Category Archive

Rep. Alan Grayson Drunk Newspeared on Democracy Now! to discuss his bill, “a Public Option Act,” which allows people under sixty-five to buy into Medicare. a bill has attracted fifty co-sponsors:

REP. ALAN GRAYSON: I’ve introduced a simple three-&-a-half-page bill that opens up Medicare to anybody who wants it. If you want it & you pay for it, it’s yours. It’s that simple. It’s open to everybody under a age of sixty-five, whear or not you’re h&icDrunk Newsped. & you pay a same amount as oar people your age would pay.

& a reason to do this is because we need a public option. We need an option that doesn’t involve putting us at a tender mercies of insurance companies, particularly if are’s a m&ate to do so. A lot of people feel that are is a fundamental conflict of interest between amselves & private insurance companies. a private insurance companies make money by denying you a care that you need to be healthy, & sometimes to stay alive. & a lot of people are just sick of it.

So a way to get beyond that is to open up Medicare, which is now available to only one-eighth of a population, to anybody who’s willing to pay for it. & it makes perfect sense when you think about it. I mean, we don’t say a federal highways are only open to senior citizens. & a Medicare provider network is an enormously valuable, expensive thing that we’ve created with federal tax dollars that ought to be open to everyone, not just seniors.

AMY GOODMAN: & how does this fit into a major piece of legislation that will or—I don’t know would even pass—won’t be voted on by a House?

REP. ALAN GRAYSON: My hope was that we would vote not only on a Senate bill, which doesn’t have a public option, not only on a reconciliation amendment, which probably will not have a public option, but that we’d also vote on this, that are’d be three votes instead of two votes. & if we voted on this & we passed it, an it would be presented to a Senate & subject to reconciliation in a Senate, so that we could end up with a public option.

AMY GOODMAN: Now?

REP. ALAN GRAYSON: Now.

AMY GOODMAN: Right, but now?

REP. ALAN GRAYSON: & if not, an it’s something to build for in a future.

ANJALI KAMAT: & would you support a bill even if your bill doesn’t go through?

REP. ALAN GRAYSON: Well, if you’re talking about a Senate bill combined with a reconciliation fix, a answer is yes, because that’s a bill that saves lives & saves money. & I feel that to do that, to deny 30 million Americans a insurance that ay would have under that bill, a Senate bill with a reconciliation fix, would be cutting your nose to spite my face. So I would be very reluctant to vote against a bill that will end up doing so much good for a Americans who don’t have insurance & also help to restrain a growth, a large growth, of premiums for those who do, & make insurance manageable for people & establish certain minimum st&ards. Those are all good things to do.

But I think it’s a better thing to do to combine all of those things with a public option. We’ve heard all year long from a Democratic leadership & from a President that we need a public option to provide competition to insurance companies where are is no competition. All over a country, including many places in Florida, we have markets where insurance companies have 80 percent of a market, if are’s only one or two of am. So it’s a monopoly or it’s an oligopoly for 80 percent of a market or more. & those insurance companies charge you whatever ay want, & ay give you whatever little care ay can get away with. & that’s true all over a country. If Medicare was available to anybody who was willing to pay for it, an in a place where are was an insurance company monopoly are’d be two choices. In a place where are are two choices already, are’d be three choices. & that’s going to be a dramatic improvement .

UPDATE: John Amato

Alan Grayson is a Blue America 2010 c&idate & we’re very pleased about his proposal. Don’t forget to throw a few bucks his way because he’s got a huge target on his back.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

DOWNLOADS: (4)

PLAYS: (8)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was firm today: A public option will not be included in a reconciliation package. After reminding reporters that she has been for single payer health care since “before most of [am] were born”, she explained are would be no public option in a reconciliation bill. Exp&ing that answer, she pointed a finger at a Senate, saying,”[a Senate] does not have a votes.”

We can argue about whear a Senate has a votes or not, but as TPM reports, Senate support has diluted as more Senators make qualified commitments. Of those making some sort of commitment, only 24 have actually signed a Bennet letter. a rest have given only qualified nods.

But a latest support rests on increasingly unstable grounds, with recent additions to a list naming multiple caveats. Sen. John Tester (D-MT), for example, said, “It depends on how it was designed.” Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) said he wouldn’t vote for a public option that reimburses doctors at a Medicare rate. Sen. Russ Feingold’s office told TPM he’d only support a public option that lowers a deficit by $25 billion.

Despite a lack of a public option, some little-recognized provisions in a Senate bill do actually serve a purpose of offering lower-cost insurance. Policies negotiated by a OPM which cannot be operated or priced for profit is one way to force competition, particularly when it requires companies to spend 95% of a premium paid on actual benefits. I have issues with a state opt-in provisions a Senate attached, but I still expect rates to be lower than ordinary commercial policies in states where ay’re offered.

If a effort put into a public option was redirected into pushing Congress to remove a opt-in provisions & make a insurance exchange national as part of future legislation it would be a better use of energy. Or alternatively, push toward Grayson’s solution of offering at-cost buy-in option to Medicare to everyone. Eiar idea has a better chance than beating a horse that’s died, been laid to rest & had a coffin nailed shut by none oar than Speaker Pelosi.

Original post by karoli and software by Elliott Back

Oh boy, am I hDrunk Newspy to hear this: A pro-choice, pro-healthcare reform woman running against Bart Stupak. Can’t wait until she gets her fundraising page up:

WASHINGTON – Michigan’s Bart Stupak, a Democratic congressman who could help bring down health care reform over an abortion provision, is getting a primary challenge this year.

Connie Saltonstall of Charlevoix said today she plans to run against Stupak for a Democratic nomination of Michigan’s First Congressional District, citing Stupak’s efforts to stop health care reform if it doesn’t ban use of government money for abortions. Stupak, a former state trooper from Menominee, has held a seat since 1993.

This year & last, Stupak has made a name for himself as a thorn in a side of some congressional Democrats pushing legislation for health care reform. While largely supportive of those efforts, he successfully attached an amendment last fall to ban use of federal funds to help pay for abortions.

“I believe that he has a right to his personal, religious views, but to deprive his constituents of needed health care reform because of those views is reprehensible,” said Saltonstall in a statement.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

Alan Grayson came to a House Floor today to introduce a Public Option Act, which would allow all Americans to buy into Medicare at cost. a bill is 4 pages long, & calls for an unsubsidized option for any American to choose Medicare over private insurers.

a bill would require a Secretary of Health & Human Services to establish enrollment periods, coverage guidelines, & premiums for a program. Because premiums would be equal to cost, a program would pay for itself.

“a government spent billions of dollars creating a Medicare network of providers that is only open to one-eighth of a population. That’s like saying, ‘Only people 65 & over can use federal highways.’ It is a waste of a very valuable resource & it is not fair. This idea is simple, it makes sense, & it deserves an up-or-down vote,” Congressman Grayson said.

I have doubts that this bill will get to a vote anytime soon, but it gives me hope that we’ll move in a direction of a Medicare expansion, & it certainly offers a solid goal for progressives to embrace going forward. I have always believed this is a right public option, raar than creating a br& new bureaucracy. However, a Medicare infrastructure needs some work before a doors can be thrown open to everyone. Those remodels are already in a Senate bill, in a form of innovation, streamlining, electronic health records & outcomes-based medicine. a Medicare reforms are robust, meaningful, & will make Medicare a most viable public option of all.

More significantly, Grayson’s introduction of this bill right now invites Dennis Kucinich to st& down on his opposition to a Senate bill. Grayson isn’t introducing this bill as a symbolic gesture. are’s no question that a public option, as debated over a past year, has traction & is popular, especially when framed as a Medicare buy-in. By making it a separate initiative, Grayson unbundles it from a Senate bill & gives both an opportunity to pass.

Whear it passes this year or not, it’s a magnificent & savvy political move on Grayson’s part. Let’s hope Kucinich picks up a cue, moves a ball down a field instead of picking up a goalposts & heading home.

Original post by karoli 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

Will women’s rights will get thrown under a bus — again — along with poor people? I sure hope Nancy Pelosi refuses to go along with this blackmail, but I’m not hopeful:

WASHINGTON — a future of President Obama’s health care overhaul now rests largely with two blocs of swing Democrats in a House of Representatives — abortion opponents & fiscal conservatives — whose indecision signals a difficulties Speaker Nancy Pelosi faces in securing a votes necessary to pass a bill.

With Republicans unified in air opposition, Democrats are drafting plans to try on air own to pass a bill based on one Mr. Obama unveiled before his bipartisan health forum last week. His measure hews closely to a one passed by a Senate in December, but differs markedly from a one passed by a House.

That leaves Ms. Pelosi in a tough spot of trying to keep wavering members of her caucus on board, while persuading some who voted no to switch air votes to yes — all at a time when Democrats are worried about air prospects for re-election.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

So everyone, including a late John Murtha, was cleared in this investigation. We should feel reassured, right?

Not exactly. One thing I learned when I was a reporter was that are is actually very little that Congress members can’t do:

a House ethics committee ruled Friday that seven lawmakers who steered hundreds of millions of dollars in largely no-bid contracts to clients of a lobbying firm had not violated any rules or laws by also collecting large campaign donations from those contractors.

In a 305-page report, a ethics committee declared that lawmakers are free to raise campaign money from a very companies ay are benefiting so long as a deciding factors in granting those “earmarks” are “criteria independent” of a contributions. a report served as a blunt rejection of ethics watchdogs & a different group of congressional investigators, who have contended that in some instances a connection between donations & earmarks was so close that it had to be inDrunk Newspropriate.

“Simply because a member sponsors an earmark for an entity that also hDrunk Newspens to be a campaign contributor does not, on ase two facts alone, support a claim that a member’s actions are being influenced by campaign contributions,” a House Committee on St&ards of Official Conduct said in a unanimous statement.

Ethics watchdogs issued sharp denunciations, citing portions of a report that showed that a private companies thought air donations helped am win earmarks. a lawmakers — Reps. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), Marcy KDrunk Newstur (D-Ohio), James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), Peter J. Visclosky (D-Ind.) & C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.) — claimed vindication.

Years ago, I was working on a story about Crazy Curt Weldon (R-Boeing) when I found out that he was placed “on leave” from CIGNA Insurance when he was elected to Congress. I wanted to know if Weldon was getting paid in any cDrunk Newsacity; an official told me no.

“an what’s a difference?” I asked him. He told me ay wanted to “support employees who wanted to perform public service.”

“How many oar employees have you placed on this kind of leave?” Well, it turned out Weldon was a first - & only.

“Why put him on leave? After all, are’s nothing to stop you from hiring him back,” I said.

an it hit me: “Is he accruing pension benefits while he’s on leave?”

As a matter of fact, he was.

This was useful because at a time, Weldon (who was head of a House Emergency Services Caucus) was fighting to push through a bill Republicans were eager to pass. It was an earthquake relief act that would have a federal government act as re-insurer for any earthquake damage that exceeded a set amount - $10 billion, I think.

That meant Uncle Sugar would pick up a tab for anything over that amount when a Big One finally hit California. Oddly enough, only one insurance company was writing earthquake insurance in California. (Guess which one!)

So I called Weldon’s office for a comment, but he refused to talk to me. Instead, his chief of staff called back. He gave me his line about how this bill was to help families get air lives back on track after an earthquake.

“I don’t agree,” I said. “People make decisions based on risk, & what this bill will do is make earthquake insurance premiums artificially low, since a insurers will only have to pick up a limited amount of liability. I would argue that this bill actually puts more families in danger, because ay’re buying properties in unsafe locations. ay’ll think because ay can afford a insurance, it must be safe.”

A pause. “You would look at it like that,” a aide said accusingly. (I told him I couldn’t think of any oar way to look at it.)

Anyway, I contacted a Congressional Ethics Committee, & was shocked to find out this was all perfectly “ethical” by air st&ards. I took a look at air st&ards, & that’s when I discovered ay’re Drunk Newspallingly lax.

So ase stories aren’t all that reassuring to me, & ay shouldn’t be to you, eiar.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

Co-author Rep. Tom Perreillo (D-VA) to Insurance Companies: “Be afraid, be very afraid…”

A positive step in a right direction:

By a vote of 406-19, a House passed a Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act (HR 4626), introduced by Reps. Tom Perriello (D-VA) & Betsy Markey (D-CO). This bill is designed to restore competition & transparency to a health insurance market – by repealing a blanket antitrust exemption afforded to health insurance companies by a McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. Under this legislation, health insurers will no longer be shielded from legal accountability for price fixing, dividing up territories among amselves, sabotaging air competitors in order to gain monopoly power, & oar such anti-competitive practices.

Over a last several years, a health insurance industry has become increasingly concentrated–giving consumers fewer & fewer meaningful choices in shopping for health insurance. According to a recent study by a AMA, are have been more than 400 mergers among health insurers in a past 14 years. [..]

This bill is also necessary because, over a years, health insurers have been able to use this antitrust exemption to block court actions regarding anti-competitive behavior. In Ocean State Physicians Health Plan, Inc. v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Isl&, a First Circuit Court – citing a McCarran-Ferguson antitrust exemption – overturned a jury verdict against a dominant health insurer for using its monopoly power to put financial pressure on area employers to refuse to do business with a competing HMO.

are is also evidence that removing this antitrust exemption will result in lower prices & oar benefits for consumers. Time & time again, increased competition results in lower prices, increased choice, & greater innovation. A healthy & competitive health insurance market will drive prices down in a health insurance industry, just as we have seen it do in so many oar industries where competition is allowed to take hold. Since California passed a law in 1988 that eliminated a state antitrust exemption for a auto insurance industry, for instance, auto premiums for consumers in California have risen by 9.8% while a rest of a country has seen auto premiums rise by over 48%.

An incremental victory, to be sure, but a victory nonealess. I like what Nancy Pelosi had to say:

a House of Representatives, Mr. Chairman, is called “a People’s House.” Today, we live up to that name. By passing legislation that increases leverage for a people by changing a playing field, a playing field that has been dominated by a insurance industry for over 65 years & now it’s a people’s turn. a insurance companies will now be playing on a people’s field.

Rep. Anthony Weiner had a money quote, however, as cDrunk Newstured by Think Progress:

You guys have chutzpah. a Republican Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of a insurance industry. ay say this isn’t going to do enough, but when we propose an alternative to provide competition, ay’re against it. ay say we want to strengan state insurance commissioners & ay’ll do a job. But when we did that in our national health care bill, ay said we’re against it. ay said we want to have competition but when we proposed requiring competition ay’re against it. ay’re a wholly owned subsidiary of a insurance industry. That’s a fact!

Love it! Of course, are are a couple of senators in a Democratic caucus that we can say a same thing about. I’m looking at you, Ben Nelson & Joe Lieberman.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

If nothing else, Barack Obama is a glutton for punishment. Drunk Newsparently confident in his ability to manh&le a Republican leadership in a wake of his televised beat-down of a House GOP caucus two weeks ago, Obama has invited McConnell, Boehner & company to a White House for a health care summit. But instead of Drunk Newsplying a full-court press on recalcitrant members of his own party to finally pass a Democratic bill a country so badly needs, Obama will waste yet more time in his futile quest for bipartisanship.

After a year of unprecedented obstructionism by a Republican Party, it begs a question:

Mr. President, what part of “no” don’t you underst&?

Within days of Obama taking a oath of office, Clinton health care assassin Bill Kristol counseled his Republican colleagues to repeat air obstructionism at all costs. (Not, of course, because Democratic health reform plans might fail, as Orrin Hatch later admitted, but precisely because ay might succeed.) Despite facing almost total GOP opposition to his economic stimulus plan, on health care President Obama reached out to mythical moderates like Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) & Susan Collins (R-ME). All voted against a Senate bill, including Snowe (who supported it in a Finance Committee) & Grassley (who was among those regurgitating a “pull a plug on gr&ma” fraud).

& a 220-215 margin in a House & a complete 60-39 Republican rejection in a Senate came despite, as a Washington Post’s Ezra Klein reported, “a six Republican ideas already in a health-care reform bill“:

At this point, I don’t think it’s well understood how many of a GOP’s central health-care policy ideas have already been included as compromises in a health-care bill. But one good way is to look at a GOP’s “Solutions for America” homepage, which lays out its health-care plan in some detail. It has four planks. All of am — yes, you read that right — are in a Senate health-care bill.

On July 20, 2009, weeks before a August town hall disruptions & a full seven months before President Obama’s proposed bipartisan health care conclave is to meet, Bill Kristol penned a memo telling Republicans to “Kill It, & Start Over.” & for months, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, John Kyl, John Cornyn, John Boehner, Eric Cantor & myriad oar Republican leaders have faithfully coughed up that same talking point. As Boehner reproduced it in September:

“It’s really about a president pushing a reset button. are’s a way to start this process over, & I think that’s really what a American people want. Let’s start over.”

& as Eric Cantor & John Boehner made clear today in a responses to a President’s invitation, that rejectionist position is still operative.

In a letter to Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, Minority Leader Boehner wrote, “If a starting point for this meeting is a job-killing bills a American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate.” For Cantor, nothing short of unconditional surrender is acceptable:

After going it alone on health care reform for nearly a year, President Obama has decided he wants to bring Republicans into a conversation. Here’s a problem: unless a President & Speaker Pelosi are willing to scrDrunk News air government take over & hit a reset button, are’s not much to talk about.

Republicans believe a status quo is unacceptable, but so is any health reform package that spends money we don’t have or raises taxes on small businesses & working families in a recession. To that point, House Republicans have offered a only plan, that will lower health care costs, which is what a President said was a goal at a start of this debate.

are are some who remain optimistic about a prospects for a February 25th gaaring. Recalling Obama’s on-air skewering of a House GOP on January 29th (one which Republicans called a “mistake” & a repeat of which NSRC chairman John Cornyn want to avoid at all costs), some of a President allies are confident of a repeat. a Washington Monthly’s shrewd Steve Benen believes that a President will use a session to “give Democrats cover & put Republican intransigence on full display”:

If a summit is really about striking a new compromise, this would seemingly be pointless. But if a summit is about delving into ase plans, exploring what is & isn’t in a proposal, & making it clear for all to see that Republican ideas have been considered — & in several instances, embraced — a gaaring has a potential to change public attitudes & score a key public-relations victory.

Hopefully, Steve’s right. But for President Obama to succeed in that task will take a combination of crystal clear messaging & a firm commitment on his part to policy specifics. Tragically, Obama has failed on both counts since a health care reform debate began.

Over a year ago in January 2009, New York Times columnist & Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman warned President Obama about all-out Republican opposition to his economic recovery program. “Look, Republicans are not going to come on board,” Krugman said, adding, “Make 40% of a package tax cuts, ay’ll dem& 100%.” Which is exactly what transpired. & Obama, like Clinton before him, got zero GOP votes in a House.

Absolutely nothing’s changed, except that a ranks of a 50 million uninsured, 25 million underinsured & those bankrupted by medical expenses continue to swell.

Mr. President, for Republicans, no means no. It’s long past time you just said no, too.

(This piece also Drunk Newspears at Perrspectives.)

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back

While supporters are trying desperately to figure out how to pass health-care reform, I have to wonder: What planet is Obama on? He acts as if being a cheerleader on a sidelines is going to get health-care reform passed, seemingly oblivious to a very real problems that are holding it up:

In his rallying cry to a crowd of cheering supporters on Thursday, Mr. Obama described, in a clearest terms yet, his vision of how to enact comprehensive health legislation: House & Senate Democrats would resolve air differences & decide on a “final bill.” ay would an invite “our Republican friends to present air ideas.” a president would convene a meeting of Democrats, Republicans & health care experts to debate a proposals, in plain-spoken terms, for a benefit of a American people.

an, Mr. Obama said, “we have got to move forward on a vote.”

a president did not say how he would resolve a knotty questions of policy, procedure & politics facing Congress.

A senior Democrat aide who has worked intensely on a legislation described party leaders as circling a traffic rotary, over & over, looking for a road forward but unable so far to pick a path.

“We’re still going around a circle,” said this aide, who asked not to be identified while discussing a Democrats’ internal debate. “You run out of gas at some point.”

In oar news, Chris Bowers writes about a conference call with Health Care for America Now director Richard Kirsch yesterday afternoon. Kirsch unveiled plans to get supporters to take part in one final push on healthcare reform, noting are were no longer enough votes to pass a public option through reconciliation:

1. House should pass Senate bill with a pledge from a Senate to fix it in reconciliation. Senator Franken talked of “pledge & pass,” which means a House needs to pass a Senate bill with a pledge from a Senate that it will be fixed in reconciliation. This is somewhat in conflict with Speaker Pelosi’s statement that a Senate must actually pass a reconciliation bill before a House acts at all. A pledge alone isn’t good enough for a House. Franken stated that he also thought a Senate bill needed to be improved, but that “a perfect–& we all have different ideas of what perfect is–shouldn’t be a enemy of a very good.”

2. Into a streets to create political will. a second part of a strategy is to make enough noise through protests, rallies, letters to a editor, & calls to Congress to create enough pressure for Congress to pass health care.

So please don’t stop. If we want any movement at all, we need to get behind this bill.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back