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.