Interesting Question

Rush Limbaugh, who is vacationing in Hawaii, was rushed to Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii yesterday with chest pains.  According to thinkprogress.org,this is

the same medical center that a United Press International reporter misidentified in an article published in 2008 as the facility in which President Obama was born. Though the error was corrected to accurately indicate that Obama was born in the Kapi’olani Medical Center, the mistake fueled “birther” conspiracy theories that Limbaugh then dedicated significant airtime to promoting. Since then, Limbaugh has gone as far to state that Hawaii “morphed into Kenya one day in 1961 [the year Obama was born] and reverted back to Hawaii the next day.”

Meanwhile, some of Limbaugh’s right-wing colleagues have spent the past week slamming Obama for vacationing in Hawaii over the holidays, which “to many Americans seems like a foreign place.”

My question is, will birthers believe Limbaugh was admitted to the hospital if the Hawaiian government fails to release a hospital admission form?

Some Positive Information from the Health Care Bills

FYI-David M. Herszenhorn summarizes some immediate benefits of the Senate and House health care bills at http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/health-bill-benefits-for-the-impatient :

--Within six months, the Senate bill approved last week would allow dependent, unmarried children to remain on their parents’ policies until their 26th birthday; the House bill would allow an additional year of dependent coverage, until the 27th birthday. Right now it varies from state to state.
--The Senate bill would also bar insurers from denying coverage to children under 19 years of age based on pre-existing medical conditions. And the House bill would require insurers to cover reconstructive surgery for children born with deformities.
--In many cases, the requirements, including the extended coverage for adult children, would apply only to new insurance plans, though insurers could apply the changes to existing policies.
--Many major provisions in the health care legislation would not take effect for several years. New federal subsidies to help moderate-income Americans afford coverage would not begin until 2013 under the House bill, and 2014 under the Senate bill. A new requirement that nearly all Americans obtain insurance would take effect at the same time that the subsidies become available.
--No annual or lifetime limits. Both the Senate and House versions of the legislation ultimately seek to prevent insurers from imposing annual or lifetime limits on coverage in new health policies. In the final package of amendments to the Senate bill, the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, added new language giving the secretary of health and human services the authority to regulate annual limits from six months after the bill is enacted until the broader insurance provisions take effect in 2014. Such limits are a serious concern to people with chronic illnesses like cancer that can require expensive treatments within a relatively short period of time, and the change proposed by Mr. Reid was prompted by inquiries from the American Cancer Society.
--Limits on insurance company profits. Beginning in 2011, the Senate bill would set tight restrictions to force insurance companies to spend the bulk of their revenues on providing medical care to beneficiaries. The legislation would require insurance companies in the large group market to spend at least 85 percent of their revenues on care and insurers in the individual market to spend at least 80 percent of revenues on care. Critics of the private health insurance, including Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, and Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, said setting such requirements on what insurers call “medical loss ratios” was needed to tamp down on profiteering.
--Short-term expansion of state high risk pools. To help people who cannot obtain insurance because of pre-existing conditions, both the Senate and House bills would provide $5 billion to increase the availability of coverage through state high-risk insurance pools. This provision would take effect 90 days after enactment of the legislation, but many details remain to be worked out.style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
--New financing for community health centers. The House bill provides $12 billion in additional financing for community health centers, which serve needy populations, particularly in rural areas. Senator Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont, won the inclusion of $10 billion in financing for community health centers in the Senate bill. The final dollar amount will be decided in negotiations between House and Senate leaders, but the money would be available for five years beginning in the current fiscal year.
--Closing the Medicare drug “doughnut hole”. The legislation would increase the amount of drug costs covered by Medicare by $500 in 2010. And beginning on July 1, 2010, the bill would provide 50 percent discounts on brand-name drugs and biologics that low- and middle-income beneficiaries have to pay for themselves once the coverage gap known as the doughnut hole begins.
--Prohibition on rescinding existing coverage. Both the House and Senate bills would bar insurance companies -from rescinding existing coverage other than “in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact.”
--Small business tax credits. The Senate bill would offer tax credits to small businesses beginning in 2010 for up to 35 percent of premium costs. The full credit would be available to firms with 10 or fewer employees and average annual wages of $25,000. Reduced credits would be available to firms with up to 25 employees and with average annual wages of up to $50,000.
--Patient protections. For new health plans, beginning six months after enactment of the legislation, the Senate bill would prohibit insurers from requiring prior authorization before a woman sees an obstetrician or gynecologist. The bill would also require coverage for emergency care.
--Discrimination protections for lower-income workers. The Senate bill would bar group health plans from setting any eligibility rules for coverage that favor higher-wage employees. This provision would take effect six months after enactment of the legislation.
--Cobra extension through 2013. Anyone currently paying for an extension of health benefits as permitted under federal law — for instance, after a loss of employment — would be permitted under the House legislation to continue Cobra coverage until the major insurance coverage provisions of the legislation take effect in 2013.
--Reinsurance program for early retirees. Both the House and Senate bills would provide federal financing for a new reinsurance program to encourage employers to maintain health benefits for employees and early retirees age 55 to 64.
--Consumer assistance provisions. Both the House and Senate bills would begin to impose new requirements aimed at making it easier for consumers to interact with insurers, including a requirement that health plans adopt uniform descriptions of plan benefits and appeals procedures and that they begin using identical forms.

The Senate's Health Care Bill

No public option. No expansion of Medicare to people 55+ years old. No prohibition on the ability of companies to raise premiums for people with pre-existing conditions or older people. In fact, it ALLOWS them to do this. Requires me to buy insurance even when I'm broke.                                                 

Rahm Emanuel SELLS OUT AMERICA

From Brian Beutler at talkingpointsmemo.com:

Obama administration officials were not pleased when word leaked out earlier today that the White House was leaning on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to cut a deal with Joe Lieberman on a public option alternative--and they gave their counterparts on the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. an earful about it. But in the end, sources are unanimous: The White House wants Reid to hand Joe Lieberman the farm.


An aide briefed on discussions with the White House says that there would be no story if Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel hadn't interceded. The aide confirmed an account, reported by Huffington Post, that Emanuel visited Reid personally, telling him to cut a deal with Lieberman.

Then the aide provided more detail.

Emanuel didn't just leave it to Reid to find a solution. Emanuel specifically suggested Reid give Lieberman the concessions he seeks on issues like the Medicare buy-in and triggers. "It was all about 'do what you've got to do to get it done. Drop whatever you've got to drop to get it done," the aide said. All of Emanuel's prescriptions, the source said, were aimed at appeasing Lieberman--not twisting his arm.


This is the second Senate aide to provide nearly identical accounts of the White House's intervention. It seems very much as if officials there desperately want the Senate to pass a bill, at all costs.

At this point, the Medicare buy-in isn't in exactly what you'd call "good health." But the fact that it hasn't been officially nixed by Reid suggest there's some remaining tension between Reid and the White House over this issue. We'll know soon who wins.

Interestingly, this is consistent with what I, Presiding Pundit, heard early this summer-that Rahm Emanuel was advocating dropping the public option before the blue dogs or republicans even thought of it.  Is Emanuel in bed with the insurance companies?  Maybe he was the real architect of the town hall meeting protests!  (You know I love a good conspiracy story!) When the democrats lose control of the house and/or senate in 2010 for jerking us around on health care, will Rahm Emanuel lose his job?

Excuse my language

But now I am really pissed!

I have not liked that the senate democrats have been watering down the health care reform legislation.  I admit that I have felt defeated during the last several weeks and that it didn't matter what I wrote in this blog, how many times I wrote or called my senators, the Senate Majority Leader or the White House.  Thus, I did not feel sufficiently moved to write in this blog and I turned my attention to other aspects of life.  But when the senate democrats dropped the Medicare expansion portion (allowing people 55+ years old buy into Medicare) of the newest version of the bill because egomaniac, attention-whore Joe Lieberman indicated that he was against it (despite being in favor of it a few months ago), my head exploded.  It is time to pull Lieberman's chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.   The democrats have caved on everything that would make this an effective piece of legislation.  We are left with a bag of dead bones, the only thing alive being the requirement that we all get health insurance, a windfall for the insurance companies and a burden on many of us.  Further, there is nothing to keep them from raising the premiums through the roof.  This is a victory for the insurance industry and the republicans.  Thanks senate democrats, you have royally screwed your supporters and constituents.

Through the Megaphone-

Hey Progressives, weren't you listening?
As President Obama's decision about America's continued involvement in Afghanistan became increasingly imminent, I have heard many angry and angst-filled progressives complaining  on the radio and on television about the prospect of the president sending more troops to Afghanistan. Even Keith Olberman sternly pontificated.  As anticipation of the decision increased, many of these people act as if a decision to increase troops would be a betrayal of their vote. I find this attitude interesting because throughout his campaign, President Obama consistently stated that he would increase the troops in Afghanistan. On August 1, 2007,in Washington, D.C., then-Senator Obama made the following remarks:

"And so, a little more than a year after that bright September day, I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. But I said I could not support "a dumb war, a rash war" in Iraq."

"It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland."

"The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

"As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations."

Obama made similar remarks on September 12, 2007 in Clinton, Iowa:

"Osama bin Ladin and his top lieutenants have rebuilt a new base in Pakistan where they freely train recruits, plot new attacks, and disseminate propaganda. The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan."

"When we end this war in Iraq, we can finally finish the fight in Afghanistan. That is why I propose stepping up our commitment there, with at least two additional combat brigades and a comprehensive program of aid and support to help Afghans help themselves."

On August 19, 2008, Obama said the following in a speech at the VFW National Convention in Orlando, Florida:

"Ending the war will allow us to invest in America, to strengthen our military, and to finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and the border region of Pakistan. We must also recognize that we cannot succeed in Afghanistan or secure America as long as there is a terrorist safe-haven in northwest Pakistan. A year ago, I said that we must take action against bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights and Pakistan cannot or will not act.


"Six years ago, I stood up at a time when it was politically difficult to oppose going to war in Iraq, and argued that our first priority had to be finishing the fight against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan."


"Ending the war will allow us to invest in America, to strengthen our military, and to finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and the border region of Pakistan.  And as Commander-in-Chief, I will have no greater priority than taking out these terrorists who threaten America, and finishing the job against the Taliban."

Not only was President Obama on the record as being in support of sending more troops to Afghanistan for several years before his election, he campaigned on it. If he announces that he is going to send additional troops as is widely speculated, he is doing exactly what the he told us he would do. So, I don't understand this feeling of surprise and betrayal in the progressive community. Did they not listen to his speeches? Did they misunderstand? Did they purposely ignore it? Did they think that he did not mean what he said?

OMG! Do these people actually vote?!

This would be amusing if it was not so sad and scary.  This is clear and convincing evidence that we have a block of people (voters? I hope not!) who are uninformed, but pick up catch phrases from conservative talk shows and throw them around without knowing what they mean.  This is also an indictment of our educational system because they did not teach these people how to pick up a newspaper and read it, or how to find news on the Internet.  Most important, they did not teach critical thinking. 

The Time Is Now

We must press on!

I have not heard of any corporations lining up in support of the proposed health care reform legislation. In fact, they have been spending millions of dollars paying off republicans and "blue dog" democrats to do their bidding for them, financing commercials and staging demonstrations at town hall meetings and elsewhere to spread their lies in an effort to defeat the legislation. Unless the government takes action with a strong public option, there will be no competition for the insurance companies and they will continue to strangle us all. Without a public option in place, their will be no motivation for the industry to bring down costs. If we don't do this now, there may never be another chance in our lifetimes. Every day we wait, more people die because they do not have health insurance coverage. Every day that we waste battling, the chances that we will ever have effective change get smaller and people continue to die. Rolling back the Bush tax cuts will go a long way toward paying for the changes.

***The Presiding Pundit is back after several weeks of absence due to illness.  Thanks to Brooklyn Beagle for making sure the blog did not die from lack of entries during  this time.

Still sizzling

Here is a recent e-mail exchange that took place among Presiding Pundit's relatives. I changed the names to protect the innocent . . . and the guilty.

----- Original Message -----
From: Dash
Sent:  Saturday, November 21, 2009 9:54 PM
Subject: healthcare
As much as I would like to support Obama on healthcare reform, this bill is 2074 pages of misguided crap.  It disingenuously claims not to raise the deficit, but does so through accounting trickery:
1. it accounts for two years of increased revenue via hiked taxes before subsidies kicks in.  If you adjust the revenue and spending to start at the same time, it is not revenue neutral.
2. In order to get doctors to support it, it prevents scheduled cuts in Medicare payments, but does so by moving the $274 billion in costs into a different bill to hide the issue.
Mainly, it focuses on expanding coverage to the poor yet does nothing to control the ridiculous costs of the existing system. Rather, Obama should focus on cutting costs of the system first. Instead, we are now adding millions of people onto a taxpayer supported system with artificially high costs that benefits lawyers, doctors, insurance and pharmaceuticals. The system sucked long before Obama came to office, but he needs to not add more people onto a broken system. These are real reasons why the democratic bill is crap.  Most of the reasons put forth by the republicans on why the bill is bad (supposed lost jobs, gov't run healthcare, etc) are also disingenuous and false.
Here's the -- http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf
 
From: Kit
Sent: Sun, November 22, 2009 7:59:33 AM
Subject: Re: healthcare
You obviously have not been reading the Wilsonville Pundit.  Presiding Pundit and Brooklyn Beagle have espoused the health care reform bill with great wisdom - basically, it doesn't matter how much it costs, do it.

From: Dash
Sent: Sun, Nov 22, 2009 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: healthcare
Yep, I can understand the desire for healthcare reform and to fix the terrible existing system.  It's a good idea. The problem is that the order in which reform happens is important. They need to bring costs under control before adding 30-40 million more people to the system. We can't bring the wasted money on the Iraq war into this.  It's irrelevant, as the old saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right!

From: Presiding Pundit
Sent: Mon, November 23, 2009 6:48:41 AM
Subject: Re: healthcare
I have not had a chance to read the entire bill, but the Congressional Budget Office did they actually gave it a good rating.  Here is their report: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10731/Reid_letter_11_18_09.pdf

We have a very small window of time in which to get this done.  If we don't do it now, the republicans and health insurance companies will make sure it will never get done.  I don't care how much it costs, it is necessary.  It is the moral thing to do.  We should be ashamed as a country that we have not done this until now.  All of the other western countries have universal health care.  Due to greed, we are the lone holdout.  I don't think that one can ignore the money spent on the Iraq war, all of the money that went into the pockets of Dick Cheney and his friends and how we almost lost our freedoms because of their assault on our constitutional rights.  The people who supported and voted for Bush/Cheney TWICE are the same people who rant, rave and lie (or are eager to believe the lies) about Barak Obama and the Democrats' efforts to provide good quality health care to all Americans.  According to Harvard Medical School researchers, 45,000 people per year (that's one person every 12 minutes) die due to lack of adequate health care because they do not have insurance.  No matter what the cost, we do not have the moral right to refuse to change a system that sees fit to let people die due to lack of health insurance. 

From: George
Sent: Mon. November 23, 2009 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: healthcare
I intend to organize and track local, state and federal officials that vote "yes" or "present" to any part of this stupid idiotic spending spree and, accordingly, oppose in any and every way possible their continuation in public office.  These people have to be stopped.  We can't community organize and spend our way out of this mess.  Stop the spending; send the special interest groups, unions, bleeding heart AH insurance companies and, especially, the ever loving litigating Washington lawyers to hell.  I am serious.  I hate them all.  I do not trust anyone right now. Not even Sarah and particularly anyone that claims they are a democrat or republican.

From: Dash
Sent: Mon, November 23, 2009 9:45:08 AM
Subject: Re: healthcare
By adding on tens of millions to the existing system, it will only make service worse and pump more money into the doctors, insurance and legal industries. This makes them more powerful and means that it will be even harder to control costs in the future.  Why else would the corporations be lining up behind this bill?  It funnels taxpayer money, which we will have to borrow at high rates, to these industry groups by way of 30-40 million people who otherwise couldn't afford it. Instead, wouldn't it be better to get the skyrocketing costs down first, and then afterward move to implement broad coverage?  To me they have this backwards. It's akin to guaranteeing everyone the right to subsidized gasoline when prices are $5 a gallon.

What's all the screaming about ?!

$1.1 Trillion over 10 years for a national health care plan that covers everyone – WHAT IS EVERYONE SCREAMING ABOUT? We've already spent $1 Trillion on the Iraq and Afghan wars and plan to spend $2-3 Trillion before they're over, if they're ever over. Brooklyn Beagle thinks that anyone who wants to spend more on Iraq and Afghanistan than on the health and well-being of this country's citizens should be voted out of office. We need to spend so much on health care in this country that we CANNOT AFFORD to fuel a war in another part of the world.

Howling,
Brooklyn Beagle

Let Insurance Companies Fail

The insurance companies are claiming that a public option that would make insurance available to everyone and inject competition into the marketplace would put them out of business. Well, if a few fat, weak, poorly run insurance companies have to fail, so be it. The US government should not financially support insurance companies by withholding health care from citizens and preventing competition just so a poorly run insurance company doesn't fail. 80% of all new businesses fail in this country due to the competitiveness of the marketplace. Failing businesses are as natural a part of this economy as the dime or nickel. That's the natural consequence of competition - adapt or die. The government should not only let the fat, poorly run insurance businesses fail, but it should help make it happen.

Howling,
Brooklyn Beagle

Opting-out

I am not convinced that an opt-out provision (allowing states to opt-out of the public option) is the best way to garner sixty votes in the senate to pass meaningful and effective health care reform.

First, why would a state want to opt-out? It is likely because the insurance industry has sufficiently lined the pockets of the state politicians. It is a good chunk of money to fund the re-election campaign. Also, on principle, Republicans just hate the idea of government involvement in anything, except of course, what we do in our bedrooms, what we say and to whom in our telephone conversations and e-mail, and which sites we visit on the internet. So, the state GOP would opt-out as soon as it had the majority in the state legislatures and the governor’s office. When I first heard about this op-out provision, I thought that it might work if the opt-out had to be passed by two-thirds of the state’s voters. But, given the lack of informed voters, the gullibility of the general public, and the vast sums of money the insurance industry has spent on campaigns in the past, I have no doubt that the industry will dedicate obscenely large sums of money spreading disinformation through wide media campaigns to convince the public to vote to opt-out. Out of ignorance and/or laziness, people vote against their own interests all the time.

Second, there seems to be a consensus among liberal pundits that smaller, poorer states like Alabama and other southern states are the most likely states to opt-out. So, if they do opt-out, what happens to their citizens who are now required to have medical insurance and are at the mercy of the one or two insurance companies who do business in their small states? To be sure, health care reform would not have improved the lives of those citizens, it would have imposed additional burdens on them and made their lives worse.

So , I urge the Senate leaders to pass a meaningful and effective health care reform bill (with a robust public option and without triggers, opt-in or opt-out provisions) through the reconciliation process, not by selling out the citizens in order to get a few, if any, Republicans to vote for it. As for the Blue Dogs, just tell them that you will revoke their committee chairmanships and other influential positions that they hold if they try to block it. Then do it. It is that important.

Glenn Beck Is a Fake!

Finally! Proof that Glenn Beck fakes his tears!  Watch the video below, taken during a photo shoot.  At Beck's request (first line of the video) they put Vaseline under his eyes to make tears form.

Won't Back Down

More on Rep. Alan Grayson's call out of the Republican health care plan: As always, the Republicans expressed their outrage and accused Rep. Grayson of degrading "the integrity and proceedings of the House." In their typical self-serving manner, the Republicans ignored the fact that their own had made numerous false claims on the floor about Democratic plans: 

– “Last week Democrats released a health care bill which essentially said to America’s seniors: Drop dead.” [Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL), 7/21/09]
– “They’re going to save money by rationing care, getting you in a long line. Places like Canada, United Kingdom, and Europe. People die when they’re in line.” [Rep. Steve King (R-IA), 7/15/09]
– “The Republican plan will make sure we bring down the cost of health care for all Americans and that ensures affordable access for all Americans and is pro-life because it will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government.” [Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), 7/28/09]
– “That’s exactly what’s going on in Canada and Great Britain today…and a lot of people are going to die.” [Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), 7/10/09]
– “One in five people have to die because they went to socialized medicine! … I would hate to think that among five women, one of ‘em is gonna die because we go to socialized care.” [Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), 7/15/09]

The Republicans nevertheless demanded an that Rep. Grayson apologize for Tuesday's call out.  Nancy Pelosi refused to tell Rep. Grayson to apologize.  In response to the Republican demand, Grayson said that he did not plan to apologize.  "It is just another example of how they are constantly trying to change the subject. Nobody really cares about their feelings," Grayson said.  "We are not sent here to make the other members feel good," he said. "We are sent here to solve America's problems. Only in their own narrow minds would they think what matters here is how they feel."

On Wednesday, Grayson took to the house floor to apologize, but it was not what the Republicans expected.  This video is a must see. 




I guess we can still have heroes.

Tell It Like It Is

Republicans CALLED OUT on health care "plan"

In a controversial speech on the House floor Tuesday night, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) accurately summed up the Republican alternative health care proposal:   “die quickly.”  The short two minute  presentation is well worth watching:

The Right Thing to Do

• Four out of five health care reform bills coming out of congressional committees contain a public option. 

• According to the most recent New York Times/CBS poll, 65 percent of Americans are in favor of a public option. 

• A survey of doctors published by the New England Journal of Medicine this month  revealed that 73 percent of doctors support a public option. 

• According to Harvard Medical School researchers, 45,000 people per year (that's one person every 12 minutes ) die due to lack of adequate health care because they do not have insurance.

Thus, there is no reason that a bill without a public option should appear on the president's desk. A health care bill with a public option is a necessity. It is the right thing to do. It is what the people want.

Senator Chuck Schumer to Wilsonville Pundit

I wanted to give you quick update about our work to pass a public health care option.

My amendment to add a public option to the Senate Finance Committee bill came up just two votes short of being adopted by the full committee this afternoon.

This is unfortunate news but not a surprise. Remember, the Senate Finance Committee is more conservative than the Senate as a whole. And 4 out of 5 Congressional committees with jurisdiction over health care reform have passed a public option.

This is the opening day of our fight, and I will continue to work to improve the health care reform bill as we take the legislation to the Senate floor.

The more the people hear the facts about the public option, the more they support our efforts. We must continue to work together and speak out. If we continue to fight, I am confident we will pass health care reform with a robust public option.

Chuck Schumer
U.S. Senate

A Public Option is the ONLY Option

Thank you for inviting Brooklyn Beagle to contribute to the Wilsonville Pundit. I wish to share with your readers an email I recently received from New York Senator Charles Schumer:

Thank you for contacting me and expressing your support for government-run public option in health care reform. I wholeheartedly agree that a public option will help enhance access to quality and affordable health care for every American.

Our country is facing a crisis in health care. The cost of health insurance is skyrocketing, and too many New York families are caught in the middle. Like you, I believe it is absolutely unacceptable that more than forty-six million Americans do not have health care coverage. Both the health of our citizens and the health of our nation are at stake, and we must act soon.

I strongly support the establishment of a public health insurance option which would create a not-for-profit insurance plan, started by the government, which would compete on a level playing field with existing private health insurance plans. Because the public health insurance option would be not-for-profit, it should require lower premiums and, therefore, exert downward pressure on the premiums of existing insurance plans. This change is pro-consumer because it adds competition to insurance markets, allowing New Yorkers and all Americans one more choice of affordable and comprehensive health insurance.

Too many Americans are either uninsured or underinsured and Congress must act soon to provide the necessary catalyst we need. The Senate Finance Committee, of which I am a member, is working with all stakeholders in the health care community to develop a strong bill that can help solve our current health crisis.

Thank you for contacting me about this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me again if I can ever be of assistance to you on this, or any other matter.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator


This blog is great! Keep up the heat!

Brooklyn Beagle

A Slip of the Republican Tongue

The Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee argued for additional time to read the Baucus health care bill before voting on it.  Although they asked for 72 hours, the work and procedures arising out of that time could add up to three weeks to the process, according to press accounts.  I note that none of the Republicans cared to read George Bush's Patriot Act and they ignored similar requests by Democrats for more time to review.  In fact,  the Republican leadership forced it through to a floor vote in the House in just one day. 

In support of the Republicans' request to delay the health care bill, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), revealed that the  Republicans did not ask for the time so that the senators and/or their staff members could read the bill, but so the insurance lobbyists  could read the bill and have time to come up with additional roadblocks.  Mike Madden at Salon.com reports that Roberts stated the following:

All the Senator from Kentucky is asking is for 72 hours to determine the cost. Senator Snowe has spoken eloquently about sunshine, and the openness, and the fact that the American people would support this 90 percent, 95 percent. But the thing that I’m trying to point out is we would have at least 72 hours for the people that the providers have hired to keep up with all of the legislation that we pass around here, and the regulations that we pass around here, to say “hey, wait a minute. Have you considered this?” 

oops.

Thank you for inviting me to contribute to your blog. I look forward to commenting on both Oregon and National political issues. This is a serious time for America but, I hope not to lose my sense of humor. See you all soon!

The Impact of Race on Today's Political Climate

Carter and Obama are both right

This past week, former President Carter told NBC news, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man . . . racism inclination still exists. And I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply."   

I applaud former President Carter's  "calling out" of these racists.  I made the same observation myself in my September 7th entry about the hysteria over President Obama's address to the nation's school children  when I wrote, "This is a pure and very sad case of racism. These people cannot stand the fact that we elected a black president. They cannot tolerate the thought of a black president speaking to their children and possibly inspiring them, because it would disrupt the hate that they are spewing and teaching their children."

In an interview with CNN's John King, to be broadcast on Sunday, President Obama said that he assumes some people don’t like him because of his race but said it is not the “overriding issue.” He said the intense public reaction reflects a long-standing debate about the role of government, which gets more fierce “when presidents are trying to bring about big changes.”

The resulting headlines stating that Obama rejects Carter's statement, were wrong.  The Republicans  oppose health care reform and most of the other changes that Obama has proposed.  They are angry that they lost the election.  They will do anything to regain their power.  So, as they did with the Christian right and the issues of abortion and homosexuality in prior elections, they are now stoking the pent up racism of Americans who resent having a black man as our president.  Then, they feed one lie after another to these people, via the internet and people like Glenn "Joe McCarthy" Beck and Rush Limbaugh, to create angry mobs at town hall meetings and giant temper-tantrums in Washington D.C. This keeps negative Obama stories in the media and drags down his approval ratings.

Thus, Obama and Carter were both correct in their statements.

Crystal Lee Sutton, died on September 11, 2009 in Burlington North Carolina  from brain cancer.   In the early 1970s, Sutton was fired from her job after trying to organize a union at the JP Stevens plant in North Carolina. Her final act at the plant was writing the word "UNION" on a piece of cardboard, standing up on her work table and holding the sign up, while her co-workers turned off their machines in solidarity.  She was then physically removed from the plant by police.  Sutton was the inspiration for the title character in the 1979 movie, Norma Rae, played by Sally Field. Sutton was denied possible life-saving medication for two months because her insurance company would not pay for it.  Eventually, the insurance company agreed to pay for the medication but by then, the cancer had taken its toll on her. She told the Burlington Times-News that the insurance company's action was an example of abuse of the working poor.  According to the Times-News, Sutton said:

How in the world can it take so long to find out [whether they would cover the medicine or not] when it could be a matter of life or death.  It is almost like, in a way, committing murder.

But hey, don't let a government bureaucrat get between my doctor and I.  Better to have insurance company bean counters get between my doctor and I.  They have such a good record.  Oh, and those government death panels?  I would rather continue with the insurance company death panels.  They are so effective.

A Question of Balance

Baucus and Grassley accept millions from health care and insurance interests

    As Senator Max Baucus claims that he is working on a health care bill with his bipartisan panel, I thought that it would be a good time to review his connections to health care and insurance companies.  In a June 14, 2009 article in the Montana Standard, Mike Dennison summarized data from the Center for Responsive Politics, which is a nonprofit group that tracks campaign donations.  Mr. Dennison's summary, in pertinent part,  is as follows: 

In the past six years, nearly one-fourth of every dime raised by Baucus, D-Mont., and his political-action committee has come from groups and individuals associated with drug companies, insurers, hospitals, medical-supply firms, health-service companies and other health professionals.

These donations total about $3.4 million, or $1,500 a day, every day, from January 2003 through 2008.
. . . . .

From 2003-2008, the Baucus campaign and his Glacier PAC, which raises money and distributes it to other candidates, received 23 percent of their $14.8 million from health-care and insurance interests.

The $3.4 million from these sectors includes $853,000 from pharmaceutical and health-products, $851,000 from health professionals; $467,000 from hospitals and nursing homes, $466,000 from health-service and HMO interests, and $784,000 from insurance.

The insurance-sector money includes donations from all types of insurance-company interests, including health insurance.

Five of the top 10 specific donor sources for Baucus were drug companies, health insurers or health-related firms. For example, employees of Schering-Plough Corp., a major drug firm, gave him $92,000 over the period, more than any other single source.

Mr. Dennison also pointed out that Senator Charles Grassley received 23.5%  of his total donations from health and insurance interests, $2.3 million out of $9.8 million total funds.

By contrast, the late great Senator Edward M. Kennedy received  only 7.5 % of his donations from such interests.  Also, President Barack Obama received only 2.5% from health care interests and 0.3% from insurance interests during his presidential campaign.

So, when faced with the choice of a plan with an effective pubic option supported by President Obama and the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy or a plan without an effective public option, if any, written by Senators Baucus and Grassley, which plan is most likely to help all Americans?   Hmmm....
*Thanks to Patti for all the research.

It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over

At various points in the past month and a half, I was sure that the public option was dead, or alive,  depending on which message the White House was putting out at the time.  With all of the trial balloons and the clarifications issued the next day, it was a real roller-coaster.   The day of Obama's speech, I read a dozen different stories about what the president was going to say about the public option that night.  Each with a source, each claiming to know, each with a different prognostication.  After President Obama's speech on Wednesday night, I felt renewed hope.  Even though the President gave himself wiggle room, I believed that unless the Republicans could come up with a constructive and workable method of accomplishing the goals set forth that night, the public option was in.  And, given the fact that the Republicans had no intention of coming up with such a solution, we would have an effective  public option.  

Then, it started.  First, David Axelrod told Rachel Maddow in an interview immediately after the speech that he thought there would be some sort of public option in the bill, but he did not know whether there would be a trigger mechanism.  Then, on Friday, I read reports that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were "softening" on requiring a public option in the President's new health plan. Only four days after the President's speech, a New York Times analysis suggested, that the idea of a public option "appears to be dying, a victim of an ineffectual White House strategy, the president’s failure to argue passionately for the 'public option' and all-out opposition by the insurance industry and much of the health care industry."  Over the weekend, I have read or heard several accounts of the White House, the Congressional leadership or the Democrats "caving" on the public option.  Some indicated that this meant no public option. Some indicated that there was a new receptiveness to a trigger mechanism.  An Associated Press report by Charles Babington, acknowledged the hurdles that the public option faces, but did not say or imply that anyone was caving or that a trigger-less public option is dead.  This article, as do many, speaks of the President's appearance this evening on 60 Minutes and the cross country trips that the President is making to press his case.

So who do we believe?  Should we believe any press accounts?  Or, is this all just case of speculation written to sound authoritative?  I don't know.  Perhaps that is because the battle has not yet ended.

Keep the Pressure On for Public Option

We still need to keep the pressure on the White House and Congress (specially the Senate)  to assure that the Obama health care plan contains an effective public option (no trigger).  CNN is already reporting that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are "softening" on requiring a public option in the President's new health plan.  Please call and/or write the White House and your representatives in the house and senate and tell them how essential a public option is to you.

You can call the White House comment line at 202-456-1111.  You can also leave a comment online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/  .
.
The number for the Capital switchboard is 202-224-3121, who can put you through to your congressman and your senators.  Also, you can obtain their e-mail  addresses and direct office numbers (DC and local) at http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt . 

E-mail/call early and often. 

Going, Going, Gone!!

A CNN Poll conducted after President Obama's 's address last night to a joint session of Congress revealed that two out of three Americans who watched President Barack Obama's health care reform speech Wednesday night favor his health care plans.  Sixty-seven percent of people questioned in the survey say they support Obama's health care reform proposals  outlined in his address.  This is a 14-point gain among speech-watchers, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national poll of people who tuned into Obama's address Wednesday night to a joint session of Congress.  "Going into the speech, a bare majority of his audience — 53 percent — favored his proposals. Immediately after the speech, that figure rose to 67 percent," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.    Only 29 percent opposed Obama's proposals.  70 percent of those polled said that Obama's policies will move the country in the right direction,  which is an increase of 10 points from before the speech.  The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll of 427 American adults was conducted by telephone immediately before and immediately after President Obama's  speech. 

I'd say that the President hit this one out of the park.

President Meeting With Problem Dems

It is being reported that President Obama is meeting with 16 Democratic senators + Joe Lieberman at 4:15 pm ET today, presumably to discuss their opposition to the various health care proposals and to get them on board with the President's proposal which he revealed in his address to a joint session of congress last night.   In addition to Joe Lieberman, the President is meeting with  Senators Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Mark Warner of Virginia, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Tom Carper of Delaware, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Udall and Michael Bennet of Colorado, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin.

I'm not sure we can trust Lieberman.  He is likely to go back to the Republicans and tell them everything that transpired. 

Americans Want a Public Option

After all of the staged protests at televised town hall meetings and all of the lies propagated in an effort to defeat a public option, 60 percent of Americans still want a public option according to the latest CBS poll on the subject, conducted August 27-31.  Only 34 percent are against a public option. 

Baucus Scrambling

It is being reported that Max Baucus is gathering his gang of six for a meeting today to try to find a compromise on health care reform.  The reports also indicate, however, that Baucus said that they are meeting today because he believes any proposal they have would carry more weight if they are passed out of his panel before the President speaks.  Interestingly, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, said yesterday that a Baucus bill was already on K Street (being reviewed by lobbyists) but the White House had not seen it yet.

Teach Your Children

In 1991, George H.W. Bush gave a speech to schoolchildren across the nation.  The speech  was intended "to motivate America's students to strive for excellence; to increase students'  as well as parents' awareness of the educational challenge we face."  The White house  sent letters to schools across the nation encouraging the schools to allow students to listen to the speech.  The Education Department arranged for live television and radio coverage.  Washington Post, October 2, 2001. 

Simon Maloy at Media Matters points out that George W. Bush posted a "teacher's guide" on the White House website for teachers to use to help their students understand the "freedom timeline" for the Iraq war and encouraged them to "explore the biographies of the President, Mrs. Bush, Vice President and Mrs. Cheney."

In 1988, Ronald Reagan addressed schoolchildren in a speech that was broadcast live and rerun by C-Span.  The Instructional Television Network fed the program to schools nationwide on three different days.  At one point in the broadcast,  Reagan used the occasion to speak in favor of his tax cuts. 

Following the tradition, President Obama will give a speech to American schoolchildren on the first day of school, in which he will "challenge students to work hard, set educational goals and take responsibility for their own learning. He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens."  U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

So why, pray tell, did Jim Greer, chairman of the Florida Republican Party, lash out at President Obama for his plans to give a speech to the nation's school children about the importance of working hard in school?  Why would he accuse the president of trying to "indoctrinate America's children to his socialist agenda?"  Why would he call  President Obama's planned speech an  "an invasive abuse of power?"  Why all this coming from Mr. Greer, who, himself, went into classrooms and talked about Republican values?  Why are conservative Republicans all over the country condemning and spouting off conspiracy theories about the speech, which they haven't even read?

Matthew Yglesias at Think Progress astutely concluded, "Probably the biggest moral of the story is that the contemporary conservative movement is run by crazy people with no scruples, who’ll turn anything into a pretext to level wild accusations. "

For this to to cause so much hysteria from the right, I can't help but conclude that if Obama was a white male president, the reaction would not be so hateful and venomous.  In fact, there would be no opposition.  This is a pure and very sad case of racism.  These people cannot stand the fact that we elected a black president.  They cannot tolerate the thought of a black president speaking to their children and possibly inspiring them, because it would disrupt the hate that they are spewing and teaching their children.

It  sickens me.

Terrorism-

Legitimized?? 

We are in crazy-town folks!  That is where we must be living if a U.S. congressman can get away with publicly endorsing a constituent's pronouncement that he (the constituent) is a terrorist! 

Remember when there were cries from the right to arrest anti-war protesters for terrorism and jail them for up to 25 years  because they were disrupting traffic?  (See Oregon Senate Bill 742, which was considered but not passed in 2003. It defined a terrorist as a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly.)   Republicans have conveniently forgotten that they are against terrorism.

In case you missed it, Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA) held a town hall meeting last week during which Bert Stead,  a tea-partier and birther (read lun-a-tic) declared himself to be a "proud right-wing terrorist."  Herger then looked around the room, smiled and nodded his head in approval.  Following the confessed terrorist's ant-Obama and  anti-government remarks, Herger said, "Amen. God bless you.  There's a great American!"  In response to criticism in the media, Herger's office released the following statement: "Congressman Herger stands by his statement in support of his constituent.  Mr. Bert Stead is a taxpayer and veteran, who, like so many others, is rightfully fed up with being called 'un-American', or 'extremist' or a 'political terrorist' by liberals in Washington, for simply exercising his First Amendment rights. Mr. Stead served his country and therefore he is a great American. The Congressman doesn't at all regret commending him for standing up, exercising his free speech rights, and expressing his strong concerns with the direction liberals in Washington are taking our country."

Didn't Stead call himself a "proud right wing terrorist?"  If he calls himself a terrorist, why is he fed up with other people calling him a terrorist?  And, substitute left wing for right wing, switch Herger with Barney Frank, and the Republicans would be screaming for the Democrats to condemn the congressman, for the congressman's resignation and for a full investigation of him for aiding and abetting terrorism!  Did we hear any such demands from the Rs on this one?  Nope.  Not a peep.

VINDICATION!

Hey! I'm not a paranoid conspiracy theorist in need of psychological help after all!

Well, maybe I am, a little. But with Tom Ridge's recent revelations about the Bush administration issuing terror warnings to strike fear in the public in order to manipulate the election, I feel so vindicated. I just want to jump up and down, pointing, and shout, "I told you so! I told you so! I told you so!" But, that would be immature of me and besides, I was certainly not the only one saying that the Bush administration was putting out phony terror alerts for political gain. Right-wing media called us paranoid, conspiracy theorists and unbalanced for voicing such an opinion. Shall we review?

In the year leading up to the election, there were no less than 16 warnings/alerts issued by the government. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but frankly, I'm exhausted and need to post this before it goes on longer and I get totally disgusted.

December 4, 2003-Foxnews.com reports that the FBI warns that terrorists could be developing plans to hijack airplanes to use as weapons.

December 13, 2003-FBI warns that terrorist operatives may rely on almanacs to assist with target selection and pre-operational plannings and suggests the possibility of attacks against the United States by early 2004 that could rival the terrorist attack of September 11 in scope and impact.

March 4, 2004-Fox News obtains FBI bulletin that terrorists may use pen guns containing poisonous chemicals and biological toxins.

April 2, 2004-FBI warns that terrorists might attempt to slip into the U.S. using cultural, arts or sports visas.

May 20, 2004-FBI issues a bulletin advising police to be on the lookout for suicide bombers attempting to strike inside the U.S. Warned to look for people wearing bulky Jackets on warm days, smell of chemicals, trailing wires from jackets, bombers disguised as pregnant women or in stolen military, police, or firefighters garb.

May 26, 2004-The Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department issue a joint statement that "credible intelligence from multiple sources" indicates that al Qaeda plans to attempt an attack on the United States during the period leading up to the November elections. The New York Times subsequently reports that "Some federal officials and terrorism experts questioned the credibility and the timing of the announcement, noting that much of Mr. Ashcroft's information had been widely disseminated for months." According to the New York Times,Tom Ridge, the homeland security secretary, was not with Mr. Ashcroft for the news conference and suggested that the announcement might have averted required consultation between agencies on domestic threats . . . Late Friday, apparently in an effort to counter the perception of a split, Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Ridge put out a joint statement saying that 'we are working together' to deter terrorist attacks.

May 28, 2004-The FBI issues an urgent bulletin to several cities warning of a terrorist attack within 24 hours. According to the New York Times, the FBI rescinds the alert hours later because the intelligence proves unfounded, officials said.

June 14, 2004- Attorney General John Ashcroft announces that a shopping mall in Columbus, Ohio, has been threatened by Al Qaeda bomber, stating dramatically, "The American heartland was targeted for death and destruction." It is subsequently revealed that the suspect to whom Ashcroft referred had been in custody for seven months at the time of the announcement and that there was nothing in the indictment about a shopping mall.The charges against him made no mention of a shopping mall.

June 25, 2004-The FBI issues a warning to be on the lookout for booby-trapped floating material in and around the nation's marinas, warning they could contain explosives, explaining that plastic-foam containers, inner tubes and buoys could be rigged to blow up on contact. On June 27, 2004, a homeland security official tells CNN that there is "no intelligence terrorists are planning to or want to do this."

July 6, 2004-Senator John Kerry selects Senator John Edwards as his running mate, monopolizing most of the media attention.

July 8, 2004-Tom Ridge announces that, "Al Qaeda is moving forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in the United States in an effort to disrupt our democratic process." There was no such plot.

July 12, 2004-Deforest B. Soaries Jr., the head of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, confirms he has written to Ridge about the prospect of postponing the upcoming presidential election in the event it is interrupted by terrorist acts.

July 16, 2004-The FBI warns local authorities that the al- Qaida terror network may be recruiting non-Arabs less likely to attract notice as they carry out attacks in the United States and specifically, that Al-Qaida wants operatives who have American citizenship or legal residency status.

July 29, 2004-The Democratic Party nominates Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards as their Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, respectively. Again, the media attention focuses on the Democratic ticket. 

August 1, 2004-The Department of Homeland Security raises the terror alert for financial centers in New York, New Jersey, and Washington to orange based on very out-of-date evidence..

August 7, 2004-The FBI issues a pair of warnings to 18,000 police agencies nationwide that al-Qaida could try launching attacks in the United States by packing explosives into rental limos or helicopters, which could help terrorists sneak near targeted buildings.

September 8, 2004-Vice President Dick Cheney tells a town hall audience in Des Moines, Iowa, Tuesday that there will be an increased risk of terrorist attacks if Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is elected president.

September 22, 2004-A report from a joint CIA-FBI agency called the Terrorist Threat Integration Center. describes a scenario whereby Al Qaeda would use “weapons of mass destruction to launch multiple simultaneous attacks on the United States and overwhelm the US government.”

The weekend before the November 2004 Presidential election- Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft push Ridge to raise the color-coded warning for what Ridge believed were political reasons. In his new book, Ridge writes, "An election-eve drama was being played out at the highest levels of our government" after Osama bin Laden released a pre-election message critical of President George W. Bush, and we weren't seeing any additional intelligence that justified it. In fact, we were incredulous... I wondered, 'Is this about security or politics?'" This incident prompted Ridge to resign shortly after Bush was re-elected.

Even though I do feel vindicated, it still scares the crap out of me that the top echelons of the government conspired to manipulate the public in order to stay in power. It is equally scary that the general public was so gullible and that these people vote. The reluctance of the Obama administration to launch a full scale investigation of this matter seemingly assures that these former government officials got away with their abuse of power.

Obsessed

It must seem that I am obsessed about health care reform and the public option. At this time, I may be. But, the sleazy manipulation of the public by the Republicans and the health care industry, the curiously naive handling of the issue by the Obama administration and the grave necessity for serious health care reform with a public option have captured and monopolized my attention.

I do not understand how or why the Obama Administration has allowed the process to get so out of control. I knew that the Republicans would never agree to a public option or effective and meaningful health care reform. (See my July 29 and July 31 blog entries.) It was so clear that any such efforts would be futile and that the Republicans were being manipulative. If I could see that so clearly, why didn't President Obama see it? (By the way, I am dropping off my resume for the position of resident pundit at the White House this afternoon.) And, after all that has transpired since the last days of July, why is he still talking about a bipartisan agreement? Why is he still acting as if Grassley is negotiating in good faith? It really makes the president appear naive and weak. Then, there is spineless Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Well, he just needs to be replaced. Frankly, I think that Reid and the White House should take a page out of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's book. She is the only one who seems to have control of her troops.

WP's First PUNDIT'S PICK Award!!

Yesterday, at Congressman Barney Frank's town hall meeting on health care reform, a woman holding a picture of President Obama with a Hitler-like mustache stood up and after branding various health care reform proposals as "Nazi policy," asked Rep. Frank why he continued to support them. Bless him, Rep. Frank replied:

“When you ask me that question, I’m going to revert to my ethnic heritage and answer your question with a question: On what planet do you spend most of your time? ... You stand there with a picture of the president defaced to look like Hitler and compare the effort to increase health care to the Nazis. My answer, as I said before, it is a tribute to the First Amendment that this vile, contemptible nonsense is so freely propagated. Ma’am, trying to have a conversation with you is like trying to talk to a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it. ... This notion that something in this bill would require people who are elderly or sick to be denied medical care and killed is the single stupidest argument I have heard in all my years of public office. There is nothing remotely relevant to it.”

Guts! Spine! Courage! This is why Wilsonville Pundit's first PUNDIT'S PICK Award goes to Congressman Barney Frank! You can thank Congressman Frank for being one of the few democratic leaders to actually have a back bone by clicking here. You can also take a peek at the video from the meeting below:

YES!!!!

Yesterday, the US Justice Department filed its reply brief in Smelt v. United States, urging the repeal of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage (anti-gay) Act!! This act denies benefits to domestic partners of federal employees and allows states to reject same-sex marriages performed in other states. The White House released President Obama's statement in conjunction with the filing:

Today, the Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. This brief makes clear, however, that my Administration believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress. I have long held that DOMA prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my Administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law.

YES!!!!

Noting that the government has a duty to defend the rule of law and is therefore doing so, the DOJ states in its reply brief:

With respect to the merits, this Administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal. Consistent with the rule of law, however, the Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the Department disagrees with a particular statute as a policy matter, as it does here.

Smelt, DOJ reply, at 2. The DOJ nevertheless asserts:

[T]he United States does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interests in procreation and child-rearing and is therefore not relying upon any such interests to defend DOMA’s constitutionality.

Smelt, DOJ reply, at 6-7. This is a good first step toward granting equal rights and benefits to gay couples!

At this point, all that stands in the way of universal health care in America are the greed of the medical-industrial complex, the lies of the right-wing propaganda machine, and the gullibility of voters who believe those lies.

Paul Krugman, New York Times Op-Ed August 16, 2009

As Gomer Pyle once said, "SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE!"

FOX News surprises with accurate report on the history of GOP support of and disingenuous GOP opposition to end-of-life-counseling

I was pleased as punch to stumble across this article (well, maybe I actually found myself on the ground after reading it, having been knocked off my rocker). I found it on the FOX News site, of all places. Granted, it is an AP wire piece by Ben Evans, but who'dah thunk it would be published on the web site of the "crazy and unbalanced" network? Here it is:

GOP Backs Away From Promoting End-of-Life Counseling

Republicans who eagerly backed the idea of end-of-life counseling in government health care programs like Medicare are distancing themselves from it or lying low in the face of a backlash from the right.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Until last week, Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson was among the most enthusiastic backers of end-of-life counseling in government health care programs like Medicare. That was before conservatives called it a step toward euthanasia and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin likened the idea to a bureaucratic "death panel" that would decide whether sick people get to live. And even though those claims have been widely discredited, the issue remains a political weapon in the increasingly bitter health care debate.

Now, Isakson and other Republicans who eagerly backed the idea are distancing themselves from it or lying low in the face of a backlash from the right. "Until last week this was basically a nonpartisan issue," said John Rother, executive vice president for policy at AARP, the seniors lobbying group. "People across the political spectrum recognize that far too often people's wishes aren't respected at the end of life and there is a lot of unnecessary suffering." The idea for government-backed end-of-life counseling - while delicate given the subject matter - has garnered significant consensus on Capitol Hill, fueled in part by cases such as that of Terri Schiavo, whose divided family fought for years over whether she would want to be kept alive in a vegetative state. Just a year ago, Congress overwhelmingly approved legislation requiring doctors to discuss issues like living wills and advance directives with new Medicare enrollees. And the government already requires hospitals and nursing homes to help patients with those legal documents if they want support, under a 1992 law passed under Republican President George H.W. Bush.

Supporters say the current House proposal just goes one step further by paying for the counseling, with the idea that doctors and patients would spend more time on it instead of just having a cursory discussion in an initial Medicare visit. The counseling is voluntary. Isakson and other Republicans such as Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana and Susan Collins of Maine have co-sponsored legislation in recent years promoting the counseling, including in initial Medicare visits and through a proposed government-run insurance program for long-term care. In the House, Republican Reps. Charles Boustany of Louisiana, Geoff Davis of Kentucky and Patrick Tiberi of Ohio co-sponsored legislation from Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., that would authorize Medicare to pay for the counseling. That measure served as a model for the current House language.

Earlier this summer, Isakson sponsored an arguably more far-reaching measure that would have required that new Medicare patients have a living will or other advance directive. But the Georgia conservative found himself in a storm of criticism when President Barack Obama said at a town hall meeting this week that Isakson was a chief architect of the House approach. Isakson quickly issued a statement repudiating the proposal. "The House provision is merely another ill-advised attempt at more government mandates, more government intrusion and more government involvement in what should be an individual choice," he said. Pressed later to explain his opposition, Isakson and his spokeswoman, Joan Kirchner, said he doesn't like the fact that the House bill would expand Medicare costs by paying for the consultations and giving doctors an incentive to conduct them. He also said the House bill is too specific in detailing what must be discussed in the sessions. "There are similarities ... but there are substantial difference," Isakson said. "I'm not running away from anything but I'm not going to accept the president of the United States telling people I wrote something that I didn't." Isakson, who initially called Palin's "death panel" characterization "nuts" in an interview Monday, declined later in the week to criticize Palin's statement, in which she said the measure would force people like her baby Trig, who has Down syndrome, "to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide ... whether they are worthy of health care." "The best I can read she's applying the House bill and using her child with Down syndrome as an example," Isakson said. "I would never question anyone's defense of their child."

Spokesmen for Lugar and Collins-two other longtime proponents of end-of-life planning-declined to comment on the House bill. Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican and a lead negotiator on health care legislation, told constituents at a community meeting last week that they have good reason to fear the proposal. "I don't have any problem with things like living wills, but they ought to be done within the family," he said. "We should not have a government program that determines you're going to pull the plug on grandma." Grassley said Thursday that lawmakers negotiating on the Senate version of the health care bill had dropped the provision from consideration, citing how it could be misinterpreted.

Comments like Grassley's puzzle Rother, who said "it's been a little disappointing" that more Republicans haven't stepped forward to defend the legislation. He and Jon Keyserling, a vice president at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, say there is little difference between the current proposal and past legislation that Republicans have supported. The current bill specifies that the counseling would be covered only every five years to prevent people from overusing it, and describes what the consultations must include. Keyserling said many people wrongly assume that end-of-life counseling is about terminating treatment. But it really is about making sure a patient's wishes are known, he said, including if that means continuing life-sustaining treatment in all circumstances. He said he's been surprised at the backlash, particularly given the close attention that Congress paid to Schiavo's case, which he said clearly highlighted the need for better end-of-life planning. Schiavo was removed from life support in 2005, though the Republican-led Congress and President George W. Bush had intervened in the family dispute in an effort to continue her care. "I think the House bill is about as innocuous and helpful as possible," Keyserling said. "It's about making sure people are prepared and informed to make decisions."

Associated Press