Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Nice 67 Y.O. male has brush with mortality- By Garrison Keillor
It was pretty clear how lucky I was to be walking out of that hospital relatively unscathed
Sep. 16, 2009 |
The doctor who saw me in the E.R. wrote in her report: "nice 67 y.o. male, flat affect, awake, alert and appropriate." I had appeared with slurred speech and a balloon in my head, had driven myself to United Hospital in St. Paul, parked in No Parking, walked in and was triaged right in to a neurologist who trundled me into the MRI Space-Time Cyclotron for 50 minutes of banging and whanging that produced a picture of the stroke in the front of my brain, so off to the Mayo Clinic I went and the St. Mary's Hospital Neurology ICU and was wired up to monitors. A large day in a nice 67 y.o. man's life.
I stayed at St. Mary's for four days of tests and when I left, a neurologist shook my hand and said: "I hope you know how lucky you are." That was pretty clear as I walked down the hall, towing my IV tower, and saw the casualties of serious strokes. Here I was sashaying along, like a survivor of Pickett's Last Charge who had suffered a sprained wrist. My mouth felt fuzzy but I was essentially unscathed, though touched by mortality. Which I have been on the run from for a long time. I never wanted to be a nice 67 y.o. man. I still have some edgy 27 y.o. man inside me.
But when the doctor talks about how you must go on a powerful blood thinner lest a stray clot turn your fine intellect into a cheese omelet, you must now accept being 67 y.o. and do as he says. You had intended to be a natural wonder, an old guy who still runs the high hurdles, but mortality has bitten you in the butt.
I like this hospital. St. Mary's is a research and teaching hospital so you get to observe troops of young residents go by, trailing close behind Doctor Numero P. Uno, and watch them try to assume the air of authority so useful in the medical trade. The nurses, of course, are fabulous. Like many nice 67 y.o. men, I am even more awake and alert around attractive young women (though I try to be appropriate). A tall, dark-haired beauty named Sarah brings me a hypodermic to coach me on self-administered shots of heparin, and without hesitation I plunge it into my belly fat. No man is a coward in the presence of women.
Nurses are smart and brisk and utterly capable. They bring some humor to the situation. ("Care for some jewelry?" she says as she puts the wristband on me.) And women have the caring gene that most men don't. Men push you down the hall in a gurney as if you're a cadaver, but whenever I was in contact with a woman, I felt that she knew me as a brother. The women who draw blood samples at Mayo do it gently with a whole litany of small talk to ease the little blip of puncture, and "here it comes" and the needle goes in, and "Sorry about that," and I feel some human tenderness there, as if she thought, "I could be the last woman to hold that dude's hand." A brief sweet moment of common humanity.
And that is a gift to the man who has been struck by a stroke: our common humanity. It's powerful in a hospital. Instead of a nice linen jacket and cool jeans and black T, you are shuffling around in a shabby cotton gown like Granma in "Grapes of Wrath," and you pee into a plastic container under the supervision of a young woman who makes sure you don't get dizzy and bang your noggin.
Two weeks ago, you were waltzing around feeling young and attractive, and now you are the object of Get Well cards and recipient of bouquets of carnations. Rich or poor, young or old, we all face the injustice of life -- it ends too soon, and statistical probability is no comfort. We are all in the same boat, you and me and ex-Gov. Palin and Rep. Joe Wilson, and wealth and social status do not prevail against disease and injury. And now we must reform our health insurance system so that it reflects our common humanity. It is not decent that people avoid seeking help for want of insurance. It is not decent that people go broke trying to get well. You know it and I know it. Time to fix it.
(Garrison Keillor is the author of "77 Love Sonnets," published by Common Good Books.)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/keillor/2009/09/16/mortality/
Cheney, your daddy was drunk as a skunk on CNBC.....
U.S. Government Finds $20 Trillion Buried By Absentminded Reagan In 1987
:
White House Séance Fails To Contact Spirit Of Ronald Reagan
11.22.05
WASHINGTON—In what government officials are calling a stirring testament to the leadership and foresight of late U.S. president Ronald Reagan, nearly $20 trillion in low denomination bills were discovered this week buried in the White House Rose Garden.
Ronald Reagan
Sealed in hundreds of old mason jars, crumpled shoe boxes, socks, metal tins, and oven mitts, the financial windfall is believed to have been stashed away by Regan, then 76, during his second term.
"Our economic worries are no more," announced a jubilant Barack Obama, who claimed that the remarkable find would sustain the struggling nation for the next two decades. "Not only did President Reagan manage to anticipate a crippling recession 20 years ahead of time, but it appears he left behind all of the resources we would need to overcome it."
"Everything is here," added Obama, standing among the towering stacks of money, as well as several other items that were uncovered, including three dozen toothbrushes, multiple tire hubcaps, two teddy bears, and a broken desk lamp. "This truly is a tribute to Mr. Reagan's incredible presence of mind."
According to the White House, the surprising discovery was made early Tuesday morning by members of the gardening staff. Less than an hour later, an estimated $19 billion had been dug up from the yard.
While senior officials were initially unsure of where the hoard of valuables had come from, a number of clues—most notably a framed photo of former first lady Nancy Reagan accompanied by a note which read "Don't be angry with me, Mommy"—seemed to point to the 40th president.
Reports from retired Secret Service agents who routinely witnessed a disoriented Reagan sneaking out of the White House late at night, only to return in the early morning hours covered in grass and dirt, also corroborated Tuesday's find.
"The prescience on display here is just astounding," said former secretary of state George Shultz. "Predicting the financial fallout of our country is one thing. But burying all those jars of peanut butter, cans of Chef Boyardee, half-eaten turkey sandwiches, and dozens upon dozens of toasters—it takes a man of unparalleled insight to be able to prepare for a potential future famine like that."
White House staff found at least nine coffee tins full of wadded-up bills in the northeast corner of the Rose Garden.
Added Shultz, "Anyone who has ever questioned Ronald Reagan's sanity need only look at the 80 barrels of oil we found beneath those lilac bushes."
Republicans, who have long held up Reagan as a conservative icon, claimed that Tuesday's discovery of $20 trillion more than makes up for the former president's tripling of the national debt, and invalidates frequent allegations of his irresponsible overspending.
In addition, recovered items such as a steamer trunk brimming with children's books and 10 suitcases filled with nothing but birdseed indicate that Reagan was just as concerned about literacy rates and the environment as he was about the military.
"At the time, his decisions seemed troubling, to say the least," former vice president and Democratic presidential candidate Walter Mondale said. "His talk about a fiscally responsible government was completely undercut by the unprecedented deficits he ran up, and he seemed more concerned with experimental defense projects than worthy social welfare causes. After all these years, though, it appears that Ronald Reagan knew exactly what he was doing. The man has saved America!"
While the White House has indicated that it has the right to spend the recovered money and instantly bring the country out of its prolonged recession, others believe that such an act would defy Reagan's wishes.
"If President Reagan hid the money there, it was for a good reason," Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) said. "Perhaps he was creating an anticommunist slush fund. Or perhaps, as one of his notebooks stated, he was hiding it from invisble pirates. Either way, we must not taint this great man's legacy by spending these precious funds on trifling social programs. If anything, we need to preserve Reagan's memory by sinking the entire payload into an unviable space-based antimissile system."
"Either that, or buy a glorious mountain of delicious jelly beans, like in those instructions we found," he added.
Regardless of the final allocation of the uncovered trillions, most Americans are simply marveling at the late president's astounding feat.
"When he said he wanted to put money back into America, I didn't think he meant it literally," Maine resident Michael Stargeon said. "I guess the poor man wasn't as crazy as everyone thought. Turns out he was a complete fucking lunatic."
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/u_s_government_finds_20_trillion?utm_source=a-section
Biden to Head Commission on Outbursts
Andy Borowitz
Saying that "uncontrolled verbal outbursts are becoming a scourge on our society," President Barack Obama today named Vice President Joe Biden to chair a newly formed national commission on outbursts.
While Mr. Obama's decision to create the commission was seen as a thinly veiled spanking of Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who last week shouted, "You lie!" at Mr. Obama in the House of Representatives, it may also have been intended to deflect criticism from Mr. Obama himself, who yesterday called recording artist Kanye West a "jackass."
Mr. Obama said that verbal outbursts were a growing problem and could cost the nation billions of dollars annually in beer summits alone.
"Regardless of how you feel about a national commission on outbursts, I think we can all agree that Joe Biden is the perfect person to head it up," Mr. Obama said.
Mr. Biden agreed, adding, "Anyone who doesn't like the job I'm doing can shove this microphone up their fucking ass."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/biden-to-head-commission_b_286927.html
Borrowing this from one of our sister boards. Its too incredible not to repost it.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/police-train-to-forcibly-draw-blood-from-drunk-driving-suspects.html
Nope, you don't know much about the military.
That is clearly the USS Enterprise
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama is speaking about health care reform to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night. Here is a transcript of the speech.
President Obama lays out health care reform specifics in a speech before Congress on Wednesday.
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 still many months away. And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them.
Until -- until those -- until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive. Until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes.
That it our ultimate goal. But thanks to the bold and decisive action we've taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.
Now, 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 the 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 here to build a future. So...
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.
Don't Miss
Obama's health care speech a 'game changer'?
Sen. Max Baucus to air his plan next week
Baucus' framework (PDF)
In Depth: Health Care in America
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 the 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 too expensive to cover.
We are the only democracy, the only advanced democracy on Earth, the only wealthy nation that allows such hardship for millions of its people.
There are now more than 30 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 for 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 had more than doubled in size.
That is heartbreaking, 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 1½ 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 employers -- 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 $1,000 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.
Nothing else.
Now, these are the facts. Nobody disputes them. We know we must reform this system. The question is how. Now, 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 -- where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everybody.
On the right, there are those who argue that we should end employer-based systems and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.
I have said -- I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both these 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 several -- past several months. During that time, we've seen Washington at its best and at its worst. We've 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 80 percent of what needs to be done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been.
But what we've also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government. Instead of honest debate, we've 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's the time to deliver on health care.
Now's 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 for 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, not just insurance companies, but everybody, including 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, or Medicare, or 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 -- let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.
What this plan will do is 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 the 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 in 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 more 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...
... if you lose your job or you change your job, you'll be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you'll be able to get coverage. We'll 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 give ourselves.
Now, for those individuals and small businesses who still can't afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we'll 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 Sen. John McCain proposed it in the campaign; it's a good idea now, and we should all embrace it.
Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those, and especially the young and the 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 by giving them coverage.
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 these 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 -- 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 can't afford coverage, and 95 percent of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements.
But...
But we can't 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. And while there remains some significant details to be ironed out, I believe...
(LAUGHTER)
... 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 -- I realize that many Americans have grown nervous about reform. So tonight, I want 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 by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens.
Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie plain and simple.
Now...
Now, there are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.
(UNKNOWN): That's a lie.
(AUDIENCE BOOING)
That's not true.
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.
Now, my health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a "government takeover" of the entire health care system.
Now, 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 here.
My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there's choice and competition. That's how the market works.
Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company.
And without competition, the price of insurance goes up and 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're 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.
And 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.
Now, let me -- let me be clear.
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 percent 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've insisted that, like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums its collects.
But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers and 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.
Now, it is...
It's -- 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 or the right or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and shouldn't 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 available for those without it.
The public option -- 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 -- for example, some have suggested that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others have proposed a co-op or another nonprofit 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 -- 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's how we pay for this plan.
Now, 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.
I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit 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 promise don't materialize.
Now, 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 don't make us any 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 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's how Medicare was born. And it remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next. And that...
That is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.
The only...
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, but don't improve the care of seniors.
And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead.
Now, 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 pockets 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 essentially have turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program.
That will not 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.
So 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. Now, much...
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.
And 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.
Now, 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 costs of health care.
Now -- there you go.
There you go.
Now, I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I've talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So -- so -- so I'm 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...
... I know that the Bush administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these ideas. I think it's a good idea, and I'm directing my secretary of health and human services to move forward on this initiative today.
Now, add it all up and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 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.
Now, 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 1 percent each year -- one-tenth of 1 percent -- it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.
Now, 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 to improve it.
I won't 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 this plan, we will call you out. And I will not...
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 the 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 halls, in e-mails, 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, his amazing children, who are all 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."
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, yes, sometimes angry debate. That's our history.
For some of Ted Kennedy's critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to American liberty. In their minds, 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, he knows that. They worked together to provide children with health insurance. His friend John McCain knows that. They worked together on a patients' 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 -- 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'd 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's 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 1935, 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, 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.
That was true then. It 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 is not what this 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...
... I still believe that we can act 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's 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.
E-mail to a fri
saw a whole lot of brooding faces in the Republican side.
Question is can the Democratic party make the blue dogs stand up and sit on the left side of the fence. Some of it still tastes like its about having health insurance and not having health care.
mincing words and trying to change the direction of thought. The insurance companies would absolutely love mandatory health insurance, but we'll see how this goes. Against the law to turn down pre existing conditions, sounds good for the citizen. I'll believe it when there aren't loopholes in it.
Things would become interesting if the Dems would just tell the Republicans to have a seat in the basement, while we adults talk about bidness, like the republicans did to the Dems last administration. But that would be playing their game, and that's when they win, and they know it.
all about the win win for the upper crust.
Too much money pouring into the pockets of the members of Congress and the Supreme court is giving thought to loosening campaign finance limitations. If that happens we may as well stay home instead of voting.
Danger Danger Will Robinson!!
wish i knew who wrote it
the more of us that disconnect
the harder it will be for them
they will eventually have to pull the plow themselves..
That is a great story.
Heard it many times.
Indications are strong that we're getting thrown under the bus tonight by Obama and the inflexible Congress.
They will NOT get another dime from my pocket. They don't work for the voter, they don't need my money.
They can and will talk to their corporate masters.
We'll be sending a similar email to our "representatives".
done done done.
stick us with a fucking fork.
the battle of two wolves
one evening an old cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people
he said, my son, the battle is between 2 wolves
one is evil
it is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, hate, superiority and ego
the other is good
it is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith
the grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather
which wolf wins?
the old cherokee simply replied
the one you feed..
We want the public option
Obama must retain a 'public option' for healthcare reform or he risks a massive backlash from the Democratic grassroots
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/08/healthcare-public-option-barack-obama
Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story" Premieres In Venice To Great Reviews
VENICE, Italy — Michael Moore says his film "Capitalism: A Love Story" is dedicated to "good people ... who've had their lives ruined" by the quest for profit.
After much success at Cannes, Moore premieres the movie Sunday in his first appearance at the Venice Film Festival. It was warmly received at a press showing Saturday evening and won positive reviews. Variety called it one of Moore's "best pics."
"I am personally affected by good people who struggle, who work hard and who've had their lives ruined by decisions that are made by people who do not have their best interest at heart, but who have the best interest of the bottom line, of the company, at heart," Moore told reporters Sunday.
The film features plenty of examples of lives shattered by corporate greed – but also some inspiring tales of workers who have rebelled.
According to Moore, "the revolt you think I am calling for has actually begun. It began Nov. 4," when President Barack Obama was elected.
There is the Chicago glass and window company whose employees barricaded themselves to demand their pay after management laid off all 250 employees when the bank line of credit dried up.
On the side of greed, Moore tells the story of a privately-run juvenile detention center in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, that paid off judges to lock up juvenile offenders. One boy said he had done little more than throw a piece of meat at his mother's boyfriend during a fight at the dinner table, and a teenage girl's offense was making fun of her school's vice principal on a Myspace page.
The film is filled with classic Moore gimmicks, like wrapping crime scene tape around landmark banks and Wall Street institutions. And there is the expected Moore grandstanding as he tries to make citizen arrests of bank CEOs, not getting past the sometimes amused security guards at the main entrance. By now, everyone sees him coming and knows who he is.
Moore said he considered himself a proxy for the "millions of Americans who would like to be placing crime scene tape around Wall Street."
The filmmaker is optimistic that unimagined change can happen, citing the unexpected fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and Nelson Mandela's election as the president of South Africa after 27 years in prison for his anti-apartheid activism.
"There are many things that have happened in the last 20 years that are just utterly surprising, so that I now believe anything can happen. People can revolt in good ways."
Moore said his expose on the health care system, "Sicko," helped trigger "a national debate about why we are the only Western industrialized country that does not have universal health care."
While "Capitalism" has a strong political message, Moore said his main purpose is to entertain with a film that "makes you laugh a little, or cry, or think. I am happy with all those results.
But he acknowledges that his mass appeal allows him to reach even nonbelievers, a luxury enjoyed by few on the left.
"I am going to use that position to try to communicate not just to the church of the left but to the average, everyday American who wants to go see a good movie, and maybe gets something out of it at the same time."
"Capitalism: A Love Story" is competing for the Golden Lion, which will be awarded Sept. 12.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/06/michael-moore-premieres-i_n_278343.html
Damn! That's going to be a long Olympics unless you watch Fox "news" which would be enough to kill you.
I believe it goes from your birthday until my death by blunt object.
Deeply Divided House Democrats Return to Work -- and the Same Set of Problems
After a nearly 40-day recess that was anything but restful, House Democrats are returning to work Tuesday still unsettled over pending health-care legislation and sure only that the people have had their say.
They are in almost the exact position they were in when they left the Capitol in late July. Conservatives are still leery of supporting a government-funded, or public, insurance option. Freshman lawmakers from suburban districts remain fearful of increasing taxes for their wealthy constituents to pay for the new measure and await alternatives from moderate Senate Democrats. And progressives, who are demanding the most far-reaching reform since the Great Depression, are still threatening to bring down the legislation if it does not contain a robust version of the public option.
In the lead-up to President Obama's critical Wednesday night address to a joint session of Congress, interviews with a cross section of about 15 House Democrats and half a dozen aides show that there is still overwhelming support for some overhaul of the health-care system. But the caucus remains deeply divided over the details of the more than 1,000-page measure and now faces a public that is more skeptical than when House committees began drafting the plan two months ago.
"We knew a lot of work still needed to be done, so no, not a lot has changed," said Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.), a leader of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of 52 Democrats from moderate-to-conservative districts.
House Democrats are the canaries in the coal mine for Obama's most important domestic policy issue. As originally planned, the House was already to have passed its health-care legislation, with a far-reaching public option for insurance, based on Democratic votes, as Republicans have lined up in almost unanimous opposition to the House version. Despite their large majority, Democrats faced internal opposition in late July and agreed to delay the vote until late September at the behest of dozens of Blue Dogs and other Democrats worried about the public's view of the legislation.
House Democrats are still expected to take the first step on the legislation, assuming that the frenzy of early August -- with the continual image on cable news of Democrats at town hall meetings with angry voters opposed to the proposal -- has not solidified opposition within their own ranks.
Party leaders contend that the time spent at home gave the public unprecedented input on the legislation, allaying concerns of some Democrats who feared casting a vote before facing their constituents in August.
Democratic and Republican aides said the past 40 days brought an unparalleled level of public participation at forums, with some lawmakers reporting to their leaders that 1,000 people showed up at events last month, compared with the 30 people who attended town hall meetings in the same location during previous August breaks. By late last week, House Democrats said that since Aug. 1, their members had held 1,029 public forums, teleconferences with constituents or health-care gatherings in their districts.
"I think this month can be viewed as participatory democracy, members going out and talking to the people," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). "Nobody can say we haven't taken the time to look" at the legislation.
But House Republicans, who held hundreds of their own town hall meetings that drew more than 100,000 voters, according to preliminary estimates, viewed the break as a galvanizing moment for opposition to the Democratic legislation. "I heard people saying, 'Look, we need health-care reform. We need to do something to lower the cost of health insurance for families and small businesses and lower the cost of health care,' " said Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.), the third-ranking GOP leader. "But I also heard people say that they don't want a government-run plan that is going to lead to a government takeover of health care."
Clearly, the recess did not go as scripted for House Democrats.
As the 5 1/2 -week break began July 31, Democrats handed out seven-inch-long pocket cards for their members to carry like political shields. The cards listed popular parts of the legislation to be emphasized at town hall meetings, including banning insurance companies from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions and prohibiting them from dropping or declining to renew coverage for people who become sick.
Instead, according to rank-and-file members from all corners of the caucus, lawmakers spent most of August rebutting misleading claims, such as the myth that the legislation would create federal "death panels" for elderly patients.
"A lot of what they've heard and they don't like isn't really in the bill," said Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), who supports the legislation. "President Obama needs to start talking about what's in the bill, not what's not in the bill. Whenever I see him on TV, he's talking about what's not in the bill."
The popular parts of the measure mask a deep-seated ideological conflict within the 256-member House Democratic caucus. Eventually, Hoyer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will have to begin choosing sides on the final makeup of the legislation, which is being compiled from the work of three committees. Each concession to one bloc of the caucus threatens to create opposition from another.
Pelosi continues to voice support for a public insurance plan, suggesting that she cannot pass a bill that does not include it. This has put her at odds with some Obama advisers, who are signaling that they are willing to do without a public option if the House and Senate can approve other major pieces of the legislation.
But liberals, whose ranks dominate the House caucus, view a public insurance plan as the linchpin of the entire effort because, they say, it fosters competition with private insurers, driving down the cost of premiums and other services.
"Health-care reform without a good public option is not health-care reform at all," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (Calif.), a leader among House liberals. "We have to do this. That's why we're in the majority. That's why we have the White House."
Woolsey and more than 60 House Democrats sent Pelosi a letter last month vowing to vote against any reform measure that does not include a strong public option. That is more than enough Democrats to torpedo reform if Obama accepts a centrist approach.
But the latest version of the public plan in the House legislation -- the product of a late July compromise brokered by Pelosi, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and a quartet of Blue Dog Democrats -- may be too expansive for dozens of other Democrats who want to see this plank delayed for several years or dropped altogether.
"I'm hoping we can find some middle ground," Herseth Sandlin said of the public option. "But if not, it should not be included."
Lawmakers from swing districts in the suburbs and rural regions went home to find constituents fearful of increased government involvement in the private economy. That view extends from the potential government option in health care to the bailout of the financial sector, the takeover of Detroit's carmakers and the $787 billion stimulus plan that many voters think has done little to stop job losses.
"Whether folks agree with it or not, the problem is there is so much skepticism of the elected officials, they don't believe us," said Rep. Frank M. Kratovil Jr. (D-Md.), who was narrowly elected last fall. Kratovil's recess began with a poster board image of him hanged in effigy outside his Eastern Shore office in a protest of the health-care plan. He said he remains undecided on the legislation.
Many Democrats do not want the House to act until they know what will happen in the Senate. That chamber has been stalled all summer as a bipartisan group of six senators on the Finance Committee has tried to reach a compromise that does not include a public option, costs much less than the $1.2 trillion House version and does not include a surtax on the wealthy.
If the Senate bill does not include a public option, many House Democrats will not want to vote for it in their version, because it would be unlikely to survive a House-Senate conference on the two measures.
The ultimate key to the legislation's fate in the House may rest with the roughly 80 lawmakers elected in the past three years, when the political tide was running strongly in Democrats' favor. Some come from rural districts and have joined the Blue Dog Coalition, but many are progressive in their approach to health-care reform, believing they were elected on a promise to offer change.
If enough of them can support the final legislation, leaders think they will be able to get a bill narrowly approved this fall and onto the president's desk before Christmas.
"I think, if anything, the mood has changed to be more favorable to health-care reform," said Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-Ohio), who won her Columbus-based seat in 2008 by less than 1 percent of the vote.
"Personally, I'm probably more confident than when recess began," added Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-Pa.), another freshman. She held 18 town hall meetings in her northwestern Pennsylvania district, which stretches from Pittsburgh's suburbs to Erie, and found that three-quarters of her constituents support some form of health-care overhaul.
"If I had just been listening to the media, I don't think I would have been as confident," she said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/07/AR2009090701988_2.html?hpid=topnews
Is that the winter olympics?
LMAO and why should we concern ourselves with that ?
I'd say he sounds a bit hot under the collar, and he pretty much nailed it down!
The squeeky wheel keeps getting the grease, and there is the feeling like someone is slowly pulling on the tablecloth at dinner while everyone is staying whipped up about some falsehood meant to cause people to take their eye off the ball.
The GOP is on its deathbed. They've fallen and they can't get up, so they're screaming as best they can.
We're getting set up on the back porch to start doing concrete countertops for the kitchen. It should be an interesting craft to learn.
***Revolution #2009***
Steven Weber
It's easy to believe airliners were brought down by guys with box cutters.
For this nation's duly elected president and his progressive policies to be kneecapped by a minority of loud, angry, possibly psychotic right-wing zombots is a sure sign that democracy is nothing more than a gossamer ideal.
And by lazily allowing such ideological idiocy to spread unchecked we now have the cultural equivalent of cancer.
There is no more reason for anyone to grant Republicans any respect. They have abdicated their authority. Their intentions are clear, their leaders too in love with their own salaries, their brazen goal to become the Kamikaze party reaching critical mass. Their credibility is all but dead, reduced to a bitter, gaping, black hole.
And thanks to them, democracy seems poised to tumble in.
Politics may be politics but this has gone way beyond gamesmanship and into the realm of wanton, drunken destruction. So far, no sane Republican---if there is one---has been roused by any nascent patriotism to voice opposition to any of the mad utterances vomited forth from the party's leaders and their "grassroots" infantilized infantry.
They have demonstrated daily that, having lost the presidential election and control of congress they've lost their their cultural relevance and all sense of morality as well, and in a fatally childish tantrum, are executing a nuclear option. The leadership itself has allowed the dead-enders into the fold and purposefully impregnated those soft-boiled egg psyches with apocalyptic imagery. The rest of us were too stunned to think that it was actually happening, that the Republicans would kill everyone and everything to wrest control back from a citizenry which wanted nothing more of their Grand Old Party's grand guignol.
And in monumental self delusion, the daily news cycle spins and spins with a wink as brazen as Sarah Palin's, as if we are all in on it and that this sort of thing is "healthy in a democracy". If anything, that alone means we might really be closer than ever to a real societal calamity, something that makes this economic crisis look like a picnic.
Only if every salvo is met with equal ferocity, if every pseudo fact is countered by reality is there a chance. To lay back and let vitriol burn itself out is unrealistic in a time when such things are the bread and butter of the corporate controlled media, when despair and division is essential to their profit margins.
You say you want a revolution? Well, alright.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-weber/revolution-2009_b_278381.html
Is Using A Minotaul To Gore Detainees A Form Of Torture?
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/is_using_a_minotaur_to_gore?utm_source=a-section
Haiti Makes Bid For 2216 Olympics
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/haiti_makes_bid_for_2216_olympics?utm_source=a-section
Unemployment Rate Hits 9.7 Percent As Economy Sheds 216,000 Jobs In August
The national unemployment rate rose to 9.7 percent -- the highest level since June 1983 -- as the U.S. economy shed 216,000 jobs in August, the government announced on Friday morning. That's up from 9.4 percent in July.
By a broader measure that includes forced part-timers and people who'd like to work but aren't looking, the national unemployment rate reached 16.8 percent -- up a staggering 6 percent from this time last year.
The total number of unemployed is 14.9 million, roughly double the number at the start of the recession in December 2007.
The number of long-term unemployed, those out of work 27 weeks or longer, edged up only slightly in August, from 4.96 million to 4.98 million. At the end of the year, nearly 1.5 million of those people will exhaust their extended unemployment insurance unless the government takes action to further extend their benefits.
And the picture isn't so great for people who are working, either. A report released this morning by the Economic Policy Institute concludes that many workers who have not lost their jobs during the recession have nevertheless taken a hit as a result of sluggish wage growth, reduced hours and involuntary furloughs. Private sector wages have grown at a rate of 1.3 percent over the last six months, less than half as fast as wage growth during 2007 and the first six months of 2008.
"It's an implosion of wage growth far beyond what you would expect" in an ordinary recession, said EPI's Larry Mishel, co-author of the report, in a conference call with reporters.
Other economic indicators this week brought better news. Retail sales fell 2 percent in August from a year earlier, the smallest drop since September 2008. And the Washington Post on Monday reported positive signs in the Men's Underwear Index, the metric reportedly favored by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. (The MUI outlook was less positive in April.)
Asked for his thoughts on the MUI, Mishel scoffed. "If Alan Greenspan were so wise, we wouldn't be in this mess," he said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/04/unemployment-hits-97-as-e_n_277218.html
We just finished watching this on tape.. Nova is great..
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/musicminds/
Lucky it wasn't his pecker.
Health care rallies are getting testy..
http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-finger-bitten-rally,0,7135717.story
THOUSAND OAKS -- A 65-year-old man had his finger bitten off Wednesday evening at a health care rally in Thousand Oaks, according to the Ventura County Sheriff's Department.
Sheriff's investigators were called to Hillcrest and Lynn Road at 7:26 p.m.
About 100 protesters sponsored by MoveOn.org were having a rally supporting health care reform. A group of anti-health care reform protesters formed across the street.
A witness from the scene says a man was walking through the anti-reform group to get to the pro-reform side when he got into an altercation with the 65-year-old, who opposes health care reform.
The 65-year-old was apparently aggressive and hit the other man, who then retaliated by biting off his attacker's pinky, according to Karoli from DrumsnWhistles, who attended the rally.
The man took his finger and walked to Los Robles hospital for treatment. Doctors reattached the finger, which was said to have been severed in half. He has since been released, according to a hospital spokesperson.
Neither man has been identified.
Ventura County Sheriff's Capt. Frank O'Hanlon says the man had Medicare.
Sheriff's officials are investigating the incident.
Rahm Pushing Triggers Through Olympia Snowe
By: Jane Hamsher
http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/02/rahm-pushing-triggers-through-olympia-snowe/
‘We Are Heading Towards an Abyss’
U.N. chief tells 150 governments that time running out on climate change
GENEVA - U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon told a meeting of some 150 governments on Thursday that time is running out for a new climate deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The Copenhagen talks in December are looming and little real negotiating time is left "to resolve some of the most complex issues," the U.N. secretary general told the World Climate Conference. "We need rapid progress."
Only limited progress in the climate talks has been made for the meeting to hammer out a new accord to replace the 1997 Kyoto Proto
Meanwhile, climate change is advancing.
"Our foot is stuck on the accelerator and we are heading towards an abyss," said Ban, warning that climate change could spell widespread economic disaster.
He noted that he had just visited the Arctic and was alarmed by what he saw.
"The Arctic is warming faster than anywhere else on Earth," Ban said. "It may be ice-free by 2030."
Not only is the Arctic serving as a warning, the warming there is accelerating global climate change, he said.
"Instead of reflecting heat, the Arctic is absorbing it as the sea ice diminishes, thus speeding up global warming," Ban said. "Methane, trapped in permafrost and on the sea bed, is escaping into the atmosphere. Methane is a greenhouse gas 20 times more powerful than carbon dioxide."
He said the increased melt from the Greenland ice-cap threatens to raise sea levels and alter the flow of the Gulf Stream, essential to keep Europe warm.
The climate conference in Geneva is aimed at providing ways for the world to cope with global warming that will occur because of greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere, regardless of what the Copenhagen meeting achieves.
Published on Thursday, September 3, 2009 by the Associated Press
Retreat and Surrender
Jane Smiley
Make no mistake about it, health care reform and the public option are the turning point for Obama and this country. Today's New York Times is reporting that factions in the White House are arguing about what compromises they will make in order to get health care reform passed. They did not have to have this argument. If Obama had organized his cohorts and gone on the offensive and stayed on the offensive from the beginning, he would be winning this battle, not losing it. That he did not do so speaks ill of his readiness to govern. If he yields now, then not only was he not ready to govern, he will not be able to govern. He will have knuckled under to the Republicans' bullying, and he will gain neither their cooperation nor their respect. They will know that they have him surrounded, and they will simply ignore and demean him for the rest of his term.
And he will have lost his progressive allies and well-wishers, who will have found that he cares very little for their support. The result will be a Republican return to power on a whole new footing -- even stupider, crazier, and more ruthless. Remember 2000, when the Republicans overran the recount in Florida, then stole the election, and then gloated and sneered about it? Those Republicans are going to look easygoing compared to the 2012 Republicans.
The public option is ground zero in the fight for America's future. It is the only way to actually control and rein in the insurance companies, as was shown when insurance stocks rose on rumors that the public option might be killed. But the public option is also a symbol. It symbolizes who is in power -- the people, who want the public option -- or the corporations, who don't. It's that simple.
If the public option falls out of health care reform, then it will mean either that Obama is too corrupt to fight for it, and never cared that much about health care in the first place, or it will mean that he is too weak, even with a majority in both houses and a decided victory in an election against clearly flawed opponents. His weakness will not have been in his mandate, but in his character. Neither of these is the lesser of two evils -- both are equally evil. If Obama is simply corrupt, then that means that there is no hope because the entire ruling class has been bought and paid for, and the government is just a sham, a front organization for wealthy corporations. If Obama is a well-meaning weakling, then that means there is no hope because Obama's unnecessary collapse before the curdling and shrinking right-wing will only empower them now that they are at their worst. And we are not talking about empowering Dwight Eisenhower here. We are talking about empowering Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck -- people who use stupidity and hatred as a standard for rallying support.
Make no mistake about it -- this is it. No public option, no turning back. No public option, and bullying and ignorance carry the day. Oh, and corporate profits and gun-toting, the only two remaining symbols of the American Way.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/retreat-and-surrender_b_276288.html
Eleven More Companies Ditch Glenn Beck
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-rucker/eleven-more-companies-dit_b_275756.html
My view is that if they WIMP on the PO they can shove the rest of that deal up their asses.......covering everybody without the PO just lets the Insurance industry rob everyone instead of the now covered. I hate those bastards(ins execs)
the MFs make 10 million salaries for making sure John Q Citizen is refused the operation he needs......fuck them
Over labor day weekend in West Virginia, Massey Energy is hosting a massive rally in support of coal and against global warming.
Verizon (VZ) is one of more than 120 sponsors of the event, and this is getting the left wing blogsters, and environmentalists into a frenzy. Starting with a column on the Huffington Post, then trickling outward, a unanimous call is coming up, "What are you thinking Verizon?"
Outraged bloggers want to know why Verizon is choosing to be associated with an event that Don Blankenship, CEO of Massey Energy says will show "how environmental extremists and corporate America are both trying to destroy your jobs," with the cap and trade bill.
Verizon Wireless spokeswoman, Laura Merritt tells the WV Gazette:
Basically, this was a decision at the local level to support the community. It did not involve the company’s political positions at all.
In this particular situation, we are supporting the event because it’s a local event. It wasn’t an effort to take a position on any particular issue.
Another Verizon Wireless spokesperson, Jim Gerace, went a little farther. He said his company simply paid $1,000 for the right to be able to sell its products at the rally:
It’s nothing more than that … and the groups who are trying to make it more than that are misguided. I’m definitely bothered that people are trying to put us in the middle of an argument.
That's not going to quell the protestors on the left. Of course, if Verizon pulls out it's just going to irk the folks on the other side of the debate.
http://www.businessinsider.com/verizon-is-getting-heat-for-sponsoring-anti-global-warming-rally-2009-9
Screw Verizon, they get much of my disposable income between one thing and another.
The 5 key Strategy Questions the White House is Considering on Health Care
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/09/the-5-key-strategy-questions-the-white-house-is-considering-on-health-care.html
Obama Joint Session Of Congress Address On Health Care Planned
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama will deliver a major prime-time address to Congress next week on his plans to overhaul the nation's health care system, opening an urgent autumn push to gain control of the debate that has been slipping from his grasp under withering Republican-led attacks.
Scheduling of the speech next Wednesday night, just a day after lawmakers return from their August recess, underscores the determination of the White House to confront critics of Obama's overhaul and to buck up supporters who have been thrown on the defensive. Allies have been urging the president to be more specific about his plans and to take a greater role in the debate, and aides have signaled he will do that in the address to a joint session of Congress in the House chamber.
The speech's timing also suggests that top Democrats have all but given up hope for a bipartisan breakthrough by Senate Finance Committee negotiators. The White House had given those six lawmakers until Sept. 15 to draft a plan, but next week's speech comes well ahead of that deadline.
It follows an August recess in which critics of Obama's health proposals dominated many public forums. Approval ratings for Obama, and for his health care proposals, dropped during August.
Senior adviser David Axelrod had said Tuesday that Obama was considering being "more prescriptive" about what he feels Congress must include in a health bill. Axelrod said all the key ideas for revising health care are "on the table," suggesting that Obama will not offer major new proposals but may talk more specifically about his top priorities and perhaps add details to pending plans.
The president hopes to "take the reins of this debate and take it to the finish line," said an administration official who spoke Wednesday on condition of anonymity to discuss White House strategy.
Many advocates of sweeping health care changes – which would include health coverage for virtually every American, greater competition among insurers and incentives to increase the quality of care instead of the number of medical procedures performed – welcomed the president's more direct role. Obama and congressional Democrats lost momentum during the August recess, they say, and the president's high profile and still-considerable personal popularity are needed to change the dynamic.
"He's got to get into the nitty-gritty and embrace very concrete proposals," said Ralph Neas, head of the National Coalition on Health Care.
Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager for the liberal advocacy group Health Care for America Now, said, "It's really clear they understand they have to provide more presidential leadership, more presidential direction."
Kirsch said Obama doesn't have to provide legislative language, but he must detail "the contours of the reform he needs."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/02/obama-to-address-joint-se_n_275536.html
Obama speaks to joint Congress next Wednesday.
Now let's have one.
Exposed: The Swine Flu Hoax
By Andrew Bosworth, Ph.D.
24 Aug 2009
If the current H1N1 swine flu virus does become abnormally lethal, there would be three leading explanations:
first, that the virus was accidentally released, or escaped, from a laboratory;
second, that a disgruntled lab employee unleashed the virus (as happened, according to the official version of events, with the 2001 anthrax attack);
or third, that a group, corporation or government agency intentionally released the virus in the interests of profit and power.
Each of the three scenarios represents a plausible explanation should the swine virus become lethal.
The 1918 flu virus was dead and buried -- until, that is, scientists unearthed a lead coffin to obtain a biopsy of the corpse it contained.
The alarm has been sounded. Politicians, pharmaceutical executives and media conglomerates would have us believe that a 1918-style pandemic is a real threat. The 1918 pandemic, however, evolved out of conditions unique to World War I, for four specific reasons.
Why 2009 is Not 1918
First, World War I was characterized by millions of troops living in waterlogged trenches along the Western Front. This war zone became fertile ground for an opportunistic virus, as medical literature reveals:
"…a landscape that was contaminated with respiratory irritants such as chlorine and phosgene, and characterized by stress and overcrowding, the partial starvation in civilians, and the opportunity for rapid ‘passage’ of influenza in young soldiers would have provided the opportunity for multiple but small mutational charges throughout the viral genome." (1)
Second, the war witnessed the growth of industrial-scale military camps and embarkation ports, such as Etaples in France, enabling the flu virus to enter into another phase of accelerated mutation. On any given day, Etaples was a makeshift city of 100,000 troops from around the British Empire and its former dominions. These soldiers concentrated into unsanitary barracks, tents and mess halls.
Today, many cities and nations have dense concentrations of people; none of these, however, are geographically isolated under the conditions of trench warfare and World War I-style deployments. Of course, there are smaller, sub-populations of people in prisons (prone to multi-drug resistant tuberculosis), in military barracks (prone to respiratory pathogens and meningococcal infections) and on cruise ships (prone to the Norovisus) – all proof of the connection between human confinement on the one hand and infectious disease on the other.
Third, after the war, ships such as the USS Alaskan became floating Petri dishes. Thousands of soldiers were packed like sardines for the long voyage home, allowing the virus to reverberate within hermetically-sealed units.
Fourth, returning troops were stuffed into boxcars for the train trip back to military bases, where they infected new recruits. Later, it was documented that Army regiments whose barracks allowed only 45 square feet per soldier had a flu incidence up to ten times that of regiments afforded 78 square feet per man. (2)
The 1918 flu virus became pandemic because, during World War I, the normal host-pathogen relationship was abandoned when millions of young men crowded into geographical confinement. In World War I, a flu virus was presented with a seemingly limitless number of hosts – almost all young, male, and with compromised immune systems. Unconstrained and unchecked by the usual habits of human behavior, the virus went rogue.
Flu viruses are smart, but they are not suicidal: if the host becomes extinct the virus will become extinct too. The evolutionary strategy, from the virus’s perspective, is to stay one step ahead of the immune systems of both humans and animals – but not two steps ahead. The flu virus aims to infect and reproduce without killing a critical mass of the hosts, of the herd, so the virus’s virulence is ameliorated after it becomes fatal for people on the margins of the host population – the weak and the elderly. World War I disrupted this synchronized, co-evolutionary relationship between flu viruses and human populations.
No flu since 1918 has been strong enough to produce, in millions of people, a "cytokine storm," which is an immunological over-reaction leading to pulmonary edema (the lungs filling with fluid) - the curse of those with the strongest immune systems, normally between 20 and 40 years of age.
In normal flu pandemics, even in severe ones, the flu virus kills a portion of the weak and elderly. This appears to be the case in 1837 for Germany and in 1890 for Russia in 1890, though reliable medical evidence is scarce. It was certainly true for the Asian flu of 1957 and the Hong Kong flu of 1968, neither of which were significantly fatal for young adults. The flu 1976-1977 has been exposed as a boondoggle, a fraud, with far more people dying of the vaccine than from the flu itself.
Indeed, 1918 was an aberration. Since then, no flu has scythed away so many people: some 500,000 Americans and anywhere between 25 - 50 million people worldwide in three waves: first in March, then in August (the deadliest wave), and in then again in November of 1918, lasting into the spring of 1919.
The origins of the 1918 pandemic can be traced back to the trenches of the Western Front in 1915, 1916, and 1917 – to the world’s first large-scale industrial and international war. There was no other cause: If WWI had not been fought, it is inconceivable that the 1918 flu pandemic would have been so severe. Today, in 2009, absent the conditions of WWI, it is preposterous for political and medical authorities to claim that the swine flu is a menace to society.
The Mysterious Origins of the H1N1 "Swine Flu" Virus
If the current H1N1 swine flu virus does become abnormally lethal, there would be three leading explanations: first, that the virus was accidentally released, or escaped, from a laboratory; second, that a disgruntled lab employee unleashed the virus (as happened, according to the official version of events, with the 2001 anthrax attack); or third, that a group, corporation or government agency intentionally released the virus in the interests of profit and power.
Each of the three scenarios represents a plausible explanation should the swine virus become lethal. After all, the 1918 flu virus was dead and buried – until, that is, scientists unearthed a lead coffin to obtain a biopsy of the corpse it contained. Later, researchers similarly disturbed an Inuit woman buried under permafrost. (3)
The US Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, with a scientist from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, then began to reconstruct the 1918 Spanish flu. Had Iran or North Korea engaged in Frankenstein experiments (complete with ransacking graves) to reverse engineer the 1918 virus the US and the UK would have gone ballistic at the UN Security Council.
Interestingly, numerous doctors and scientists suspect that the swine flu virus was cultured in a laboratory. A mainstream Australian virologist, Adrian Gibbs - who was one of the first to analyze the genetic properties of the 2009 swine flu – believes that scientists accidentally created the H1N1 virus while producing vaccines. And Dr. John Carlo, Dallas Co. Medical Director, "This strain of swine influenza that’s been cultured in a laboratory is something that’s not been seen anywhere actually in the United States and the world, so this is actually a new strain of influenza that’s been identified."(4) Because of this, the 2009 swine flu virus -- which has yet to be detected in any animals -- has a rather suspicious pedigree.
The Propaganda Campaign
Across the mainstream media, reports announce one swine flu death after another (even though ordinary flu kills about 35,000 Americans each year). Upon closer scrutiny of what passes for journalism, the victims have "underlying health problems," or "a common underlying health condition," or "significant medical conditions."
One news headline even blared: "Swine flu mother dies after giving birth, leaving her premature baby fighting for life," and only later, buried deep in the story underneath, did it explain that she had "other medical problems" which included being confined to a wheelchair because of a serious car accident.
Citizens the world over are increasingly skeptical of hyped headlines followed by smaller-print caveats. They are uneasy with the effort to create "doublethink" – a term coined by George Orwell in 1984 and a reference to holding two contradictory ideas in one’s mind simultaneously, paralyzing critical thought.
The media has never been in the habit of reporting the cases of people who, for no known reason, die of the flu. Out of the 35,000 Americans who die each year from flu-related illnesses, some are bound to be relatively young and healthy. It happens. This year, however, their stories are front-page news.
More recently, news reports claim that the H1N1 swine flu can affect people in the lungs and lead to pneumonia. This, however, is what separates the flu from the common cold in the first place; and this is why tens of thousands of elderly people die of flu-related symptoms each year. Fox News even claimed that "this one morphs and mutates and comes back in different ways…," (like all flu viruses). In short, the media now uses the flu’s own ordinary symptoms to fuel fear.
Fortunately, a growing wave of online media challenges the propaganda. Back in 1976, there were no rival voices, and the Center for Disease Control’s manipulative television commercials dominated the airwaves. Fortunately, as a testament to official shamelessness, these videos are now archived and searchable on the Internet under the title of "1976 Swine Flu Propaganda."
Now, like then, the US government’s pandemic policy alternates between the ridiculous and the repugnant. The government’s flu website is revealing. First, the historical section on the 1918 virus is intellectually dishonest, making absolutely no link between the unique conditions of World War I and the flu pandemic; instead, the site propagates the erroneous notion that this virus came out of the blue. (5)
Second, the site announces an absurd American Idol-style video contest: "Create a Video About Preventing or Dealing With the Flu & Be Eligible to Win $2500 Cash!" (Congress has earmarked 8 billion dollars for swine flu prevention and can only offer $2,500 to the proles -- or, rather, to the one prole who, rising above mediocrity, best parrots the Party Line.)
And third, the site encourages the use of Twitter to "stay informed…" There is something mildly disturbing about the US federal government promoting Twitter as a form of resistance to foreign authoritarianism, while, simultaneously, using social networking to further federalize and protect the abuse of power at home.
1976 + 1984 = 2009
In sum, it appears that the 2009 swine flu pandemic will not be 1918. It might be a 1976-style hoax, however, serving profit and power - with a bit of Orwell’s 1984 thrown in for good measure.
Andrew Bosworth, Ph.D.
Author of Biotech Empire (Amazon)
Notes
1. JS Oxford, A Sefton, R Jackson, W Innes, RS Daniels, and NPAS Johnson, “World War I may have allowed the emergence of ‘Spanish’ influenza,” The Lancet/ Infectious Diseases Vol. 2 February 2002.
2. Byerly CR. 2005. Fever of War: The Influenza Epidemic in the U.S. Army during World War I. New York, NY: New York University Press.
3. Ann H. Reid, Thomas G. Fanning, Johan V. Hultin, and Jeffery K. Taubenberger, “Origin and Evolution of the 1918 Spanish Influenza Virus Hemagglutinin Gene, PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Division of Molecular Pathology, Department of Cellular Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, DC. Communicated by Edwin D. Kilbourne, New York.
4. Paul Joseph Watson, “Medical Director: Swine Flu Was ‘Cultured In A Laboratory,” This strain of swine influenza that’s been cultured in a laboratory is something that’s not been seen anywhere actually in the United States and the world, so this is actually a new strain of influenza that’s been identified. April 26, 2009.
5. http://www.flu.gov/
24 Aug 2009
http://www.legitgov.org/essay_bosworth_swine_flu_hoax_240809.html
Swine flu vaccine program in jeopardy?
JULIE ROBOTHAM
28 Aug 2009 (AU)
The Federal Government's plan to immunise the population against swine flu is in chaos because doctors' insurers may not cover them to administer the jab, saying inadequate testing and the possibility of spreading other infections mean there is too high a risk that patients will sue them later. Despite weeks of crisis talks, the Government has refused to underwrite doctors' liability for the vaccinations, and medical groups say the program - due to start as early as mid-September - cannot proceed unless doctors are insured.
Andrew Pesce, president of the Australian Medical Association, said ''the indemnity issue needs to be sorted out or else the vaccination program won't go ahead''.
''In the environment we're in, someone has to be held accountable for rare vaccine reactions that may occur … if the Government decides there is a priority need to roll out the vaccine, then it has a duty to indemnify the doctors who provide it,'' he said.
Ronald McCoy, a spokesman for the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, said the wrangling could undermine community confidence in the vaccine's safety. ''It's the public's health that's at risk here,'' he said.
In May, Health Minister Nicola Roxon announced an order with vaccine supplier CSL Ltd for 21 million doses - enough to protect at least half Australia's population from the flu strain.
But insurers believe the distribution of the vaccine in multiple-dose vials exposes people to an unnecessary risk of blood-borne infection from other recipients. As well, they believe the possibility of rare side effects has been inadequately explored. These issues, they say, will make it hard for doctors to advise people whether or not to have the injections, exposing them to patient complaints that they were not properly informed.
Ellen Edmonds-Wilson, chief executive of the Medical Indemnity Industry Association of Australia, said it was up to individual insurers ''to make an assessment of the risk [from] the drug'', which she noted had not yet been approved by the Government's Therapeutic Goods Administration.
Medical defence organisations MDA National Insurance Pty Ltd and Avant Mutual Group said they were still considering whether to indemnify members who gave patients the vaccinations.
Lisa Clarke, Avant's general manager of claims, said the industry was ''in ongoing discussions with the [health department] on the proposed roll-out''.
Elda Rebechi, a spokeswoman for the insurer Medical Indemnity Protection Society Ltd, said the company would cover doctors, but warned them to ''appropriately advise patients that the vaccine is untested and may have [currently] unknown consequences''.
But the head of clinical research at the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance at the University of Sydney, Robert Booy, said the insurers' arguments were superficial and ''unnecessarily inflammatory'' and proper training of clinicians would virtually eliminate the risk of infection.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/swine-flu-vaccine-program-in-jeopardy-20090827-f16m.html
i might send em a few $
had one land outside on the railing
at my beach townhouse in fl a couple of years ago
late afternoon with a misty rain and fog
looking right at me
was alone at the time
and preparing to go out of town
it was an eerie feeling..
None of the Republicans are going to vote for it anyway. I don't understand why they have to rip it to shreds and then laugh when it comes time to vote. Seems to me the Republicans still own the show. I don't understand the big house anymore, except for we've asked our representatives in emails and phone calls how much does it cost for them to work for the voters?
Lefty Groups Raise $60,000 — In One Day — For Ad Attacking Grassley
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/liberals-raise-60000-in-one-day-for-ad-attacking-grassley/
GOP readies wave of objections to stall healthcare bill in Senate
By Alexander Bolton - 09/01/09 06:38 AM ET
Sen. Judd Gregg has hundreds of procedural objections ready for a healthcare plan Democrats want to speed through the Senate.
Gregg (N.H.), the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, told The Hill in a recent interview that Republicans will wage a vicious fight if Democrats try to circumvent Senate rules and use a budget maneuver to pass a trillion-dollar healthcare plan with a simple majority.
The death of Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) leaves Democrats with 59 Senate seats — one shy of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. That, combined with the pushback from Republican negotiators, has prompted Democratic leaders to look more closely at using budget reconciliation to push a healthcare overhaul through.
The maneuver was originally intended to help reduce the federal deficit by allowing spending cuts and tax increases to pass by majority vote, but it has since been used to fast-track wider-scope legislation, such as former President George W. Bush’s 2001 tax cuts.
Republicans, however, warn that if Democrats attempt the maneuver, their healthcare bill will end up looking like Swiss cheese.
Gregg said that Republicans could file “hundreds” of points-of-order objections to the bill, each one requiring 60 votes to waive.
“We are very much engaged in taking a hard look at our rights under reconciliation,” Gregg said. “It would be very contentious.”
Gregg’s opposition is particularly notable given that seven months ago, President Barack Obama tapped him to serve as Commerce secretary. Gregg first accepted the Cabinet appointment, but later withdrew before being confirmed over policy differences.
Gregg is also taking exception to comments made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who said it would be possible to create a broad government-run health insurance program under budgetary reconciliation.
Gregg said the only way for the so-called public option to have the necessary budgetary impact to warrant procedural protection would be if the program were “very aggressive in setting rates, price controls and rationing,” an option that might cause conservative Blue Dog Democrats in the House to bolt.
Budget experts say it is too soon to tell whether Gregg will be able to carve up the Democrats’ healthcare plan.
William Hoagland, a longtime senior aide to Senate Republican leaders on budget issues, said it will depend on how Democrats draft their final bill and how the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scores it.
“At the end of the day it comes down to green-eyeshade examinations of the bill and ultimately to the Senate parliamentarian,” said Hoagland, who now works for CIGNA, a global health-services company. “There are a lot of gray areas, right up until the end.”
Hoagland said, however, that he did not see how a plan to set up membership-run healthcare co-ops could survive a Republican objection.
“On the co-op plan, those particular proposals as currently drafted, it’s an authorization for start-up and capitalizing the co-ops,” he said, drawing a distinction between an authorization to spend and an actual allocation of funds, arguing that as a result the proposal “has no budgetary consequences. It doesn’t spend money or save money.”
If Senate Parliamentarian Alan Frumin rules the budgetary impact of a provision is negligible next to its larger purpose, he would likely uphold an objection that it violates the so-called Byrd rule, a section of the 1974 Budget Act named after Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.). Democrats would need 60 votes to set aside such a point of order.
The CBO, which has disappointed Democrats several times this year with its cost estimates, and the Joint Committee on Taxation would assess the budgetary impact of various measures.
Co-ops have emerged as the leading Democratic alternative to a government-run health insurance option as a way to pressure private insurance companies to lower their rates. Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.) and Kent Conrad (N.D.) are among Democrats who favor co-ops.
Hoagland said that barring insurance companies from discriminating on the basis of pre-existing conditions and setting regulations governing insurance for individuals and small-business employees would likely be found to have no budgetary impact and thus require 60 votes to be approved by the Senate.
But Hoagland said that “smart staff” may find ways to draft the public option or co-ops in a way that enables them to pass under reconciliation.
The procedural obstacles that Democrats would find in the way of many elements of their healthcare reform agenda would require them to pass two bills if they used reconciliation. Proposals that fell to Gregg’s procedural objections would need to pass in a “sidecar” bill that must win the support of 60 senators.
Democrats argue that provisions such as banning discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions and promoting healthier habits could win broad approval. But some Republicans say that ramming major elements of reform through the chamber with a simple majority would create enough animosity to kill the accompanying bill.
Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said in a recent television interview that liberals are “going to insist that the Democrat leadership divide the legislation and give them the part that they want and then give Republicans a chance to vote on another piece of it."
Kyl predicted that Republicans would not abet that plan by voting for a second bill: “Of course that will be no deal because you’ll have the government-run insurance and the other liberal parts, including the tax increases in the part that the Democrats would plan to pass with just a bare majority of votes.”
Hoagland agreed with Kyl: “I think it will poison the water and I think the sidecar will have difficulty getting through the United States Senate.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/56897-gop-objections-await-healthcare-plan
Solitary Crow On Fence Post Portending Doom, Analysts Warn
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/solitary_crow_on_fence_post
Chris Wallace, A Teenage Girl Interviewing The Jonas Brothers
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/chris-wallace-a-teenage-girl-interviewing-the-jonas-brothers.html
By Simon Johnson
The notion of a two-track economy seems to be taking hold. We kicked the concept around pretty well last week — your 130 comments (as of Saturday morning) helped clarify a great deal of what we know, don’t know, and need to worry about. The two-track concept overlaps with, and builds on, long-standing issues of inequality in the U.S., but it’s also different. Within existing income classes, some people find themselves in relatively good shape and others are completely hammered.
New dimensions of differentiation are also taking hold within occupations and within industries – the WSJ yesterday had nice illustrations. The contours of this differentiation begin to shape our recovery or, if you prefer, who recovers and who does not – it’s hard to say how this will play out in conventional aggregate statistics, but these are likely to become increasingly misleading.
For now, I would highlight three points about the two-track future for banks – partly because this matters politically, and partly of the way it impacts the rest of the process.
The remaining big banks have become bigger and more powerful economically — the Washington Post emphasized deposits Friday; good point, but only part of the picture. The Financial Roundtable is tickled pink about the government’s “reform” proposals (except the consumer protection part), with good reason.
Many smaller banks are getting squeezed – as reflected in the latest news on the FDIC’s “danger/sick list”. The smaller banks really do not seem to understand how they have been done in by the big banks – if they did get it, they’d be up on Capitol Hill and all over the media arguing strenuously for much tougher controls on bad big bank behavior. The lack of leadership among non-large banks is remarkable.
The WSJ yesterday had the data: borrowing costs for large banks are now lower than for small banks. This is, of course, a direct reflection of the government’s firefighting/firesetting strategy: unlimited cheap resources for large big banks; for small banks, not so much.
So now it’s all about whether you are a preferred client of Goldman Sachs (GS) or another big finance house.
If you’re on the inside track, this is a great time to buy US assets that are being dumped by people without access to cheap credit, or assets overseas (e.g., Asia, where the “carry” or interest rate differential relative to the Federal Reserve is already positive and the exchange rate risk is all upside).
If you’re on the outside track, you are experiencing a version of Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine”. Some (former) members of the elite are in this category – this is another standard feature of emerging market crises and “recoveries”. But mostly, of course, it’s nonelite on the outside track and a more concentrated, reconfigured version of the elite on the inside.
This can lead to short-term growth – the speed of recovery in many emerging markets surprises many, from about 12 months after the crisis breaks. But it also leads to repeated crisis, to derailed growth, and to a loss of income, status, and prospects for most of society.
Followers
|
4
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
3795
|
Created
|
10/20/08
|
Type
|
Premium
|
Moderator SiouxPal | |||
Assistants bagwa-john |
Politics in America is getting to be more fun than ever.
Now we can heal the wounds inflicted by the Bush administration. Sioux
November 5, 2008
The NY Times breakdown of how the country voted compared to 2004.
The redder the area the more people shifted towards republicans.
The bluer the area, the more people shifted towards the Democrats.
get the interactive map here: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |