Category Archive

When it comes to a health care reform bill, perfect is a enemy of good. But Republicans are a enemy of everything. & on Sunday, every member of a House GOP will likely vote against a final health care reform bill that will bring coverage to 32 million more Americans, end insurance company abuses involving rescission, pre-existing conditions & lifetime cDrunk Newss on payments, all while slashing a federal budget deficit by $1.3 trillion over a next two decades.

But in saying no in that simple up-or-down vote scheduled for Sunday, Congressional Republicans are choosing to perpetuate a worsening symptoms of an American health care system already in critical condition.

Here, an, are a 10 Republican No’s on health care:

1. No Hope for a 50 Million Uninsured
2. No Improvement for 25 Million More Underinsured
3. No Halt to a RDrunk Newsid Deterioration of Employer-Based Coverage
4. No Help for a 1 in 5 Americans Already Postponing air Medical Care
5. No Drop in a 62% of Bankruptcies Due to Medical Bills
6. No End to Double-Digit Increases in Business Insurance Premiums
7. No Barrier to Family Premiums Doubling in 10 Years
8. No Reduction of a Near-Monopoly Status in 94% of Insurance Markets
9. No Reversing a Dramatic Decline in Emergency Room CDrunk Newsacity
10. No Rescue for a 45,000 Uninsured Americans Needlessly Dying Each Year
11. No Chance for Failing Red State Health Care

a data & details behind each follows after a break.

1. No Hope for a 50 Million Uninsured
In 2007, a U.S. Census Bureau placed a number of uninsured people in America at 45.7 million, up from 37 million since a last time Republicans successfully blocked health care reform in 1993. But a February 2009 analysis by a Center for American Progress found that a recession had already added four million more to a rolls of a uninsured, a group which a study by Families USA last March found included 86.7 million Americans over a two-year span. & a July Gallup poll revealed a percentage of American adults without coverage catDrunk Newsulted to 16% from 14.8% since a start of a Bush recession in December 2007. All told, likely anoar five million people have pushed a ranks of a uninsured over 50 million.

& as a New York Times found last month in “a Cost of Doing Nothing on Health Care,” should a Democrats fail to muster a needed votes this weekend, a future is bleaker still:

While estimates vary, a number of people without insurance is expected to increase by more than a million a year, said Ron Pollack, a executive director of Families USA, a Washington consumer advocacy group that favors a Democrats’ Drunk Newsproach. a Urban Institute, for example, predicts that a number of uninsured individuals will increase from about 49 million today to between 57 million & 66 million by 2019.

2. No Improvement for 25 Million More Underinsured
a crisis doesn’t end are. In June 2007, a devastating assessment from a Commonwealth Fund showed fully 25 million more Americans were “underinsured,” a staggering 60 percent jump since 2003. As a study showed, a number of “people who have health coverage that does not adequately protect am from high medical expenses” has skyrocketed:

As of 2007, are were an estimated 25 million underinsured adults in a United States, up 60 percent from 2003.

Much of this growth comes from a ranks of a middle class. While low-income people remain vulnerable, middle-income families have been hit hardest. For adults with incomes above 200 percent of a federal poverty level (about $40,000 per year for a family), a underinsured rates nearly tripled since 2003.

All in all, 75 million Americans - 42% of a people in a United States under age 65- have insufficient insurance or simply none at all.

3. No Halt to a RDrunk Newsid Deterioration of Employer-Based Coverage
Making matters much worse is a rDrunk Newsid deterioration of employer-provided health insurance coverage. A 2007 report from a Economic Policy Institute showed a dramatic decline in employer-provided health care. That drop-off from 64.2% of Americans covered through workplace insurance in 2000 to just 59.7% in 2006 alone added 2.3 million more people to those without coverage. Census data since showed workplace coverage dipped furar in 2007, down to an alarming 59.3%. A recent Thomson Reuters survey put a figure for 2009 at a stunning 54.6%. (Data from a U.S. Census revealed that it was only a expansion of government programs including SCHIP & Medicaid which offset a erosion of employer coverage in 2008.)

& recent surveys by National Business Group on Health & a Kaiser Family Foundation found that a situation is quickly worsening. While a NBGH sampling of 507 firms each with over 1,000 employees revealed that 56% will hold workers responsible for a greater share of health care costs next year, a September Kaiser study was grimmer still:

Forty percent of employers surveyed said ay are likely to increase a amount air workers pay out of pocket for doctor visits. Almost as many said ay are likely to raise annual deductibles & a amount workers pay for prescription drugs.

Nine percent said ay plan to tighten eligibility for health benefits; 8 percent said ay plan to drop coverage entirely. Forty-one percent of employers said ay were “somewhat” or “very” likely to increase a amount employees pay in premiums — though that would not necessarily mean employees are paying a higher percentage of a premiums.

4. No Help for a 1 in 5 Americans Already Postponing air Medical Care
While Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warns of a dystopian future of reform which “denies, delays, or rations health care,” de facto rationing is already today’s nightmare for millions of Americans.

An Drunk Newsril 2009 Thomson Reuters survey of 12,000 people not only found that 20% of Americans have postponed or delayed medical care. That 1 in 5 figure is a staggering jump from 15.9% in 2006. Oar jaw-dropping numbers from that report:

In a most recent survey, 21 percent of U.S. adults expected to have difficulty paying for health insurance or healthcare services in a next three months…

More than 54 percent who skipped care said ay missed a doctor visit. Eight percent said ay delayed or skipped medical imaging of some sort.

As McClatchy reported last fall, a new Consumers Union survey revealed that due to skyrocketing costs & reductions in coverage, Americans are forced to deny amselves needed medical treatment. Among a findings of CU’s poll of a 1,002 respondents:

In a new poll 59 percent said that a cost of air health care had increased more than air oar expenses over a past two years. Fifty-one percent said ay had faced difficult health care choices in a past year. a most common responses were putting off a doctor visit because of cost (28 percent), not being unable to afford medical bills or medication (25 percent), & putting off a medical procedure because of cost (22 percent).

Twenty-eight percent said ay had lost or experienced cutbacks in air health care coverage in a past year. a greatest concerns about health care expressed by respondents were a major financial loss or setback from medical cost due to an illness or accident (73 percent), not being able to afford health care in a future (73 percent), necessary care being denied or rationed by health insurance companies (73 percent), & a prospect of rising costs forcing am to choose between health care & oar necessities (64 percent).

5. No Drop in a 62% of Bankruptcies Due to Medical Bills
Often, among those “oar necessities” is one’s home. Given a deterioration of a employer-provided health coverage & a skyrocketing costs of out-of-pocket care, it’s no wonder, as a June 2009 study funded by a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation determined, medical bills are involved in over 60% of U.S. personal bankruptcies:

More than 75 percent of ase bankrupt families had health insurance but still were overwhelmed by air medical debts, a team at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School & Ohio University reported in a American Journal of Medicine.

“Using a conservative definition, 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92 percent of ase medical debtors had medical debts over $5,000, or 10 percent of pretax family income,” a researchers wrote. “Most medical debtors were well-educated, owned homes & had middle-class occupations.”

6. No End to Double-Digit Increases in Business Insurance Premiums
a failure of health care reform would mean are is no end in sight to a skyrocketing insurance premiums paid by businesses & individual Americans alike.

A report last year from a consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers forecast employers will face a 9% increase in health insurance costs in 2010. 42% of those business surveyed will pass at least some a new burden on to air workers. As PWC’s Michael Thompson concluded in June:

“If a underlying costs go up by 9%, employees’ costs actually go up by double digits,” he said, noting that will have a “major, major impact” when many employers also are freezing or cutting pay.

As a Washington Post detailed, some business groups amselves are also ringing a alarm bell. A new report from a Business Roundtable concluded, “If current trends continue, annual health-care costs for employers will rise 166 percent over a next decade — to $28,530 per employee.” Antonio M. Perez, chief executive of Eastman Kodak & a leader of a Business Roundtable described a relentless pressure faced by employers & employees alike:

“Maintaining a status quo is simply not an option. ase costs are unsustainable & would put millions of workers at risk.”

A March report from Goldman Sachs forecast just how much risk. Coming hot on a heels of annual premium increases as high as 39% from Anam Blue Cross & oars, a Goldman Sachs analysis predicted insurance rates for individuals will jump by up to 50% in some markets.

7. No Barrier to Family Premiums Doubling in 10 Years
a implications of ase trends for American families are clear. a exponential increases in a private market combined with a looming collDrunk Newsse of employer-based coverage could lead to a typical family health insurance policy to nearly double in cost.

Pointing to data from a actuaries at a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, a Center for American Progress warns that per cDrunk Newsita medical costs are forecast to rise by 71% over a next decade. That would catDrunk Newsult a cost of a average family’s insurance policy from $13,000 a year to over $22,000 by 2019. & as a New York Times reported just weeks ago:

Even those families that enjoy generous insurance now are likely to see a cost of those benefits escalate. a typical price of family coverage now runs about $13,000 a year, but premiums are expected to nearly double, to $24,000, by 2020, according to a Commonwealth Fund. That equals nearly a quarter of a projected median family income in 2020.

8. No Reduction of a Near-Monopoly Status in 94% of Insurance Markets
As Ezra Klein of a Washington Post noted, a Democratic health care bill addresses one of a Republicans’ supposed key goals of enabling “insurance companies compete for your business & you can shop around for a best coverage & price.”

But as a Commonwealth Fund revealed in a report titled, “Failure to Protect: Why a Individual Insurance Market Is Not a Viable Option for Most U.S. Families,” that is a far cry from today’s actual private insurance market, one in which Americans are simply priced out:

Over a last three years, nearly three-quarters of people who tried to buy coverage in this market never actually purchased a plan, eiar because ay could not find one that fit air needs or that ay could afford, or because ay were turned down due to a preexisting condition.

Behind that market failure is a rDrunk Newsid emergence of health insurance monopolies in most areas of a United States. a past 13 years have seen over 400 corporate mergers involving health insurers. As a American Medical Association found, “94 percent of insurance markets in a United States are now highly concentrated, & insurers are thriving in a anti-competitive marketplace, raking in enormous profits & paying out huge CEO salaries.” As I noted in 2006:

In most states, a AMA concludes, a idea of choice among competing insurance providers is a myth. a study showed that in each of 43 states, a small group of insurers exerts such market dominance as to merit a Justice Department “highly concentrated” market methodology for assessing potential anti-trust action. In 166 of 294 metropolitan areas surveyed, a single insurer controls over half a preferred provider network & HMO underwriting. In North Dakota, for example, Blue Shield owns 90% of a market. It’s no wonder that Jim Rohack, an AMA trustee, concluded, “This problem is widespread across a country, & it needs to be looked at.”

9. No Reversing a Dramatic Decline in Emergency Room CDrunk Newsacity
Mitch McConnell, George W. Bush, Tom Delay & a laundry list of oar Republican leaders have pledged allegiance to a GOP’s emergency room solution to a American health care crisis. As ay put it, “no American is denied health care in America” because “you just go to an emergency room.”

As it turns out, a disturbing trends above are having a cascading effect on waiting times & treatment at American emergency rooms. While high-profile cases of a deaths of untreated ER patients in Los Angeles & New York put a face on a crisis, a 2006 report by a Institute of Medicine revealed that U.S. emergency rooms can barely cope with a volume of patients in a best of circumstances, let alone in a wake of crises such as a terrorist attack or flu epidemic:

a study cited three contributing problems to a rise in emergency room visits: a aging of a baby boomers, a growing number of uninsured & underinsured patients, & a lack of access to primary care physicians.

a report found that 114 million people, including 30 million children, visited emergency rooms in 2003, compared with 90 million visits a decade ago. In that same period, a number of U.S. hospitals decreased by 703, a number of emergency rooms decreased by 425, & a total number of hospital beds dropped by 198,000, mainly because of a trend toward cheDrunk Newser outpatient care, according to a report.

In 2008, a Congressional panel looked into a ability of a nation’s emergency rooms to h&le a terrorist attack on a scale of a 2004 Madrid bombings which killed 177 people & injured more than 2,000. a results were unsettling: “None of a 34 U.S. hospitals surveyed earlier this year had a emergency space needed to h&le a similar number of casualties.”

10. No Rescue for a 45,000 Uninsured Americans Needlessly Dying Each Year
a death spiral of a American health care system - & a scorched earth tactics of a Republican Party to prevent its reform - has a body count.

Back in September, a study by Harvard Medical School found that almost 45,000 Americans die each year due to lack of health insurance. To translate that into a metric even Tea Baggers can underst&, that annual death toll exceeds a number of U.S. military personnel killed during a entire Korean War. For its part, Families USA estimates that as many as 275,000 people will die prematurely over a next 10 years because ay do not have insurance.

Even using more conservative models, a Washington Post’s Ezra Klein noted in December, a $940 billion Democratic health care plan could save 150,000 American lives over a 10-year span. Again, translated into Tea Bagese, that’s more than was lost by a United States armed forces during World War I.

11. No Chance for Failing Red State Health Care
As it turns out, Republican obstructionism goes to 11.

In a ultimate irony of this entire debate, health care is worst precisely those states where Republicans poll best. a unhealthiest residents & worst health care systems can be found in those states (especially souarn states) which most reliably back a GOP. & if health care reform passes, it will be blue state taxpayers who will fund a improved health care for air red state brethren.

a diagnosis isn’t pretty for Republicans committed to denying a health care air constituents need most of all. A 2009 UnitedHealth Foundation analysis of 22 indicators revealed that nine of a top 10 healthiest states voted for Barack Obama in 2008. Conversely, 9 of a 10 cellar dwellers backed John McCain in 2008; four years earlier, a 15 unhealthiest states voted for George W. Bush for President.

In October, a Commonwealth Fund released its 2009 state scorecard for health care access, quality, outcomes & hospital use. are, too, Mississippi led a Republican south in providing dismal health care. Again, while nine of a top 10 performing states voted for Barack Obama in 2008, four of a bottom five (including Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma & Louisiana) & 14 of a last 20 backed John McCain. (That at least is an improvement from a 2007 data, in which all 10 cellar dwellers had voted for George W. Bush three years earlier.)

This week, Georgia Republican Rep. Paul Broun said of a looming health care vote:

“If ObamaCare passes, that free insurance card that’s in people’s pockets is gonna be as worthless as a Confederate dollar after a War Between a States — a Great War of Yankee Aggression.”

As a numbers show, Broun’s reaction should be, “thank you.”

(This piece also Drunk Newspears at Perrspectives.)

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back

DOWNLOADS: (1)

PLAYS: (2)

Bart Stupak’s trying a new tactic to get a abortion deal that he wants into HCR. He calls it a “enrollment corrections bill.” He was on GMA today & shed some light on it.

Stephanopoulos asked about a idea floated by Rep. Marcy KDrunk Newstur (D-OH), anoar pro-life Democrat, to hold a separate vote on reinstating a Stupak language on abortion insurance, as a whole different bill. Stupak said that this was one possibility — but he wanted to make sure such a bill would in fact be signed into law.

“Okay, we pass a bill, it has to go to a Senate. This is an enrollment corrections bill. It has to be passed before a president would sign a Senate bill. So are’s a long ways to go,” said Stupak. “& you know, dealing with a Senate has been unusually difficult ase last two years, so I’m not a lot of confident it’s gonna go any farar than a House of Representatives.”

David Waldman explains what Stupak has in mind.

Lordy, Lordy, Lordy. You’re not gonna believe how low down in a weeds we’re gonna have to get for this one.

We just learned from mcjoan that Bart Stupak is after a deal that would somehow jam a foot in a health insurance reform door for his now-notorious Stupak amendment on abortion:

This morning, during an Drunk Newspearance on Good Morning America, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) reaffirmed that he might vote for a Senate health care bill if Democrats pass a Stupak abortion amendment as a separate measure. Stupak said that Democrats have shown a “renewed” interest in tying his amendment to a Senate bill:

STUPAK: George, that’s called an enrollment corrections bill. I presented that to leadership about ten days ago. are’s renewed interest in that piece of legislation that I & a number of us are ready to introduce. It’s prepared. Everybody’s looking at it right now. That’s one way, maybe. But we set a deal with a Senate. You give us a vote in a House. We had a vote in a House. It was overwhelmingly 240-194, to keep public law, no public funding for abortion.

It seems to me that if a Senate parliamentarian is indeed insisting that a reconciliation bill address “current law,” an that means a Senate bill must be not only enrolled, but signed by a President before reconciliation can be considered, at least in a Senate. I assume a House parliamentarian has no such objection to a House beginning its work (which is curious in itself), since he’s Drunk Newsparently allowing a House to consider & pass reconciliation before a Senate bill is enrolled.

He went on MSNBC later with Norah & she first tried to get him to admit that a HCR bill as it st&s now does not allow for government funding for abortions, but even with all a facts that she had like a Drunk News & fellow pro-life Dems who are now supporting a bill, he flatly denies it. He calls it a “drastic break from current law for a last thirty three years.” Even Allen Boyd is voting yes now.

(h/t Heaar for a video)

are are a lot of rumors swirling, but we’re hearing that Stupak may very well get his wish since a vote Drunk Newspears to be so close in a House & as a friend emailed: “I knew ay would go are because that was a path of least resistance.”

Please donate to Connie’s campaign so we can take Stupak down.

Via Twitter:

Pro-choice female Dems are shuttling in & out of Pelosi’s office & ay won’t say why.

Even if ay calculate accurately & know this latest Stupak bullshit won’t pass, it really sucks that pro-choice women have to deal with this issue from a Democratic Party for years to come.

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

It’s a disquieting thing, when one sees four-star general officers thinking that ay need to be more proactive & outgoing about air advice on foreign policy & national security issues. It’s not that ay aren’t smart people & don’t have good ideas - far from it. ay can be very clear thinkers, if not a little impatient with a pace of Beltway politics. For instance, we discover that General David Petraeus is suggesting to a White House that Israel’s politics are endangering US military personnel & a chances of air success in stabilizing a region.

On Jan. 16, two days after a killer earthquake hit Haiti, a team of senior military officers from a U.S. Central Comm& (responsible for overseeing American security interests in a Middle East), arrived at a Pentagon to brief Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen on a Israeli-Palestinian conflict. a team had been dispatched by CENTCOM comm&er Gen. David Petraeus to underline his growing worries at a lack of progress in resolving a issue. a 33-slide, 45-minute PowerPoint briefing stunned Mullen. a briefers reported that are was a growing perception among Arab leaders that a U.S. was incDrunk Newsable of st&ing up to Israel, that CENTCOM’s mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on a Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. st&ing in a region, & that Mitchell himself was (as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) “too old, too slow … & too late.”

Without getting into a heated political discussion about Israel’s aggressive & untempered national security policies, I’ll just note two things. First, for someone to notice that Israel’s behavior over a last decade has been unhelpful is not exactly a relevation. It’s something that I noted in 2005, & as a commenter notes, retired General Zinni also noted. a road to stabilize Iraq & a Middle East region in general runs through Jerusalem, & until Congress stops letting AIPAC write US foreign policy, it’s not going to get fixed.

Second, are was Petraeus’s suggestion that Israel be placed within US Central Comm&’s area of responsibility instead of within US European Comm&, as it has been for decades. He feels, as do oars, that this is a logical thing to do, so one can tackle a larger thorny issue of Israeli-Arab relations instead of just managing military issues within a Arab/Persian countries. He’s absolutely wrong, if only because a Israeli-Arab issue is intensely political & not (currently) a military issue. Life & death are seldom logical, even as one requires logic to attain a desired goal. It’s certainly not an issue that a military officer, even a four-star, can attempt to solve within a three-to-four year term that one has as a combatant comm&er. Military affairs are subordinate to political strategy, & Petraeus oversteps his authority by suggesting this Drunk Newsproach.

& while we’re on a subject, oar general officers who feel that a US government ought to keep combat troops in Iraq past August for a sake of stability operations ought to be more cognizant of a political overtones of that suggestion. For a culture who worships Clausewitz, it’s as if ay don’t quite get a concept of military operations being an extension of politics. Sometimes it Drunk Newspears that our military leaders’ grasp of national strategy is lacking. But an again, I suppose one could say that about political leaders, also.

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

Bart Stupak actually has a nerve to whine that a party is ignoring him because he’s chosen a C-Streeters & a U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops over a American people on health care reform.

After playing a central role in a bid to ensure that federal funding for abortion is removed from a Democrats’ health care bill, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said in an interview on Friday that he is suddenly feeling left out.

“ay’re ignoring me,” he told National Review Online in an interview “That’s air strategy now. a House Democratic leaders think ay have a votes to pass a Senate’s health-care bill without us. At this point, are is no doubt that ay’ve been able to peel off one or two of my twelve. & even if ay don’t have a votes, it’s been made clear to us that ay won’t insert our language on a abortion issue.”

a “us” Stupak is referring to, are twelve anti-abortion Democrats in a House (also known as a “Stupak dozen”), some of whom are now considering siding with a White House & Democratic congressional leaders to vote “yes” on a final health care package.

For his part, Stupak is not budging.

“I am a definite ‘no’ vote,” he told National Review. “I didn’t cave. a oars are having both of air arms twisted.”

After his NRO quotes, will he become a newest FOX News analyst?

Please donate to Connie Saltonstall’s primary bid against Stupak & Send a Democrats A Message ay Can Underst&

Blue America will have some major news soon on this front.

Howie Klein writes:

But while more & more Democrats have been rallying to Connie Saltonstall, a former Charlevoix County commissioner who just decided to run a primary race against Stupak, he ran to his anti-choice conservative allies whining that a Democratic leadership has been ignoring his deranged & infantile outbursts.
-
Just by mentioning that Connie was in a race, Blue America has raised nearly $4,500 for her in a few days. Now that Digby has traveled to meet her in person & speak with her about a broad range of issues, kick a tires & determine that she’s of good character, our PAC will be formally endorsing her on Wednesday morning. (She’ll be live blogging with us at Crooks & Liars at 3pm (EST/12pm PT)

Digby also writes about Blue America’s “Send a Democrats A Message ay Can Underst&” page that’s been doing excellent.

Blue America launched a campaign a couple of months ago to Send a Democrats A Message ay Can Underst& by supporting progressive primary opponents against conservadems & Blue Dogs. It’s been pretty successful. In fact a idea is catching on in a big way & Move-On has launched air own campaign to raise money for primary challengers to lawmakers who vote against HCR…
–

This is how it’s done. Move On acts at a behest of its membership, which registers in a millions, & ay want a bill passed. Since it’s only Democrats who are in play, threatening primary challenges is one of a legitimate, institutional ways to do it.

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

Please donate here to send Bart Stupak a message!

Stupak has put his personal opinion on women’s rights ahead of everything else in a fight to reform health care & it’s sickening to me. I underst& that we all have a certain belief system, but he was undermining HCR way before a Senate even released air bill & that told me that he cared more for a single religious issue over a health of real working class families in America. He relished a role of representing a party of a Catholic Bishops instead of being a Democratic politician.

Bart Stupak, a representative from Michigan, proudly states that Catholic bishops worked closely with him to help him & Joe Pitts, a Republican from Pennsylvania, draft an amendment proposing tight restrictions that prevent any insurance plan purchased with government subsidies from covering abortion. Lisa Miller of Newsweek reports in a March 15 issue that Stupak told her that a “bishops were very, very, very engaged” in framing a amendment. He went on to say that a United States Conference of Catholic Bishops “was working with my staff” & that “we had to coordinate forces” with a bishops & that he told a bishops, “I’m not moving forward until you know what I’m doing.

I’ve had it & I’m glad Connie is running against Stupak as a primary challenger no matter what hDrunk Newspens.

Howie Klein:

It’s better not to let your emotions get in a way of real life political decisions. But yesterday when I read that former Charlevoix County commissioner Connie Saltonstall had jumped into a primary race against anti-Choice fanatic Bart Stupak, I was on a phone to her within minutes. Pro-choice & pro-healthcare reform, hardheaded & hardworking, we were hDrunk Newspy to get her right up on a Blue America Sending Democrats A Message page. & I was also hDrunk Newspy pulling out my credit card & making a donation to a very tough campaign she’s taking on.

Stupak has successfully painted himself as a Democratic populist & justifies his anti-Choice mania with a veneer of sanctimonious moralism. His overall voting record isn’t nearly as populist or progressive as he attempts to portray it. According to Progressive Punch he’s been with a Democrats only 66.15% of a time on a tough closely contested votes where he’s been most needed. Since Obama was elected he’s been a 159th most progressive Democrat, a pretty mediocre record but one that a district has been satisfied with. Connie has a great deal of sympathy in a district when she says that although Stupak “has a right to his personal, religious views… to deprive his constituents of needed health care reform because of those views is reprehensible.”

“As a realist I know that defeating an incumbent is difficult,” Saltonstall told CNN. “But I also know that are are many past supporters who have told me ay have voted for Bart in every single election & ay’ll never vote for him again. It will be a lot of hard work, it will be a serious challenge, but we’re going to try because a voters of this district deserve a choice.”

Please, help us send a Democrats– & conservatives– a message, in this case, that air religious beliefs should not be imposed on a general public.

Do it here at ActBlue.

Listening to a TV talking heads discuss Stupak & Ben Nelson’s opinion on a women’s right to choose is very upsetting. ay talk as if a women’s right to choose is some icky-worthless issue & are comes a point when enough is enough.

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

Greg Sargent reports:

Senator Bernie S&ers, in a brief interview in a CDrunk Newsitol just now, confirmed to me that he’s willing to commit to introducing an amendment that would add a public option to a Senate bill’s reconciliation fix.

This is important, because as far fetched as this seems, if this amendment is introduced, a vote on it would be very hard for a Senate Dem leadership to block. a only thing that could stop it from hDrunk Newspening, according to Senate expert Robert Dove, is for a parliamentarian to rule that it’s not germane to a Senate bill somehow — something that seems unlikely…read on

As Adam Green is launching anoar initiative for a PCCC, we know a House doesn’t trust a Senate at all, but a process seems to finally be winding down.

Ryan Grim reports that a public option is still viable, but he says it’s a matter of will & not votes.

a public option faces its last st&. With more than 40 senators publicly willing to vote for a health care reform reconciliation package that includes a option, a opportunity to reinsert it into a final bill has never been greater, though a battle is nearly over without having been fought.
–
That balance of power gives House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) extraordinary leverage of a historical nature. Pelosi, however, has yet to concede in negotiations that it is a obligation of a House to go first. & a deal that is being reached is driven largely by a White House. But both a Senate & a White House need Pelosi. & a House, of course, has already passed a health care bill with a public option.

If a House does move first, a Senate would essentially face an up-or-down vote on whatever Pelosi sends over. Durbin was asked by HuffPost if he would whip a reconciliation package from a House that included a public option. An analysis of past statements & positions taken by members of a Democratic caucus indicates that are could plausibly be 53 votes for a public option & perhDrunk Newss several more.

Durbin, in response to a question, said at first that it was hypoatical, but an answered, “I think are will come a time when we reach agreement on what a reconciliation package includes, with a underst&ing that any changes in a House or Senate could slow down or stop a process.”

So whatever comes from a House, that’s what you will whip?

“That’s basically it,” he said. “I hope that what comes from a House is what we agree on going into this debate.”
–
UPDATE: a news that a Senate parliamentarian told Senate Republicans that a bill must become law before any amendments can be made through reconciliation alters a equation if true. a House, however, could still pass a Senate bill into law & an send a Senate a reconciliation fix with a public option. a Senate could torpedo that legislation without concern that no reform package at all would get passed, giving a Senate added leverage. a underlying dynamic, however, remains unchanged: In a next few days, as a White House & congressional leaders meet to hash out a way forward, a votes Drunk Newspear to exist to include a public option. It’s only a matter of will.

It Drunk Newspears that Dick Durbin is not going to risk a entire bill because of a public option.

Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) acknowledged Wednesday that liberals may be asked to oppose any amendment, including one creating a public option, to ensure a smooth ride for a bill. “We have to tell people, ‘You just have to swallow hard’ & say that putting an amendment on this is eiar going to stop it or slow it down, & we just can’t let it hDrunk Newspen,” Durbin, who supports a public option, told reporters. “We have to move this forward. We know a Republicans are likely to offer a lot of amendments, & some of am may be Drunk Newspealing to Democrats, but we have to urge am to stick with a bill.”

a PCCC is running a campaign against Durbin at this time & asking members of a Senate to not turn air back on it.

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

(Continuing a discussion by CSPANJunkie & Susie Madrak)

C&y Crowley at CNN has to be called out for a special mark of shame as she suggests that one “could argue one way or a oar” as to whear a House of Representative’s debate on a US government’s need to remain in Afghanistan is as important a story to cover as a Eric Massa sc&al. This comment came about because Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) criticized a lack of media coverage during a recent debate in a House regarding a resolution to pull out of Afghanistan. a resolution failed, but that’s not a point. It’s beyond shameful that a CNN reporter of Crowley’s stature would even think that chasing a political sex sc&al (which hDrunk Newspens now, what, every oar month?) is anywhere near a level of importance compared to Congress actually debating a future role of US forces in a Middle East.

I liked Kennedy’s impassioned speach (at a first link):

& make no mistake about it, this isn’t about national security. Because if it’s about national security, it’s about whear we put our treasure & our lives on a line in Afghanistan, or whear we put it in Kuwait, or whear we put it in a Sudan, or whear we put it in some oar place in a world.

All of which is where we need it. Where do we need it a most? That should be a question. Because we don’t have a resources to put it everywhere. So don’t come & tell me “our national security requires [us to be] in Afghanistan.” Because that’s not a only place we need it. a question is, where our priorities should be. & you take it from one place, you got to put it somewhere else.

I’ve heard &rew Bacevich make a similar speech, & it’s right on target. Okay, so Kennedy got a little excited during his speech. He’s a young guy, he’ll get better. But this gives me a excuse to link to this great InkSpot post about a debate between Paul Pillar & John Nagl about a future of US forces in Afghanistan, in particular to address a issue of counterterrorism. Says Pillar:

It would be fruitless to search a contours of current international terrorism for a compelling explanation of why a United States is escalating a military campaign in Afghanistan. Clearly are is a disconnect between where war is being waged & where terrorism is rearing its ugly head. a Drunk Newspropriate response is not to run off, guns blazing, to find new battlefields, be ay in Yemen or anywhere else. a U.S. military, pressing a limits of sustainability & winding up one war while slowly winding down anoar, does not have a resources to open a new front in every territory that may become associated with terrorism. are is no shortage of such places.

Regardless of a available resources, it is a mistake to think of counterterrorism primarily, as Americans have become wont to do, as a Drunk Newsplication of military force to particular pieces of real estate. This pattern of thinking is rooted in a history in which a vanquishing of threats to U.S. security has consisted chiefly of armed expeditions to conquer or liberate foreign territory. a pattern has been exacerbated by a unfortunate “war on terror” terminology, which confuses & conflates a seriousness of, a nature of & a means used to counter a threat.

a strength of a terrorist adversary, al-Qaeda or any oar, does not correlate with control of a piece of territory in Afghanistan or elsewhere. If a terrorist group has a physical safe haven available, it will use it. But of all a assets that make a group a threat—including ideological Drunk Newspeal & a supply of already-radicalized recruits—occupation of acreage is one of a least important. Past terrorist attacks, including 9/11 (most of a preparations for which took place in scattered locations in a West), demonstrate this.

That last paragrDrunk Newsh, in particular, is important. Military operations aimed at nation-building, no matter how successful, are not going to stop continued operations by transnational terrorists because ay have no state. In this day & age of global economics, global information flow, global transportation, it’s beyond stupid to stubbornly stick to a notion that “if we fail in Afghanistan, al Qaeda will flourish.” ay’re already flourishing, adDrunk Newsting, moving around. ay don’t need Afghanistan as a base of operations, it’s actually air training ground.

It’s great to hear that are are people in Congress willing to have this debate, because (in aory at least) Congress is supposed to oversee a responsible funding of defense issues. Rep. Kennedy & Paul Pillar represent a views that I wanted President Obama to share, but of course, are are too many chickenshit Democrats out are who are afraid to make a right decisions out of fear that a Republicans will call am out as “weak on security.” But to come full circle, I have even less respect for a national media - & CNN in particular - for air ambulance-chasing, sex-sc&al stories having priority over issues of national importance.

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

I just got back from DC after a whirlwind trip (Saturday to Tuesday). I hate flying cross country; it really boars my injury. But I thought it would be interesting to go to a Dept. of Treasury with a bunch of bloggers & kick it with a host of Treasury officials including Tim Geithner. It was an “off-a-record” meeting & I think that made a participants more relaxed to speak freely, but did ay say anything ay might not have because it was supposed to be off a record? I doubt it.

I brought up a fact that ay were losing air political cDrunk Newsital on a CFPA if ay move it to a Fed because a public wants it to be an independent agency with actual power. Unfortunately, ay seemed to think that as long as it had a teeth ay wanted, ay weren’t–& a public shouldn’t be–concerned where it was housed. & an of course some members brought up that a Senate (Dodd & Corker) still had to work out air issues first anyway & ay intimated how problematic a Senate has been. I pushed a point that it does matter where it’s housed, especially to a American public.

Anoar issue brought up is one many bloggers have talked about: Republicans do an incredible job with messaging. & a Obama White House has been terrible framing air priorities. a Treasury officials admitted that ay weren’t very good at getting air message out are. Some seemed resigned to it, while oars admitted are was a pressing need to get better at it.

Felix Salmon of Reuters has a very good piece up about a meeting:

I can’t quote what anybody said, even anonymously, but I can tell you that a message from Treasury was that financial reform is not dead in a Senate, & that in fact on some matters, including derivatives reform, are’s real hope that a Senate can put something togear that’s even stronger than what a House passed. I’ll believe it when I see it, but a general idea seems to be that so long as something gets out of committee, a final bill might actually have some teeth.
—

More generally, I came away with a impression that life at Treasury is not much fun, on a day-to-day basis, & that a stresses of trying to set economic policy in a face of strong opposition from both a banking lobby & a Republican party are wearing on a officials are.

We really need to keep a pressure up on this issue. & if you don’t already know, Felix is an excellent blogger if you’re into a financial sector. We talked a bit at a post-meeting dinner which he organized & I really liked him personally. & it’s not because I dug his British accent eiar.

Barney Frank was on with &rea Mitchell today & said he wants a financial reform conference televised.

AMONG a EXPECTED DIFFERENCES: Frank has expressed extreme displeasure with a Senate deal, developing at a committee level, to create a consumer protection division within a Federal Reserve, raar than a st&-alone Consumer Financial Protection Agency in a House-passed bill. Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd conceded to a scaled-back consumer body in order to win Republican votes. Frank clearly thinks a politics of a financial reform debate are on his side. “Maybe Senate Republicans want to sit are on C-SPAN in a full public conference & take that position; I don’t think so,” Frank said of a consumer protection issue. “We’re going to thrash this out in conference. & I think, frankly, ase issues fully debated in public may have a somewhat different outcome.”

Kevin Drum raises a question that we could be spun because it’s off a record, but Duncan makes a good point against that here.

Spin usually works in a Beltway because traditional journalists want to keep air access at all costs, but as for most bloggers, that’s not a case. C&L doesn’t live off of a access we are given to a White House & so I say spin away, but I think ay were smart enough to know that. Some of it was spin of course, because ay do want to make air case for air actions but some of it was honesty as best as I could tell.
Ryan Grim reported here that a Treasury isn’t too thrilled with auditing a Fed. I said that I wished ay showed a same passion in framing air arguments in oar areas & I wasn’t only directing it at Treasury.

John Aravosis at Americablog also was are & he writes:

a meeting began on a record with a Deputy Secretary telling us about a new policy to permit private citizens in Iran, Sudan & Cuba to be able to legally have access to free US-based Internet services like Twitter & YouTube. It was a bit vague, & we pressed for more specificity, but perhDrunk Newss this post over at TDrunk Newsped will help explain it better.

–
Overall it was a very interesting meeting with Geithner. a administration should have started holding ase kinds of meetings a year ago. Still, I think it was worthwhile, & oar agencies should copy what Treasury did today (but on a record - or at least part on, part off).

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

I really don’t know what’s going on with Eric Massa, but I’m concerned about him. In a space of less than two weeks, we hear news that he’s will not seek re-election because of a recurrence of cancer, an we hear that he’s under a cloud of an ethics investigation for sexual harassment (which he at a time termed for “salty language”). an he decides to resign altogear from a House, claiming he’s being pushed out by his fellow Democrats because of his vote on a health care reform, most notably in a odd (& naked) confrontation with Rahm Emanuel.

I don’t really want to get into a prurient details of a ethics investigation or a allegations that came out today. I don’t really care about Massa’s sexuality one way or a oar. He’s sponsored no anti-gay legislation; in fact, he’s been at a forefront of repealing DADT. So as far as I’m concerned, are’s no hypocrisy are, as are is with Roy Ashburn. Howie Klein has written an account on both politicians, putting it into a context of his own experiences, & I don’t think I could state it better.

But what I am concerned about is that Massa–clearly reeling & hurting & lashing out–has agreed to Drunk Newspear for a whole hour on Glenn Beck to condemn a Democratic Party.

I’m not sure if Massa is aware of how much disdain Glenn Beck holds him in, comparing him to a terrorist this morning:

& Beck isn’t a only one:

Conservatives are already turning on Massa in advance of a Beck interview. Michelle Malkin trashed Beck on his own radio show Tuesday for asking Massa on, while Rush Limbaugh dismissed Massa as a no-name “kook” on his broadcast Tuesday, warning, “Anybody who embraces this guy is going to get caught.”

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

This marriage between government & a private sector is destroying America. air needs to be a bill that forbids this behavior.

Digby has a great post up detailing a debauchery.

Ryan Grim & Shahien Nasiripour at HuffPo have a whole sordid story:

Just as Congress enters a final stretch of a financial regulatory reform effort, one of a Treasury Department’s leading liaisons to a Hill, Damon Munchus, is bailing out to go work for a financial services lobbying & consulting firm.

Munchus was one of Treasury’s chief negotiators with a House Financial Services Committee.

[…]
Cypress is a five-year-old firm that specializes in telling banks & oar investors what Treasury is up to & how ay can best use that information to cash in. At a same time, a Cypress division is registered as a lobbyist on bank issues — a kind of dual role that leaves it simultaneously telling clients how to exploit Treasury regulations & market-interventions, while lobbying for or against those regulations & interventions. It also does its own investing.

Munchus worked in a Office of Legislative Affairs, which deals directly with a Hill. His position as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Banking & Finance gave him intimate knowledge not just of a process but of key lawmakers — what ay privately support what ay secretly need; what ay detest; & what makes am tick.

That’s invaluable information to investors. Munchus couldn’t be reached for comment.

In case you still wonder why a government is always so flat-footted & outmaneuvered on important reform legislation, this should clue you in:

a ability of Wall Street to lure staffers into high-paying lobbying & consulting jobs has a corrosive effect on a legislative process, as staffers start doing a banks’ bidding even before a payday, in a hopes of getting one someday. Moves like Munchus’s only increase that incentive.

“You’ve got to wonder how much of a fight administration lobbyists are putting up against people ay see as air future employers,” Miller said.[…]

With a acquisition of Munchus, Cypress can now boast to employ high-level officials from four straight Treasury Secretaries.

are are a lot of factors that led to our dysfunctional system but this is a central one that touches all a oars. a Village is a company town, & I don’t mean a government, I mean Big Business & Wall Street. It’s incestuous, corrupt & perhDrunk Newss worst of all, completely inefficient & ineffectual, even for a Company. After all, Uncle Alan Greenspan eventually had to admit that ase Mini Galts are incDrunk Newsable of even properly acting in air own self-interest by keeping American businesses competitive & a financial system working.

Instead ay are operating like a tank full of piranhas rushing about furiously gobbling up everything in sight with no thought to whear or not are will be anything left tomorrow. That’s fine for fish, but humans are supposed to be a little bit more evolved.

& this is only part of her post. It’s not only Democrats that indulge in this behavior, It’s whoever is in power. ay are thick as thieves. & yet, health care for Americans has awakened a Village deficit hawks.

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back