A Child's Garden of Teabaggery

by: Tim C.

Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 12:14:46 PM EDT

Hence this gallery:

Family Values, Or, Will No One Think Of The Children?

More -- much, much more -- after the jump.

Taking Pains

by: JimC

Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 06:38:18 AM EDT

People consider me rather relaxed, an easy person to get along with (with some exceptions, of course). The plain fact is, if you have that reputation, people will try to take advantage of you. And they will succeed sometimes, because willingness to compromise tends to lose to unwillingness to compromise.

I'm usually aware that the forceful person is getting their way. So the compromise becomes one with myself -- do I stomp my feet and insist I'm right, or is the easier path the greater good?

Sometimes the relationship improves. People can and do change, and who knows, maybe they just needed someone else to negotiate a bit to trust them. In other cases, the relationship deteriorates. It can't be improved, it has to be reset, or ended.

So do I show this person I have teeth too? Do I escalate every dispute, as they tend to do, until it seems like a battle for civilization itself? The answer is almost always no. I am who I am for many reasons, but some of those reasons are deliberate choices. I pick my battles, and trying to convince a jerk I am a worthy opponent is almost never a battle worth fighting. I do not need more opponents, the world provides plenty of them. I need more friends -- trustworthy, rational people.

Which brings me to our US Congress.

Today's Washington Post:

Reid told reporters Tuesday that he might be willing to compromise on points of policy if it meant getting the 60 votes needed to turn back GOP procedural objections. The Senate Democratic caucus now stands at 60 members, but two members --  Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.) and  Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) -- have battled serious illness, requiring Reid to win support from at least two Republicans to make up for their absence.

"I have a responsibility to get a bill on the Senate floor that will get 60 votes," Reid said. "That's my number one responsibility, and there are times when I have to set aside my personal preferences for the good of the Senate and I think the country."

Ted Kennedy, whose condition might be worse than we've heard, would crawl on broken glass to vote for this -- if it's a good bill.

As House negotiators continued to work late Tuesday evening on breaking an impasse on their version of the bill, the bipartisan Finance Committee negotiators emerged from another meeting insisting that no final decisions had been made about the contents of the legislation. But as details trickled out, none of the components appeared ready-made for GOP opposition. Negotiators are scrubbing every provision for unintended consequences that could negatively affect small businesses or middle-class families, both of which Republicans say could be harmed by the other bills moving through Congress.

"What we do obviously would be important to our Republican conference," said  Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), a member of the GOP team, along with  Sens. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the ranking Republican on the finance panel, and Mike Enzi (Wyo.), the senior Republican on the health committee. Snowe said the primary goal of the negotiations is a bill that can draw Republican votes.

"I think it might resonate, frankly, with our colleagues," Snowe said of the emerging compromise measure. "We want the basis for a bipartisan agreement, and I think that could be the launching pad for that resolution."

Does Snowe believe what she's saying? Let's assume she is for the moment, despite the obvious red flags.

Senate Republican leaders are taking a wary approach to the bipartisan negotiations, and unless pressed by reporters, rarely note they are taking place. They continue to lambaste the two Democratic bills as job-killers that would inflate health-care costs.

At a news conference Tuesday,  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) took pains to note that GOP negotiators brief him daily. But he sidestepped questions about whether he embraces their work. "There's not a plan that I've seen that people can support on a bipartisan basis," he said.

What's the result of all this? Not all bad, but not great:

The finance panel's legislation is expected to include incentives for employers to provide health insurance for their workers, rather than a more punitive coverage mandate. The committee is also likely to endorse narrowly targeted tax increases, rejecting a controversial tax surcharge on wealthy households that the House adopted and limits on deductions for upper-income taxpayers that Obama is seeking.

GOP negotiators rejected from the outset the kind of government-run insurance plan that Obama and most Democrats are pushing for in an attempt to inject the health-insurance market with pricing competition. Instead, the committee would create coverage cooperatives modeled after rural electricity providers.

Mr. President?

Obama has encouraged the finance panel's effort, praising it as the potential foundation for the bipartisan outcome he is seeking. But he flashed his discontent with the process during a question-and-answer session sponsored by AARP. "Sometimes I get a little frustrated, because this is one of those situations where it's so obvious that the system we have isn't working well for too many people, and that we could be doing better," Obama said Tuesday.

Let's recap:

- Democratic negotiators began by compromising with themselves. They decided not to fight for a public option.
- Rather than hold this as a hole card, they didn't make the GOP fight for it. They came into the meeting with the goal of getting GOP votes because they are unwilling to take responsibility for the bill.
- Democratic leaders outside the negotiations talk about a "foundation."
- Republican leaders outside the negotiations are perfectly willing to throw the negotiators under a bus.

This relationship is dysfunctional. The Democratic spirit of cooperation, opportunity for all, etc. simply cannot accommodate itself to dealing with people who are not willing to compromise. And our so-called tough guys, like Rahm Emanuel -- as others have noted -- fight out of fear. They don't want to hand the GOP an issue.

Net result? The GOP wins. The country gets a watered-down bill, and the GOP has stopped a public option. Enter thousands of stories saying, "The Democrats couldn't win with both Houses, 60 votes in the Senate, and the presidency." The GOP sees its poll numbers rise. There's no change, why vote Democratic?

Sometimes we deserve the pain. We have inflicted it on ourselves.

Proud to be from NH-Thanks CSP!

by: StevenPlace

Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 13:56:34 PM EDT

Look, we're all getting attacked back in our districts for supporting heath care reform, but that doesn't bother me. We need grow some guts and pass this bill because this is what people need.

Again, I'm paraphrasing and this is all hearsay, but it really made me proud to have such a bold congresswoman. Apparently it was a pretty heated meeeting and CSP really kicked some butt (and also changed a few minds).

Thanks for having our back CSP!

This Is Not a Game

by: JimC

Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 06:49:42 AM EDT

Today's Post:

On health care, the poll, conducted by telephone Wednesday through Saturday, found that a majority of Americans (54 percent) approve of the outlines of the legislation now heading toward floor action. The measure would institute new individual and employer insurance mandates and create a government-run plan to compete with private insurers. Its costs would be paid in part through new taxes on high-income earners.

There are sharp differences in support for this basic package based on income, as well as a deep divide along party lines. Three-quarters of Democrats back the plan, as do nearly six in 10 independents. More than three-quarters of Republicans are opposed. About two-thirds of those with household incomes below $50,000 favor the plan, and a slim majority (52 percent) of those with higher incomes are against it. The income divide is even starker among independents.

That's the story -- a developing, complex debate. But here is the headline:

Poll Shows Obama Slipping on Key Issues
Approval Rating on Health Care Falls Below 50 Percent

By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, July 20, 2009

Heading into a critical period in the debate over health-care reform, public approval of President Obama's stewardship on the issue has dropped below the 50 percent threshold for the first time, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Another tidbit:

At the same time, there is no slackening in public desire for Obama to keep pressing for action on the major issues of the economy, health care and the deficit. Majorities think he is either doing the right amount or should put greater emphasis on each of these issues.

So this poll, which certainly has bad news in it (a sharp drop in independent voters' approval of Obama on healthcare), is clearly a mixed bag. The headline is poorly chosen.

These days, with pajama-wearing bloggers nipping at their heels, shouldn't journalists celebrate complexity? After all, they have the time to describe it. Newspaper readers are the serious readers, right?

I don't want to say the Post is empowering the GOP here, because the GOP has long shown a knack for declaring itself empowered by any development. But here's hoping my party remembers how many votes it has, and what it was elected to do.

That's hoping, as in HOPE.
 

Waxman: Healthcare Bill "In the Next Few Weeks"

by: JimC

Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 16:17:52 PM EDT

The video caption is wrong; he says "on the president's desk" before recess.

Organizing for America Moves on Healthcare

by: JimC

Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 09:49:11 AM EDT

Learn More About the Issues:
You can read helpful materials at www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health_care or at www.healthcareforamericanow.org.

ATTEND a special "Healthcare Reform 101" Forum on July 18! More details soon, but SAVE THE DATE for this helpful opportunity to learn about the issues involved, the legislative process and what we can expect from the various bills, and to get your questions answered by experts. This event is hosted by OFA-MA, Healthcare for America Now and Doctors for America (formerly Doctors for Obama).
Put Pressure on Congress:

Please urge our MA Congressional delegation to support President Obama's healthcare reform priorities, including a public option. Even in MA, we MUST make it clear to our delegation that healthcare reform without a public option is not real healthcare reform! You can add your signature to our petition by sending us an e-mail at OFAMA2009@gmail.com. If you prefer, you can call your Senator or Representative. You can find their contact information at www.senate.gov or www.house.gov.

Take a Leadership Role on Healthcare Reform:
If you can commit to a significant amount of time organizing others on this issue, JOIN the OFA-MA Statewide Healthcare Reform Team. Contact us at OFAMA2009@gmail.com if you want to know more.
Show Your Support at a Local Rally on June 25

While a massive healthcare reform rally is being held on the Mall in Washington, D.C. on June 25, many local rallies will take place throughout Mass. Please come to a rally in your area! You can find a local rally by going to www.neaction.org.

Participate in a Local National Healthcare Day of Service Event on June 27
Find an opportunity to learn or help in your area. At these events, you can also sign a postcard to your Congressional representative, and meet others who want to fix our broken system. Find local events at www.barackobama.com.

We hope to see you at an upcoming event, and we encourage you to contact us at OFAMA2009@gmail.com so we can know of your interest and hear your ideas and questions.

Hillary's Elbow & Healthcare Reform

by: robsprague

Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 12:51:32 PM EDT

But for those of us who care at all about healthcare reform - and who do not think 47,000,000 Americans not named Hillary Clinton should be without health insurance - this has been a very difficult and depressing week. The prospects for healthcare reform our are falling apart.  And here's why:

Moderate Democrats - who were always going to be problematic on this issue - are enjoying their moment of having it both ways.  They "want" health reform.  Um...As long as it doesn't cost any money.  So much for a big tent Democratic Party.  Ah, the Moderate Democrats and their Blue Dog Country Cousins: For Progressives, they are the bitter friends, the bosom enemies.

And Business groups, who have previously "supported" healthcare reform, are now openly "changing sides" and planning to spend lots of corporate dollars to oppose any & all reforms. This "change in position" on the part of business groups should not come as a shock to those of us who have tried to work with them in the past. Disingenuous doesn't even begin to describe them.

And here comes the feigned "shock" around the country about the fact that healthcare reform is actually going to cost money.  Americans who already have healthcare are making clucking sounds in their mouths and wondering if we can afford all this "stuff".

Because in the good old USA, this money thing - how we raise it and how we spend it - is a strange animal indeed.  

For instance, when it comes to building massive military might, money doesn't seem to be an insurmountable problem.  We "invest" 625 billion annually on guns. And on computer game drones that spit out missiles in Afghanistan.  And jet fighters that we never intend to really use.  $625,000,000,000.00.

But, God forbid that we should invest 100 billion annually on healthcare reform.  Fifteen percent as much as we hand out annually to the Pentagon.  Fifteen.  To be totally accurate, Healthcare Reform would be the waitperson's tip on our annual Pentagon meal. Would anyone care to look at our dessert menu tonight?   How's about one of those new helicopter that can fly upside down! And I'll bring four plates and forks.

But the problem is that leaders in the business community already have health insurance for their families, and politicians already have outstanding healthcare, and most of the good folks in America's middle class and the well-to-do are covered and cared for.  They - all of these fortunate ones - support healthcare care reform 1000%... as long as it does not cause them any particular inconvenience. Or cost them any money.  Or endanger their access.  

If Bill & Hillary Clinton made their healthcare reform strategy mistake by being too "hands-on", top-down and didactic. . .then Mr., Obama  might be making his mistake by trusting that Congressional Leaders could be trusted to take a larger role in the healthcare reform process.  Max Baucus?  Henry Waxman? A fading and much absent Ted Kennedy?  Mr. President, ya shouldn't be betting the family farm on Max Baucus.

And so now, after spending months as a hilarious side show, hosted by the moronic & outrageous Michael Steele, the Republicans (all nicely covered by Federal Health Insurance and sure to be healthy & kicking for the remainder of the Obama Administration) will begin their usual mindless mantra.  And they will repeat it over and over and over again:  "A public option in healthcare...it's...it's...it's socialism."

So, here we go again on healthcare reform.  And it's America-As-Usual for 47 million American citizens not as lucky as Hillary Clinton & her husband, Bill.  

Comparative Economics: Health Insurance Reform Edition

by: Douglas E. Lindner

Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 23:34:12 PM EDT

Despite the fact that the United Kingdom has universal health care and the United States does not, US public health care expenditures (counting ONLY government) per capita (it means"divided by population", for all those book burners) are greater than the UK's total health care expenditures per capita, both public and private. US private health care expenditures (counting ONLY non-government) per capita also exceed the UK's total per capita, public and private. We're paying more than twice the price and getting worse service.

Some universal health care countries whose total health care expenditures per capita, including both public and private, are less than either just public expenditure OR just private expenditure on health care per capita in the US:

• UK
  
• Italy
  
• Japan
  
• Finland
  
• New Zealand
  
• Greece

• Canada
  
• France
  
• Germany
  
• Sweden
  
• Australia
  
• Austria
  
• Ireland
• Every universal health care country in the world except Norway, whose government expenditure per capita is higher than ours (only one in the world), but whose total expenditure per capita is still thousands less (thousands PER PERSON).

I'm not advocating a mandatory single-payer system.  I do think a public option is important, but what worries me about a mandatory system (which isn't being advocated by any major player in this round of health reform debate, but is still a common refrain) is that it would be critically underfunded, and that we would end up doing to medicine what we have done to education by not paying our teachers well--it would be an even bigger problem for medicine, since getting a doctorate is so prohibitively expensive and time-consuming.

Furthermore, it is true that our current system does not have the same issues with waiting as some universal health insurance nations do.  I'm not sure what it is that causes that, but I don't buy the argument that it's worth it, or even makes sense, to leave tens of millions uninsured due to a fear that covering them would reduce access for everyone else.  I'm inclined to think long lines are a result of a political tendency to make broad-based spending cuts--or fail to spend what is necessary--without regard to the consequences.  

So again, I don't have the answer, but I think it's important to realize that the problem is one that should raise ire among pragmatists and among ideologues of both sides.  This isn't about government controlling healthcare, and it isn't about taxes.  It's about not letting insurance companies artificially inflate the cost of our physical well-being, while simultaneously squeezing doctors, patients, and their wallets in order to satisfy the bottom line.  And from a political perspective, 2009 is not a good year to be an insurance company.

The data in this diary comes from a 2008 study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, an international organization comprising 30 of the world's wealthiest western-style democracies, including us.

http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/... (page 13)

Pro-Child, Pro-Family, Pro-Healthcare

by: JimC

Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 16:36:59 PM EST

Didn't I read the other day that Sebelius supports abortion rights but considers abortion "immoral?"

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI...

"Sebelius' support for abortion is so far off the charts that she has been publicly criticized by the last three archbishops of Kansas City," Donohue said in a statement.

That is a HOWLER. What should we expect the archibishops to say?

Calling Sebelius an "enemy of the unborn," Catholic League President Bill Donohue said the Kansas governor's nomination is particularly disturbing because the health and human services secretary is one of the few members of the administration who can directly affect abortion policy.

This looks to me like a proxy fight. They don't expect to derail Sebelius, but they want the troops fresh (and the coffers full) in case a Supreme Court seat opens.

UPDATE: It seems to me that, a few years ago, it had finally dawned on most reporters that "the Catholic League" was one loudmouth guy who wrote a lot of letters. CNN's coverage here doesn't seem to reflect that understanding. See what media budget cuts do?

March* to War: The Biggest Policy Shift Since Reagan

by: JimC

Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 07:25:47 AM EST

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Battle Lines Quickly Set Over Planned Policy Shifts
Massive Budget Marks Largest Ideological Swing Since the Reagan Era

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 1, 2009; Page A01

Battle lines are rapidly hardening over the broad policy shifts, massive deficits and tax increases President Obama unveiled last week in his first budget request, a 10-year spending plan thick with political friction points.

Yesterday, the president used his weekly radio and Internet address to declare his budget plan a fundamental reordering of federal priorities that would deliver "the sweeping change that this country demanded when it went to the polls in November."

(snip)

Republicans and Democrats alike say the budget request, which seeks $3.6 trillion for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, marks the biggest ideological shift in Washington since the dawn of the Reagan administration. Fierce clashes are likely on an array of fronts, from Obama's plan to spend at least $634 billion to expand health care for the uninsured to his proposal to raise a similar sum by taxing industries that generate greenhouse gases.

Um, bring it on? I'm afraid to say that, but that's my general sentiment.

O captain, my captain!

The budget proposal "reflects the stark reality of what we've inherited: a trillion-dollar deficit, a financial crisis and a costly recession," Obama said. He warned off lobbyists and other critics, who, he said, "are gearing up for a fight as we speak."

"My message to them is this: So am I," he said. "The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long, but I don't."

*A reference to it being March 1. Can you believe it's March 1, 2009 already?

Tales From The Bottom Of The Ticket: The Underemployed Veteran With No Healthcare

by: Andrew Sylvia

Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 20:34:45 PM EDT

During one day's canvass, I knocked on the door of a man who was a former enlisted man in the Air Force.

He had served several decades ago, he didn't go into detail except for the fact that he had no healthcare coverage and he figured that hopefully the VA could get him something.

A few years ago, this wouldn't have mattered, but the job he had as an engineer was sent overseas to someone who could be paid far less. Even though he's in his early 60's, and not eligible for Medicare, he needed help with his prescription costs as well as saving up for retirement.

His desire was to be an engineer again, but even with A+ certification and other job training enhancements to his resume, he could not find a job in the area that paid nearly as much as before. He now works part time as a janitor in a local church.

His wife is a lifelong Republican but will be voting for Obama due to the plight of her husband.

Due to Carol Shea Porter's expertise with helping Veterans, I recieved his permission to pass along his info to her congressional office. I had met a guy in a similiar situation from Manchester in 2007.

Updated with Video of Sarkasyans at Rally; Family of Nataline Sarkisyan to Join Edwards Today

by: TomP

Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 12:36:06 PM EST

What's happening now is insurance companies are running all over people. I mean, the case of Nataline Sarkisyan, which a lot of the audience would be familiar with -- 17 year old girl who lost her life a couple of weeks ago because her insurance company would not pay for a liver transplant operation. She had health insurance, but the insurance company wouldn't pay for it. They finally caved in a few hours before she died.

snip

You know, we need a president who believes deeply in here, who believes deeply in this battle, and it is personal for me.

According to Ezra Klein, and Ben Smith the family of Nataline Sarkisyan will join Edwards today on the campaign trail.  It's personal for them also.  Very personal.  Come around after the fold and let's talk about why it's personal.

Food for Thought on Health Care Costs

by: Delegator

Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 10:32:14 AM EST

The biggest issue, which is very relevant to the primary campaign, is that of health care costs. All of the major candidates have health care plans, and most of those try to address costs by a combination of electronic medical records, focus on prevention and chronic diseases, and so on. The fact is, however, that none of these are the major drivers of health care inflation.

The Partisan (Hillary Clinton) versus The Unifier (Barack Obama)

by: gradysdad

Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:41:46 AM EST

What is it about the two candidates causes registered Democrats more likely to choose Senator Clinton over Senator Obama?

One theory is that Senator Obama advances an image as a unifier and compromiser, a non-ideologue, rather than a fighter.  Many Democrats think that compromise is not what it cracks up to be, especially when dealing with the current crop of conservatives. So the image of a partisan fighter or ideologue appeals to registered Democrats and the image of a non-ideologue appeals to independents.

Winning the Policy Debate - Clinton over Obama

by: gradysdad

Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 08:59:13 AM EST

Let's have a policy debate!

There probably is really not much general policy difference between the Democratic candidates on issues important to Democratic voters. Nevertheless, in my honest opinion, there are at least three key areas which affect all of us in which Senator Clinton's policies/positions/proposals are arguably superior to Senator Obama's policies/positions/proposals.

They are good reasons based upon policy why people should vote for Senator Clinton over Senator Obama.

I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but I wanted to make it as thorough as possible.  Due to space and time, I have concentrated on differences between the current frontrunners.

Full disclosure:  I am a New Hampshire volunteer for and enthusiastic supporter of Hillary Clinton.

Kucinich Questions Himself?

by: dksupport

Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 01:46:58 AM EST

How a political ad can backfire

by: bloomingpol

Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 08:45:12 AM EST

FISA, Amnesty and Kucinich

by: dksupport

Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 00:32:49 AM EST

"I object to any immunity for telecommunications companies and demand a full accounting of these companies' involvement to Congress and to the American public. When corporations cooperate with the government to strip people of their Constitutional rights, that is a text book description of fascism. There must not be any place in America for this type of conduct."
                                               -Dennis Kucinich

Healthcare = Hillary = Success

by: gradysdad

Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 11:28:54 AM EST

In recent interviews, some of these Clinton supporters say that they have been impressed enough by her advocacy for healthcare and children to jettison their previous views of her as a brash, ambitious lawyer and politician. Some said a female president would do things not just differently, but better.

Hillary by a TKO

by: gradysdad

Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 19:24:12 PM EST

The Democratic candidates debated last Thursday in Vegas and Senator Clinton proved she was still the one to beat. I score it a technical knockout (TKO) against her two chief opponents.

In spite of the well known advertising slogan of "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas," more than four million views tuned in to see the Democratic candidates face off.  The audience was the largest in cable new history.  They saw quite an exciting debate.