So.. I guess the Obama health plan is bipartisan and does include GOP ideas..

“It’s clear that the American people want health insurance reform.  They aren’t interested in Democratic ideas or Republican ideas.  They’re interested in the best ideas to reduce costs, guarantee choices and ensure the highest quality care.

They’re interested in ideas that will put them back in control of their own health care.

Throughout the debate on health insurance reform, Republican concepts and proposals have been included in legislation.  In fact, hundreds of Republican amendments were adopted during the committee mark-up process.  As a result, both the Senate and the House passed key Republican proposals that are incorporated into the President’s Proposal.”

A lot of GOP ideas… and that’s just Obama’s plan.. hell the Senate plan had 160 GOP amendments..

“Of the 788 amendments filed,67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew jeers that Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another explanation may be that they offered so many so they could later claim—as they are now, in fact, claiming—that most of their suggestions went unheeded.) Only 197 amendments were passed in the end—36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical.”

of course they still voted no..

Why is the only way to bipartisan cooperation is if the Democrats fully embrace the GOP plan?  Shouldn’t the losing party be happy to get a seat at the table.. a seat that gives them almost half of everything they want? Is a bill with 49% (R) input and 51%(D) input not bipartisan enough when the country elected the (D) to decide the majority?

I simply don’t get how the GOP can get away with lying that there’s been no effort to include them. But,even more than that, I can’t understand this demand that  they should have their way in total  if the country is to see any bipartisanship come out of congress.  Is it the prefix ‘Bi’ that throws them? Do they think if they do anything ‘Bi” then they are supporting the homo’s? (disclosure, I love the ‘mo’s.. and this one will back me up on that).

What?

Can you come up with a better reason why the GOP is so anti ‘BI-partisanship” even going so far as to deny it exists when  the bipartisan components are so flamboyantly displayed?

Related articles by Zemanta

• GOP still won’t take ‘yes’ for an answer (washingtonmonthly.com)
• Obama Keeps All-Democratic Health Care Option Open (abcnews.go.com)
• GOP leader Boehner flips out because Obama had temerity to offer a HCR proposal (americablog.com)
• Senate Democrats Still Look to Reconciliation (politicalwire.com)
• to the Sound of Tea Partiers’ Heads Exploding: (brothersjuddblog.com)

“Not so fast, let’s see what we’ve got here..,”

I think that’s been the request of everyone over the last few weeks when it comes to ‘climategate’. Well, everyone except every conservative on the planet. To them this was Christmas morning and they were foolish children who could not wait another second to open their presents. Conservatives like Sen Inhofe who thinks that global warming is grand hoax, rejoiced a these emails because now global warming is over and done, that they won and we lost and those who believed it can get a ‘real life’.Yes, the world got together and conspired to perpetuate this hoax upon the entire world so Al Gore could get an Oscar and to make George Bush look bad.

Ok, that’s silly. I really don’t know why the world would want to create this ‘hoax’  that we as human race were hurting the planet, much less know how a conspiracy of this magnitude could be kept secret; but that’s obviously what happened if you listen to the conservative media and conservative bloggers like my friend Lil Mike.

When the news of the emails broke, there was an outcry from the conservative mainstream media that liberal news wasn’t covering the story. It took Jon Stewart about 30 seconds to disprove this theory, but if there’s one thing we know about today’s conservatives it’s that they don’t want to be held to a standard of truth themselves, they just want to hold everyone else to an impeachable standard. Besides, they just knew global warming was bunk. How did they know you wonder?  Well Sean Hannity tells us that it’s not real because it snowed in Huston.

Wow, you mean global warming is a hoax because it got cold in winter time? Well, I’m convinced…or I would be if I was a conservative. But I’m not and it’s not because I have some kind of agenda. In my opinion global warming is a bummer. Not only because of the effects on the planet but also because of the effects on my lifestyle. I enjoy all my electrical amenities, my small SUV, my virgin toilet paper and my beef.  So global warming is an inconvenience to my personal lifestyle and I would love to bury my head in the sand and forget about it. But living on the east coast of Florida and seeing the increased numbers,frequency and sheer size of some of the last few hurricane  not to mention the heat? Holy shit, this past June was the hottest we’ve have… ever, and  it’s 10 days before Christmas and we’re still having almost 90 degree temperatures.  So no, I can’t afford to ignore something of this nature because like it or not, this has been the hottest decade recorded.

Back to the emails. It wasn’t a ‘liberal’ media conspiracy to hide the news of the stolen emails, it was an effort to say “Hold on a second, lets see what we have here before we get all weepy with joy at catching someone red-handed”, you would think atleast Sarah Palin would have been on the side of those showing restraint. Since she’s condemned the media for making things up ,you’d think she’d want them to get it right.. But this kind of story is like crack to a crackhead, so of course the conservative mainstream media was jonesing to exploit,misrepresent, and bastardize it.

Thankfully we have real journalist who did wait, who did investigate and who did not jump on the tea-bagging bandwagon..

Review: E-mails show pettiness,

not fraud

Climate experts, AP reporters

go through 1,000 exchanges

LONDON – E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don’t undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

Yes Virginia, 5 reporters and seven experts in research ethics, climate science and science policy have weighed in and it’s not global warming that’s bunk, it’s the believers and pushers of ‘Climate-gate’ who have been found wanting. But even knowing this, will the  vast conservative media network still shill for the oil companies and play to their ‘drill baby drill’ base?  You Betcha!

Related articles by Zemanta

• AP Study Shows Climategate Does NOT Disprove Climate Claims (alan.com)
• Sen. Inhofe Pushes The Crooked Science Argument About Climate Change After Wallace Said This Decade Warmest One Ever. (crooksandliars.com)
• Palin Denies Her Previous Stance On Climate Change (alan.com)

This is who you protect when you wish for Obama to “fail”. This is the side you have chosen to stand with, protect and help defend.

Insurer ends health program

rather than pay out big

Ian Pearl has fought for his life every day of his 37 years. Confined to a wheelchair and hooked to a breathing tube, the muscular dystrophy victim refuses to give up.

But his insurance company already has.

Legally barred from discriminating against individuals who submit large claims, the New York-based insurer simply canceled lines of coverage altogether in entire states to avoid paying high-cost claims like Mr. Pearl's.

In an e-mail, one Guardian Life Insurance Co. executive called high-cost patients such as Mr. Pearl "dogs" that the company could "get rid of."

That's right, Mr. Pearl, is a "Dog" that the company needs to "Get rid of"

Let's put this is perspective for just a second. I told you about a friend of mine recently to try and put a face many of us know on this healthcare debate.  I wanted Chuck's story to be on everyone's mind as they were regurgitating the latest poison from Glenn Beck's mouth. I wanted people to have a visual of the person they were condemning in their almost orgasmic need to have a United States President fail. A failure that  some of these people  dream of, masturbate to...pray for every chance they get. "At all costs" is the motto, "At any cost" is the pledge.

I failed of course, not even the plight of a great man and amazing friend to many of us made a scratch in the shell that surrounds these ideologues.

So I will try again.

Instead of Mr. Pearl, who has the same condition as Chuck, I want to you again put Chuck's name, his face, his interaction with you, his "self".. put him in this story. Does that do anything for you ideologues? Can you sit there and hear that Chuck is just a "Dog" who needs to be gotten "rid of" because he dared to buy an insurance policy, he dared to pay it, he dared to get a debilitating degenerative disease and most of all  he dared to not die quickly enough?  The company that waspaid to cover health costs  can't cancel one 'dog'  because it would be against the law, so they just cancel an entire state of 'dogs'. Is there any face I can put on this problem that will make a dent?

You may say "Oh but Kelly, I'm sure the courts will stop the insurance company from canceling everyone with this kind if policy. I'm sure a judge will see that this man, Mr. Pearl will die if this insurance company is allowed to cancel his policy." But you would be wrong.

A federal court quickly ruled that the company's actions were legal, so on Dec. 1, barring an order by the federal Department of Health and Human Services, Mr. Pearl will lose his benefits.

So much for that 'check and balance'.

For those that abhor government intervention, will you cry with Glenn Beck if the  Health "Czar" Kathleen Sebelius orders the company to live up to it's contract.

Sadly, we all know the answer to that... Yes, yes  you will.

Will those of you who even thought about trying to explain just how President Obama was creating "Death Panels" care to pick up your pitchfork against this actual 'death panel'?  Mr. Pearl needs 24 hr nursing care, he is on a ventilator and needs hourly breathing treatments and continuous intravenous medication. Without this he will die, here is your Death Panel Sara Palin, will you 'tweet' about how evil this is? Will you take hundreds of thousand of dollars for a speech on this kind of injustice, will the people who aped your stupidity write Mr. Pearl or even Chuck's name on a sign and demand they not be forgotten?

Sadly, we know the answer to that is.. no, no you won't.

Guardian, a 150-year-old mutual company, reported profits of $437 million last year, a 50 percent increase over $292 million in 2007. It paid dividends of $723 million to policyholders and had $4.3 billion in capital reserves, according to its annual report. The company's investment income totaled $1.5 billion that year, a small increase from the year earlier.

This is who you protect with your hatred of a President. This is who you protect with  your 'at any cost'  ideologue.

"In an e-mail to four other Guardian executives entered into evidence in the Pearls' suit, company Vice President Tim Birely discussed how the company could "eliminate this entire block to get rid of the few dogs."

.. and don't think you can get away with the argument of "Well, you Democrats are in power now and we can't do anything stop you." It's condescending, it's insincere and it's bullshit. Most insulting of all.. you know it, snicker and use it anyway.

20 years ago a friend of mine took a ride with a person he had just recently started hanging around. He didn't know him too well but he seemed cool and they got along. That night the new guy told my friend he was going to rob a local mom & pop grocer for some extra cash. My friend wasn't a violent person, he wasn't a criminal, he wasn't a bad person in any way... but he because he was 17 and stupid he didn't speak up.

The new guy went into the store while my friend waited in the car, he could have left at that point but for whatever reason he didn't. After a few minutes the new guy came running back out, jumped in the car and away they went. They never spoke of what went on inside the store and it wasn't until the next morning when the police showed up at his parents house to arrest him that my friend found out that the store owner had been shot and killed by the new guy. My friend was tried and convicted as an accessory to the crime and is on death row awaiting his date with the executioner. Does he deserve to die for a crime he had no part in? Some would say yes he does, but then again.. they would also be the ones to tell Mr. Pearl to go out and get a job if he wants health care.

The real "Dog" here isn't Mr. Pearl and it isn't Chuck or any of the other poor souls who have paid their premiums each month only to have them canceled because they did not die quick enough. The real "dogs" are the insurance company who cares more about an enormous bottom line over the lives they are supposed to be protecting. You all fighting reform at all costs.. at any cost, this is the dog you have allowed into your bed by not saying anything even when you know what they are doing is not only wrong, dangerous and against humanity, but could possibly be murderous. Just like the saying "Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas"  this is on you whether you like it or not.

Lindsey Graham is currently finding that sad fact out. Arlen Specter and Colin Powell could have told him, but a conservative republican of Grahams stature, with his conservative record would have ignored their warnings just as the rest of the ideologues will ignore this liberal's warning. When you go against the beast you create, the beast you've allowed to take over to fight your battle for you, when you go against it... you pay their price. It's apropos that Graham is now the one to fight off charges that can not be defended because they have no basis in reality. "Fake Republican," "RINO" (Republican in name only), a "traitor," "disgrace," "asshat," "democrat in drag," and a "wussypants, girly-man, half-a-sissy".

The beast you fed,nurtured, appeased every step of the way while pretending "that's  not what my belief..it's theirs".. and "Hey, you guys are in power not us".. that beast is self-aware and is devouring your party.  That is who your next leaders will have no choice but to cater to. The metaphorically date with the executioner that you await for being an accessory to the crime, would be justice in and of itself if so many truly innocent people weren't being punished along with you. Don't believe there are 'truly innocent' people being punished? Well, I give you one final story

17-Pound, 4-Month-Old Baby

Denied Health Insurance

for Being Too Fat

Underwriters, the people who are in charge of assessing risk for insurance companies, have decided that baby Alex's pre-existing condition — obesity — makes him a high-risk patient and have denied him coverage.

His parents were shocked.

"I could understand if we could control what he's eating. But he's 4 months old. He's breast-feeding. We can't put him on the Atkins diet or on a treadmill," joked his frustrated father, Bernie Lange, a part-time news anchor at KKCO-TV in Grand Junction. "There is just something absurd about denying an infant."

The beast you continue to actively support or just ignore because the end is justified by the means for you... denied a 4 month old, breastfed baby for the pre-existing condition of  obesity.

I hope you are happy with your creation.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Fox wonders why White House sees them as reflexively anti-Obama. Then its pundits bitch about his Nobel Prize (crooksandliars.com)
• Gov't investigates health insurance company mailer (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Obama's Health-Care Speech: A Test of National Character - TIME (time.com)

This was brought up on the MucheDumbre forum today in regards to a government involvement in healthcare..

Essentially, that is my problem with all of this. I already have a problem with the FDA and AMA being owned by drug companies, why make the problem bigger?

If this is how you feel, that private companies already have too many fingers in the political arena and are turning policy in their favor, then the only option for you is the public option.

As it stands now all healthcare options are  owned,regulated,price marked and everything else relating to  them by the for-profit health insurance companies. Your doctor doesn’t decide his fee, Cigna,Aetna,BCBS decide what and if they will pay him.It is the insurance company who decides what they will pay, who they will pay, where they will pay.. who can get their product and  who can keep their product even after paying for it for decades. Without a public option, the way it is now will look like the ‘better’ way in 5 years..

Think about it for  second… A not-for-profit public option that would be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects, going from the Government to the healthcare provider(i.e.. doctor,clinic,hospital)  is  a direct line to the ones doing the service. Yet, this has been deemed evil,socialistic,freedom robbing and bad because it is the government who is collecting the money and giving it out to the providers…

The other alternative is that we subsidized[pay for] not just the >5% who would chose a public option but all 45 million uninsured American with a credit that comes from private and public funds{i.e. taxpayers} . The difference is  that the money goes directly to the insurance company where they take their 30% cut and then decide whether to pay the doctors/hospitals the rest. It is a mainline from your wallet into the wallets of the same types you say you are against, the private companies- NOT the doctors and hospitals proving your care.

Somehow the government  paying the insurance company with taxpayer’s money instead of the provider being paid with the fees that those in the option have paid for is the better option for some. How it’s  better or less socialist for the government to subsidize the insurance companies is something I haven’t had explained to me even though I keep asking,but let’s keep moving.

Not only will the government subsidize the insurance company, but without regulation or something in the market competing with them, the insurance companies can get their ‘asking price’ for any policy they offer, meaning they can start charging the government whatever they want for the healthcare the government is buying from them..while still retaining the right to decide how much they will reimburse the doctors,hospitals or if they even will reimburse them.

What is being asked for here to control this is the choice of a public option, for  less than 5% of the uninsured in the United States .   Less than 5% of those uninsured now, not 20% of the entire population, 50% all of the United States of America, but >5% of the 18% who are without insurance..

I’m not being a smart-ass.. but read that again before moving on…

“Let me be clear — it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance,” he said.

“No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates,

we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would

sign up.”-Obama health speech before congress

we’re talking millions of people yes,  but single digit millions.

The not-for-profit public  option will force these unregulated companies to atleast keep their fees reasonable. It won’t put them out of business, the creation of any reform will ensure 45 million more people buy their product. That’s not taking money away from them… that is a windfall of fat cash coming their direction.

The not-for-profit public option will force these companies to own up to their contracts and actually pay out more claims, because to deny someone coverage because of a preexisting condition will become illegal.  It will force them to become a better product than they are right now, because  right now the ‘free market’ is allowing them to have all the marbles whether those be taxpayers marbles or private marbles. It is allowing them to collect whatever amount of money they want while choosing when and who to pay it out to. You purchased your insurance plan to cover your medical costs, you didn’t  purchase it so they company you chose could have complete autonomy to do with your money as they saw fit and thus leaving you responsible for the doctor bill at the same time.

Again, read this again. You pay the insurance company to cover your health care costs.. if they deem your claim unworthy, you are still responsible for the payment  to the doctor/clinic or hospital who treated you. So now you have paid the insurance company to keep your money and the doctor to treat you. Seriously people, if you just want to send your money to someone while still being responsible for your bills, I’ll be glad to accept it instead.

To put it simply, there are only two choices here.. .We either pay the insurance companies to insure the uninsured and thus, paying their fee for doing this  or we pay the doctors directly to treat the uninsured. If you don’t like big Pharma being involved in the politics and decision making, then you can’t be against something that  takes big insurance out of the politics and decision making on people lives.

What is wrong with giving the overwhelming majority of the people a choice of what is out there?  That’s all, a choice.

I found a quote from Bill Moyers on another blog that said

“we should be treating health as a condition, not a commodity.”

I can’t imagine it being put into simpler terms.

If you are wondering just how much around the fingers of the insurance CEO’s the politicians have wrapped themselves, there are calls for ‘tort reform’.  This will in essence regulate how much money a lawyer can be paid for his services. Why are we so against providers of the actual services being reimbursed for their product and so much in favor of the companies who offer no other service than to hold our money and decide who or if they will pay with it. If the doctors and lawyers charge too much, isn’t one of the tenents of ‘free market capitalism’ that they will be weeded out as their competitors  offered the same for less?  Isn’t government imposing the will of   a select few companies, who service is solely to pay these doctors and lawyers the money you gave them, isn’t imposing those companies will over the will of the ones doing  the service you hired them for,  more detrimental to  the idea of Capitalism?

****UPDATE****

sometimes a good video says it all…

Related articles by Zemanta

• 44,789 Die Annually For Lack of Health Insurance (mydd.com)
• BUYING HEALTH INSURANCE FROM PRIVATE INSURERS IS NOT THE SOLUTION FOR MANY AMERICANS. We need a public option or better FIRST! (iflizwerequeen.com)
• The Healing of America (tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com)

There is a great discussion going on on the muchedumbre forum..

“Fear here… I got fear here… 1 trillion dollars… get your fear…“

sorry, 900 billion… like any of us really know the difference…

So, is Obama simply repeating the mistakes of Bush II by selling important things to the American people with fear?

fear here, fear now.. we must stop it.

Well, we must stop it when it is President Obama doing the mongering, when it is a Democrat’s agenda, when it is an issue that 70% of the country’s population want.

We are being led to believe that the ‘fear’ the President it ‘mongering’ on the rise of insurance prices, the crippling effect that the uninsured have on the medical system, and the eventual crash of medicare/medicaid  is just fanciful and over-the-top unnecessary rhetoric. But this isn’t about the country, this isn’t about helping the 70% majority get what they are begging for,the Republican’s  only goal here is to stop Obama by ending his hope of healthcare for everyone. The idea behind  stopping the healthcare reform the President is asking for is that it will  bring his popularity down enough for Republicans to  hope for a chance to win a majority of congressional elections is 2010. This isn’t about you or me to the Republicans, this is about beating Obama and winning congressional seats. Just ask Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK). He isn’t afraid to admit the Republican agenda.

“When you tell people that the mortality rate in Canada is 25% higher for breast cancer, 18% higher for prostate cancer, you know, they say why in the world would we emulate a system like that?”

Of course they are telling them a lie, because that is not the system we are trying to emulate.. but what good is a little truth when your goal is fear. Why bother with the truth when the  the mortality rate for mortality is 3% higher in the United States than Canada? Because then, you lose your argument all together.

This idea of pretending that our healthcare system would suffer or the bonus-cuts the poor and destitute health insurance CEO’s would have to endure are not the issue, is ridiculous. The issue is to do what it takes to win at all costs.

“I just hope the President keeps talking about it, keeps trying to rush it through. We can stall it. And that’s going to be a huge gain for those of us who want to turn this thing over in the 2010 election.”-Sen. James Inhofe

The majority of us who support a public plan and are willing to pay for it, are sadly not as important as those who donate millions to coffers of our elected officials both Democrat and Republican. Oddly enough, the ones taking the most money from Phamra and Big Insurance are the one blocking reform by calling for bi-partisanship. Which in this case means a bill so watered down and useless that it will do more harm than good. And yet to call them on this, to explain the immediate need for reform, to try and give a democracy what it’s demanding.. is to be out there ‘fear mongering’ and scaring the public and this just isn’t to be born!

We had to wire-tap our own citizens for fear that the terrorists were  making covert plans over the wires.

We had to torture  subjects who were captured for fear that they might  know something. In order to do that though, we had to change the wording of strict Geneva convention guidelines to change these POW’s into ‘enemy combatant’ for fear that the laws may protect them.

We had to detain  combatants  in secret holding facilities all over the world for fear that they would escape or worse, join together and become a ’super-terrorist cell’.

We could not try these combatants  in our own courts on our own soil for fear that they would  get off and be released into the population and begin collaborating with one another on another attack.

We could not house these combatants in our own maximum security prison system for fear that they may do what no one else has done, and escape.. or for fear that they would join in with the other extremely dangerous inmates housed with them and created new terrorists  networks.

We were even told to vote for the Republicans because they tried  to make us fear that they were the only one capable of keeping us safe in these uncertain times.

It’s telling that when these issue were brought up and the fear mongering was pointed at as an unnecessary tactic, he reply from the same people complaining about the supposed fear mongering President Obama is spreading, was

“So the Prez tells you stuff that you don’t like and don’t want to hear, and for his trouble of actually treating you like an adult and not sugar coating it, you call it “fear mongering.”

or

It’s legitimate and warrants some extra consideration.“

That’s almost as “fair” as the people deciding the fate of the health reform being recipients of millions of dollars from the insurance companies… but not quite.

The scary idea that some Republicans are trying to make into some kind of truth, that once this reform is enacted, our elderly will be put out to pasture, is some of the most ridiculous and preposterous yet to be voiced in this debate. In country where a doctor is criminally punished for aiding terminal patients with only hours to live in excruciating pain, it’s asinine to believe that we would all of a sudden kill off an entire segment of our population. But fear is what the Republicans peddle to get their way, even if their way goes against what 72% of the population and 50% of their constituents are asking for.

The scariest part of all.. is that we and the Democrats in Congress will let them get away with it.

The only thing there is to fear here is the money Republicans and some Democrats will lose from the Health sector if they don’t get out and pimp for them now.

Oh…and to the Republicans who complain that bureaucrats should not be involved in the decisions between a doctor and patient, first I ask, is the  17 year old high school student working after school and weekends at the insurance call center denying  the care your physician is asking for now, doing that job any better?.. and then I say to those crying a whoa is me over politicians not being a deciding factor in the doctor/patient conversation.. Thank You for joining the ‘Pro-choice’ movement, the ‘Pro-medicinal marijuana’ movement and the ‘pro-assisted suicide’ movement, can we count on your support in 2010?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama Should Say: To Hell With A Second Term, I’m Just Doing This (tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com)
• Inhofe and the Ugly Truth about the GOP (dailykos.com)

ekg here…what you’re about to read is  what lil Mike and I do, this is where we are in our comfort zone and where we excel. It’s long, it’s tedious, but the final result is an all out information explosive.. We have done this kind of exchange for years on muchedumbre.com. When we started ‘blogging’, we forgot that which made us great… the quote/reply debate, because it’s hard to get into that sort of debate in a ‘blog-comment’ section..

well, not anymore…

Here is my rebuttal to Lil Mike’s

Public Option? -> Only Option

Feel free to join in the debate in the comment sections.

..

” But one thing is clear, if it’s going to be reform in any way that Obama and the far left of the Democratic Party care about, it’s got to have the “Public Option.”  Right now the administration is having it both ways.  On the one hand it’s saying that it has no intention of driving private insurers out of business, but on the other hand, reassuring Congressional Democrats that the President is still committed to having a public option as part of his vision of health care reform.

Why the Public Option?  The formal answer was included in Obama’s letter to Senators Kennedy and Baucus:

“I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest.”

Competition?  There are approximately 1300 health insurance providers in the US.  Really, will 1301 really make the difference and suddenly lead to “a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest?”  That’s all it would take, just one more provider?  The idea is so ridiculous that you would have to be a White House journalist to buy it.”

Ok, will one more provider really make a difference? Absofuckinglutley!  Yes, 1300 companies offering the same shitty product would actually have to offer a better option if a bigger and better player came on to the scene. Your debate isn’t whether the Government can offer a product that will make the other companies provide a better choice, your argument is… Should the Government offer that product at all.. So let’s not play games with throwing in all this other stuff..

“What makes the public option the crown jewel of any health care reform plan?  It’s the camel’s nose under the tent for single payer government healthcare.  No, this isn’t just Republican scare-mongering.  I can hardly imagine any other conclusion for the insistence on a government healthcare plan.  And it’s easy to see how it would happen.  The logic is this:  One of the keys of health care reform is an individual mandate, but you can’t very well have one if people cannot afford to buy health insurance, so you have to provide an option for people too poor to pay.  Enter the public option.  An analysis of several public option scenarios shows that premiums could be 30 to 40 percent less than comparable private plans.  That of course hinges on the government paying reimbursement rates comparable to Medicare, which are 70-80 percent of what private insurers pay.”

I read your Lewin Group PDF analysis it was interesting.. until I Googled them and found out that..

Lewin Group is) part of Ingenix, which is owned by United Healthcare Group, the insurance behemoth that has been buying up insurance companies left and right, expanding its reach into just about every segment of the health-insurance market. Its flagship, UnitedHealthcare, helps make it the largest health insurer in the country. It’s a safe bet that United is not too keen on a public plan that might shrink its business.

Now I don’t find them credible in this discussion..Sorry about that but seriously, you wouldn’t allow me to use Rahm’s notes as actual unbiased data would you?But let’s address this ‘fear-mongering’ warpath scream of “Single Payer Healthcare-Oh My”..  Why is it that every time a Democrat tries to do anything you Pub’s start screaming ‘Government take-over!” “Government Control” “States Right!” and“Give me Liberty” , when after 8 years of massive Government abuse, Lenin-ish intrustion, insane Government spending,  and obscene Government entitlements there was nothing but the sound-bite of “If you’re not with the President, you are with the terrorists” to anyone who raised a fart of a question?

But now, Oh My God! We’re killing health care…!! We’re taxing people too much..!! Businesses will crumble..!!

really?

Did you know that Bush’s medicare proposal was…

…aimed to inject market forces into Medicare by encouraging beneficiaries to enroll in government-subsidized private health plans that would compete directly with the traditional government-run, fee-for-service program. The drug benefit would be the chief inducement for seniors to make the switch to private plans.

Maybe I missed it, but were there Fox News sponsored Tea-parties for that?

Something else I just found out (by the way, this is why Mike and I do this so well… during our hunt for facts we often find other facts that come in handy in other debates) “The Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security was the brainchild of one William Jefferson Clinton.” Sure the website is a little nutty and over the top in it’s ‘doomsday’ opinions, and in all seriousness I shouldn’t link it because you will use it against me, but what the hell.. it pretty much spells out everything I’m saying about what the Pubs were happy to do with a Pub leader and shit themselves when it’s a Democrat doing the same thing. Best of all, it does it with the same chicken-little hyperbole you guys are using now..

In short, Bush’s encouragement to beneficiaries to enroll out of their private plans and into the government plan didn’t bring about “Single-Payer Storm troopers” and neither will President Obama’s. But if… if it did, once again you can thank Bush for that ummm…camel nose under the tent… since he started the ball rolling…

Of course I loathe the ‘It’s Bush’s fault” argument.. It was fun for a few years there, but now it’s just old,crusty and only garners a slight roll of the eyes… The problem is, there are just so many fucking things that are his fault and you Pubs are just now finding that out because Obama is following in his footsteps on alot of them. So as loathsome as it is to say.. it’s still applicable.

Moving on…

“So one of the ways the Obama plan controls costs is just by paying the doctors and hospitals less.  I’m sure that will make a great incentive for people to go into the medical field.  And who wouldn’t want to be taxed to subsidize their competitor?”

President Obama will pay doctors less and therefore who would ever go into the med field.. An addendum to this argument is the.. “we will become a 3rd world health care system because there will be no incentives (money) for research”… OK 1st, we already are below many 3rd world countries when it comes to our health care and as for the rest? Well,  I can think of one disease that if it wasn’t for the French, not only would we still be calling it GRID, who knows when someone would have been able to isolate the AIDS retrovirus. Hell, it was a German who discovered that HPV was the leading cause in cervical cancer…

As for being paid less? When did we lose that ‘country doctor’ mentality of people becoming a doctor to help people? Was it around the same time insurance companies first started popping up? I’d really love to see a study on the correlation of the emergence of insurance companies and their control and doctors treating people less because it’s what they dream of doing and more to try and become a million by the time they are 30.

In short, I don’t know what President Obama’s plans on the pay scale for doctors and hospitals is. I know that right now we spend more money on administration costs than just about anything else. Medicare proves that you only need to spend 2% on admin costs and still function admirably.. $230 billion a year is spent in California alone on administration costs, Obama’s plan cost less than 1/2 that for the entire country.. so why those  massive saving would not trickle down throughout the system is beyond me.  To me, it would seem that if $25 from every $100 doctor visit that went to insurance administration now, was cut to $2, the doctor would be seeing a hell of alot better of a return.

“First, the same analysis shows that depending on the premium rate for the public option, 119 million people could lose their private health insurance…If the public plan has lower premiums, what do they care what rate their doctor gets paid at?  Others would find themselves dumped.  Why would companies want the expense of maintaining their own health insurance coverage when a public plan can offer lower premiums?”

I addressed this somewhat above when I brought Bush’s plan to get people off the private rolls and onto the public ones  to your attention already, but that’s not my argument against it, a bad plan is a bad plan no matter who the President is, something the Republican  religion doesn’t like to admit..My argument is this… I believe you are wrong.. those insurance companies will be forced to compete with the new plan.. they will have to offer something else, whether it be a lower premium or more coverage or an annual trip to Bermuda..whatever.. I mean do you seriously think they’ll just keel over and die? Hell no, they’ll find something that their competitor doesn’t have and offer it..

Back in the 90’s I was fired for being pregnant, lost my insurance(not that I had prenatal anyway), and was forced to go on Medicaid. HMO’s were exploding at that time and you were forced to pick either an HMO or straight medicaid. There was many HMO’s to chose from  and they all pretty much offered the same plans as each other and medicaid but since there was competition, the HMO’s decided to offer other incentives to get people to enroll in their plan. It was piddly shit like  children vitamins each month with this one, free contacts with that one, free vitamins,contacts and bubble gum with the other..(ok, not really on the bubble gum.. but you get the point).. the catch was you had to use their doctors,their hospitals and their pharmacies. Or you could stick with medicaid and go with pretty much whoever you wanted. I liked my doctor and she took medicaid so I chose that path. So when you tell me that a government sponsored plan will not only force people out of their private plan but will force private plans to close up shop and move away.. I laugh! These companies want to succeed today just as much as they want to succeed tomorrow and they will find a way to entice employers to keep paying them.. Whether that be free vitamins or a free trip to Bora-Bora for the employer who signs up the most employees onto their plan.Most, if not all, will adapt and  survive… and those that don’t? Well, you don’t mind when they fall in a full capitalistic society do you?

So why is a Public plan the only option? Because without it there is no change.. With it there is a crack in the monopoly-like hold insurance companies have on this country and it’s leaders. They have never had to worry about regulation and competition before and now they are throwing out all the buzz words that make  conservative hard.. “Socialism”..”Government sponsored”..”Government entitlement”… and to that I say Pshaw! Look what the debate has already done for health care… before a person was actually denied  treatment for her cancer because her insurance company said an outbreak of pimples in her past constituted a ‘pre-existing conditions’.Pimples!  But now all of a sudden insurance companies are screaming that sure,  they can get rid of the pre-existing conditions clause. The debate alone is forcing other companies to offer more benefits at a lower cost to women in some states.. The debate alone is changing health care for the better.. If the debate is cleaning up health care and the conglomerate-do-as-they-please  hold on health care that the insurance companies have.. then I am encouraged as to what an actual Public Plan will be able to do.

So, the cost factor? One state already pays 1 and 1/2 times more for just the administrative costs than the public plan for an entire country.

The reduction of doctor’s fee and hospital costs? The savings from the decrease in administration costs should increase what the medical providers see.

The loss of research and cutting edge medicine? You walk into the  Pasteur Institute and tell them they’re a 2nd tier institute.

Socialism? Please.. George Socialist Bush!

The loss of a free market? No, more like the opening of a closed market and forcing it to become competitive to survive..

Yes… Public Option? is the only Option

Related articles by Zemanta

• Poll Shows Most Americans Want Public Health Care (themoderatevoice.com)
• NYTimes Poll: 72% of Americans favor Public Option in healthcare (masbury.wordpress.com)
• What’s a public health plan anyway? (money.cnn.com)
• 18,000 dead: The moral issues of health care (masbury.wordpress.com)

I saw this cartoon in the Financial Times yesterday morning, and couldn’t agree with it more…

The story,  is along the lines of a blog that I did not too long ago entitled “Hoping for Audacity”.  While reading some of the comments on Mr. Crook’s blog page, I was glad to see I’m not the only one asking … Where is the audacious, ‘yes we can’ leader we elected?

I do not believe it is an insult to ask,” Mr. President, what are you afraid of?” or “what are you waiting for?” I believe in fact it’s the prudent thing to do because he may just be thinking that if he holds out for just a little bit more, then maybe the GOP will just fall in line and do as he pleases..

The problem here is…  that will never happen.

The GOP would rather turn on it’s own than step one foot into the bipartisan arena and that is because of is this newly emerging ‘religious-like’ dogma code the GOP are living by these days. It’s been slow to take shape, but it’s become undeniable that the GOP followers see their party as a type of religion and their leaders as some kinds of prophets or disciples to be worshiped at all costs. You only have to look at Mark Sanford to see what it is I’m talking about.

Since when do Republicans endorse abandoning their post, turning off their cell phones,lying to their aids and leaving  their state without a leader for a few days while  going out and getting their love on in another country with their mistress, who their wife had told them they couldn’t visit all of the 8 times they asked  if they could visit?

I seem to remember not too long ago the outrage wasn’t that Clinton had sex with that woman (wink-wink), but it was that he did it while in the Oval office and while being on the phone with members of Congress. ‘What kind of leader would do such a thing’ was demanded and ‘he should be run out of town for it’ seemed to be the reply.  Well, who would have known that had Bill just left his secret service detail,wife,child,phone, office and gone missing in Argentina for a week with Monica.. we could have save  bundles of time and energy.

Image via Wikipedia

The contortion one has to accomplish to justify Sanford’s actions are only mimicked in religion. I am surprised that Bill Maher hasn’t picked up on this yet.  This, need to excuse everything at all cost because any dent in the dogma  may bring it all down upon them.

What Sanford did was wrong. The reason he did it, to have a quickie, is not the issue.. atleast not for the Democrats. Their only reason for even bringing up the affair is because it’s too great an irony that the ‘righteous’ and ‘moral’ party is once again caught with their pants down, so great in fact that it just can’t be ignored. But, that is not the meat of the issue in the questions surrounding whether he should resign  or not. OF course he should resign! He went missing for 5 days without a care in the world as to what happened to  the state he was governing.  I can see not wanting his wife to know where he was, but he didn’t even tell his aids or turn his phone on just in case  something happened that he needed to be reachable for.

There is no question that he should resign, not for his affair.. but for his going AWOL. The bizarre part isn’t in thinking that, it’s in watching someone justify why his excuse for the adultery is the reason why he should not resign for leaving his job. Sure King David fell, but number one, he’s not King David and number 2, he’s not being asked to step down because he can’t be trusted to keep it in his pants, he’s being asked to step down because he can’t be trusted to govern. Sanford  and not so bizarrely, Rush, used the excuse that he had just come off a hard defeat in trying to fight President Obama’s socialist march through South Carolina and he needed the rest. Well… what is going to happen after the next stressful time? Is Sanford going to pretend he and one of his children have been car-jacked when he actually just ran off to Disney World?

There is something in the GOP these days that not only fears coming out against one of their own when that person is absolutely  and on every level, wrong.. but when there are some that do come out against the holy see, they are excommunicated for their dissent.

The party of the religious has itself turned into a religion that must not be disputed, doubted or  diverged from.

If those in their own party can’t compete with this without fear of being tossed out, how can President Obama think he can accomplish any bipartisan achievements? The simple truth of it is, he can’t. But that’s why he was elected with such a majority and given all the congressional tools he needed to accomplish his vision. We  the people wanted certain policies enacted or changed. We hoped to finally be able to say “Yes we did” but someone forget to tell the President this and it’s time someone reminds Superman that he doesn’t have to duck when the gun is thrown at him.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ron Christie Slams Mark Sanford: “Disgrace” Who Should Resign (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
• King David, Governor Sanford, and Republican Party Platforms – Not Necessarily in that Order (themoderatevoice.com)
• Peggy Noonan Thinks Republicans Just Need to Go to Confession a Lot (videocafe.crooksandliars.com)
• MSNBC Brings on Rudy Giuliani to Discuss Mark Sanford’s Affair (videocafe.crooksandliars.com)

President Obama, you were not given the Oval office and the Congress solely for the purpose of trying to appease or make friends with the party that shut out an entire political section of the country for 8 years. It’s time to start acting like the majority elected you to act.

Yes we can!

You were elected and given the keys to your success because you promised us change during your campaign. You were given a friendly congress because we knew the losing party would do everything in their power to discredit and demonize you. To prevent the loss of any political capital, you were given massive support, money, votes and Congress… so what are you waiting for? Use the tools you’ve been given already! You have tried and failed at extending your hand across the aisle and now it is time to give them the finger. This failure, like the disastrous condition of every aspect of the government, foreign and domestic, is not your fault. You were given a ‘Handy-man’s special’ and while you’ve made some improvement just by being there, you have a long way to go before this country is back up to ‘code’

Mr. Obama, you expected to come into Washington and work with adults, only to find nothing but spoiled children running through the aisles.  Every day you spend trying to bring your opponents into your circle, they are spending theirs  eating your political capital  like a fat girl eating chocolate flavored bacon-bits.

Change you can believe in!

Had the Holocaust Museum shooter been Muslim, your presidency would have been over. You would have not only been the country’s 1st black president, but after weeks of allowing Dick Cheney to call you every form of dangerous and venting about  your lack in the ability to keep us safe, you would have become the country’s fastest Lame Duck President ever.You have let this kind of abuse go on for too long and now you are seeing a drop in your poll numbers.

I understand your strategy of letting them become the party of “NO”. I understand that the more ‘right’ they go the more ‘centered’  you look and the more Independent voters you pick up.  But what I don’t understand is this need for all ‘political correctness’( so to speak) in the face of such outrageousness.

“It may include groups and individuals

that are dedicated to a single-issue,

such as opposition to abortion or immigration,”

the warning says.”

A few weeks ago your Head of Homeland Security had to  apologize for a report that said ‘right-wing extremists’ were on the rise and their chatter was reaching higher levels.   The GOP went apoplectic in its anger over such extreme “Liberal MSM-type” spin and accusations. Even some Democrats screamed about being ‘dumbfounded’ by this report. Michael Steele of the R.N.C told Fox news

“This is the height of insult here,I mean to segment out Americans who dissent from this administration, to segment out conservatives in this country who have a different philosophy or view from this administration, and labeling them as terrorists and then to call into question the service of the men and women who are right now standing on that wall defending our freedom and linking them to terrorism while you refuse to call the terrorists — the real terrorists — terrorists, to me it’s the height of insult.”

In the height of irony, not “insults” as Mr. Steele put it, this report that the GOP went into seizures over, warned  that

The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in “rightwing extremist activity,” saying the economic recession, the election of America’s first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines “rightwing extremism in the United States” as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority

Since that report and the GOP’s temper tantrum over it, we’ve seen not one, but  two atrocious acts that we were warned about. While the party of “NO” has a record in ignoring threats and warnings when given to them,  that doesn’t mean you, Mr. President, should have your people apologize to them for being right.

Doctor Tiller was murdered in a sanctuary, his place of worship by exactly the person the report warned against. A week later, James Von Brunn, who was a Navy officer during World War II and after leaving his notebook with a list of places he planned to hit and a statement saying “You want my weapons – this is how you’ll get them. The Holocaust is a lie. Obama was created by Jews,” decided to shoot anyone in his way.

I know saying “We told you so” is not the politically savy thing to do, but had Mr. Brunn been of Arab decent, how fast do  you think Dick Cheney would have been on Fox news saying exactly that?

Misters Brunn and Roeder, Dr. Tiller’s murderer, are not the first extremists to meltdown since you took took office. As I’ve blogged about before, another unstable radical believed in the same insane,violent and dangerous rhetoric of the Right when they said you were going take  away his guns. So he went out and murdered 3 police officers.

“Friends said 23 year-old Richard Poplawski feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns.”

Mr. President, it’s time to put an end to this trying to reach across the aisle.  As PAUL KRUGMAN of the New York times says; There is an ‘upsurge of right-wing extremism’ that is being “fed by the conservative media and political establishment.” Your ideal world in which Republican and Democrats can live in harmony is a wishful Utopia that will not exist until a generation has passed from the extreme partisanship the Bush Administration spread throughout this country.

There are some of course, like Shep Smith on the FNC channel, who see this hate and are fearful of the level in which it is being amped up to.

But just as fast as he can bring attention to this hate and anger, others paint over it by saying Smith is ‘”whining and moaning and complaining about emails”, while making it about themself and in then  justifing  the hate they and others  spread throughout this country. You cannot reach out to these types of people. Their motives are clear, with blood on their hands from their ‘hate speech’ they only speak louder,harder, angrier. They put their hands up and say “Wasn’t me” like they haven’t been the one rattling the cages of most extreme of their extremists. They are spoiled and dangerous children who cannot be appeased by rational thought and/or actions. These are not the moderate GOP persons you want in your circle. Even those people see what is being done and are appalled by it, but they cannot stop it because they understand this ‘hate’ will spread to them next.

“If I had to choose in terms of being a Republican,

I’d go with Rush Limbaugh.

I admire your tenacity in continuously  trying  to bridge the partisan gap in the face of such mounting and dangerous rhetoric, but there comes a time when it’s OK to use the popularity you’ve been given. You promised change, you have been given all the tools necessary to bring about this change, you do not need 100% cooperation when 51% wins the race. We who you convinced to  stand behind you, who believed in you and voted for you are still standing here waiting to support you. We are waiting for you to remember what you promised us…. Yes we can Mr. President… Yes we can.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Robert J. Elisberg: The Big Headline That Wasn’t Big Enough (huffingtonpost.com)
• Fringe attacks (news.bbc.co.uk)
• There’s no comparison (washingtonmonthly.com)
• Obama’s Gonna Take Your Guns! (grantlawrence.blogspot.com)
• Holocaust Museum Shooting, Other Recent Attacks Prove Domestic Extremism a Threat (usnews.com)