Finally a Progressive group calls Obama out on Health Care Reform

Its been clear to me for quite some time that Obama was the Public Option's real enemy in the Democratic Party. Finally other folks are starting to see this - thanks to the Progressive Change Campaign Committee for calling Obama out on this.

Thank God - she done gone and said it-

Finally, someone in the mainstream press has put in print what has been obvious to me, a Southern Expatriate, for quite a few months. Racism is alive and well in the United States and the proof is easy to see. It ranges from the Birthers, to the Deathers, to the screams and shouts over Obama's address to school children last Tuesday reaching a crescendo with Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst last Wednesday night. Maureen Dowd has finally said it. These are the words that broke the silence of the mainstream press:

Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it.

As she rightly points out what Wilson really said wasn't just "You lie!" but rather "You lie, boy!". Certainly that's what my Southern ears actually heard. Its no coincidence that the first President to be heckled in a joint session of Congress was also the first black President and that the first heckler was a Southern Republican.

Unfortunately, Maureen hasn't made the final leap to a deeper understanding of the situation. I grew up in the 60's South and watched the old racist Southern Democrats become Republicans. They didn't loose their racism when they left the Democratic Party rather it was because of their racism that they became Republicans. Unfortunately the Republican Party greeted the racists with open arms and has never looked back. Nor has it ever challenged the racists in its midst as it slowly adopted their view as its own. Thus, in a sad historical twist the party of Lincoln has become their natural home. Racism is the reason the South moved from the Democratic to the Republican Party and while polite people do not speak of it and they work hard to hide it those views and attitudes are still there. Taken to a larger whole, racism is a defining element in the world view of a real and sizable percentage of the Republican base and it shouldn't surprise anybody that it shows its ugly face from time to time. As Dowd rightly concludes the fact that Obama is a literate, well spoken black man only tends to make matters worse. To paraphrase her, a good chunk of the racist Republican base simply can't cope with the fact that a black man is President.

Insurance Companies love mandates

Simple logic - wish Obama understood it!

Another YouTube goodie found via Jesus General

Mandates are a disaster

The DailyKos, normally blind to actions and real intent of the Obama Administration, is starting to get a clue. They seem to now understand that the individual mandates in the Baucus Health Reform bill that would force people to pay a monthly tribute to the Health Insurance Deities are a disaster for the Democratic Party. Since the insurance they will be forced to buy will most certainly be junk the mandate will be wildly unpopular with the voters and the Democratic Party will rightly be blamed for them. Here's a link to the post and the important paragraphs:

"Under the Baucus plan, nothing would force the industry to compete for these new customers. Industry would effectively hold them hostage. The only proposal that's out there to provide the competition this system needs is the public option, and without it, the public will be held hostage to the whims of the private insurance industry.

The problem here isn't the notion of a mandate. A mandate -- or something like it -- is an essential part of reform because it requires everybody to take responsibility for the risks they impose on the system. But when the mandate forces people to buy private health insurance without offering an alternative, you have a situation that is untenable, and would quickly turn into a monumental political disaster for the Democratic Party."

However, the following paragraph shows that they really don't totally understand what's happening yet:

"The upcoming days and weeks will be the biggest test so far as to whether progressives in the House and Senate will be able to stick together to achieve meaningful change -- or whether they will simply roll over and cave once again to the special interests who own senators like Max Baucus and Kent Conrad."

Now, if they could just understand that Baucus and Conrad aren't acting on their own - they are just doing the bidding of the Obama administration we will really be getting somewhere. Obama is out enemy not the two stooges - Baucus and Conrad.

UnitedHealth lobbyist does fundraiser for Pelosi

Frankly I never liked her anyway - I always though she was incompetent but now it appears she's just another Congressional Criminal on top of that. What bigger signal do we need that the public option is dead?

Go to David Sirota's article on OpenLeft for the sickening details.

Mr Abelson - obviously not from this time/space dimension

This morning while I was wolfing down an incredible breakfast burrito at Bee's #1 I just about gagged when I encountered Reed Abelson's article on page A16 of today's NY Times.

Its really hard to know where to begin. The title alone is enough to cause any sane person to upchuck - "President’s Speech Allays Some Fears in the Health Insurance Industry". It only got worse from there. The first paragraph makes me wonder which time/space dimension Abelson has occupied for the last several months:

"During the summer’s heated discussions over health care, when Democrats seemed quick to portray the health insurance companies as the system’s main villains, the industry seemed to be in policy makers’ cross hairs."

What??? They are villians - Obama never layed a glove on them (that's a big part of the problem) and the Senate that they own didn't go after them either. Then continuing on Abelson says:

"But as the specifics of Washington’s proposed overhaul have emerged in recent days — from Senator Max Baucus and in President Obama’s speech on Wednesday night — some industry analysts say insurers may not have much to fear.

“The outlook is moving away from the worst case,” said Les Funtleyder, who follows the industry for the investment firm Miller Tabak & Company in New York.

Even Mr. Obama, who had recently stepped up his criticism of the industry, seemed to soften his stance on Wednesday. He recounted a few insurance horror stories — as might be politically necessary when arguing the need for a system makeover. But as he outlined his plans for health care, which focused mainly on a revamping of the nation’s insurance system, he was careful to point out that the executives who run those companies were not “bad people.” "

Not "bad people"? Those that make millions or hundreds of millions by denying care to premium paying customers aren't really "bad people"? But there's more:

"Some industry executives on Thursday acknowledged the president’s shift in tone. “The rhetoric seemed to be much more positive,” said Ronald A. Williams, the chief executive of Aetna, one of the nation’s largest health insurers.

The reality may also be much more favorable to insurers, industry analysts said. Mr. Obama has already agreed to grant one of the industry’s dearest wishes: a requirement that everyone have coverage, which is reflected in the proposals in Congress."

You can read the rest on your own I don't have the stomach for it.

I'm confused- how could the same person that wrote this article have written this one about people who went bankrupt even while insured or this one on essentially the same topic. Just amazing how can Abelson at one moment report facts and the next write a piece like this or this which are essentially the stuff of Insurance Lobbyist wet dreams.

Obama's speech -

Hmmmmmm -------

Re: Obama's speech - well nothing that will change the dynamics of Health Care Reform debate much. A few folks that weren't listening for the last several months may have gotten some facts but besides the outburst of Rep. Joe Wilson not much news. The only thing that got a response out of me was Obama's promise to "call out lies". Well that's nice - it would have been really helpful if he had started that a couple of months ago.

For another take see David Sirota's post. He makes several good points.

A great post on Baucus' Health Care proposal (disaster) at consumerwatchdog.org:

A 'framework' made in health insurer's workshop

Posted by Judy Dugan

The latest proposal in the Washington health reform debate protects a lot of groups. Employers get protection from cost, paying very little if they don't offer insurance. Insurers get millions of new customers and protection from effective competition. Overall medical cost reduction is vague (Can you say "pilot program?"). The middle class, the group with no free-spending Washington lobby, gets the lump of coal--less help with premiums and higher out of pocket costs than in other proposals.

Today's new plan is just a set of ideas labeled "Framework for Comprehensive Health Reform." But its author, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has become the center of power in health reform.

The plan Baucus has in mind is suited to a small-state legislator who reaps big contributions from the health industry--health-related companies and their employees gave Baucus's political committees nearly $1.5 million in 2007 and 2008 alone. My colleague Jerry Flanagan earlier described one of the worst features of the Baucus "Framework"--insurance companies can weasel out of state-level protections for consumers and patients--things like required maternity benefits and state reviews of benefit denials.

The numbers in the plan also raise consumers' costs. First, there is no direct premium subsidy for famiies making more than $66,000 a year. And the basic ("Bronze") plan would have to cover only 65% of the average cost (the "actuarial value") of all medical claims that are covered by the plan--never mind care that isn't covered. That, of course, leaves the patient on the hook for the other 35% on average, on top of the cost of the premium. That means very high copays and deductibles. And 65% is exactly the level that the insurance industry demanded of Congress.

As for the premium costs, families that don't get a subsidy could be charged up to 13% of family income for the premium alone, based on second-most-modest ("Silver") policy. That's $10,400 for a family of five with income of $80,000. On top of that, the family could end up with out of pocket costs in the high thousands. If insurers also get to dump state regulation, the family may also get much less in the way of benefits--meaning they won't really understand how worthless their coverage is until they file a claim.

What we're seeing in Congress is a health reform plan that comes down to what the insurance industry and some of its allies want. It's still a system driven by profit, not health. It's not not what American families need. It won't fundamentally reform the fragmented and wasteful way that health care is delivered. The Baucus plan may be better than nothing, but it's far from what other nations offer, and far from what Americans deserve.

The Baucus plan stinks - it really stinks. The process stinks too -

A warning from Josh Marshall

Words of caution that I don't think anybody is hearing from Josh Marshall on Talking Points Memo:

Where's This Going?
Josh Marshall | September 7, 2009, 10:31AM

Am I the only one who thinks that if the Dems pass a bill with mandates and subsidies for poor and moderate income people to purchase it but no public option or competition with the insurers, that it will be pretty much a catastrophe for the Democrats in political terms?

You 'solve' the problem of the uninsured by passing a law forcing them to buy health insurance which, by definition, most a) cannot afford or b) are gambling they won't need because they're young and healthy. Either you end up with low subsidies which still leave it onerous to buy, thus creating a lot of disgruntled people, or you get generous subsidies, which cost a lot of money.

It's sort of like reform with all the cool political downsides but none of the reform.

Of course, political terms are not the only calculus on which to evaluate these questions. And the model I'm describing sounds more or less like the system they have in Switzerland and Massachusetts, which many health care experts I have a lot of respect for still believe would be a big improvement over the current situation. But I do wonder whether, if the details are not thought through carefully, you might not end up with a system less effective at driving down costs than driving down the number of Democrats serving in Congress.

The dangers of caving

Something else from OpenLeft that needs to be seen -

Ultimately the take home lesson is that if we cave there is nothing to prevent the worst of the worst health care bills from becoming law.

A good rant by David Sirota

Earlier today David Sirota threw a good rant on the state of things at Open Left. After discussing a Wall Street Journal article that contains the memorable and unfortunately true line:

"How bitter it must be to discover that the Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck, who drove the debate about Mr. Jones, counts for more at this White House than Mr. Sirota."

Sirota goes on to say:

"Progressives don't just "believe" they deserve a seat at the table - we actually do deserve that seat, not just because we worked to elect this president, but because our stance on major issues like the public option, climate change, Wall Street reform and the war are the majoritarian positions in America. That's not speculation - polls show that's an empirical fact.

But we won't get that seat at the table unless we demand it. That means the Washington-based progressive groups have to stop kissing the White House's ass and selling out their grassroots membership. It means rank-and-file Obama supporters have to stop framing legitimate progressive pressure on Obama as some sort of disloyal desire to see Mitt Romney elected President in 2012.

It means, as I said in my last newspaper column, that we have to start thinking and acting like a real movement, and not just like sycophantic political partisans. If we do that, we'll get that seat at the table - and more importantly, we'll get the legislative results Obama originally promised, but now hesitates to champion."

This too is sadly true and I fear Sirota's pleas and observations will fall on deaf ears.

Frankly I sense that's Sirota's plea is as much about Health Care reform and the public option as anything else. I really believe we are fast approaching the "end game" in this mess and that he senses Progressives will ultimately cave.

Just love those fundamentalist -

They really can be a laugh a minute. For example I was howling earlier today when I read this:

Kristin Maguire, South Carolina's Board of Education Chairwoman, resigned on August 31 siting "family matters", but the real reason might be her secret hobby as an erotica writer under the pen name Bridget Keeney. Kristin Maguire, a professed Christian, was one of South Carolina's most respected social conservatives who had served on the board for 9 years since 2000. She has been a strong supporter of abstinence only sex education.

From a 2003 web page some of her more entertaining titles are:

Title -- Description
A Great Ride -- Taking the edge off of your appetite.
Lauren's Masturbatory Musings -- Lauren reveals her fantasies to Paul.
Locker Room Recreation -- Couple enjoys all the hotel's amenities.
Man of the Year -- Lauren gives her 'Man of the Year' what he's always wanted.
Penumbra -- Kurt & Bridget come out of shadow of mutual loss.
Tara's Thanksgiving Weekend Ch. 1 -- Tara has an appetizer on her way to dinner.
Thanksgiving Weekend Ch. 2 -- Tara gets a massage and more.
Thanksgiving Weekend Ch. 3 -- Tara gets her first taste of Sandy.
Thanksgiving Weekend Ch. 4 -- Tara is the main course for two brothers.
Wife of the Year -- Lauren proves she isn't just a trophy bride.

If South Carolina keeps it up they might start to rival Texas as as the primo right-winged loony bin of the South.

Update: Over at FITSNEWS.COM they have dredged up a couple of Bridget Keeney's literary efforts for your entertainment.

Update 2: From GAWKER because they read 'em and I just can't resist myself:

It would be hard for those groups to ignore Maguire's alleged prose, like a tale entitled "Continental Cuisine," which features a woman blowing a man while his pal wanks one off. (Sample line: "The rhythmic sway of the train car added to the bobbing of my head as I sucked deeply.")

Another tale goes by the name, "Lauren's Masturbatory Musings." You can only imagine what that one concerns. Both are available at FITSNews' site and are quite tawdry, trashy and downright raunchy, which means they're great.

H.P. Lovecraft on Republicans

A friend just sent me this excerpt from one of SciFi writer H. P. Lovecraft letters. While it was written in 1936 it's still a wonderfully perceptive and clear view of what Republicans are today. Read and be amazed:

“As for the Republicans—how can one regard seriously a frightened, greedy, nostalgic huddle of tradesmen and lucky idlers who shut their eyes to history and science, steel their emotions against decent human sympathy, cling to sordid and provincial ideals exalting sheer acquisitiveness and condoning artificial hardship for the non-materially-shrewd, dwell smugly and sentimentally in a distorted dream-cosmos of outmoded phrases and principles and attitudes based on the bygone agricultural-handicraft world, and revel in (consciously or unconsciously) mendacious assumptions (such as the notion that real liberty is synonymous with the single detail of unrestricted economic license or that a rational planning of resource-distribution would contravene some vague and mystical ‘American heritage’…) utterly contrary to fact and without the slightest foundation in human experience? Intellectually, the Republican idea deserves the tolerance and respect one gives to the dead.”

Texas please just go -

The sooner the better! To bad time travel ain't possible - yesterday would be lots better than today.

Take your stupidity and racism and just go -

Even the New Republic is pissed!

Wow! Glory Glory Hallelujah!!! Even the New Republic is pissed with the Blue Dogs and Corporate Democrats and their attempts to destroy Health Care reform.

The magazine I usually refer to as The New Republican has for years been the supporter of the corporate wing of the Democratic Party. Finally they have started to see the light. Last Thursday Glenn Greenwald showed the beginning of the New Republic's rehabilitation from a corporate flack to what it historically was - the spokesmag of the Left. However there is much work yet to be done. I leave it to Greenwald to explain where the New Republic's thinking still stinks:

While it's lovely that The New Republic has now joined that movement and decided that corporate-owned "centrists" need to be purged from the Party, Chait is laboring under complete blindness about the reasons these problems have arisen. Chait accuses me, Dan Froomkin and "liberals" generally of "confusion" because we believe that the Obama White House bears some of the blame in the dominance of corporate interests generally and in the health care battle specifically. Chait echoes the facially absurd excuse of the most hardened Obama loyalists everywhere: namely, that Obama, Rahm Emanuel and friends are just helpless, impotent observers who wield no influence over the health care debate and can do nothing but sit back and hope and pray that the Senate will pass a good, progressive health care reform bill free of excessive servitude to the health care and drug industries. If the Congress refuses to, well that's obviously not Obama's fault -- a President isn't in the Congress and can't really influence what it does, so this excuse-making goes.

For the moment, leave aside all the evidence to the contrary: that, as Chait's colleague Jonathan Cohn detailed, the Obama White House secretly entered into a deal with the drug industry not to negotiate for lower prices; that Obama has repeatedly sought to empower the Baucus-dominated Senate Finance Committee at the expense of more progressive committees; that the White House aggressively threatens, berates, and cajoles House progressives who impede the President's agenda but hasn't done anything against Blue Dogs; that the strategy of the White House from the start has been to ensure that the health care and drug industries are pleased so that they continue to use their ample largesse to fund the Democrats rather than get behind a GOP takeover in 2010; and that Emanuel built his career and power base by controlling the Congress through the expansion of the Blue Dogs and other "centrist" and "conservative" members and by pleasing corporate donors, thus rendering the image of him as a helpless, passive bystander in the health care debate transparent fiction. Even Dick Durbin -- the Senate's number two Democrat -- acknowledges that, even with a huge Democratic majority, the banking industry "frankly owns" the Congress.

More important than all of that is the fact that there is one principal reason that Blue Dogs and "centrists" exert such dominance within the Party: because the Party leadership, led by the Obama White House, wants it that way and works hard to ensure it continues. While Chait seems to envision himself as the pioneering inventor of the primary challenge strategy (something he first articulated six weeks ago), Accountability Now has actually been working continuously for the last year on recruiting credible primary challengers and building an infrastructure to support those challenges -- all in order to unseat the unresponsive, corrupt and corporate-owned incumbents who ensure that the same factions control government no matter which party is in control. But the principal barrier to those efforts has been the accurate perception that the White House and President -- along with key party institutions such as the DCCC -- will use their vast resources to keep Blue Dogs and "centrists" in office and crush any efforts from within the party to unseat them.

It's hard to overstate how many promising potential primary challengers with whom we've spoken -- highly energized and impressive members of City Councils or County Commissions or state legislatures or just private citizens -- who are eager to run against their corporate-owned Democratic Congressional incumbent but are deterred by one primary fear: that Obama and the Party infrastructure will undercut their efforts by actively supporting the Blue Dog incumbent. That fear is particularly pronounced for potential African-American challengers in districts where the corporate-serving "centrist" incumbent is wildly out of step with the interests and views of the typical (and sometimes overwhelmingly African-American) Democratic voter. Such potential challengers anticipate that Obama will intervene on behalf of the Blue Dog against the progressive challenger -- as he's done before -- and sabotage not only their primary challenge but perhaps their future viability as a candidate in their community and district.

That's what makes Chait's insistence that the Obama White House is just an innocent, impotent bystander in all of this so painfully naive and wrong (Obama says he wants a public option, so doesn't that settle it?, asks Chait, vacantly batting his eyes with child-like trust and innocence). When the White House genuinely wants a bill to pass -- rather than paying irrelevant lip service to it -- they know how to apply pressure on the defiant members of Congress

The White House is playing hardball with Democrats who intend to vote against the supplemental war spending bill, threatening freshmen who oppose it that they won't get help with reelection and will be cut off from the White House, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said Friday.

"We're not going to help you. You'll never hear from us again," Woolsey said the White House is telling freshmen.

Rahm Emanuel, Tom Delay, and the Bush/Cheney White House have left no doubt that where there's a will to influence the actions of Senators and House members in one's own party, there's a way. But the Obama White House has done nothing in the way of attempting to change the behavior of the supposedly obstructionist Blue Dogs and centrists whom Obama-defenders are eager to blame for the health care standstill. In fact, they've done the opposite: Emanuel has repeatedly leapt to their defense and attacked progressives who sought to influence or otherwise put pressure on them to change behavior. White House threats that "you'll never hear from us again" are issued to defiant progressives only. Not only are such threats never issued to "centrists" and Blue Dogs who are supposedly impeding the President's health care agenda, but the White House does everything it can to protect those ostensible obstructionists and further entrench them in power. Isn't all of this fairly strong evidence that the White House knew, accepted and likely even desired from the start that -- despite the President's public assurances to progressives -- the "public option," understandably despised by the insurance industry, would be dropped from bill?

Nobody suggests that the President could easily or single-handedly change the behavior of Kent Conrad or Mike Ross. But there are certainly things -- effective things -- he could do to try, including making it more difficult for those politicians to stay in office, exactly as they threaten to do with defiant progressives. But they don't do that. They do the opposite. The reason that Blue Dogs and "centrists" exert such control in the Democratic Party and are able to ensure the Party remains beholden to corporate interests is because that's how Party leaders want it. That's how the Democratic Party has been built and it's how they continue to maintain their power.

Baucus speaks to Montana!

From the Montana blog Montana Maven's Opinions Worth Ropin' it looks like the nice folks of Montana have finally put some heat under Senator Baucus - good for them!

This is the press release from the Coalition of Montana Democratic Central Committees:

FOLLOWING RANCOR AMONG THE RANKS, BAUCUS ASSURES MONTANA CONSTITUENTS:
"I WANT A PUBLIC OPTION TOO"

U.S. Senator Max Baucus has finally broken his silence regarding his personal position on including a public option in health care reform legislation. Last Monday night (8/17), in an unprecedented conference call to Montana Democratic central committee chairs, the powerful leader of the Senate Finance Committee told his strongest supporters that he supported a public option. While discussing the obstacles to getting a public option through the Senate, he assured his forty listeners, "I want a public option too!" The conference call was groundbreaking in that none of the recipients could ever remember this kind of call ever happening before. The teleconference was set up seemingly in reaction to rising discontent among the local Democratic leaders with the Senator's failure to take a clear position on the issue. The discussion, which became contentious and rancorous at times, also touched upon the wisdom of creating insurance cooperatives as an alternative to a public option.

When several of the county chairs objected, commenting that they did not trust the health insurance companies to police themselves and limit their outrageous corporate profits, Baucus commented, "Neither do I."

In the aftermath of the teleconference, a coalition of eighteen Montana counties in the Senator's home state decided to move forward with their plan to issue a Unified Statement accompanied by a joint press release. The statement sends a loud and clear message to their Senator: Any health care reform package coming out of his Senate Finance Committee must contain, at a minimum, a provision for a strong public option. The action is a show of unity not previously seen in Montana political history. The statement asserts, "Here in Montana, the need for real health care reform could not be greater. Families, small business, and small ranches and farms are suffering and being crushed by the rising cost of health care. Thousands of Montanans are uninsured, and many more are losing their homes, businesses and ranches due to exorbitant medical bills."

Calling themselves the Coalition of the United Montana Democratic Central Committees, the group's statement announces it has "established a position in support of a strong public option as an essential element in health care reform." In specifying the necessary components needed for such a public option, they list:

• National Coverage
• Availability to all Americans
• Portability, which includes maintaining coverage even if one loses his or her job
• No exclusions for preexisting conditions, denial of coverage if one gets ill, or develops catastrophic costs
• Publicly run and administered with full transparency and accountability to congress
• No triggers

Christina Quijano, a Billings physician, is Chair of the Carbon County Democratic Central Committee. Carbon County is located in south-central Montana not far from Yellowstone National Park. Speaking for the Coalition, she pointed out, "For this number of counties from all across Montana to join together sends a strong signal to our representatives in Washington that their constituents here in Big Sky Country are unified and stand firm in their insistence that a public option be included in any health care reform bill." Senator Jon Tester (D-Mont) has said he would not vote against a public option, while Montana’s sole US representative, Denny Rehberg (R-Mont) remains opposed to such a measure. Max Baucus, Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, has emerged as a key player in the ongoing health care reform deliberations and, until now, has remained quiet about his personal view. In the final portion of the Coalition's Unified Statement, Quijano emphasizes Senator Baucus’ significant role in this piece of legislation: "We are counting on Senator Baucus to use his influence and leadership to create the most meaningful legacy of our times, real health care reform. 'Max, Montana's Senator', please don't let Montana down!"

Is Bingaman Obama's man in the Gang of Six?

One other statement came out of the last 3rd Thursday Meeting - this time if was from Bingaman's representative at the meeting. During his defense of Bingaman's involvement with the Gang he justified this treachery by informing us that Senator Bingaman was Obama's man in the Gang of Six. I assume he thought it might calm the crowd - trust me it didn't.

Wonder if Obama knows this?

Baucus must go -

Please go to Credo Action and sign the petition to tell Senate Dems to get rid of Max Baucus - the Insurance Industry's best friend in the Senate.

Another meaningless Heath Haussamen poll

Up today at his Republican leaning blog is another of Heath H's unscientific polls. This one's title is "In the health-care reform debate, which of these ideas do you support?".

Please have at it!

In the health-care reform debate, which of these ideas do you support?
	A public option
	Non-profit co-ops
	Neither
	I don’t know
Free polls from Pollhost.com