I’m still amazed that not even one f****g [ed. note - the Republican party does not have any moderates any more. We all know that there aren't any liberals. They are all different favors of ultraconservatives.] Republican could find minimum decency to at least vote for health care DEBATE in the US senate. Quite astonishing. What a disgrace. I’m not even talking about Olympia Snowe, who became half-president in recent months and now refuse to let the debate begin – But Orin Hatch? John McCain? People who served decades with Teddy Kennedy? How disgusting.
Mr. Reid first mentioned the call in an aside to Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and one of Mr. Kennedy’s closest friends in the Senate, as they stood at a news conference after the vote. While Mr. Kennedy was battling cancer, Mr. Dodd stepped in as acting chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and helped shepherd the health care bill through a committee vote in July.
“She believes that Ted was watching,” Mr. Reid told Mr. Dodd.
Asked about the call, Mr. Reid said that Mrs. Kennedy had telephoned him in the Democratic cloakroom just after the 60 to 39 vote, which allows debate to begin on the Senate’s health care legislation.
“She called right after the vote,” Mr. Reid said. “I’ll remember the call always. She of course was crying pretty hard. We both felt that he’s watching us tonight.”
I don’t know Senator Ben Nelson. I don’t know if he is a thoughtful man or one of those gut-men who flies by the seat of his pants. It seems to me that it is a little late in the game for Nelson to send Majority Leader Reid an items list of things he wants or does not want in the HealthCare bill.
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) has a few thoughts about the kind of changes he’d like to see on the health care reform bill. In fact, he has two pages of ideas, which he’s already delivered to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
“There is not a lot of explanation there. These are just items,” Nelson said.
What’s on it? Public option, abortion, and CLASS Act, among other things.
“There will be a lot of discussion back and forth about what might get enough votes,” Nelson said after the vote. “There will have to be fairly significant changes for others as well, not just me…. Nuance will not be enough.”
I haven’t seen the actual list, but at this point, I’m not altogether sure what any of this means. Nelson hasn’t included “a lot of explanation” with his demands? Wouldn’t “a lot of explanation” be helpful under the circumstances?
He isn’t exactly a rookie. If Nelson has some specific ideas about policy improvements, he should, you know, craft legislative language, put together proposed amendments, start seeking co-sponsors, etc. Handing Reid a list of “just items” doesn’t sound especially constructive.
For that matter, it’d be helpful to know if this is a list or a ransom note. Does Nelson intend to join a Republican filibuster if only some of his list is addressed to his satisfaction?
As the process moves forward, keep in mind that Nelson appears to have a hierarchy of concerns in mind. Just a few days ago, the conservative Democrat said he doesn’t like the existing restrictions on abortion funding, but added, “If there’s no public option, perhaps some of the [abortion] problem goes away.”
In other words, Nelson has a list, but his top target is the public option.
On a perfectly partisan, 60-39 vote, the Senate agreed tonight to debate and amend a far-reaching health care bill. That debate will get started in earnest after Congress returns from next week’s Thanksgiving recess. Democrats and Republicans expect to offer hundreds of amendments (each of which will be held to a 60 vote threshold) and debate for several weeks before holding yet another procedural supermajority vote–to end debate. If that gets 60 votes, then there will be an up-or-down vote on passage of the bill.
If the bill passes it will likely undergo yet more changes in conference with House negotiators. The “conference report” that emerges from that process can’t be amended, but can be filibustered in the Senate, so will likely require 60 votes for passage. Only after both chambers have passed the conference report can the bill be sent to President Obama for a signature.
From DK: Word is leaking out from the Hill about the Senate’s HCR bill. The bill will be posted sometime this evening online at democrats.senate.gov. In the meantime, these are the rough outlines that have appeared as various senators spoke with reporters after their caucus meeting this evening.
The bill comes in at $849 billion over the next ten years, and is projected to cut the budget deficit by $127 billion over 10 years and by $650 billion in the second decade; it will extend guaranteed coverage to more than 94% of Americans — including a 31 million person reduction in the uninsured. [Update:In a briefing now with leadership staff: the CBO numbers aren't the official score, just the initial report. The full score still isn't available.] It’s not universal coverage, but it’s what we’re getting for now. The bill contains both an excise tax on high-value insurance plans and a 1.95% increase in the Medicare payroll tax for high-income earners. It also includes a public option with a state opt-out.
Now this is a great show. We should take a little time and listen to the show. (BTW, I’m still on Michael Jackson kick. I saw This is it. Man, that was great stuff.)
I start off by congratulating our progressive City Council candidates — Gordon Smith, Cecil Bothwell and Esther Manheimer. Crazy mad props. Also, Mayor Terry Bellamy wins her second term. Congrats!!
Do you remember that gang rape of that high school student out in California? Will new details are emerging. The victim was drugged and beaten. Remember this occurred during a homecoming dance in late October. It appears there were as many as 20 bystanders and none of them were compelled to call the police. This reminds me of that famous case of the New York, it happened in the mid-80s. This woman was beaten and killed if I’m not mistaken in many people watch the whole thing and nobody called the police. If the speculated that many people either photographed or filmed the incident with their cell phones. This is an extremely sad commentary.
By now, everyone is aware of the tragedy at Fort Hood. Sergeant Kimberly Munley appears to be the hero. She fired at the suspect Major Nidal Malik Hasan and continued to fire after she was wounded. Now comes the endless speculation. For reasons that are unclear, we, as Americans, always after these major tragedies, think they’re something that we should’ve noticed where we could have intervened. We have several of these major tragedies every year. In my opinion, what we should’ve learned, is that we cannot predict human behavior. I just don’t think we have that ability.
A New Zealand artist uses manure to sculpt the bust of a Environmental Minister. At least the artist has a sense of humor. The Pennsylvania State police botched a prostitution investigation by sending the informant into a massage parlor multiple times and filming everything. They might have been okay if the officers watching the various sex acts were not laughing and making lewd comments. The Pennsylvania Court of Appeals threw out the case.
My special guest is Alex Koppelman of Salon.com’s War Room. We discuss health care reform, we talk about what is wrong with the media and how we, as Americans, seek out information that agrees with our point of view. What do the Tuesday Elections mean? What about gay rights? We talk about this and more.
As a young surgeon, I was really interested in academics. I wanted to publish papers. I wanted to present at major meetings. I felt that I had little or no guidance in the arena of trauma (where I practice now), so I turned to a breast surgeon and helped him with cases. We discussed the literature. I also went to the tumor conferences (a monthly conference that most hospitals have in which they talk about the cancers that have been discovered over the last month or so).
I learned a lot about breast cancer. I learned a lot about mammograms and CT scans of the breast. I learned a lot about how to operate on the breast and how to get the best cosmetic result. I saw a lot of women with breast cancer. With this as my backdrop, I would like to reiterate that I am not an expert but I know more than your average Joe.
First of all, I think it’s important to say that breast cancer is still a very serious disease in the United States. Close to 200,000 women will be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer this year. Over 40,000 women will die in the United States as a result of breast cancer. Lung cancer is the only cancer that kills more women in the United States. So this is not a benign disease.
The incidence of breast cancer increases with age for women. The incidence peaks between ages 75-79. Women ages 20-24 have a rate of breast cancer of approximate 1.4 in every 100,000 women, whereas the incidence for women in their late 70s is approximately 400 cases for every 100,000 women.
The next thing is that it’s important to know before you can evaluate the recommendations which were handed down by the US Preventive Services Task Force is how a woman’s breast changes as they age. For the most part, women in their 20s have extremely dense breasts filled with breast tissue. (I know this sounds stupid but stay with me.) By the time a woman reaches her 50s, this breast tissue is replaced by fat.
The reason that this is important, is that it relates to the imaging modalities that physicians use to diagnose breast cancer. Mammograms are very sensitive in patients with fatty breasts. Mammograms become far less sensitive when women are young and their breasts are very dense.
So, it is clear that mammograms in women who are in their 20s and 30s are extremely difficult to read. This is the reason why most physicians do not recommend routine mammograms in this age group. Mammograms in women over 50 make sense because they are relatively easy to read and the incidence of breast cancer in this age group is increasing. For over 30 years, the question has been what to do with women between the ages of 40-49.
In my opinion, in this age group, the risk benefit ratio should be individualized. What is the risk of not getting routine mammograms? What is the risk of radiation? What is the risk of a false positive causing women to worry unnecessarily when it turns out that the little dot on the mammogram was nothing? (What effect does the negative biopsy have on the woman’s ability to have follow-up mammograms?) On the other side of the equation, there are huge benefits from early detection of breast cancer. Small breast cancers usually have not metastasized and the five and 10 year survival rates are greater than 95%. Once a breast cancer grows greater than 2 cm (a little less than an inch), survival rates began to drop dramatically. So, I think it’s extremely important for women to have open and honest discussions with their physicians. They need to talk to physicians who have an excellent knowledge of the breast literature. They need to have physicians who will take the time to sit down and talk to them about their individual risks. It may turn out with the reduction of prolonged hormone replacement therapy that the incidence of breast cancer will drop dramatically, I have my doubts. Personally, I think it is extremely important for women to diagnose their breast cancers early. Breast self-examinations are good, but most women do not do them on a routine basis.
This is an extremely important topic. I’ve only scratched the surface of its complexity. I’m extremely disappointed that the talking heads of the media have gotten a hold of this issue and are using it as a way to drive ratings. I urge women to talk to their physicians. If you don’t like your physician, find another one. This topic is crucial. You need to understand the various recommendations that are out there. Finally, it is important to realize that the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute and several other organizations have stated that they will not change their own guidelines.
Michelle Bachmann is different. I think we can all agree on that. She had an anti-healthcare reform rally last week and FOX was there. Thank goodness for the Daily Show. No “news” organization would take the time to note that Fox is misleading its viewers. Maybe its viewers don’t care.
Update: Patrick posted a comment and asked if Fox News had apologized. I said no without even looking to see if they had. Well, scramble my grits, Hannity formally apologized. I’m still in shock. Now, I have to apologize to Patrick for not even checking. Patrick – sorry. I’ll do better. Promise!
“Although it pains me to say this, Jon Stewart, Comedy Central, he was right.”
Hannity continued:
Now on his program last night he mentioned that we had played some incorrect video on this program last week while talking about the Republican health care rally on Capitol Hill. He was correct. We screwed up. We aired some video of a rally in September, along with the video from the actual event. It was an inadvertent mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. So Mr. Stewart, you were right. We apologize. But by the way, I wanna thank you and all your writers for watching.
This was supposed to be the easy part. The House was the slam dunk. It wasn’t that easy. Healthcare Reform has come, nonetheless. I will have to have some wine and a weekend to review everything that is in the legislation, but I’m thinking about taking back all of the bad things that I have said and thought about Nancy Pelosi and her lack of leadership skills.
The House of Representatives on Saturday night passed a sweeping health care bill by a vote of 220-215.
Earlier, the House passed an amendment to pending health care legislation that prohibits federal funds for abortion services in the public option and in the insurance “exchange” the bill would create.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democratic leaders just emerged from a closed-door caucus meeting that included a personal appearance by President Obama confident the House will pass a sweeping health care reform bill today.
Addressing reporters outside the caucus meeting room just now, Pelosi looked back briefly before announcing what seemed like a deal to pass reform.
It was three years ago today that Pelosi led Democrats to retake the House after more than a decade of Republican control. She said the date was “appropriate.” (more…)
President Obama is calling on representatives to pass the sweeping health care reform bill scheduled for a floor vote tonight.
“This is our moment to live up to the trust that the American people have put in us,” he said in a public address on the grounds of the White House just now.
“I urge members of Congress to rise to this moment, answer the call of history, and vote ‘yes’ for health insurance reform for America,” Obama said. (more… )
Normally, I don’t recommend calling representatives other than your own. But there’s a big exception on that list for the netroots community. While Larry Kissel wasn’t among the candidates on Daily Kos’s Orange to Blue list last year, but over the last few years, netroots activists donated $485,795 to the Kissel campaign for Congress. If you were among those who donated, I don’t think you’d be out of order in calling and asking for a refund. And if you live in the district of one of those other members, and you don’t agree with their no vote, please call them tonight and tomorrow to let them know.
Particularly Brian Baird, who I have heard might be wavering. Here’s a list of those members that folks on the Hill think are those we need to focus on over the next day.
Arcuri, Baird, Bean, Boyd, Carney, Donnelly, Kaptor, Kucinich, McMahon, Scott Murphy, Nye
Vice President Biden is making phone calls to these guys, maybe you should, too? If one of the above is your representative, Call or e-mail and let him or her know you support H.R. 3962, and you’ll be watching their vote.
According to a recent article in the Washington Post, many of the healthcare policy decisions that we think are being made in Washington will instead be made in your state capital. Is this a good thing? I think not. In my opinion, politics is about not making decisions. Politicians almost never get voted out of office for indecision or inaction. Instead, politicians get voted out of office for making decisions that are unpopular. If you have a large enough constituency it really doesn’t matter what decision you make. Someone’s not going to be happy.
So, let’s apply this to healthcare reform. It appears that the Democrats are trying to make as few decisions as possible. This way, they get maximum benefit (hey, we passed healthcare reform) with minimum blowback because the details are left up to states. In my way of thinking, this means that many of the battles that were fought in Washington need to be re-fought in Raleigh, Albany, Atlanta and Austin. Let’s assume that all states actually make decisions. The healthcare in Texas can be vastly different than the healthcare in North Dakota or in Hawaii. Is this what we wanted when we started the discussion on health care reform? Don’t think so. This is garbage. This is an unwillingness to step up to the plate and do the right thing. The Democrats should be ashamed of themselves.
From a minority perspective, states have let us down time and time again. One only has to look at civil rights, unequal pay and gender discrimination to see that states don’t always step up to the plate and do the right thing. Sometimes, states have to be forced into making the correct decision especially when it comes to the poor and minorities. This healthcare reform has everything to do with the poor and minorities. These are the groups who are most affected by no health insurance or by inadequate health insurance.
The opt in or opt out option reminds me of the Hokey Pokey. It’s a child’s game. This is not providing health care reform nationwide. This is providing an opportunity to get healthcare reform nationwide. An opportunity? I think when you live in Massachusetts or Connecticut or even Oregon you have some expectations that your state will make the right decisions with regard to healthcare. In South Carolina, there is no expectation of adequate decision-making in the state capital. The governor was using state funds to fly to Brazil and then fly home to get his hair cut, yet legislators cannot make up their mind whether he should be impeached or not. That was easy. Healthcare is hard. They’ll never be able to make the right decisions for their constituents. In Texas, the state where I grew up, I know the mindset. Many Texans believe in perfect Reaganesque fashion that all government is bad. The disadvantaged will then continue to be out in the cold while conservatives will write opinion pieces in the local papers about how Obama’s health care plans were a complete and total failure, when they in fact did not institute any healthcare reform themselves.
Democrats in the House and the Senate, what are you doing? You guys are giving me chest pain and at my age, if I mention chest pain someone’s going to throw me on a gurney and roll me into an angiography suite. We want real healthcare reform. Nationwide!
Schieffer: So the Democrats may pass health care reform public option – what do you think?
Lieberman: I’m all for health care reform but we have to worry about the state of the economy in 20 years and a public option might help people and save lives in the short term but in the long run it will run up the debt and destroy America
[ shakes jowls vigorously ]
Schieffer: but most people like it
Lieberman: sure they do but this crazy idea that people deserve health care just came out of nowhere!
Schieffer: Liberals say we need it to save lives
Lieberman: true but we must be ready to kill the many to save the few who make our incredibly fragile economy the envy of the world
Schieffer: will you filibuster a public option?
Lieberman: I will – I must stop this horrific idea that the government would create an entitlement for health care
[begins weeping]
Schieffer: you think people are not entitled to decent health care?
Lieberman: not if they are not as wonderful as I am
Schieffer: is anyone in America as terrific as you?
Lieberman: touchdown Jesus
Schieffer: but your filibuster could kill all health care reform
Lieberman: oh no I’m not the one who would do that – those horrible people who push for the public option are — they are mean and say if you
are not for the government insurance you must be a bad person (more… )
It’s one thing to set low expectations for House Minority Leader John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) weekly address. It’s another to actually hear the darn thing.
For example, just a few days after conceding there is no GOP alternative reform proposal, the House Minority Leader now believes there is a rival health care plan after all.
“We first released our health care plan in June, and over the last six months, we have introduced at least eight bills that, taken together, would implement this blueprint.”
I see. Take a brief printout with some talking points, combine it with eight unrelated pieces of weak legislation — not one of which has been endorsed by the party’s leadership — throw it in a blender without a coherent policy structure, and viola! House Republicans have both a “plan” and a “blueprint.”
And to think I questioned the seriousness with which the House GOP took policy matters. Don’t I feel embarrassed.
Boehner went on to point to a handful of ideas Republicans like, some of which are already in the House reform bill.
He added that the majority’s reform package will “put unelected boards, bureaus, and commissions in charge of who gets access to what drug and what potentially life-saving treatment,” which is obviously untrue. Boehner also said reform “will cut seniors’ Medicare benefits,” which is obviously untrue.
Boehner then complained about the debt — which he helped add $5 trillion to by supporting Bush/Cheney policies — and economic growth — which he wanted to stunt with a five-year spending freeze at the height of the economic crisis.
DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse responded, “Apparently, John Boehner has his holidays confused because his remarks are far better suited for an April Fool’s address.”
Liberals have been accused of misrepresenting the data on those who are uninsured. So, I thought I’d take a couple of seconds and set the record straight. The U.S. Census has released a report on income, poverty and health insurance status a couple of months ago. The data is from 2008.
There are 46.3 million people in the United States who do not have health insurance. This has increased from 45.7 million people in 2007. 34 million of these people are American citizens. 9.5 million are not American citizens. This leaves approximately 2.7 million Americans who don’t have health insurance who have become naturalized citizens. So, it is not correct to call them all illegal aliens. (I hate that term. I’ve been pushing “economic refugees” because that accurately describes why they are here.) On the other hand, it is not correct to call them all American citizens. I think this is important. The vast majority of the 46 million Americans without health insurance are American citizens!
Now, to jump into the mess, what shall we do with 9.5 million economic refugees were not citizens? Some have suggested we do nothing. Others have said if there’s an emergency, send them to the emergency room; otherwise, do nothing. Here’s my thought. As a surgeon, if I’m at a football game watching my Dallas Cowboys and the guy next to me is coughing up some infectious disease — tuberculosis, influenza, etc… — his health is affecting me. If I’m in New York on a subway or in an elevator, his health affects me and those around me. Also, if these economic refugees get brought into the healthcare system, it will cost me and you less in the long run. Complications of disease always cost more. Preventing those complications should be our goal.
I know that this is a contentious issue. I also know that we need to fix this problem that has been created by corporate greed. If corporations weren’t hiring economic refugees, they wouldn’t be here.
When President Obama asked Democrats, liberals and progressives to forgive Joe Lieberman for his condescension, lies and treachery, we reluctantly said, “Okay.” It was the right thing to do. It was the JudeoChristian thing to do. Joe Lieberman now sits as the chairman of the powerful Homeland Security Committee because of our generosity. He is now made an appearance on TV, not having ever met a camera he doesn’t like, and threatened to filibuster the healthcare bill by voting with Republicans. Notice how Republicans have gone silent. They are allowing Democrats to implode without their help. My disdain for Joe Lieberman only grows.
This afternoon, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) appeared on Fox News to defend his intention to filibuster any health care reform bill that includes a national public option. Lieberman argued that a public plan would “stifle” the economic recovery and increase “the debt.” “It’s just unnecessary,” Lieberman said. The public option is “a new entitlement program and the taxpayers and the premium-payers are going to end up paying for it, or else the debt will go higher.”
Contrary to Lieberman’s claims, the public option envisioned by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) would be required to compete on a level playing field with private insurers and charge premiums “in an amount sufficient to cover expected costs.” Instead of stifling the “economic recovery” and increasing “the debt,” the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the self-sustaining public option (similar to the one envisioned by Reid) could actually save the government money and slightly lower premiums. [Read more →]
Yay, there is much rejoicing. Unfortunately I’m not really sure what I’m rejoicing about. We’ve had all this nebulous terminology that is been bouncing around the airwaves. I don’t know what a public option is? I guess, more precisely, I don’t know what they mean by public option.
Let’s back up a little bit. Let’s look at one of the goals that I set out for healthcare reform (portability, cost-effective, efficient). In order to deliver cost-effective health care, we need to do something to control costs. One way to control costs eliminate health insurance altogether. This will save Americans billions of dollars which currently go to a 30% overhead that we see with private insurance. This would be the most progressive option. Democrats took this off the table before the discussion began. Therefore, as a fallback measure, the government would provide a plan that would compete with private plans for people who are not already covered. In my mind, this would include employees of small businesses who cannot currently afford health insurance. This is kind of a sticky point. Republicans don’t want small business to flock to the public option. Personally, I think that this would be great for small business. It would help lower their operating costs and allow them to spend more money investing in their employees and their business. The other thing, that many people on Capitol Hill are not talking about, is whether the public option will be able to negotiate pharmaceutical prices and prices for medical devices. Again, this is a sticking point for Republicans and blue dog Democrats. As far as I can tell, none of this is been clarified for Senator Harry Reid’s announcement.
A public option that is not allowed to negotiate drug prices in the prices for medical devices, will be a sinkhole for our taxpayer dollars. We might as well just give these companies money.
From DK:
Robert Gibbs provided the following statement on behalf of the White House in response to Reid’s announcement:
“The President congratulates Senator Reid and Chairmen Baucus and Dodd for their hard work on health insurance reform. Thanks to their efforts, we’re closer than we’ve ever been to solving this decades-old problem. And while much work remains, the President is pleased that at the progress that Congress has made. He’s also pleased that the Senate has decided to include a public option for health coverage, in this case with an allowance for states to opt out. As he said to Congress and the nation in September, he supports the public option because it has the potential to play an essential role in holding insurance companies accountable through choice and competition.”
“As we’ve gone through this process, I’ve concluded, with the support of the White House and Senators Baucus and Dodd, that the best way forward is to include a public option with an opt-out provision for states.”
During week 41 (October 11-17, 2009), influenza activity increased in the U.S.
4,855 (37.5%) specimens tested by U.S. World Health Organization (WHO) and National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS) collaborating laboratories and reported to CDC/Influenza Division were positive for influenza.
All subtyped influenza A viruses being reported to CDC were 2009 influenza A (H1N1) viruses.
The proportion of deaths attributed to pneumonia and influenza (P&I) was above the epidemic threshold.
Eleven influenza-associated pediatric deaths were reported. Nine of these deaths were associated with 2009 influenza A (H1N1) virus infection and two were associated with an influenza A virus for which subtype is undetermined.
The proportion of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) was above the national baseline. All 10 regions reported ILI above region-specific baseline levels.
Forty-six states reported geographically widespread influenza activity, Guam and three states reported regional influenza activity, one state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico reported local influenza activity, and the U.S. Virgin Islands did not report.
Rep. Anthony Weiner’s (D-NY) office today released an internal study showing that 151 members of Congress “currently receive government-funded; government-administered single-payer health care — Medicare.” Of those 151 members, 55 are Republicans who also happen to be “steadfastly opposed [to] other Americans getting the public option, like the one they have chosen.” Included on Weiner’s list are anti-public option crusaders Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Orin Hatch (R-UT), Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), Rep.Virginia Foxx (R-NC), and Rep. Peter King (R-NY).
This morning on C-Span, Weiner explained the idea behind the project:
WEINER: It’s more another way of looking at this debate, this discussion about the public option, to put it in focus. We went, just out of curiosity, looked at how many members of Congress get the public option. And I know a lot of people have said, “Well under the new bill, how many of you members of Congress would choose the public option?”
Well there already is one; it’s called Medicare. And we found 55 Republicans and 151 members of Congress are on Medicare right now. So they’re already getting the same type of public option that we’d like people who are without insurance to be able to get. And I guess the purpose of this list was to kind of point out some of the hypocrisy of this debate.
“You have members of Congress thumping their chest how they’re against government health care,” Weiner noted, adding, “and yet when it’s time for them to accept Medicare, they’re like, ‘Sign me up!’”
Watch it:
Back in July, Weiner offered an amendment that would eliminate Medicare, saying at the time that it was “put-up or shut-up time for the phonies who deride the so-called ‘public option.’” Of course, no one voted for the measure.
“Even in a town known for hypocrisy,” Weiner said in a statement today releasing his study, “this list of 55 Members of Congress deserve some sort of prize. They apparently think the public option is ok for them, but not anyone else.”
Here is yet another reason for universal healthcare.
From TP: Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled “Medical Debt: Can Bankruptcy Reform Facilitate a Fresh Start.” The hearing examined medical bankruptcies in America, and witnesses included CAP fellow Elizabeth Edwards and Kerry Burns, a Rhode Island mother who was forced into “financial ruin” by her late son’s medical bills.
One of the highlights of the hearing was when Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) questioned Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Diana Furchtgott-Roth about medical bankruptcies. Franken asked Furchtgott-Roth — who claimed that moving towards a European-style system of universal health care would increase bankruptcies — about how many medical bankruptcies there were in countries that have universal health care, like Switzerland and France. Furchtgott-Rott repeatedly told Franken that she didn’t “have that number,” and Franken informed her that the number was actually zero:
FRANKEN: I think we disagree on whether health care reform, the health care reform that we’re talking about in Congress now should pass. You should that the way we’re going will increase bankruptcies. I want to ask you, how many medical bankruptcies because of medical crises were there last year in Switzerland?
FURCHTGOTT-ROTT: I don’t have that number in front of me, but I can find out and get back to you.
FRANKEN: I can tell you how many it was. It’s zero.Do you know how many medical bankruptcies there were last year in France?
FURCHTGOTT-ROTT: I don’t have that number, but I can get back to you if I like.
FRANKEN: Yeah, the number is zero.Do you know how many were in Germany?
FURCHTGOTT-ROTT: From the trend of your questions, I’m assuming the number is zero. But I don’t know the precise number and would have to get back to you.
FRANKEN: Well, you’re very good. Very fast. The point is, I think we need to go in that direction, not the opposite direction. Thank you.
I think what everyone forgets is that Al Franken graduated from Harvard. He didn’t get there because his parents had money. He didn’t get in to Harvard because he was some sort of legacy appointment. He got into Harvard because he was smart enough to get into Harvard. Yes, he did comedy for most of his life but if you take the time to read through his books and listen to his radio show, you’ll find a keen intellect. The Senate isn’t gonna be the same with Al Franken there. Thank goodness for that.
The more I read about the Great Depression, the more I find out that the Great Depression was a series of good policies and bad policies. Some of the bad policies were driven by hawks worried about the deficit. As a result, Roosevelt stop spending at one point in order to “try to balance the budget.” Unfortunately, we’re seeing the same thing today as Republicans and the media (currently they’re one and the same) are complaining about the deficit. As a rule of thumb gleaned from history: fix the economy and then fix the deficit.
Representative Alan Grayson took apart a CNN analyst, Alex Castellanos, who, as it turns out, gets paid a relatively handsome sum from the health-insurance industry. I’m really starting to like this Grayson guy.
When I was in Tyler, Texas, I met Louie Gohmert (Republican – Tx). As a matter of fact, we both spoke at a multidenominational Martin Luther King celebration. He truly appeared to be a good judge and a decent human being. That was before he was elected to the United States House of Representatives. Since then he’s been a right-wing tool. It is really disappointing.
Representatives Jane Harman and Loretta Sanchezhave broken away from the Blue Dogs on this public option. Here’s my question. The Blue Dog Democrats are supposed to be focused on fiscally responsive behavior. On healthcare, the best bang for our buck is a single-payer system. Where are all the Blue Dogs on this issue? Why aren’t they pushing a single-payer system or are they fiscally responsive only some of the time?
Who is surprised that some of the football players at Florida State University can only read at a second grade level? I’m not surprised in the least. College athletes are tools for their school. They are to be used to garner huge sums of money for the school. They aren’t being paid to learn or to read. They are playing a game that can fill up the bank account of some schools for tens of millions of dollars.
Finally, Meghan McCain shows a little cleavage and people go nuts. Please, she’s a 24-year-old female. Settle down.
Errington C. Thompson, MD, is a surgeon, scholar, full-time sports fan and part-time political activist. He is active in a number of community projects and initiatives. Through medicine, he strives to improve the physical health of all he treats...
From DK:
