&L:

Check out how William Shatner questions the head of the GOP about what he thinks about you and health care.

Shatner: If you have money, you’re going to get health care. If you don’t have money, it’s more difficult.

Limbaugh: If you have money you’re going to get a house on the beach. If you don’t have money you’re going to live in a bungalow somewhere — that’s — that’s…

Shatner: Right, but we’re talking about health care.

Limbaugh: What’s the difference?

Shatner: The difference is we’re talking about health care.

Limbaugh: No…

Shatner: Not a house or a bungalow.

Limbaugh: You’re assuming that there’s some morally superior aspect to health care than there is to a house or a bungalow.

Shatner: No, not moral at all. I want to keep the subject for the moment on health care.

In RushBo’s world, houses on the beach are old school, man. Why don’t you have one already? If you got no cash — too bad. Rush makes Alan Grayson’s point for him. Don’t get sick. You’ve got to be a rich conservative to make it in America. Or so Limbaugh says.

Is Sarah Palin simply stupid? Updated

Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks believes that Sarah Palin is the box of rocks kind of stupid. I don’t think she’s stupid. I think she looks for sound bites or talking points instead of answering simple questions. Maybe that is stupid.

From HuffPo:

But remarkably, they didn’t slink away embarrassed after this answer, so we have the latest example of her buffoonery. In this interview with Bill O’Reilly, he asks her if she is smart enough to be president. Her answer has to be seen to be believed. Don’t get me wrong, just because you see it won’t mean you’ll understand it. So, I put a transcript of her answer below so that you can try to decipher it in your spare time.

Bill O’Reilly: Let me be very bold and fresh again, do you believe that you are smart enough, incisive enough, intellectual enough to handle the most powerful job in the world?

Sarah Palin: I believe that I am because I have common sense and I have I believe the values that I think are reflective of so many other American values, and I believe that what Americans are seeking is not the elitism, the uhm, the ah, a kind of spineless, spinelessness that perhaps is made up for that with some kind of elite, Ivy league education and, and a fat resume that is based on anything but hard work and private sector, free enterprise principles. Americans are could be seeking something like that in positive change in their leadership, I’m not saying that that has to be me.

Can anyone really be biased enough to think that was a smart answer? The great irony is that he asked her if she’s smart enough to be president and she gave what might be her dumbest answer yet. That answer was so bad it almost made George W. Bush look smart. Can anyone in good conscience defend that answer and say with a straight face that she should be this country’s leader?

If you say yes, then there is no sense in talking to one another anymore because we are not operating in the same reality, or planet. We’ll never be able to agree on anything if we can’t agree that was just about as incomprehensible and stupid an answer as you can possibly come up with. And that settles the debate, because you either live in the reality based world and realize she is obviously not qualified, or in the immortal words of Stephen Colbert you believe that “reality has a well-known liberal bias” and she would make a great president.

Update: Why? I don’t know. I’m not sure why I’m updating this post. I saw this last night on C&L. I said nope. But watching Sarah Palin is like watching a car crash. You just can’t take your eyes off action.

So, Junior Genesis Levi Johnston is on CNN with Joy Behar. Why? Why would he go on this show if he doesn’t want to start something.

Watch the video, Levi is priceless:

Teddy Pendergrass

Now, this is a ballad.

Artist: Teddy Pendergrass
Tune: Close the Door

I’m guessing it’s December – Ask the Cowboys

A complete collapse by the Cowboys. Missed field goals. Fumble by Barber. A punt return with three missed tackles. The Cowboys are trying to prove that they can’t win in December.

NFL week 13: somebody give me a Ouija board!

The New York Jets battled the Buffalo Bills on Thursday night. This was nowhere close to the best that the NFL has to offer. This was a display of some bad offensive football.

The Philadelphia Eagles versus the Atlanta Falcons. This game could be called “Desperation City.” Both teams really need to win this game in order to stay in the playoff hunt. Both have been playing up-and-down football. In spite of the Eagles looking mediocre at best, they’ve won six of their last seven games. Look for the Eagles to find some way to to win this game also. Atlanta quarterback Matt Ryan is not scheduled to play. This really hurts Atlanta’s offense.

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers versus the Carolina Panthers. Although the Buccaneers have not been winning, they look better every single week. They’ve been playing hard. They’ve been making few mistakes. I can’t say the same for the Carolina Panthers. Their quarterback, Jake Delhomme, who has been in the Christmas spirit all year by giving away the football, is out for this week’s game. Cornerback Matt Moore will make the fourth start of his career. Also, D’Angelo Williams is listed as questionable. This game is a toss-up. If I have to choose, I’ll go with the Buccaneers in this one.

The St. Louis Rams versus the Chicago Bears. The Bears have been decimated by injuries. The St. Louis Rams desperately need an offensive line. Every week, I’ve been saying that Jake Cutler is going to play better. This week, just to be consistent, I will continue this trend. Both the Bears and the Rams need some help on their offensive lines. If Cutler can take care of the ball, the Bears can win. If he can’t, look for another three- or four-interception outing.

The Detroit Lions versus the Cincinnati Bengals. Although the Bengals have been playing some good football of late, they hit a rough spot in their schedule. Their offense has been struggling, although their running game has remained strong. The one thing that struggling offense needs is the Detroit Lions. Look for Carson Palmer and Larry Johnson to have big games. The Cincinnati Bengals should win this one by more than a touchdown. [Read more →]

The Errington Thompson Show 11-28-09

Why can’t we start our own stimulus package? So, without further ado, here for the Christmas season, I’m starting the Errington Thompson show’s own stimulus package. I’m giving away a $100 gift certificate to Amazon.com and a copy of Terry Teachout’s new book Pops: A Life of Louis Armstrong. Listen and get stimulated!

My special guest, Bill Scher, from Campaign for America’s Future and Liberal Oasis.

Where are the jobs?

From Political Animal:

Former Bush Press Secretary Dana Perino played her usual role on Fox News yesterday, trashing economic recovery efforts. Most of her comments were easy to dismiss, but a couple of remarks stood out.

She noted, for example, that White House officials “try to claim that the stimulus bill worked and I just look at all the polling data and no one believes it.” In other words, it doesn’t matter what’s true — it matters whether people can be misled into believing things that aren’t true. (That is, of course, why Fox News exists.)

As much as I’d like to think otherwise, there’s probably something to this. We know the stimulus has been effective in rescuing the economy from collapse; we know the stimulus has helped create as many as 1.6 million jobs; we know the stimulus has produced economic growth for the first time in a year; and we know that if we’d listened to Republicans at the height of the crisis, there’d be no talk of recovery. But if “no one believes it,” there are minimal political benefits.

Similarly, Perino called the notion of saving jobs that would have been eliminated a “cockamamie scheme,” which “everyone knows” is “fake.”

Now, those of us who’ve watched Perino over the years know that the poor thing is a few watts short of a light bulb. But, again, her larger point about perceptions is rather sound — what’s real matters less than what’s believed.

With that in mind, I suspect Democratic leaders and officials would be wise to disseminate this report (see the video above) from ABC News last night far and wide.

Think Progress needs our help

As I look out over the progressive blogosphere, there are only a handful of major blogs that really inform us of what’s going on. The Daily Kos, Crooks & Liars, Talking Points Memo, the Huffington Post, FireDogLake and Think Progress are the mainstays of my progressive diet. I’m going to try to do everything that I can to keep these blogs going. I have thrown in my 2 cents. I would encourage you to do the same.

Earlier this week, we asked you to consider donating to ThinkProgress. Hundreds of you responded to our request — thank you so much for your support! If you haven’t already done so, we’d greatly appreciate any level of contribution you can make. Click here to do so. The amount we receive will determine just how ambitious to make our plans for 2010.

Watch the video:

New book on Louis Armstrong

I have been given an opportunity to give away several copies of this new book which is featured on NPR -

‘Pops’: Louis Armstrong, In His Own Words

Jazz icon Louis Armstrong didn’t just leave behind a treasure trove of musical recordings; he also documented hundreds of his private conversations on tape. Those recordings served as the basis for Terry Teachout’s new biography of the legendary musician, Pops: A Life of Louis Armstrong.

Listen | Comment | Share »

I’m happy to say that Tom of Flat Rock won the first book. You can win a book by listening to my show!! Saturday mornings at 9 am.

The Rolling Stones

I am somewhat drained today, so I am not going to have much to post tonight. I will say this, though. I will be giving away a copy of a new book called Pops, about the life and times of Louis Armstrong. I will also be giving away a gift certificate for $100 from Amazon.com. So listen tomorrow at 9 AM (Eastern Standard Time).

Does it get any better than this?

Artist: the Rolling Stones
Tune: Start Me up

Let’s chip away at weak healthcare legislation

I’m not sure for whom Snowe, Lincoln and Landrieu are working. They don’t seem to be working for the American people.

From DK:

These are the last three Reid should be trying to work out a public option compromise with. Via Jon Walker, Politico is reporting on an amendment by Snowe, Lincoln, and Landrieu to basically eliminate state regulations on what insurance companies must cover.

Jon:

SA 2859 Snowe/Landrieu/Lincoln – nationwide plans: deletes state opt out language, adds rating requirements to plan requirements

If you live in a state with strong minimum benefit insurance regulations (California, Minnesota, New York, and Vermont come to mind), you will lose your current health insurance, and your insurance coverage will get worse.

What are nationwide plans? As I explained in an earlier post, they are an idea strongly championed by the health insurance lobby. The Senate bill would effectively nullify current state regulations on what insurance plans must cover by allowing insurance companies to sell “nationwide plans” in any state. These nationwide plans would only be required to meet the minimum coverage benefits mandated by the federal government and the state in which they are based. (Think of the deregulation of the credit card industry.) These nationwide plans could sell in other states, and would be exempt from those states’ insurance regulations. In effect, this completely guts state insurance regulation of minimum coverage. Utah, for instance, has very lax regulation, so expect all insurance companies to be based there by 2016.

The merged Senate bill allows for states to opt-out, to prevent nationwide plans that would violate and would nullify current state regulations from being sold in their state, lowering the bar dramatically for what what insurance companies could get away with, and taking away the right of states to regulate insurance. But the insurance lobby sure does love it.

More evidence that these three are not operating in good faith on actually reforming the insurance system, and more evidence that any deal reached with them is unlikely to be worth the price they extract.

The Errington Thompson Show 11-21-09

Prizes? Errington has some seasonal surprises in this week’s show, including upcoming giveaways for listeners and for those who check out the blog. Along with some Amazon.com gift cards and gift certificates to Malaprop’s, there will be some lucky new owners of a great new biography of Louis Armstrong, Pops: A Life of Louis Armstrong by Terry Teachout. Free stuff… what a great way to get started thinking about the holidays, and Errington (unlike your local grocery store) has the grace to wait until after Thanksgiving!

Getting down to business, this show runs the progressive gamut from corporate responsibility (or lack thereof) to the formerly tax-exempt “religious” sanctuary, C Street in Washington, to H1N1 and a guy with fifteen live lizards strapped to his body trying to smuggle them into the U.S. on a plane. Errington and Aaron touch on Big Pharmacy’s price increase this year, up approximately nine percent, and pose the question: is this coincidence, right before probable health care reform, jacking up their prices to increase profit margins? Don’t these guys owe the American public some kind of restraint and responsibility? How about the women in the news lately shut down and shut up by US contractor, KBR after their repugnant practices safeguarding policies sanctioning gang rape in their Iraq facility?

Of course healthcare is all over this episode, looming large as it does is all of our minds right now, hefty bills going back and forth in Congress, progressives and conservatives duking it out over ways it can be improved and wrestling some really big numbers. As a trauma surgeon, of course Errington brings a unique point of view to the debate. What if we focused on promoting healthy habits and tried to move the focus back to the general practitioner and away from Urgent Care and the ER? “Jerry” calls in, wondering about proposed penalties for people who won’t voluntarily get health insurance under some of the suggested healthcare legislation. At least in jail you’d get health insurance… a bed, and three squares!

Now this is progressive radio!

Afghanistan and Obama’s surge

President Barack Obama gave a fantastic, marvelous, thoughtful, middle-of-the-road speech last night on Afghanistan. Barack Obama, in spite of his critics, looks for common ground in almost every debate. This is why he became president. He was able to appeal to a wide variety of people. So on the Afghanistan debate, there are clearly two camps. On the progressive side of this debate, bring all the troops home, now. On the conservative side of this debate, we cannot leave until the job is done.

Barack Obama had to try to avoid some of President Clinton’s pitfalls. Remember, President Clinton lost support from members of the military extremely early in his presidency by pushing gays in the military. President Obama does not want to make that mistake. Therefore, he doesn’t want to be seen as upsetting the military by an early withdrawal or by taxing the military so much that it breaks (more than it is already broken).


Markos Moulitsas on Countdown.

Barack Obama chose the middle ground. He increased troop strength by 30,000 troops. (Conservatives cheered.) He set a timetable for when to get out of Afghanistan. (Progressive sort of cheered.) He set out specific goals. (The military cheered.) The president’s speech had something that everybody could hate and that everybody could. (Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld took issue with part of the speech. Oh, that’s a surprise.)

Personally, I don’t know. I liked the speech. I’m not sure if he convinced me that sending in more troops would attain our objective. (Glenn didn’t like the speech at all.) It seems to me that a small reactionary force of approximately 5000 to 10,000 men could respond to any threat that the Taliban or Al Qaeda posed in the region. This force… will it be big enough to deter random attacks and small enough not to leave a large footprint in Afghanistan?

If we think that it is important to have a viable Afghan government which supports the Pakistani government in fighting the Taliban then there were a few things that I thought President Obama needed to say:

  • needed to establish a flexible timeline for withdrawal of US troops
  • the mission needed to be shared with international colleagues
  • Pakistan needs to be encouraged to continue its battle against extremists
  • need to create and fix the Afghan government
  • need to figure out how to pay for all this

For the most part, President Obama did these things. I’ll have more to say in the coming days and weeks. This weekend, on the radio show, I will be interviewing Brian Katulis from the Center for American Progress, talking about the situation in Afghanistan and the troop increase.

A couple of things on healthcare

Is there anybody who believes that America is about competition? If you believe that America and business love competition, please email me because I have some swamp land ocean-front property to sell you out in Idaho. Think about that period in American history after World War II. The big companies got bigger because of competition? No. Of course, there are a few exceptions but as a rule big companies split up the marketplace. Whether it was General Motors, Ford and Chrysler or, in steel, United States Steel, Republic and Bethlehem, these big companies split up the marketplace and made profits. There was no competition. None.

Now, it looks like we have more information on the pharmaceutical companies. They paid generic drug companies to keep their generics off the market. Is anyone really surprised? There is so much money in pharmaceuticals that drug companies are able to pay off these generic companies so that everybody makes money but, and this is important, the pharmaceutical companies make a ton more money and the consumers pay a ton more money. Everybody wins except the consumers.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I talked about mammograms and the controversy surrounding them a couple of weeks ago. It seems that several of the folks who made the recommendations were brought in front of a congressional committee in which they yelled that it was all just some sort of misunderstanding. It was a problem in communication. Horse hockey. I hate when people kind of weasel out of things. Say what you mean and mean what you say. In the formal paper which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, this committee stated that it recommended “against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 should be an individual one and take into account the patient’s context, including the patient’s values regarding specific benefits and harms.”

The recommendations weren’t a mistake. They were not something that they just dreamed up out of the air. The panel should’ve stood firm and said that, in their interpretation of the literature, these were their recommendations. Then, they should’ve added a caveat, the same warning in the paper, that treatment should be individualized in these patients.

Again, as I said before, this is a minor task force which has no bearing on the American Cancer Society, really the main medical body to which physicians look for recommendations on cancer, including breast cancer. I believe in screening more women and not fewer. I believe that women need to be informed about their choices. They need to be told that the earlier you start screening the more likely it is that you’re going to have something found on mammography, which will lead to a biopsy, which most likely will be negative. Once women understand this and want to accept this risk then there should be no argument.

We need to do what? Where?

afghanistanI don’t know. I simply don’t get it. I voted for someone who was a progressive. I voted for someone who wanted us out of these wars. I can’t wait to hear what he has to say cause right now I don’t see it. 30,000 more troops. Why?

From TPM:

By June 1, there will be about 100,000 troops in Afghanistan with a mission of weakening the Taliban, rooting out Al Qaeda and helping the Afghan government bolster its own forces.

President Obama’s wartime decision comes after weeks of private Situation Room meetings between key Cabinet members, generals and his national security team. After nine of those meetings, Obama also has spoken with world leaders and allies who are backing him by sending more troops of their own.

Republicans after weeks of blasting Obama for taking too long already are hailing the decision as the right one. Meanwhile, left-leaning groups question the cost in both blood and treasure, and Code Pink is out with a tough new flier mocking Obama’s “hope” slogan and marching in front of the White House today. [Read more →]

Another look at Afghanistan

Here are some of Tom’s thoughts on what President Obama should say to us. I agree.

My fellow Americans:

On March 28th, I outlined what I called a “comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.” It was ambitious. It was also an attempt to fulfill a campaign promise that was heartfelt. I believed — and still believe — that, in invading Iraq, a war this administration is now ending, we took our eye off Afghanistan. Our well-being and safety, as well as that of the Afghan people, suffered for it.

I suggested then that the situation in Afghanistan was already “perilous.” I announced that we would be sending 17,000 more American soldiers into that war zone, as well as 4,000 trainers and advisors whose job would be to increase the size of the Afghan security forces so that they could someday take the lead in securing their own country. There could be no more serious decision for an American president.

Eight months have passed since that day. This evening, after a comprehensive policy review of our options in that region that has involved commanders in the field, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Security Advisor James Jones, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, top intelligence and State Department officials and key ambassadors, special representative on Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, and experts from inside and outside this administration, I have a very different kind of announcement to make.

I plan to speak to you tonight with the frankness Americans deserve from their president. I’ve recently noted a number of pundits who suggest that my task here should be to reassure you about Afghanistan. I don’t agree. What you need is the unvarnished truth just as it’s been given to me. We all need to face a tough situation, as Americans have done so many times in the past, with our eyes wide open. It doesn’t pay for a president or a people to fake it or, for that matter, to kick the can of a difficult decision down the road, especially when the lives of American troops are at stake.

During the presidential campaign I called Afghanistan “the right war.” Let me say this: with the full information resources of the American presidency at my fingertips, I no longer believe that to be the case. I know a president isn’t supposed to say such things, but he, too, should have the flexibility to change his mind. In fact, more than most people, it’s important that he do so based on the best information available. No false pride or political calculation should keep him from that.

And the best information available to me on the situation in Afghanistan is sobering. It doesn’t matter whether you are listening to our war commander, General Stanley McChrystal, who, as press reports have indicated, believes that with approximately 80,000 more troops — which we essentially don’t have available — there would be a reasonable chance of conducting a successful counterinsurgency war against the Taliban, or our ambassador to that country, Karl Eikenberry, a former general with significant experience there, who believes we shouldn’t send another soldier at present. All agree on the following seven points:

  1. We have no partner in Afghanistan. The control of the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai hardly extends beyond the embattled capital of Kabul. He himself has just been returned to office in a presidential election in which voting fraud on an almost unimaginably large scale was the order of the day. His administration is believed to have lost all credibility with the Afghan people. [Read more →]