Wednesday, September 09, 2009

Blue Dog Rep., who claimed "victory" for preventing vote on health reform bill, wants liberals to stop being mean


Remember Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin? She's the Blue Dog who trumpted the fact that her little gang of conservatives had thwarted the movement on health insurance reform in July:
Check out this statement from Blue Dog Stephanie Herseth Sandlin:
Herseth Sandlin also made it clear that she believes the Blue Dogs have scored a major victory by getting leaders to back away from their goal of having the House vote on a healthcare bill before members return home for the month of August.

“We’ve achieved the victory of not having a vote on the House floor that will give every member a chance to digest what’s in the bill, whether it’s in a markup that occurs in Energy and Commerce or whether it’s as the bill exists right now,” she said. “It is because of the Blue Dog Coalition that there is no floor vote before the August break.”
Got that? This is considered a "victory" by the Blue Dogs. That's beyond appalling.
Yes. All that rancor at Town Hall meetings is due in large part to Rep. Sandlin and the Blue Dogs.

Now, she's upset. Today, she asked her colleagues to stop being mean:
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.), a leader of the centrist Blue Dog Democrats, made a call for unity, urging more liberal members to stop publicly insulting Blue Dogs.

“She said we shouldn't be questioning each other's motives,” said one lawmaker.
Um, yes, actually everyone should be questioning the motives of the Blue Dogs. And, that whining is really unbecoming. Read More......

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) stole the show for the GOP by heckling the President during the speech


Ben Smith reports that it was Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) who yelled "lie" during the President's speech tonight:
A loud voice from the Republican side of the hall answered, "Lie" -- my colleague Glenn Thrush reports it was Rep. Joe Wilson (R - S.C.) -- drawing a second "It's not true," from Obama and a shake of Nancy Pelosi's head.

The bill is designed to exclude those immigrants, though some Republicans have called for more explicit bans on funding for illegal immigrants and have claimed the bill will funnel money to illegal immigrants.

FactCheck.org described those claims as "false" and noted that one version of the legislation already includes an explicit bar on federal funding for illegal immigrants' health care.
So, we had the President acting like a statesman and continuing to offer to work with Republicans (even as he did call out some of their lies.) And, we had a Republican member of Congress screaming like an idiot.

Wilson will probably be a hero to teabaggers and immigrant-bashers. He'll probably be on Lou Dobbs tomorrow night. But, the best response I saw was from HunterDK on Twitter:
Old white southern congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC), confused, shouts at Obama to get off his lawn.
UPDATE: John McCain blasted Wilson tonight on Larry King Live saying the South Carolina Republican was "totally disrespectful" and should "apologize immediately."
Read More......

Condensed version of GOP response


Rep. Charles Boustany, a confirmed birther, just gave the GOP response. He basically regurgitated the GOP talking points with all the usual code words. The Republicans want to start over. And, guess what? they don't like the public option.

If Obama wonders if the GOPers have any interest in bipartisanship, he should just watch Boustany's speech.

UPDATE: McJoan points out the Boustany, a doctor, has been sued three times for malpractice. No wonder he liked Obama's remarks on "medical liability reform." Read More......

Liveblogging Obama's speech


9:02 PM: The conclusion:
I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road – to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.

But that’s not what the moment calls for. That’s not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it’s hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history’s test.

Because that is who we are. That is our calling. That is our character. Thank you, God Bless You, and may God Bless the United States of America.
8:59 PM: Gives tribute to Ted Kennedy.

8:56 PM: The Republicans have props. They keep waving something around. Honest to god, they are children. It's pathetic. Heckling the president and props. This is all fun and games for them. They really don't get the import of the issue. Eric Cantor can't stop texting or tweeting. Via Political Wire's tweet, apparently it was Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) who yelled "lie" during the speech.

8:55 PM: My plan costs $900 billion. Less than what we've spent on Iraq/Afghanistan wars. Less than those tax cuts for the wealthy.

8:52 PM: Republicans cheer wildly over the idea of malpractice reform. Obama proposing ideas on putting patient safety first, let doctors be doctors. Directing Sec. of HHS to move forward on Bush idea of demonstration projects.

The rest of the liveblog is after the break.

8:50 PM: Obama takes a whack at the GOP Medicare scare tactics "don’t pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut – especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past, and just this year supported a budget that would have essentially turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program. That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare."

8:49 PM: "Medicare is another issue that’s been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate." Yes, again, from the Republicans.

8:46 PM: How to pay: I won't sign any bill that adds one dime to the deficit now or in the future (which he repeated). I inherited trillion deficit because too many programs, like Iraq war, weren't paid for.

8:45 PM: Obama spends quite a bit of time explaining the value of the public option. Good analogy to public higher education. (Full excerpt on public option is here.) Notes the American people support it. Shouldn't be exaggerated by the left, right or the media. "And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have." As if.

8:42 PM: "Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business...I just want to hold them accountable." Insurance reforms would do just that. Could also make available "not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange."

8:39 PM: OMG. Someone, obviously a Republican, heckled Obama when he said illegal immigrants won't be covered. Who yelled out "Lie." That kinda shows the level of class on the GOP side. Obama ignored it and kept going.

8:38 PM: "Death panel" is a lie, plain and simple. Calls out politicians who are "cynical and irresponsible."

8:37 PM: Laughter erupts when Obama says "While there remain some significant details to be ironed out"

8:36 PM: Everybody will be required to carry insurance. So, there is a mandate. But, 95% of small businesses would be exempt.

8:34 PM: Explains exchange concept for those with no insurance (new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices.) More customers means greater leverage.. "It’s how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it’s time to give every American the same opportunity that we’ve given ourselves."

8:32 PM: Reining in the insurance companies is a big hit: "In America, no one should go broke because they get sick." Yet, that happens all the time. That's really sick. Those with insurance can expect "more security and stability."

8:29 PM: He attacks the "partisan spectacle" and "scare tactics." As John noted, he makes it sound like both sides are equally at fault when the GOPers/Teabaggers and other haters have been unrelenting with their lies.

8:26 PM: Our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close. These are the facts..then he has to go into dissing "those on the left" who want single payer. Takes a swipe at "those on the right." Both "represent radical shift." Too often, Obama doesn't want to be allied with those on the left who elected him.

8:23 PM: Being uninsured can happen to anyone. And, key point is that even those with insurance don't have security. People dropped from coverage all the time. "It happens every day." It does. "No one should be treated that way in the United States of America." True.

8:20 PM: Obama: lots of presidents have worked on health care reform. I intend to be the last. Also thanked those in Congress who helped save the economy (That would exclude all Republicans except Snowe and Collins.)

8:13 PM. The President is making his way into the House chamber. The President's speech is here.. (UPDATE: I"ve excerpted the section on the public option here. FYI: Progressives have to back down here, too, even though Obama sold some of us, including me, on the public option.) From the speech:
To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end – and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal.
The pundits will be watching who claps when and who doesn't. And, how many times each side claps. We'll get a rundown on who smiles. Who looks grumpy. It's like high school.
Read More......

Obama on the public option


From the speech:
My health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a “government takeover” of the entire health care system. As proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly-sponsored insurance option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare.

So let me set the record straight. My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly – by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.

Insurance executives don’t do this because they are bad people. They do it because it’s profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill; they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called “Wall Street’s relentless profit expectations.”

Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. The insurance reforms that I’ve already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear – it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance. 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% of Americans would sign up.

Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don’t like this idea. They argue that these private companies can’t fairly compete with the government. And they’d be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won’t be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers. It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.

It’s worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I’ve proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn’t be exaggerated – by the left, the right, or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and should not be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end – and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.

For example, some have suggested that that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others propose a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can’t find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.
Read More......

The President's speech


Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery
Address to a Joint Session of Congress on Health Care
Wednesday, September 9th, 2009
Washington, DC


Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, Members of Congress, and the American people:

When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month. Credit was frozen. And our financial system was on the verge of collapse.

As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods. A full and vibrant recovery is many months away. And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them; until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive; until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes. That is our ultimate goal. But thanks to the bold and decisive action we have taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.

I want to thank the members of this body for your efforts and your support in these last several months, and especially those who have taken the difficult votes that have put us on a path to recovery. I also want to thank the American people for their patience and resolve during this trying time for our nation.

But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came to build a future. So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future – and that is the issue of health care.

I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform. And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.

Our collective failure to meet this challenge – year after year, decade after decade – has led us to a breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can’t get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed, and can’t afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer. Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover.

The rest is after the break...

We are the only advanced democracy on Earth – the only wealthy nation – that allows such hardships for millions of its people. There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone.

But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem of the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today. More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you’ll lose your health insurance too. More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won’t pay the full cost of care. It happens every day.

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn’t reported gallstones that he didn’t even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it. Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size. That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.

Then there’s the problem of rising costs. We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages. It’s why so many employers – especially small businesses – are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely. It’s why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete internationally – like our automakers – are at a huge disadvantage. And it’s why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it – about $1000 per year that pays for somebody else’s emergency room and charitable care.

Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close.

These are the facts. Nobody disputes them. We know we must reform this system. The question is how.

There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada’s, where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everyone. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.

I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch. And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the past several months.

During that time, we have seen Washington at its best and its worst.

We have seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform. Of the five committees asked to develop bills, four have completed their work, and the Senate Finance Committee announced today that it will move forward next week. That has never happened before. Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses; hospitals, seniors’ groups and even drug companies – many of whom opposed reform in the past. And there is agreement in this chamber on about eighty percent of what needs to be done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been.

But what we have also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward their own government. Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.

Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on health care.

The plan I’m announcing tonight would meet three basic goals:

It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don’t. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. It’s a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge – not just government and insurance companies, but employers and individuals. And it’s a plan that incorporates ideas from Senators and Congressmen; from Democrats and Republicans – and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election.

Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan:

First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.

What this plan will do is to make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies – because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.

That’s what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan – more security and stability.

Now, if you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans who don’t currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It’s how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it’s time to give every American the same opportunity that we’ve given ourselves.

For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need. And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned. This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who can’t get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill. This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it’s a good idea now, and we should embrace it.

Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those – particularly the young and healthy – who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers. The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don’t sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for those people’s expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don’t provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek – especially requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions – just can’t be achieved.

That’s why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance – just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. Likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers. There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage, and 95% of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements. But we cannot have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees. Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part.

While there remain some significant details to be ironed out, I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance, an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage, and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance.

And I have no doubt that these reforms would greatly benefit Americans from all walks of life, as well as the economy as a whole. Still, given all the misinformation that’s been spread over the past few months, I realize that many Americans have grown nervous about reform. So tonight I’d like to address some of the key controversies that are still out there.

Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.

My health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a “government takeover” of the entire health care system. As proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly-sponsored insurance option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare.

So let me set the record straight. My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly – by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.

Insurance executives don’t do this because they are bad people. They do it because it’s profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill; they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called “Wall Street’s relentless profit expectations.”

Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. The insurance reforms that I’ve already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear – it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance. 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% of Americans would sign up.

Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don’t like this idea. They argue that these private companies can’t fairly compete with the government. And they’d be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won’t be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers. It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.

It’s worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I’ve proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn’t be exaggerated – by the left, the right, or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and should not be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end – and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.

For example, some have suggested that that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others propose a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can’t find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.

Finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, to members of this chamber, and to the public – and that is how we pay for this plan.

Here’s what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I’m serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don’t materialize. Part of the reason I faced a trillion dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for – from the Iraq War to tax breaks for the wealthy. I will not make that same mistake with health care.

Second, we’ve estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system – a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care doesn’t make us healthier. That’s not my judgment – it’s the judgment of medical professionals across this country. And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid.

In fact, I want to speak directly to America’s seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that’s been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate.

More than four decades ago, this nation stood up for the principle that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years. That is how Medicare was born. And it remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next. That is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.

The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies – subsidies that do everything to pad their profits and nothing to improve your care. And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead.

These steps will ensure that you – America’s seniors – get the benefits you’ve been promised. They will ensure that Medicare is there for future generations. And we can use some of the savings to fill the gap in coverage that forces too many seniors to pay thousands of dollars a year out of their own pocket for prescription drugs. That’s what this plan will do for you. So don’t pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut – especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past, and just this year supported a budget that would have essentially turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program. That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare.

Now, because Medicare is such a big part of the health care system, making the program more efficient can help usher in changes in the way we deliver health care that can reduce costs for everybody. We have long known that some places, like the Intermountain Healthcare in Utah or the Geisinger Health System in rural Pennsylvania, offer high-quality care at costs below average. The commission can help encourage the adoption of these common-sense best practices by doctors and medical professionals throughout the system – everything from reducing hospital infection rates to encouraging better coordination between teams of doctors.

Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. Much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers. This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money – an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts. And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long-run.

Finally, many in this chamber – particularly on the Republican side of the aisle – have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care. I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So I am proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know that the Bush Administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues. It’s a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today.

Add it all up, and the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years – less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration. Most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent – but spent badly – in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.

This is the plan I’m proposing. It’s a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight – Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.

But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now.

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true.

That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed – the ones who suffer silently, and the ones who shared their stories with us at town hall meetings, in emails, and in letters.

I received one of those letters a few days ago. It was from our beloved friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy. He had written it back in May, shortly after he was told that his illness was terminal. He asked that it be delivered upon his death.

In it, he spoke about what a happy time his last months were, thanks to the love and support of family and friends, his wife, Vicki, and his children, who are here tonight . And he expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform – “that great unfinished business of our society,” he called it – would finally pass. He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that “it concerns more than material things.” “What we face,” he wrote, “is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.”

I’ve thought about that phrase quite a bit in recent days – the character of our country. One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government. And figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always been a source of rigorous and sometimes angry debate.

For some of Ted Kennedy’s critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to American liberty. In their mind, his passion for universal health care was nothing more than a passion for big government.

But those of us who knew Teddy and worked with him here – people of both parties – know that what drove him was something more. His friend, Orrin Hatch, knows that. They worked together to provide children with health insurance. His friend John McCain knows that. They worked together on a Patient’s Bill of Rights. His friend Chuck Grassley knows that. They worked together to provide health care to children with disabilities.

On issues like these, Ted Kennedy’s passion was born not of some rigid ideology, but of his own experience. It was the experience of having two children stricken with cancer. He never forgot the sheer terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly sick; and he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance; what it would be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent – there is something that could make you better, but I just can’t afford it.

That large-heartedness – that concern and regard for the plight of others – is not a partisan feeling. It is not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character. Our ability to stand in other people’s shoes. A recognition that we are all in this together; that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand. A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.

This has always been the history of our progress. In 1933, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism. But the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it. In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down. They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind.

You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter – that at that point we don’t merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.

What was true then remains true today. I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road – to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.

But that’s not what the moment calls for. That’s not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it’s hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history’s test.

Because that is who we are. That is our calling. That is our character. Thank you, God Bless You, and may God Bless the United States of America.
Read More......

Maine doesn't have a lot of insurance carriers and would benefit from the public option: But Snowe and Collins oppose it.


Today, on CNN, while explaining the public option, Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett stated:
The president has spoken out throughout this process about the importance of the public option. But let's take a step back and make sure everybody understands what it is. The vast majority of American people, say, over 165 million, have insurance. So, what the public option is there is to provide those who don't have it to participate in the exchange which will make it more affordable for them so they're not having to pay two and three times more than people who receive insurance through their employers, so that those people have the advantage of having affordable health care.

And we think that the public option is a way of providing competition in the system. Now, there are many states, a state such as Maine, for example, or Alabama that have very few insurance carriers. Well, what do you have when you have so few options? Prices go up. And so, if you have a public option that's available in the exchange, you'll have some competition, and prices will come down. And for those who don't have insurance, the president is very concerned that we are able to provide them with affordable health care insurance.
Let's hope the President follow through with his commitment to the public option.

Also, Jarrett is right about Maine. There aren't a lot of insurance companies in Maine. And, prices have gone up. One wonders if Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe get that. I did a little research on the Senators from Maine, both of them have had publicly funded health care for most of their adult lives. Olympia has been in the federal system since 1978 when she was elected to Congress. But even prior to that, she served in the state legislature and was a staffer for a Congressman. Collins was a Hill staffer for twelve years, spent several years working for the State of Maine and the federal government before she was elected in 1996. For both Senators, health insurance has always been available -- and funded by taxpayers.

They need to think about helping Mainers, not insurance companies, not Mitch McConnell, not FOX News. Snowe is one of the "Gang of Six." Today on MSNBC, Snowe said she's opposed to the public option. And, Collins doesn't support it right now either. They're both supporting the "trigger" gimmick. Robert Reich explains why it's a bad idea.

Health insurance costs in Maine are very expensive for the self-employed -- and there aren't a lot of options. I got this breakdown from a reader in Maine. It's hard enough to be self-employed in DC, but it's a bitch in Maine:
Last year, as a self-employed consultant, I grossed just under $60,000. But, my health care expenses, including insurance, totaled almost $9,200.

My monthly premium for 2008 was $343.48 per month. It's gone up to $385.36 as of July 1, 2009. That plan has a $5000 deductible. The price includes the Preventative Care Rider ($20.41 per month) which covers the cost of my annual physical as follows: annual exams; max benefit is $100 per exam and $100 for x-ray/lab for each covered visit; mammography screening, screening pap when test recommended=2 0by a physician, prostate specific antigen test, flu vaccines.

Basically, it is catastrophic coverage. I pay everything up to $5000, with the added “benefit” of the insurance company negotiating my fees. (Not sure how they calculate these items – but would guess that doctor’s charge a higher fee knowing it is going to be negotiated down.) With this plan you’re meant to have $5000 set aside “just in case.” In this economy, it simply isn’t realistic.

If I wanted "real" insurance, not just catastrophic, the cost for HMO Basic would be 1217.60 per month – here is the link to Anthem's rate quote.

My prescription costs were low last year because I stopped taking my Advair (too expensive at $146.47). But, my doctor insisted I get back on it. Now, I purchase it through canadapharmacy.com for $259.00 for a 3-month supply. A “savings” of $721 per year. Of course, the $1036 I do pay does not count toward my deductible because I'm getting it cheaper through Canada and not my insurer.

Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins must know we need competition in Maine. We won't get that from the insurance company here. In Maine, we don't need a "trigger." We need help.
I keep going back to what Barack Obama said on the conference call with bloggers. The public option is designed for small businesses and the self-employed. Republicans always talk about helping small business owners, but rarely do. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins love all the attention they get as the only somewhat moderate Republicans left. But, if they cared about Mainers, they'd support the public option. Read More......

Is Obama's speech going to blame Democrats for the Republicans' outrageous behavior in August?


After reading the excerpts of Obama's speech that Joe posted below, I talked to Joe, and to a journalist friend with a major publication, and all of us read Obama's speech the same way: He blames Republicans and Democrats equally for "partisan bickering" and more. Now, were Obama to be blaming conservative Democrats and Republicans, that would be fair - from Max Baucus, to Blue Dogs in the House, to every single Republican, their special interest obstructionism has made this entire thing a mess (and the President's refusal to get involved only made things worse). But, Obama being Obama, he refuses to name names. He even refuses to name parties. So in the end, you have no idea who or what he's talking about. In fact, for all we know, it sounds an awful lot like he's criticizing us too. Which is funny, because in the end, the lion's share of the blame goes to Barack Obama, who could have chosen to lead on this issue months ago, but didn't. Read More......

Excerpts from Obama's speech have been released


The White House sent out excerpts from the President's speech tonight. No mention of his plans for the public option in what we've seen so far. But this is what the White House wants us to see. There is some tough talk. Obama " will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out." Okay. Call them out. A big chunk of people sitting in the House chamber tonight fit that description, including all the GOPers and a few Democrats.

As I wrote this post, CNN's Ed Henry was breathlessly reading from the statement as his network's chyron read "Make-or-Break for Pres. Obama." Expect a lot of breathless reporting and commentary tonight from the painful punditry tonight:
I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform. And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.

Our collective failure to meet this challenge – year after year, decade after decade – has led us to a breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can’t get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed, and can’t afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer. Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover.
More of the excerpts after the break. When we get the full transcript, I'll post that, too. I'll be liveblogging the speech and the post-speech reaction.

During that time, we have seen Washington at its best and its worst.

We have seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform. Of the five committees asked to develop bills, four have completed their work, and the Senate Finance Committee announced today that it will move forward next week. That has never happened before. Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses; hospitals, seniors’ groups and even drug companies – many of whom opposed reform in the past. And there is agreement in this chamber on about eighty percent of what needs to be done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been.

But what we have also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward their own government. Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.

Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on health care.

The plan I’m announcing tonight would meet three basic goals:

It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don’t. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. It’s a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge – not just government and insurance companies, but employers and individuals. And it’s a plan that incorporates ideas from Senators and Congressmen; from Democrats and Republicans – and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election.

***

Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan:

First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.

What this plan will do is to make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies – because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.

That’s what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan – more security and stability.

Now, if you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans who don’t currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It’s how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it’s time to give every American the same opportunity that we’ve given ourselves.


***

This is the plan I’m proposing. It’s a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight – Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.

But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now.

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true.

That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed – the ones who suffer silently, and the ones who shared their stories with us at town hall meetings, in emails, and in letters.

Read More......

Married GOP Prop 8 supporter who accidentally bragged on open mic about numerous adulterous affairs - JUST RESIGNED


UPDATE: He's gone.

His name is Michael Duvall, and he's in charge of the ethics committee. He also sounds like he's a fan of unprotected sex.

The Courage Campaign (via press release) wants a criminal investigation:
After California Assemblyman Michael Duvall (R-Orange County) was caught making obscene boasts about sex with married lobbyists on a live microphone in committee meeting, the 700,000-member Courage Campaign called on Attorney General Jerry Brown to investigate.

"This isn't just a sex scandal, it's a corruption scandal," said Rick Jacobs, Courage Campaign founder and chair.

"A vice-chairman of the Committee on Utilities and Commerce was literally in bed with Sempra Energy's lobbyist. Assemblyman Duvall's 'sex for votes' affairs have cheated Californians out of honest government. We call on the attorney general to investigate Mr. Duvall to see if he can be prosecuted for selling his votes."
Read More......

Here's an idea for Democrats: Use your power. Keep your promises. Deliver.


From Markos' column in The Hill:
If Democrats abandon the public option, they risk a demoralized, cynical base, one unwilling to do the work to get Democrats elected and which will stay home on Election Day. Republicans, on the other hand, are becoming increasingly active and engaged. Shades of 2006 and 2008 in reverse?

If Democrats can’t deliver on good policy with strong popular support and dominant congressional majorities, then they’re too incompetent to be in power.
How is it that the professional Democrats (elected Democrats, Hill staffers, Obama administration appointees or political consultants, like Jim Margolis) don't get this? If Democrats don't deliver on their campaign promises, why should the base work so hard and give so much money to elect them? This is true for health insurance reform and it's true for LGBT issues. We're only asking Obama and the Democrats in Congress to deliver on their promises. That's all.

Instead, we see Democrats tripping over themselves to come up with gimmicks like triggers that won't help people, but will assuage the insurance companies. That's not change we can believe in. That's weak. Read More......

Politico: Barack Obama will hedge on public option


But the good news is that he's planning on reaching out to Republicans.

Never saw that one coming.

From Mike Allen at Politico
President Barack Obama plans to give a strong endorsement of a public option – or government health-insurance plan – in his remarks to Congress on Wednesday night but will stop short of an ultimatum, leaving wiggle room for negotiation as the bill moves through Congress, according to sources familiar with his remarks.

In a speech meant to reset debate on the centerpiece of his first-term agenda, Obama can be expected to use language similar to his Labor Day remarks in Cincinnati, where he said: “I continue to believe that a public option within that basket of insurance choices will help improve quality and bring down costs."

Anxious to navigate treacherous divides in the Senate, the president will stop short of drawing a line in the sand, as many liberal House Democrats want. He will not demand that a public option must be in any reform bill he signs, the sources said.
Read More......

Robert Reich on the health care debate



Read his blog here but definitely worth a few minutes of your time to view the video discussion. Read More......

Rep who will give GOP response to Obama's speech tonight is is a "birther"


I know there's slim pickings on the GOP side for someone to rebut the president. But, a birther? That's pretty pathetic. But, that's what the Republicans are giving America with Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA). Jason Linkins has details. Mike Stark got video. Boustany is the third member to whom he speaks:


This should make CNN's leading birther, Lou Dobbs, happy. But, why Boustany, one wonders? Maybe Michelle Bachmann wasn't available. Read More......

In Virginia, GOP candidate for Gov. now trying to distance himself from his homophobic comments


Bob McDonnell, the Republican candidate for Governor in Virginia, can't run far enough and fast enough away from his own words. He's a hard-core right wing GOPer who is trying desperately to portray himself as a moderate. Last week, we learned about McDonnell's graduate thesis, written in 1989 when he was 34, which eschewed the idea of women working outside the home, raised concerns about contraception and, of course, did a little gay-bashing. McDonnell spent last week trying to distance himself from himself.

This week, over at gay.AMERICAblog.com, we get more on McDonnell's strong anti-gay views from a hearing in 2003, when he was a State Delegate. He really doesn't like the gays. Yet, once again, McDonnell wants to distance himself from himself. He doesn't want voters to think his blatant homophobia is relevant. It is.

The guy takes no responsibility for what's he said. McDonnell just wants everyone to ignore his anti-women, anti-contraception and anti-gay views. His positions are bad enough. The fact he won't own up to them makes it worse. Read More......

Former Congressman Mark Foley to host radio show


Mark Foley is back in the spotlight. The former GOP congressman, who quit on September 29, 2006 after the revelations of his creepy emails and instant messaging with House pages, is getting a radio show. Check out the AMERICAblog.com archive for September 29, 2006.

Why is Mark Foley getting a radio show? Especially with the unfortunate name of "Inside the Mind of Mark Foley". Does anyone really want to get inside the mind of Mark Foley? Read More......

Less Spocky, More Rocky


Maureen Dowd just wrote an excellent piece about Obama and the health care reform debate. And she pretty much avoided the snark altogether, which for her is rare (and odd). She wrote a pretty serious piece about where things stand, what the problem is, and what Obama needs to do to fix things. It's quite good, and spot on. It's also another example of the fact that discontent with Barack Obama, and concerns about his character and personal backbone, go far beyond the Netroots. This can't keep up without causing some serious, and I fear irreparable, damage to this president's reputation and credibility.
After keeping his great powers of persuasion and elucidation under wraps all summer, the president at long last comes forward to explain his health care plan to an utterly confused and increasingly skeptical and wary public.

He should have done this speech back in June and conjured up a better glossary. You can’t combat a scintillating term like “death panels” with a somnambulant one like “public option.”

President Obama is so wrapped up in his desire to be a different, more conciliatory, beer-summit kind of leader, he ignores some verities.

Sometimes, when you’ve got the mojo, you have to keep your foot on your opponent’s neck. When you’re trying to get a Sisyphean agenda passed, it’s good if people in the way — including rebellious elements in your own party — fear you.

Civil discourse is fine, but when the other side is fighting dirty, you should get angry. Don’t let the bully kick sand in your face. The White House should have impaled death panel malarkey as soon as it came up.
Read More......

Supreme Court hearing case today to overturn ban on corporate spending in federal elections


I mentioned this in the open thread, but wanted a longer explanation of today's Supreme Court argument on campaign finance. The justices basically decided to rehear arguments in this case, which was about a movie on Hillary Clinton, to decide if the ban on corporate spending in federal elections was still constitutional. That ban has been in place for decades so the Court will be taking a major step by overturning the precedence. NPR's Nina Totenberg, the guru of all things Supreme Court, has an excellent explanation of the case:
In June, the justices ordered the case re-argued, only this time, they said they wanted the lawyers to focus on whether the Constitution permits any ban on corporate spending in candidate elections. In short, the court said it is considering whether to reverse decades of its own decisions.
There's much at stake with this case, besides overturning decades of precedence:
Campaign reform advocates say that if the court strikes down limits on corporate campaign spending, the whole electoral system will be distorted. Corporations, with billions of dollars in profits each year, will be able to swamp the system, and they will do it using front groups so that voters won't know who is sponsoring the ads they see.

"It's a disaster for democracy," says campaign reform advocate Fred Wertheimer. "It puts corporate money in the driver's seat. It will unleash amounts of money in campaigns that we have never seen before."

The Supreme Court is closely divided on this issue. At the March argument, five justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, appeared hostile to the existing law. For the court, though, the larger question is whether conservatives — Roberts in particular — are prepared to reverse decades of election-law decisions.

At his Senate confirmation hearing in 2005, Roberts said this about reversing precedent: "I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and even-handedness. It is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided."
Nothing Roberts said during his confirmation should be taken seriously. The conservatives on the Court have a political agenda -- and overturning the ban on corporate spending would benefit the GOP.
Read More......

Wednesday Morning Open Thread


Good morning.

Today's the day of the BIG speech. Obama will appear before a joint session of Congress tonight at 8:00 PM Eastern time. Health insurance reform is the signature issue of his presidency and we're finally supposed to find out what that means for him. There will be endless discussion about the speech from the painful punditry today. But, it doesn't matter what they think. And, the GOPers in the chamber are irrelevant.

The President should lay out his plan very explicitly to the American people -- and make it clear to the House and Senate Democrats that the expects them to deliver. Because, this is the signature issue for the Democratic party, too. All we want Obama to do is to deliver on his campaign promises for real reform, which includes a public option. Obama told us on the blogger call that the public option would benefit those of who are self-employed and run small businesses. Tonight, Obama can show us that this is his presidency, not Rahm Emanuel's. We'll liveblog it.

This morning, the President will be traveling to New York City today for a memorial service for Walter Cronkite.

Also, the Supreme Court is having an unusual hearing today on a campaign finance law. The Justices, including Sonia Sotomayor, will hear arguments on the use of corporate and labor unions funds in elections.

Let's get it started... Read More......

FDA back to work again


The Bush years were all about what business wanted with never a thought given to consumers. Finally that is changing again and balance is returning to this once great organization. The same lunatics who are trying to destroy progress with health care are the people who sided with the corporate food industry who never wanted to warn consumers about problems until well after the fact. This is good news.
Food makers must alert government officials of potentially contaminated products within 24 hours under a new rule designed to help federal regulators spot food safety issues sooner.

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday unveiled a new electronic database where manufacturers must notify the government if they believe one of their products is likely to cause sickness or death in people or animals.

Regulators said the database will help the FDA prevent widespread illness from contaminated products and direct inspectors to plants that pose a high safety concern.
Read More......

UK out of recession


That has to be a welcome relief to the beleaguered Gordon Brown. Not much has gone his way lately but of course, there's little to suggest the end of the recession will translate into a booming economy right away.
Karen Ward, UK economist at HSBC, said: "The things that were leading us into the downturn will lead us back out – we'll see positive consumer spending again, and business investment will improve." She predicted that growth in the third quarter would be a healthy 0.4%.

NIESR's pronouncement that the recession is over was based on official figures showing that manufacturing output rose sharply, by 0.9% last month, aided by a boost to production in the car industry, which has been helped by the government's scrappage scheme, encouraging owners to trade in their old bangers.

Feeding this news into its forecasting model, NIESR found that GDP is likely to have increased by about 0.2% in the three months to August, the first expansion since spring last year. "This is the first time our GDP indicator has been higher over a three-month average since May 2008 and reinforces our view that the recession ended in May of this year," it said.
Read More......

Switzerland voted most competitive economy


The only surprise is that it took the US this long to drop from the top position. The long term trend in the US looks bad after years of blocking attempts at competition and creating too many giants. What consumer thinks the cable TV or phone or banking industry is competitive? The US Justice Department is finally looking into the ridiculous "exclusive" agreements such as AT&T; and the iPhone but so many US business practices used to be much more open than they are today. Using the AT&T-iPhone; example, it's laughable to hear AT&T; talk about maintaining innovation when they have nothing to do at all with the innovation at Apple. None at all. It's even funnier to listen to that silly argument when customers are complaining about the poor quality of service by the company.

The US is still in a pretty well regarded position at number two but the fast drop should be a wake-up call. Over the past decade members of both political parties have turned on competition and consumers and that needs to change. We've tried letting business have their way with everything and look where it got us. Now is the time to act and not when the US is struggling to stay in the top five or top ten.
Switzerland knocked the United States off the position as the world's most competitive economy as the crash of the U.S. banking system left it more exposed to some long-standing weaknesses, a report said on Tuesday.

The World Economic Forum's global competitiveness report 2009/2010 showed economies with a large focus on financial services such as the U.S., Britain or Iceland were the losers of the crisis.
Read More......

Hiring outlook down in US


Not that anyone has been predicting a strong recovery but this is still not the best news. With the stimulus appearing to have run its course there's going to be more pressure to see positive movement with hiring though it may not happen until next year.
A forward-looking measure of hiring intentions dipped slightly in the United States even as it improved in many other countries, according to a quarterly survey by Manpower.

The survey offers a hint that jobs in Europe and Asia may recover earlier than in the United States, but it also raises questions about whether such a recovery could be cut short without the support of U.S. consumers, Manpower said.

The global employment services company said its seasonally adjusted U.S. net employment outlook slipped to minus-3 for the fourth quarter, from minus-2 in the prior quarter.
Maybe Asia but Europe recovering earlier? I remain very skeptical of that possibility. Read More......