Archive for the ‘health care reform’ Category

Highway to Health: The Daily Show Reviews the Final Tea Party Protest of The Year


“First they came for the rich….” Such hyperbolic bullshit . . .If they come for the rich…rounded them up and were going to kill them…then we will speak up.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Highway to Health: The Daily Show Rev…“, posted with vodpod

 

In my Email: Tell the Senate Democratic caucus: Don’t give in!


CREDO Action | more than a network. a movement.

Tell the Senate Democratic caucus: Don’t give in!

At what point does compromise turn into capitulation?

Your message to the Senate Democratic caucus:

We want a true public option that is available nationwide on day one and run by an entity that’s accountable to Congress and the voters. For those of us who support single-payer health care, the strong public option was the compromise. Any deal you cut with your anti-reform members to undermine a true public option is not a compromise, it’s a capitulation.

Clicking here will add your name to the petition.

Dear Dale,

It looks like Democrats in the Senate might be preparing to give up on the public option. As negotiations continue behind closed doors, word has come out above various deals that might be cut.

None of the proposals that have been floated ensure private insurance companies will face meaningful competitive pressure. Even the most attractive of these proposals won’t stop private insurance companies from ripping us off. So while they may call whatever emerges a “compromise,” it will substantively signal a total capitulation.

Tell the Democratic caucus in the Senate that any public option that is not available nationwide on day one and is not run by a government entity accountable to Congress and the voters is not a true public option. Click here to automatically add your name to our petition.

The American public strongly supports the idea of creating a government-run health insurance plan to compete with private insurance companies. So instead of admitting that some in the nominally left-of-center Democratic caucus have more fidelity to the economic interests of the insurance companies than the will of the American people, they are instead trying to come up with something that they can call a “public option” that might fool people into thinking something meaningful was achieved.

It’s time to call out this farce for what it is, and it’s time for progressive Senators to take a stand.

Tell the Democratic caucus in the Senate that any public option that is not available nationwide on day one and is not run by a government entity accountable to Congress and the voters is not a true public option. Click here to automatically add your name to our petition.

We shouldn’t expect much from the likes of Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln or Ben Nelson. But for the sake of compromise many progressive Senators have been strangely silent about the importance of a meaningful public option.

Let’s remember, a strong public option was the compromise. The Senators who care about meaningful health care reform need to speak out now to make sure that nobody can gut the public option while maintaining the public posture that its essential core was preserved in a compromise.

We need to be realistic. While it is likely we will disapprove of the legislation that passes the Senate on the first go-round, the real battle over the public option will come when the Senate version is combined with the House version in the conference committee. The harder progressive Senators fight now, the better chance we’ll have in conference.

In order to be in the best possible position in the next stage, the Democratic caucus should not give cover to the notion that a bill without a meaningful public option is an acceptable compromise.

Tell the Democratic caucus in the Senate to stand up and fight. Any public option that is not available nationwide on day one and is not run by a government entity accountable to Congress and the voters is not a true public option. Click here to automatically add your name to our petition.

Thank you for working to secure real health care reform.

Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

P.S. There have been rumors that there will not be a conference committee to merge the House bill and the Senate bill, and that instead House Democrats will be strong-armed into rubber-stamping whatever passes the Senate. It’s not clear that this is what will happen, but we are in a better position to fight against this if it’s clear that a bill that passes the Senate without a strong public option is unacceptable. Click here to add your name to our petition telling the Senate Democratic Caucus not to give in.

Find us on Facebook Did you know CREDO has a Facebook page?
Click here to check it out!

© 2009 CREDO. All rights reserved.
Get action alerts on your mobile phone! Click here to join CREDO Mobile Action; we’ll text you on important issues when your voice is urgently needed in Congress.

In my email:A fair vote


Dear DALE:

We’ve been asking you for a lot lately. So today, we want to give you an update on what’s happening with reform in the Senate, where we are going, and how we’re going to win quality, affordable health care for all.

Yesterday, Majority Leader Harry Reid unveiled the health care bill he’s going to bring to the Senate floor for debate. The bill makes health care more affordable for middle-income families. It would end insurance industry abuses. And it gives us the choice of a public health insurance option to keep the insurance companies honest.1

To be sure, the bill is not perfect – health care should be more affordable for everyone, employers should be asked to pitch in their fair share, and while this bill is more fairly financed than previous proposals, it could be paid for entirely by asking those who can most afford it to pitch in their fair share.

As Loretta Johnson of Virginia said yesterday as the bill was unveiled, “Now, in my opinion, there’s probably some room for improvement. But I know, Senator Reid and the Senators standing here today are as committed as we are to making sure people can afford the care they need.”2

The bill is a great step forward and one that deserves debate and a fair, majority vote in the U.S. Senate.

That is what we’re fighting for – a fair, majority vote on this bill, nothing less.

Tomorrow, the Senate will decide if it wants to move forward with debate on the health care bill. 60 Senators will be needed to simply start the debate. Next, the bill will be discussed and put up for amendments. Then, it will be voted on, all within the next few weeks.

As the process moves forward, we will be working to improve the Senate bill where possible and make sure it does not get weakened. Along the way, we’ll be asking you for your help to make sure your Senators allow the fair vote on this health care bill that this country deserves.

Here are a few ways you can get up-to-date information on the debate in Congress:

And check our blog on Saturday for updates on the Senate.

Winning this fight will take energy, enthusiasm, and dedication. But we’re confident that if we work together towards our shared goal of quality, affordable health care for all, we can make history.

Thank you for all that you’ve done. We would not be here today without you.

 

To your health,

Levana Layendecker
Health Care for America Now



1. The Senate has a health care bill. What’s in it?NOW! blog
2.
U.S. Senators, meet home care worker Loretta Johnson – SEIU blog

To All Those Would-be Constitutional Scholars of Health Care Reform


An honest reading of the preamble of our constitution says all that needs to be said about our right to health care in this country.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We the People of the United States?  This is an expression that all the people as one voice declare what is to follow. In Order to form a more perfect Union?  This expresses the intention to come together as a single community.  Establish Justice?  To equitably do what is right for all. Insure domestic Tranquility?  To keep the peace amongst ourselves. Provide for the common defence?  To defend ourselves against common enemies. To promote the general Welfare?  To see to the needs of the citizenry that which they cannot do themselves. To secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity? To ensure that our freedoms are not taken away from us or our descendants. Do ordain and establish this constitution of the United States of America?  What is ordained and established in these words is the intent of all that follows.

The intent is clear. The intent is that all the people unite as a community in a just, peaceful manner under a government that would protect them, their freedoms and promote their welfare.  This is why we still have a country.  On the one hand you could say that the federal government is only there to promote these ideas and it is up to the states to carry them out, but then if it can’t or won’t do so, then what is a federal government to do? On the other hand the federal government is to establish justice? Is it just to let the helpless die? It is to insure domestic tranquility?  Is it insured if we allow inequities to fester to the point of domestic violence? It is to provide for the common defense? Not all our enemies carry a gun from without.  Some live in gated communities and have a sense that they are more entitled than others. It is to promote the general welfare?  This is a clear statement of providing those things that states and individuals cannot. Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity?  Is there anything that endangers your liberty and your posterity more than illness or threat of illness? Among the many things that it has been decided appropriate that the federal government needed to intervene to provide, the provision of health insurance (read care) will go down in history as the one that made the most sense.  The one that had the most documented need.  The one that was covered in every phrase of the preamble of our constitution.

It is only a twisted libertarianism that would suggest that we should let people die that cannot provide for themselves. It is only a self-absorbed selfishness that cannot see beyond their own strength to what others might take as weakness.  It is only a perverse sense of entitlement that suggests the fruits of your labor should not be shared with the community even though it was the community that allowed you to reap those fruits. No man is an island, Entire of itself. Each is a piece of the continent. No one does it alone.

We don’t succeed by ourselves, but also we don’t fail by ourselves either. If the public option fails, then we all fail as a country.  The fiscal conservative Representatives have failed this country. They have failed on moral and economic grounds.  They are oath breakers, liars and have sold out their constituency.  A little math will suffice to show you the degree of the lie. Between fourteen to twenty percent of this country works in government depending on how you count.  Most have taxpayer provided insurance.  To expand the public option would lower that cost to the taxpayer of this insurance adding to the bottom line  every cash strapped state.  If all government employees were added to public option ( or asked to pay extra cost for private insurance) that could  save $600,000, 000.  This could end stalled union contracts across the country by taking health insurance off the table.  What might this do for other sectors of the economy? What might this do put people back to work? What could this do to end the recession? When are we going to see the conservatives for what they are, fascists?

Oh wait, maybe it is unconstitutional because the government can’t force you to pay for insurance.  Their is nothing in the constitution that allows that to happen and the Supreme Court would never let it stand.  OK, suspend all social security deductions and programs. Or maybe, pass the law and take it to court, if you are so sure.

The way I see it, this health care debate will become a moot point in the coming years.  I see two-thirds of the States passing a form of universal health care of necessity.  When that happens, it will be a short step to making it a federal constitutional amendment beyond the reach of the Supreme Court, even though the Court would never have overturned a universal health insurance law anyway.  Sometimes you just have to say stick a sock in it.

The Obsession of the Right with Fascism?


The back story on this post is that it started in response to a post on another site that began, “The left is obsessed with the public option…”  I am not sure any more if this is exactly what it said since it appears the right wing rant was removed by the writer, but it served its inspirational purpose. I would have liked to have it remain as counterpoint to my piece, but here is the link to my less thoughtful original version.

The defeat of the public option is an obsession of the right even though it is clearly needed to ensure that everyone gets health insurance coverage and that skyrocketing costs are brought down to manageable levels.

The the reason that the right is so obsessed is due corporate influence. That influence has created a situation just the reverse of what the right claims to honor.  The free market which they claim to be preserving, no longer exists. The hegemony of the corporation has left free market competition as no more than a propaganda slogan existing only in the mouths of right wing lobby machines. The right insists on the public option defeat by any means and at all costs, even the furtherance of our economic decline, loss of any of our remaining freedoms and the smashing of our moral compass. They see the left as encroaching on their Godly profit motive, seeing the public option as a Trojan horse to all sorts of left-wing socialist agendas, something they see the left as being in love with, and a real threat to their profit-without-product.

The right says that the pubic option is the road to Barack Obama forming a one world government that they have already achieved via the transnational corporations. The right thinks that once a public option is in place, then there will be a domino effect of reinstating government regulations they worked so hard to dismantle , and that their New World Order (NWO) idea reserved for business interests will be usurped by the left. Though there is no leftist plan for a NWO, the public option will allow the government to undercut the private insurance industry’s monopolistic price gouging and will ultimately move on to other business cartels. They will actually regulate the private insurance, making it possible to force them to charge  fair market based premiums that produce only just profits in real competition with the public option. The private insurance monopoly will be forced to do business with the government instead of the reverse. How this might be socialism I am not sure, but that is what the health insurance industry would have you believe.

I do see the current state of affairs as akin the fascism, however.  The public option could indeed morph into single payer universal health care, but only if the health insurance industry refuses to comply with these more just policies. I cannot see health insurance industry actually complying.  So one can only hope that when the private insurance industry refuses to comply that the government will have the sense to see this and rescue our democracy and our economy before we go completely bankrupt; economically, politically and morally. If not, single payer universal health care will become just one more moral imperative ignored by America and our country will slip into an even more openly fascist state and our private insurance industry will continue ration health care to feed their out-of-control profits, with the elderly and disabled being those who are most left out in the cold. How do I know that the right would allow this?  Because they already do. Unfortunately, I am having less and less trust in the left as well, thinking that the smoke and mirrors in this debate is all about maintaining corporate control with the best public face.

I begin to look forward to the rise of a new Progressive party.

Opt Out of Nationhood?


The idea that a state has the option to opt out of anything for which there is a legitimate interest to enact federal legislation is an oxymoron.  The federal government should for the most part only be enacting legislation in which it has an overriding federal interest to enact. The idea that the federal government has an interest in the public health and welfare of the citizenry of this country is well established. Yet, much of the existing legislation enforcement is predicated on federal funding, not on a federal interest per se. So any state can opt out of most federal programs by refusing federal money and so this is what the health care reform opt out option will entail.  The problem with this is that people move and sick people with no insurance move quickly.  Any opt out provision should include a state charge for all applicants for insurance for those moving from a state without public option to one with a public option. This is still the public option on the cheap for those states that opt out removing the “dogs” from the risk pool of any local insurance plans.  It will cost the rest of the country more money for the opted out states’ decision. When individuals opt out of a group plan they are often assessed a percent of the contribution they would have paid had they opted in. If this is sound private insurance philosophy, then maybe it should be incorporated into the public insurance philosophy.  Not just for this bill, but also for Medicaid in all it’s incarnations which has weak unenforced versions of this idea in place now.

This opt out option is only an issue because the single payer option was all but rejected sight unseen so early.  The opt out option could ensure that many people will go without and others pay more just because they live in an opt out state if the federal law allows the state to decide how to opt out. States should not be allowed to opt out without a state constitutional amendment or referendum requiring the people of the state to vote on it. It would also be more ethical if they provided a local option of their own. I don’t agree with Paul Krugman that the opt out option will be mostly benign for most of us and maybe even be needed by some small states, and that these states will be under pressure to opt in if it works.  There are states that haven’t bought into federal programs for years and there are no signs of change any time soon. How is it that the federal welfare reform law had no opt out? It is not moral to allow large segments of the population to die just because we can. I believe in everyone’s right to suicide when such a choice is individual and informed.  This is not the choice of most of those that happen to live in these potential opt out states.  They have been unable to enjoy many other federal programs available to date due to the failure of their state to opt in. Why would it happen now, on this issue?  If you don’t think this is deeply rooted in the history of this country from the beginning, you are misinformed.

The intellectual history of the thugarchy driving the opt out option may actually flow from the middle ages where chivalry was the protection of the aristocracy.  That moneyed aristocracy has always existed in this country and their values have been grafted onto our political system via a corporatism, the warnings of which go back to Andrew Jackson and even further.  Today the corporate elite can make money from anything without the burden of actually having to produce a product and that money is being bundled into ever larger spheres of control.  The danger in this is a centralizing power (i.e., money) that is clearly what  Andrew Jackson had in mind when he warned of allowing the monopolistic control of capital to manipulate the real sources of wealth in this country. He said we would be giving up our freedom to the corporation. So the fair and equitable distribution of anything that such a monopoly as the health insurance industry has taken away would be a restoration of freedom and a move away from the existing fascism.

 

The Twisted Thought of Glenn Beck


A recent Glenn Beck show took another of our president’s speeches and twisted it to feed the right wing hater blogs.   I begin to think that he thinks such blogs contain primary source information.  This is a typical example of a quote Glenn Beck used to go on a rant that is now so ubiquitous on the Internet that it is down right scary:

OBAMA: “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security

Any fairly intelligence human being can follow Obama’s thought in the quote. No, it isn’t the KGB or the Schutzstaffel.  We already have the FBI. Might Obama be talking about our first responders or even a Peace Corp type force? Is Glenn Beck damning our men in blue and the like? Evil Army?

If the President offered everyone free cherry ice cream, then Glenn Beck would be right there saying, “see it is red.”  Saying, “I told you he was socialist.”  This is the level of social discourse that Glenn Beck has reduced his viewers.  It is right up there with the World Wrestling Federation for its intellectual stimulation and honest reporting of the real world events.

Glenn Beck: Why do we need a civilian national security force that is “just as strong, just as powerful” as the military?

We need one because the military marching in the streets is fascism. Civilian national security force (i.e., local militia, called police and deputized agents of the people, Peace Corps, AmeriCorps) monitoring of terrorists is reasonable aim. It is more reasonable than fomenting war across the globe while not protecting those within our borders. This is actually the second Amendment meaning. Glenn Beck, are you against the second amendment of the constitution? I know twelfth grade was hard to get through, but American History was included. I wonder what a well-regulated militia might look like? Not the vigilantes on the border, for sure.

Glenn Beck: Here’s why I ask this question: Who are we fighting? Who internally is threatening our security?

Well, the last I heard we were at war with terrorist and supporters of terrorists. I guess you might fit into one of those categories. So maybe you do have reason to fear. Glenn Beck the liberals are not responding to you for the same reason you don’t argue with a drunk. Drunks pose no rational argument to fight and do not respond to what you say in a rational manner either. I have read three sentences and, you sir; have made no sense, common, or otherwise, in what you say.  You are clearly more comfortable putting up straw men to argue with rather than actually debating with someone armed with facts.  You appeal to belief, authority, fear, emotion, flattery, popularity and common practice.  These are fallacies all.  You have not demonstrated even the most basic understanding of a well-formed syllogism.  In short, you are illogical.

Glenn Beck: It’s clearly not because we feel there is a threat from illegal aliens crossing the border, because anyone who would say that has been deemed a racist.

First off, the Hispanics crossing the border come from a different culture, not a different race. Unless you want to classify Italian-Americans and Greek-Americans a different race as well. Such misinformation shows a lack of education, if not that, then blatant racism on its face. And who are these people that call criticizers of crossing the border racist? I have seen more Right wing bloggers wanting immigration reform suggesting they are being called racist than anyone actually doing the calling. What I have heard is that those that object to the legislation suggest that the immigration legislation had a racist agenda.  That means it is more fear based than fact based and setting up another enclave of institutional ethnocentrism feeding the world opinion that we remain ugly Americans.

The Hispanics I know are a pretty conservative Christian group. They don’t want their jobs undercut anymore than anyone else. They, I predict, in fact, are going to be the future of a more rational Republican Party. Yes, they have sympathy for the oppressed, and yes they will defend themselves against wild-eyed slurs, but no, they are not crying racism anymore than I believe you intentionally advocating for itBorder crossings make their communities much less safe than it makes yours.  The truth hidden in this last sentence is the heart of the issue.  Why is their any their community at all?

Glenn Beck: It can’t be a civilian national security force against Islamic extremists, because according to this administration we aren’t even at war against Islamic extremists anymore.

I last heard we had a war going on two fronts, at least.  If it is not the terrorist we are fighting, then we are spending a lot of money for nothing.  So we need all our troops called home now.  Is that what you believe?  Maybe we should bring the troops home and fund health care reform?

Obama: “Let me say this as clearly as I can: the United States is not and will never be at war and with Islam,”

That is pretty clear. We are at war with ALL terrorists.

Obama: “In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject.”  [Mr. Obama continued by adding that the U.S. relationship will not only be] “based on opposition to terrorism.”

Beck: Is this administration really going to ask the American people to profile and call-in tips on Muslim Americans who act suspiciously?

I think that skinheads with guns might be more to the point.  What is not to the point is that every event that upsets Glenn Beck does not rise to the level a terrorist attack except in his mind. Unless what he means to convey is that it his worldview that is collapsing under an attack by a fusillade of lucid moments.

Sound bites and photo ops are not facts, like Glenn Beck thinking that the color of a man carrying an automatic provides sufficient context to make any point whatsoever.  Even if the point was to impugn the motives of those that used the photo op originally without showing that he was Black.  There is nothing that can be implied from the information shown other than that Glenn Beck is an ass and has three-fifths of a brain.

%d bloggers like this: