Hey Joe Lieberman

Go Fuck Yourself. Why has the Democratic leadership not stripped him of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee yet?!? Kick him out of the caucus and send a message that this type dishonest negotiating will not be tolerated not only within the Democratic Party, but the Congress as a whole. This is such unbelievable bullshit.

I've decided that in 2012 when Joe Lieberman is up for reelection I am:

1) Donating large sums of money to his Democratic opponent

2) Moving to Connecticut to vote against Joe Lieberman

3) Working full time, 24/7 on the campaign for the Democratic candidate running against Joe Lieberman

4) If there is no viable liberal candidate, I will work for the Republican candidate in order to remove Joe Lieberman from the Senate

Go Fuck Yourself Joe.

The Finish Line

It is only appropriate that in what will likely be my final post health care reform is finally in the home stretch. Or at least I hope it is. The House officially passed their version of the health care bill on November 7th, and the Senate has voted for cloture and allowed for the debate to begin on the Senate floor.

No that isn't a typo. This was a vote to allow for the Senate to start debating on an issue that has been debated since April. I know. It seems like they're just trying to piss us off and make this go on for as long as possible, all while millions of Americans continue to live without health insurance.

So where does this all leave us? Well, the Senate will likely debate Harry Reid's version of the bill that includes an opt-out public option, allowing for states to opt-out of inclusion in a public option. However, while Reid was able to get 60 votes for cloture, he likely only has 56 to pass this current bill, with Senators Nelson, Lieberman, Landrieu, and Lincoln currently withholding support for Reid's watered down public option.

If and when this bill finally passes the Senate, which could take the entire month of December at this pace, that bill must then be merged with the much more liberal House bill. What will happen there is truly anybody's guess. In all likelihood, Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid, and the Obama Administration will be working together on a compromise bill that will likely feature many of the subsidies of the House bill, while incorporating the Senate's version of the public option. That's simply my best guess and honestly the best case scenario in my opinion. The House subsidies are what makes that bill cut costs better than anything that will leave the Senate, while the Senate's public option keeps the price tag down below $1 Trillion.

As I stated in my first ever post on this blog, health care reform will get done. While I am more cynical on the actual effectiveness of any bill that will pass out of Congress, incremental positive change is better than no change at all. Health care is a right, not a privilege, and it is high time that this nation's leaders act accordingly.

Two Way Street?

Throughout the entirety of the health care debate, Republicans have decided to spread false claims to their constituents throughout the nation. Whether it be death panels or a mythical government takeover of health care, the Republican party has only offered fear in the face of a national crisis. When asked about a Republican health care alternative, Minority Leader John Bohner gave one of the most heinously convoluted responses I've ever heard, saying

We have a number of ideas that we would like to proffer in this process, and we’re not quite sure how the majority intends to proceed. And so until we understand how they intend to proceed, it’s pretty difficult for us to have a solid plan.

Well, I guess a number of ideas is sort of a plan, right? No? Damn. You were so close John, but I guess you couldn't fool the American people this time. Your buddy in the Senate though, Minority Leader McConnell, has his eyes locked in on killing the public option once and for all. And why you ask? Because according to Senator McConnell, the public option may cost you your life.

I think if you have any kind of government insurance program, you’re going to be stuck with it and it will lead us in the direction of the European style, you know, sort of British-style, single payer, government run system. And those systems are known for delays, denial of care and, you know, if your particular malady doesn’t fit the government regulation, you don’t get the medication.

And it may cost you your life. I mean, we don’t want to go down that path.

Senator McConnell, would you like to know what would actually cost someone their life? Lacking of health insurance. According to a study by Johns Hopkins University,

Lack of adequate health care may have contributed to the deaths of some 17,000 US children over the past two decades

Adults and children without insurance are far more susceptible to dying from curable illnesses than those with adequate health care coverage. Yet, according to Senator McConnell and his Republican colleagues, it is the government who will cause your death if health care reform has a public option. Shit, if I'm going to die anyway, I'd at least like to do it more cheaply than with my private insurance, since the public option would bring down premiums as well as cut costs across the board.

Why do the Republicans keep lying about a bill that will help bring an end to a national crisis in health care? Earlier this week, the Affordable Health Care for America Act was introduced in the House by Speaker Pelosi.

The Republicans wanted a deficit neutral bill. Done. The CBO estimates that the bill will reduce the deficit by $104 Billion over 10 years, and will continue to reduce the deficit in the future.

Republicans want to reduce costs over the long term. Fine. The House bill slows the growth of Medicare from 6.6% to 5.3% annually.

Republicans wanted to allow policies to cross state lines. Good, welcome to a national public option. National being the key word.

Of course Republicans wanted malpractice reform, since they hate the trial lawyers who give their money to Democrats. Even though I love lawyers, the House bill creates state incentives programs to encourage states to implement alternatives to malpractice litigation.

Senator McCain and Minority Whip Cantor wanted high risk pools for those patients who are, well, high risk for insurance companies. We might as well have elected McCain then, since the House bill creates an insurance program with financial assistance for those uninsured for several months or denied policy due to preexisting conditions before the health insurance exchanges are implemented. There's your high risk pool.

The faux Republican health care bill wanted to let young people remain on the health policies of their parents up to age 25. Thanks for pandering to me Republican Party, now the House bill will allow me to stay on my mommy's insurance policy until I'm 27!

Of course there should be no public money for abortion, right? That would be a deal breaker. Hell, it almost derailed the entire debate. Well thank the Lord Almighty Nancy Pelosi isn't forcing abortions on our young people, since the House bill prohibits abortion services from being made part of essential benefits package and prohibits federal funds from being used to pay for abortion.

Republican's wanted to protect small businesses, even though their economic policies contributed to the collapse of many small businesses. Ironic, huh? Well in any case, the House bill exempts 86% of businesses from the requirement to provide coverage. Businesses with payrolls below $500,000 are exempt while firms with payrolls between $500,000 and $750,000 would pay a graduated penalty. Small businesses would also receive a tax credit that helps cover 50% of their health care expenses. You're Welcome.

That same fake health care bill circulated by Republicans wanted to promote job wellness programs, and in the House bill you will be financially rewarded by your employer, if they choose, if you seek to achieve or maintain a healthy weight, quit smoking, and manage chronic illnesses like diabetes.

And we all want to help those between 55-64. To young for Medicare, but starting to spend more on health care claims. Although expanding Medicare to those under 65, like you know, every other country does, the Democrats compromised with the Republicans and created a reinsurance program that helps to cover costly health claims for these older Americans.

10 Republican demands. 10 Democratic compromises. 0 Republican Votes. Shit.

Robust Debate

We keep hearing the term 'Robust Public Option' in the national debate over health care, but I'd like to know just what the hell robust actually means here.  According to Merriam-Webster, Robust means something is capable of performing without failure under a wide range of conditions.  Therefore, as long as the public option works well and doesn't immediately or eventually sink out health care system, it then should qualify as robust, right?

Look, I feel as if the debate over the public option has gone beyond beating a dead horse at this point.  We've begun to slaughter this horse.  Yet, this debate hasn't ended; in fact it isn't even close to over.  We've gotten to a point where the Barack Obama has been accused of working against the Harry Reid's effort to get the strongest version of the public option passed.  This is bordering on insanity people.  Barack Obama is not Michael Steele; he's not the cow on the train tracks preparing to be annihilated.  He's clearly working for the public option, since it was actually his idea to begin with.

At least we've come to a situation where a public option is all but inevitable, which is in itself a remarkable feat after the debacle of the August recess.  According to the Washington Post,

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) sought support Friday for expansive versions of the public option as they prepared to send reform legislation to the Senate and House floors. Their goal is to pass bills with similar versions of the public insurance option so that final talks between the two chambers can focus on other issues that could prove more difficult to resolve.

On Friday, congressional leaders marveled at how quickly the landscape has changed. "This is an exact quote: 'Off the table,' " House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (S.C.) said, recalling the headlines earlier this month when the Senate Finance Committee rejected two versions of the public option in its reform bill.

Clyburn said the debate is no longer whether to include a public option, but "whether or not we will get this form of a public option or that form of a public option." 

We're now unlikely to be entrenched in a nightmare scenario in which the public option is stuck in legislative limbo.  The votes will be there.  The public option will pass.  Who really gives a damn how robust it is, when the actual point of a public option will be accomplished regardless: we will be offering near universal coverage while bringing down health care costs.  We're so close to the finish line.  While the GOP has continued to be irresponsible, the Democrats need to step up to the plate and pass a bill before January.  That would truly be robust behavior.

The House-ing Market

Remember when President Abraham Lincoln said, "A house divided is a house that cannot stand."?  Or when Luther Vandross told us all, "A house is not a home."?    Great lines by similarly great Americans, and they're unbelievably true.  We've been talking a lot about the Senate over the past months, specifically the Finance Committee, since they took nearly twice as much time as all the House committees to pass a bill.  Now we are at a critical juncture in the health care debate, and soon we will have two bills: one from the House and one from the Senate. 

Previously, I talked about the likelihood of the merged Senate bill containing a version of the public option, and that seems to be more likely than ever before.  Apparently, Senator Reid is leaning toward putting an opt-out version of the public option in the final bill.  Reid essentially holds the fate of the public option in his hands, since his decision will determine which side gets the strategic advantage. If a public plan is included in the Senate bill at the outset, opponents would have to find 60 votes to remove it from the bill, which is seemingly impossible.  

While Reid may hold a great deal of power over the inclusion of a public option in the final bill, Speaker Pelosi, who has held a lower profile recently, may hold the keys to creating the strongest public option possible as well as providing the most generous benefits and subsidies to average Americans.  Pelosi's bill not only has the stronger public option, but will do more to provide a permanent fix for our health care system.  According to Ezra Klein, the main differences between the House and Senate Finance Bill are clear.

The Senate Finance Bill gets to 94 percent coverage. The House bill will hit 96 percent. The Senate Finance bill spends a bit over $450 billion on subsidies to help people afford insurance. The House bill will spend more than $700 billion. The Senate Finance bill doesn't have an employer mandate. The House bill does. The Senate Finance bill funds itself by taxing family health-care benefits over $21,000. The House bill funds itself by taxing incomes over $500,000. The Senate Finance bill expands Medicaid. The House bill expands Medicaid by more. The Senate Finance bill costs $829 billion. The House bill costs $871 billion. 

While the House bill may cost $42 billion more than the Senate bill, it covers more people through strong subsidies that allow for universal coverage.  Because of these subsidies, along with an employer mandate and the expansion of Medicaid, the slightly higher cost of the bill is far outweighed by both the long term and immediate impact of the bill.  Essentially, The House bill will bring us closer to universal coverage at a cheaper price for individual citizens. The combination of a strong public option as well as a individual and employer mandate allows the government and individuals to pay less for better coverage.

Although this is clearly the stronger bill, and would do more to reform our broken system, there's no chance in hell that it ever passes the Senate.  So why then have I spent my precious time advocating for a bill that will never see the light of day?  Because Nancy Pelosi is a political genius, that why.  We've all assumed, myself included, that Pelosi is doing all this to bring the strongest public option possible to the table.  Well, again we happen to be wrong. Ezra Klein breaks down Pelosi's game plan beautifully,

The part of Pelosi's approach that people haven't really picked up on is that she's paired the stronger public option with more generous subsidies and benefit packages, rather than leaving it on its own to dramatize the potential savings. There's a reason for that: If the Senate wants to weaken the public option, this gives her leverage to demand that they put money on the table to maintain the benefit levels that the strong public option made possible. In other words, the strong public option also gives her leverage to bargain for more affordability and better subsidies.

Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama are more farsighted than you and I apparently.  Instead of being concerned with a policy proposal that could never gain the necessary amount of votes, the President and Speaker of the House have committed themselves to creating a bill that makes health insurance affordable to all Americans, regardless of the strength of the public option. Reid's opt-out public option may be able to do the job alongside Pelosi's strong benefit structure.  

Maybe our House of Cards wont collapse after all.

Country First

As I discussed last week, the health insurance lobby has essentially become big heath care (akin to big tobacco) in the health care debate.  President Obama and his Administration, as well as Senate and House Democrats, destroyed the health insurance industry report with gusto. Senator Kerry has actually used this AHIP report to advocate for the public option, since the insurance companies have shown their true colors and are clearly unwilling to work with the government.  Senator Kerry, the man who lost to George W. Bush, is being tougher on the public option than our very own president.  Who woulda thunk it?

Yes, President Obama has made it clear he desires a public option, but he hasn't demanded it be included in any health care bill.  This past Sunday, after the release of the ridiculous AHIP report, President Obama had the perfect opportunity to push the public option, and of course failed to do so.  As Igor Volsky stated, 

Obama could have responded to the industry’s self-serving report by arguing that reform must inject significant competition into health insurance markets. He could have used their new-found tone to argue that reform must hold the industry accountable. The American people, in other words, should not be compelled to buy private coverage from an industry that has just admitted that it would increase premiums by some 111% if reform passes.

But rest assured that Obama still believes the public option is “the best possible choice” to restore competition and improve affordability. He just refuses to fight for it. Why? The public option is not a liberal ideological baton, it’s a sensible compromise that builds on free market principles.

President Obama, in his heart of hearts, obviously wants a public heath insurance option.  Hell, he probably wants a single payer system just like I do.  We all know single payer isn't a viable reality, but a public option is.  Over 70% of people support the choice of a public option, and the majority of House and Senate Democrats approve as well, so why isn't the President pushing this harder?  He may not currently have the votes he needs, but if he doesn't strongly advocated for the public option, then he'll surely never get them.

Republicans may be right for once, and the Democrats may take the Finance Bill and push it left.  Politically, it's a winner for Senator Harry Reid, as he is looking weaker and weaker in his reelection campaign, and could diffuse the anger of progressives and unions in his home state of Nevada.  Inclusion in a final bill at the Senate floor would make it that much more difficult to strip a public plan from the bill. Regardless of whether or not Republicans make this a wedge issue again, adding the public option in a merged Senate bill simply makes sense for the country.  

If only President Obama's slogan could've been Country First.  

A Rodney King Moment

Congress had a 'Rodney King Moment' the other day.  No, nobody was beaten within inches of their life, unless you mean the public option.  What I'm talking about is the fact that we were all able to just get along for a few moments, with Olympia Snowe crossing over to the Dark Side.  This is the first time in the health care debate there has been any Republican support for health care reform.  Most of them are still screaming 'MOO!!!' as some cow on the track trying to stop the freight train of health care reform.  Last time I checked though, and I haven't thought about this often, trains run over cows.  And it gets ugly.  

So, does Senator Snowe's vote mean much?  In a sense, yes.  The fact that the Democrats were able to keep their unwieldy caucus together, while gaining the support of the most liberal Republican shouldn't come as a surprise, but the disgusting nature of the debate up until this point has changed the paradigm.  The fact that Snowe is able to be sensible and support a bill that actually reduces the deficit is commendable, and as Igor Volsky says, "Snowe’s vote in gives key Republican moderates the cover of “bipartisanship” to vote for the bill on the floor."  It also seems that the insurance industry somewhat forced Snowe's hand.  After the debacle of a report the insurance industry released earlier in the week, The insurance industry attacked Snowe’s amendments to lower the penalties for Americans who don’t meet the requirements of the individual mandate and the senator harshly condemned the industry’s conclusions. “It wasn’t based on any valid assumptions.”  

Also, lets not forget this was just a vote in the Finance Committee.  Snowe is not required to vote for the final bill.  Yet, with Snowe's support and the lack of support from any other Republicans up until the point should empower Harry Reid to produce a progressive bill that will be tougher in the insurance industry and hopefully have some version of a public option, which would drive down costs even further.  The Democrats should be pushing for these progressive reforms, since it has become clear that no Republican outside of Snowe, and possibly Senator Collins and Senator Voinavich.  The House plan with a robust public plan has been scored by the CBO, which concluded that it would have nearly the same price tag as the Senate Finance Bill, but will drive down costs for the individual consumer of health care, while covering 95% of Americans.

The question now isn't if, but when.  Where do we go from here?  The Senate HELP and Finance Committee bills have to be merged, and it seems as if Senator Reid is finally taking this seriously,

Reid's office is serious about ensuring the process blends the two existing bills, rather than develops a whole new bill. That means that on an issue like the public option, you could see a new policy emerge, as one bill has a public option and one doesn't. Creating some sort of compromise would fit into the "blend" framework. But on issues that only are addressed in one of two bills -- revenues are only in the Finance bill, for instance, and biologics are only in the HELP bill -- you'll see a variant of what's already written into the bill. The negotiators aren't likely to dream up a whole new tax and plug it into the legislation. They feel that would be a perversion of the committee process.

There are many questions that will be answered in the merging process and some that will be left for the Senate floor.  Chief among these will likely be the public option.  As Ezra Klein states, 

If Reid decides to put a public option, or some sort of public option compromise, into the bill, then it would require 60 senators to remove it on the floor, and only 41 senators to defend it. Conversely, if he decides to leave the public option fight for the floor, then it will take 60 senators to add it into the bill, and only 41 to block it.

Hopefully Reid grows some cajones and puts a public option into the merged bill.  If not, the public option may in fact be as dead as a cow on the train tracks.  As I've stated here often, the public option is the best way to bring down costs in our health care system and is the easiest and most efficient way to stop the runaway spending of the health care industry.

Seriously though, at least we've made it this far.  In the almost six decades since President Truman took on the issue of health care, this is the farthest the process has ever gotten.  I'd also like to apologize to Max Baucus, Three months ago, the main storyline in the press on health care centered on whether Democrats would craft a bipartisan bill (yay!) or go it alone (boo!) Through his desire to reach an agreement with the Cow Party, Baucus proved beyond a doubt that serious Republican support for any health care reform was totally impossible. He deserves credit for not losing a single Democrat in this process, while simultaneously proving the Republicans are the obstructionists we thought they were.

Die Insurance Companies, Die

Insurance companies oppose reform that will substantially reduce their profits?  And they say it will increase premiums and force health care costs higher? I thought that insurance companies were looking out for my best interests, not their pocketbooks!  This surely will be the report that kills health care reform for good, since you know, insurance companies really know how to take care of people.

Is this seriously news?  I mean come on.  Who in their right mind thought insurance companies wouldn't do everything in their power in order to keep their profits at record highs?  This is like tobacco companies releasing reports that there is no connection between smoking and lung cancer.  The least the insurance companies could do is tell the truth though.  Let's see if they in fact did that.  The answer might surprise you.

Most people would assume that people will react differently to a new policy, right?  Well AHIP and their accountants at PriceWaterhouseCoopers don't think that way.  A crucial problem with their report is that it assumes no behavioral changes in response to new policies.  In the world of this report, insurance companies would go bankrupt due to taxes, but as Ezra Klein illustrates, this report doesn't operate in the real world.

The tax on high-cost health-care plans will lead employers and consumers to demand cheaper plans that do more to control costs. In fact, PWC expects that, too. They just don't build it into their estimate. On Page 6, they say, "Although we expect employers to respond to the tax by restructuring their benefits to avoid it, we demonstrate the impact assuming it is employed." That's a bit like saying although I expect to eat doughnuts this morning, I will instruct my scale to act as if I had abstained.

Also, according to AHIP's report, health care costs have apparently become a constant, in that every dollar that a public program cuts from its payments to hospitals is a dollar the private health-care industry has to add to its reimbursements to hospitals.  As Klein states, this is simply untrue for any industry. Companies don't shift their cost burdens on customers because one company cut their costs.  That just doesn't happen in the real world, but apparently it does in the bizzaro world of insurance companies.

AHIP's report has one more fatal flaw and implausible claim according to Jonathan Cohn.  

By 2016, even some of the least generous plans offered through insurance exchanges would be subject to the new excise tax on high-value benefits. In other words, within a few years, the tax won't apply only to "Cadillac plans." It will apply to Chevys and maybe even some Kias, too.

But again, this claim is proven false and horribly misleading.  In order for AHIP and PWC to come to this conclusion, they assume that premiums in some parts of the country would be double the national average. But in fact, there is no data to suggest that this could ever happen.  In the real world, premiums exceed the national average by, at most, around 20 percent. The thought that this somehow could explode during a period in which reform will likely produce more nationalization of practices, is pretty hard to swallow.

So it has come to this.  Insurance companies have begun to use the same tactics of tobacco companies.  Sure shows you how much they care about the health and well being of their customers.

Congress, Don't Play with My Emotions

Oh Public Option, how I love you so.  Yes, similar to most other liberals, I have become enthralled by the public option issue and it's potential for both passage and success.  Yet, my hopes continue to go to to the Senate, where dreams go to die.  Regardless of the electoral realities of passing a public option, this minor aspect of health care reform has become the issue du jour for not only liberals, but conservatives attempting to kill any meaningful reform.  This issue is now one of the final points of contention in both the House and Senate, and Democrats continue to push for a public option, or at least a robust alternative.

So why is this so important?  Well in reality, most liberals don't want just a public 'option,' most of us would like a.... Single Payer System (GASP!!).  Although Max Baucus may have killed a nation wide public option, there are alternatives floating about, and even an amendment allowing states to implement something akin to a single payer system on a statewide level.  People may not even understand health care reform, or approve of it, but the majority of Americans want a public option and liberals have latched on to this in order to keep reform moving forward.  In fact, a majority is willing to allow Democrats to abandon bipartisanship in order to pass a bill with a public option. 

We as Americans need this option.  It saves us money.  It gives us the best coverage.  It gives our nation the best chance for future success.  We must end the status quo which has brought us inadequate care and a lack of choice at too high a cost.  Please Congress, stop toying with us and get it together.  If not for your political livelihood, but for the good of the people you represent.  

Protect The Insurance Company Profits

Something Terrible Has Happened...

The Public Option is gaining ground.  What's next...Milk and Cookies for War Criminals?  Would Dick Cheney be first in line for that one?  Can his heart even handle that anymore?

The public option will be debated in the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday, and although it is definitely an uphill climb, replacing these worthless health care co-ops with a strong, robust public option is no only possible, but absolutely necessary.  Senators Schumer and Rockefeller will introduce an amendment to the Finance Committee bill that will replace co-ops with a public option.  Why are they doing this you ask?  Maybe it's because co-ops aren't an alternative, they're meaningless.  Maybe it's because a public option is by far the cheapest, most cost effective reform measure?

This much is absolutely clear to anyone with half a brain: the public option not only increases choice, but also decreases cost to both the consumer and the nation.  Apparently Kent Conrad is at around 10% brain power since he still doesn't get this.  

I don't think a government-run plan best fits this culture. A plan that's not government-run has the best chance of succeeding in being passed into law.

According to Senator Conrad, a public option can't work because of....our culture?  Seriously Senator?  Culture?  Who have you been listening to Senator? Glenn Beck?  Does a public option run in opposition to White, American Culture?

But I digress.  Regardless of whether a public option goes counter to the history of American culture, it's cheaper and more effective.  According to Congress Daily, the Congressional Budget Office has stated:

In total, a public plan based on Medicare rates would save $110 billion over 10 years. That is $20 billion more than earlier estimates, a spokesman for House Speaker Pelosi said.

The public plan saves money because it pushes down premium prices. Lower premium prices across the country would mean the government would have to pay less in subsidies to low-income people who buy insurance through the exchange, according to CBO. Medicare rates are typically lower than those paid by private insurers, so using that formula would allow the public plan to charge considerably lower premiums to stay solvent.

In other words, the Blue Dogs want to spend $85 billion more than the liberals do. Moreover, the CBO is estimating savings to the government. Essentially, the $85 billion reflects reduced federal spending. In fact, savings for individuals and businesses paying lower premiums will be much larger than $85 billion, and politically, much more important.  

Due to these savings, it seems as if the Blue Dogs in the House are starting to come around on the public option.  24 Blue Dogs have said they support a public option, a far cry from the less than a dozen that Blue Dog co-chair Stephanie Herseth Sandlin could muster.  Combine the cost savings with the fact that 54% of residents in Blue Dog districts support a public plan, and you have a recipe for progressive success.

Still, why are some so intent on protecting an industry that is partly responsible for creating the current health care crisis?  Is it because the health insurance industry has spent at least $585,725,712 lobbying Congress to protect its investments and defeat competition from a public option?

Every dollar squeezed out of the private insurance company's profits is a dollar less that we'll have to pay either in healthcare costs or in taxes to cover healthcare costs. The two most direct ways to squeeze future profits are allowing Medicare to use its huge bargaining leverage to negotiate lower drug prices, and creating a public insurance option to compete with private insurers and also use its bargaining clout to get lower prices and thereby push private insurers to offer lower rates.  

Or we can continue to sit by and allow health insurers to gouge the elderly by charging them five times more than younger Americans.  The health insurance companies are able to keep our selfish interests in check when we can't. They are truly American heroes.

What's so American about competition anyway?

Social Bookmarking Soulmate

After a long, arduous, and often confusing search, I believe I may have found my social bookmarking soulmate, or at least a social bookmarking first date.  Chris39 is the liberal social bookmarking guru that I need in order to find more information regarding health care reform and various other liberal causes.  I have a feeling this relationship between Chris39 and I will be a strong one, but lets profile him to make sure he's "The One."

Chris is quite the social bookmarker and one can only hope he has a life outside of his 3,685 bookmarks.  Essentially, if you want to know about something in politics, especially if it has a liberal bent, Chris has probably read about it.  Hell, he's probably even given his two cents on the article and commented on it.  Scratch that, he's definitely commented on it.  Looking at Chris39's bookmarks, every single page he has bookmarked has a short description of that article as well as his personal opinion on either the article or the larger topic being discussed.  How prodigious is Chris on Delicious?  Looking at his bookmarks, he has tagged and bookmarked articles so obscure or so intensely focused on certain liberal issues that he is the only person who has saved that article.  That is pure dedication to staying informed on the news of the day as well.  Chris does the Delicious community a service by commenting on every post he has ever bookmarked, as he provides a brief, yet insightful summary of the article for anyone who is interested.  Chris doesn't just do this once or twice a week though, or even once or twice a day.  Instead, Chris is bookmarking and commenting on anywhere from five to ten articles.  As I said, pure dedication to knowledge and information.

Chris is also quite creative with his tagging, as he has over 400 tags ranging from ACLU to Zombie.  No, Chris isn't just doom and gloom, he also has a humorous side.  For the most part though, Chris stays true to his liberal self as the vast majority of his tags are political in nature.  His top five tags are Republican, Politics, Economics, Healthcare, and Obama.  That Republican tag can be misleading to the passive surveyor of Chris' page.  When Chris tags a story 'Republican,' it is typically about Republican corruption, incompetence, or articles that chastise the Republican Party and their policies.  These tags aren't just a hodgepodge of random descriptors though.  Chris is very thorough in his tagging, and will tag an article with every tag he feels describes the information present in that article in order to provide an apt, brief description of what is being discussed.  With his fourth most used tag being health care, which he has tagged 264 times, Chris is a valuable resource not only for me, but for any readers of this blog that would like more information on the current health care crisis and liberal reform measures.    

While Chris has bookmarked many articles on The Huffington Post, of which I am already and avid reader, he also exposed me to a couple great sites that have helped me think of ways to expand upon my blog topic.  First, I came across a site that Chris had bookmarked earlier this week title Billionaires for Wealthcare.  This satirical site advocating for the interests of Billionaires, because if we ain't broke don't fix it, takes a humorous approach to the lunacy of the right-wing health care protest rallies and the idiocy of voters looking out not for their own best interests, instead protecting the wealth of health care executives.  The second site Chris introduced me to is Matt Taibbi's Taibblog, which is a part of the larger blog True Slant.  Matt Taibbi is someone I can't believe I hadn't found before, especially after his enlightened post about how the media has helped completely sandbag health care reform.  His insightful and biting wit is great to read, and Taibbi tears apart the forces that are spreading false information about health care reform in order to kill any possible incarnation of reform.

I would like to invite all of the readers of my blog to go check out Chris39's Delicious page and scour through his bookmarked articles.  He has a great collection of information that will help anyone looking to be enlightened on the issue of health care reform.  Chris is definitely a solid resource for my readers and I, and I will be turning to him in for health care updates in the future.  Once again Chris39, I would like to thank you for our wonderful first date.  I have a feeling this relationship is definitely going to go the distance.  Do I hear wedding bells?  

Bill O'Reilly for Socialism

On his show, the O'Reilly Factor, Bill "Papa Bear" O'Reilly is known for tearing down almost all liberal causes and in the past has called President Obama a 'Communist,' but then decided to slander him a little less by labeling him a 'Socialist.' So, When Bill O' The Clown talks, we should all just tune out? He has nothing relevant or insightful to bring to the table, right?

Wrong?

Bombastic Fox News host Bill O'Reilly made a rather notable policy pronouncement on Wednesday's show: he supports the creation of a government-managed health care plan if it provides working Americans with an affordable option to other private insurance plans.

In other words, he supports the public option now being hotly debated in Congress.

This is getting ridiculous. Just last month Papa Bear was decrying health care reform and blasting the public option as socialism. Who can I trust now if Bill O'Reilly is for a government run health care option? Hell has officially frozen over.

Seriously though, Bill O'Reilly makes a great case for the public option itself, possibly a better one than many Democrats are currently making, and understands why the public option is essential to meaningful health care reform. Personally I'm just surprised that Mr. O'Reilly has apparently gained enough brain power in a month to understand the simple facts: the public option brings costs down.

I want, not for personally for me, but for working Americans, to have a option, that if they don’t like their health insurance, if it’s too expensive, they can’t afford it, if the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the folks.

Sounds like something a moderate Democrat would say in Congress, right? That was Bill O'Reilly talking. O'Reilly has essentially parroted President Obama's 'socialist' talking point on health care, that private insurance companies are not truly competing in a free market and a government run health care option would help bring the costs down for both consumers and the industry.

Howard Dean said it best:

Real health care reform that includes a new public health insurance option would give Americans a real choice and not reward for-profit health insurers with 47 milllion new customers. Real health care reform that includes a new public health insurance option would cut out the administrative waste of private insurers and begin changing the way health care is delivered. Real health care reform that includes a new public health insurance option could adopt the kind of payment reforms that would start to “hold down long-term growth in health spending” and encourage providers to deliver care more efficiently. We know that premiums in the public option would be about 10 percent lower and that a real robust plan that piggy backs off of Medicare’s infrastructure could save us somewhere between $75 billion and $150 billion over 10 years.

The public option is essential to bringing down the long term, skyrocketing costs of health care. Without a public option, health care reform loses its teeth and essentially becomes the ‘The Insurance Industry Profit Protection And Enhancement Act.'

Who really knows if Bill O'Reilly is truly for a government run option, or if he is for private exchanges, or non-profit co-operatives, or if he even knows what the hell he's talking about for that matter. What is important is that the argument for the public option in some way has begun to resonate with Mr. O'Reilly, at least to the point where he believes the argument is somewhat compelling. Will there be a public option in the final bill, if Max Baucus has his way then no. But that is only one of five committees. The President still wants a public option, the people want a public option, heck even doctors want a public option. Health Care Reform is certainly not dead. In fact, we are closer to the finish line than we have ever been before.

You Stay Classy, South Carolina

In this past week representatives of the state of South Carolina have delivered a great deal of extraordinarily vile and despicable rhetoric regarding President Obama and the plan to overhaul our health care system. First we have the good ol' boy, Congressman Joe Wilson, screaming 'You Lie!' to the President of the United States during a Joint Session of Congress. Classy.  Seriously, who besides Jim DeMint thought it was a good idea to vote for this man? What was the worst part about Congressman Wilson's unprecedented outburst you ask? The President was telling the truth and Joe Wilson was lying. Health Care Reform won't insure illegal immigrants. If you plan on heckling the President and claiming he's a liar in front of the nation, at least be right.

Then we get Senator Jim 'Waterloo' DeMint, who believes that President Obama is transforming the United States of America into Nazi Germany...because of a health care plan. While I have no problem with debate and disagreement, especially within the halls of Congress, please do not lower the level of political discourse to name calling and false accusations. Ms. Terkel makes a fantastic point Senator DeMint, where's you're plan to fix this system? You can cry socialism all you want Senator, but you have yet to deliver more than vitriolic rhetoric and haven't added any sort of policy plans into this debate.

You see Senator DeMint, in the reality-based world I live in our health care system is non-functioning at the moment. You are right though, when health care reform does pass you will have 'lost it all.' You and Congressman Wilson will have lost the hearts and minds of the American people, as if you already haven't. While your plan is to decry the fictional rise of socialism in our nation, President Obama and the Democratic Congress will be covering the over 47 million uninsured Americans. While you hope for failure, the American people continue to suffer from exponentially increasing health care costs.

Maybe I should just move to South Carolina, where no one is uninsured. Right?  

You Stay Classy, South Carolina.

Trifecta

Hello World!

Barack Obama was elected to bring hope and change to Washington; he was the chosen one who would bring an end to the bickering, the partisanship, the gridlock, and the never-ending bureaucracy.  But with his battle for health care reform, President Obama has essentially run into all of these Washington D.C. Beltway roadblocks in just one month, and passage of his plan for reform now seems as though it may actually be in serious jeopardy.  In all honesty though…it’s going to get done.  There, I said it.  Obama will pass health care reform by January 1^st 2010 (Please don’t let those words come back and bite me Mr. President).  The discussion shouldn’t even be about whether health care reform is necessary though; instead the question should be how much will this cost, how many currently uninsured individuals will end up being covered, and will it have the much discussed ‘public option.’  

But before we tread into the complex waters of health care reform and all the policy terminology that goes along with such a complicated and far reaching issue, lets talk about me and why I even care about President Obama, health care reform, and the political process in general.  I’m going to come clean with you right now; I am a bleeding heart liberal who’s mother worshiped at the alter of the Kennedy family and I have no qualms with spouting off my liberal beliefs and credentials.  I just wanted to get all that information out in the open before you continued reading this blog naively assuming I held no personal opinion or bias on the issue of health care reform.  I spent this past summer working as the communications intern for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in Washington DC, where the issue of health care essentially consumed my life from late June to early August.  Even after coming back home to Los Angeles, I couldn’t get rid of the health care bug, as the whole country was now in a heated debate that was now filled with myths, rumors, half-truths, and flat out lies instead of the facts. My experience with this topic day in and day out for forty hours a week gives me what I’d like to believe is a little perspective on the issue, regardless of whether it’s from the right or left side of the aisle. I truly do live to debate these issues and what better place to do that than out in the blogosphere, where millions of people can read what I have to say and decide to either agree or disagree with my reasoned opinion.

Now that we know where I stand, it’s pretty clear than I’m with President Obama on most of the issues relating to health care, but what exactly are the key issues of health care reform? Over fifteen weeks that is exactly what I hope to explore with this blog.  Health care is not just about a so-called ‘socialist government takeover,’ or even death panels.  There are many complexities that go along with this issue and it’s greater affect on society as a whole.  The overhaul of the health care system will have an immense impact on the national deficit in the coming years, for good and bad.  And more importantly than any of that, we may finally find out where President Obama actually stands on circumcision…seriously. 

The late Ted Kennedy decided early on in his Senate career to dedicate his life to the health care issue in this country.  Health care is a right, not a privilege and it is time to make that clear. One can only hope that the change that was voted for finally comes to fruition, and that meaningful health care reform occurs by the time this blog has run its course.

Blog Profile

As I take my place amongst my fellow liberals in the left-wing blogosphere, I’ve gone to one of the most respected and popular blogs in not only the progressive community, but also the blogosphere as a whole, in order to find direction for my own blog: Think Progress.  Think Progress is the blogging arm of and is fully funded by the Center for American Progress and is dedicated to providing a forum to discuss the advancement progressive ideas and policies, and is actually the 25th most popular blog on the Internet according to technorati. 

In the margins of the blog, Think Progress simplifies their mission into two categories: What We’re Fighting For and What We’re Fighting Against. Think Progress and its two affiliate blogs, The Wonk Room and Yglesias, are fighting against Public Corruption, Corporate Malfeasance, Incompetent Establishment, and the Radical Right-Wing Agenda, while it is fighting for Social and Economic Justice, Media Accountability, Global and Domestic Security, and most importantly for my blog Healthy Communities.

So, outside of the overall idea of promoting a progressive and liberal agenda, Think Progress is dedicated to Healthy Communities and most importantly meaningful Health Care Reform in America. As the blog is truly an amalgamation of different bloggers and researchers, the most prominent blogger for health care on Think Progress is Igor Volsky, who typically posts in The Wonk Room. Igor is co-author of Howard Dean’s Prescription for Real Healthcare Reform and has appeared on MSNBC, CNN, Fox Business, and CNBC television, and has been a guest on many radio shows. He frequently posts updates, usually one blogpost per day, to the blog and is actively involved in promoting meaningful health care reform and tearing down myths and false arguments against progressive ideas.

The blogpost, GrassleyWatch: What Does He Not Understand About ‘Fully Paid For’?, is one of Igor’s most interesting posts. It is part of a long running segment on Think Progress about Senator Chuck Grassley and his inconsistency on health care as well as his willingness to spread false information throughout the health care debate. In this post, Volsky blasts Grassley for advocating for less reform because the Senator believes that the adjusted deficit numbers argue that health care reform will increase the deficit. Volsky does a great job of tearing down Grassley’s argument piece by piece:

Grassley’s suggestion that health care reform would grow the deficit demonstrates that the Senator is either misinformed or deliberately manufacturing reasons to oppose health care reform. The budget framework requires a deficit-neutral health care reform bill, and the Democrats have pledged to fully finance coverage expansion from savings within the system and new sources of revenue.

Secondly, health care is the economy; health care is the deficit. Health care costs are the long-term driving force in federal and state budgets and represent the single most important factor influencing the Federal Government’s long-term fiscal balance. The Democrats’ health care reform will help re-orient the system from spending 80% of its dollars treating chronic illnesses into a system prevents the chronic conditions from developing in the first place. It will begin to change the way providers are paid so that we are rewarding quality care and not just quantity care.

This post gives the reader an idea of the content of the blog as well as the position that Think Progress takes in the health care debate.  Think Progress, while relying on factual information, is in fact selective of the facts that it actually takes into account.  In order to maintain the progressive nature of the blog, Think Progress bloggers such as Mr. Volsky refer to other bloggers and statistics that support their claims and further the progressive and liberal causes that Think Progress advocates, rather than taking a more mainstream, objective stance on issues such as Health Care Reform.

In another post, Mr. Volsky takes on the issue of the public option, why it is necessary for meaningful health care reform, and why the public option can’t be replaced by Co-Op insurers. He gives three reasons on why replacing the public option just isn’t the right answer:

Indeed, small member-driven cooperatives would lack all of the advantages of a Medicare-like public health insurance option. Without relying on Medicare’s reach and infrastructure, a network of co-ops could not: 1) achieve the market clout necessary to negotiate better rates with providers, 2) change the way care is delivered and 3) lower the costs of medical services.

Again, the content of the blog is undeniably biased towards a liberal viewpoint.  Think Progress bloggers such as Igor Volsky do not take the facts and present them objectively.  Instead, Think Progress uses facts and the research of other progressive minds to support their own claims.  This blog is not to be confused for a mainstream news site such as CNN, since it is in fact heavily biased towards a progressive standpoint on all issues, including Health Care Reform, hence the name Think Progress.

Think Progress for the most part relates directly to what I will be blogging about over the coming months. Specifically Igor Volsky’s posts on Health Care and progressive policies for health care reform are exactly what I look forward to discussing on my blog. Also, out of all of the progressive blogs out on the Internet, of which there are many, Think Progress and The Wonk Room rely on the most factual information and statistical information, making them reluctant to post unsubstantiated opinions and information, even if those facts are eventually skewed toward a more liberal viewpoint. 

Think Progress, like most political blogs, caters to a specific audience.  In the case of Think Progress, the audience is the progressive public and those who support President Obama's liberal agenda. This blog is not what is found in mainstream media and has an obvious bias that is brought about through it’s association with the left-leaning Center for American Progress. Since I plan on tackling the Health Care Reform debate from a liberal perspective, not only can I use information directly from this blog, I can also read stories and other blogs that have been linked to on Think Progress to conduct further research on health care reform. 

Yet, I will not be a Think Progress clone. I do plan on taking on the issue of media messaging and the war of words between liberals and conservatives as well as the intricacies of policy. I am truly interested in the media battle between the parties and I will be expanding on that much more than Think Progress does in their blog.  Despite this difference in content and focus, as a liberal blogger, Think Progress is essentially a gold mine of information for I Hate Sick People.

Voice Critique

The blog DailyKos is well known in political circles as one of the foremost progressive and liberal blogs on the Internet.  They're also known for their unabashed dislike of everything conservative and Republican, as well as their willingness to let their opinions be heard, unfiltered from the constraints of objectivity that is expected in the mainstream media. Even within in the vast liberal blogosphere, DailyKos has a distinct voice that simply hasn't been recreated by anyone else.  

So what is this voice?  Is it sarcastic?  Witty?  Just downright mean?  Lets just go with a combination of all three, as seen in the title of one of their most recent posts...

Pull The Plug On Chuck Grassley

Not only is the title downright hilarious, at least from my point of view, but also witty and relevant to the topic being discussed in the blogpost.  The writer's metaphor of 'pulling the plug' works well in the context of the current health care debate.  Not only does the blogger want Democrats to stop negotiations with Senator Grassley on health care, which lends itself to the pull the plug reference, but Chuck Grassley is also one of the key players in spreading the lies about phony death panels that would 'pull the plug on grandma' which hijacked the health care debate and sent it off into the land of the wing-nut.  

The post itself has some gems as well.

Really, Chuck? I thought we saw "democracy in action" last November when more than 125 million Americans voted, not when a few hundred extremists that the media chose to highlight screamed at town hall meetings.

The poster doesn't attempt to feign some sort of formality; he instead attacks Senator Grassley head on, referring to the Senator colloquially by referring to him by his first name and turning his own words, saying that the town halls filled with demagoguery and corporate influence were real democracy in action, against him in the most blunt and direct way possible.  The DailyKos blogger also takes a stand against town hall attendees, and due to their extreme right-wing stances, the blogger doesn't refer to the town hall goers as such, instead he labels them 'extremists,' which not only evokes an entirely different emotion in the reader, but allows the reader to identify which end of the ideological spectrum this blogger belongs to as well. 

Terms like 'extremist' and 'fear-mongering' are often used by DailyKos bloggers to describe their opponents, typically Republicans and conservatives.  This confrontational style and word choice is a key element of the blog's voice.  DailyKos bloggers aren't pretending to be anything less than lion-hearted liberals, and the word choice is crucial in reflecting that ideology as well as allowing DailyKos to narrow down its audience. Conservatives, and possibly even moderates, probably wont be the followers of a blog disparaging the conservative takeover of town halls, and likely don't want to hear about the metaphorical 'plug pulling' of a Republican Senator.  DailyKos is unabashedly liberal and wants the reader to know that.

Sometimes even Democrats and liberals are taken on by DailyKos bloggers.

It's hard not to compare the two -- last Saturday, Ted Kennedy spoke from the grave in support of real health care reform:

"I also want you to know that even though I am ill, I'm committed to do everything I can to achieve access to health care for everyone in my country. This has been the political cause of my life."

And today, the President let us know what he thinks about access to health care for everyone. From senior advisor David Axelrod:

As to the fate of a government option plan to compete with private insurance, Axelrod suggested the controversial concept is gone but not forgotten: "The spirit that led him to support a public option is still very much at play here and so you know he wants competition. He wants choice."

The voice is unrelentingly sarcastic and satirical, especially when given the correct context. President Obama is being compared to the Liberal Lion, the Late Ted Kennedy, in his commitment to Health Care Reform.  

The Kennedy-Obama analogy is yet another way that the writer narrows down his audience.  One must not only be concerned with liberal causes that were advocated by Senator Kennedy throughout his illustrious career, but the reader must be informed about politics and the day to day aspects of governing and political discourse. Without being aware of the context, the reader is likely to be lost in the shuffle and unable to grasp the content.

Now, let's discuss the comparison itself. Obama is painted by the blogger as a typical politician who is willing to compromise on his core beliefs in order to appease Republicans, while Ted Kennedy is idealized as a champion of progressive Health Care Reform and a true believer in liberal causes.  What is also important about this comparison is that it further narrows the audience from simply Democrats to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.  The blogger is criticizing the President for being too conservative!  Seriously...this isn't a joke.  The President, who's being painted as a socialist by the right wing, is being attacked by the left for not being liberal or progressive enough.  

The end of this entry gets back to the satirical and sarcastic nature of the blog.

Isn't that special? That spirit and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee, but it sure as hell won't do a damn thing to help you pay the medical bills.

First off, I may be reading too much into this, but I'm pretty sure DailyKos just referenced Dana Carvey's Saturday Night Live sketches as the Church Lady with that rhetorical question.  

In all seriousness though, this segment effectively compares spirit to action by analogizing the public option to a cup of coffee. He explains that the 'spirit,' or desire, for a public option, along with a dollar, can get you something simple and frivolous, like coffee. Yet, in the reality-based world we live in, 'spirit' for the public option isn't going to get you very far, or much quality health care for that matter.

Lastly, there is one thing that ties all of these posts together with one unifying voice.  They're all short sentences within short paragraphs.  The blogger doesn't go on about the same topic; instead he keeps the post succinct and relevant.  This direct style adds to the confrontational, aggressive, and sarcastic voice of the blog DailyKos.

And seriously, who doesn't enjoy a good Saturday Night Live reference?