Stats

Comments Posted By AdLib

Displaying 18,121 To 18,150 Of 19,504 Comments

Religious Right Holds “Prayercast” To Stop Health Care Bill

Joe Lieberman?

OT, how are you feeling, Kalima?

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 8:44 pm

Can’t wait to read it, really liked this post, well done!

The dichotomy of the most hateful and intolerant people around politics claiming to be religious Christians is fascinating.

The leaders of these political/religious groups all seem like cynical unbelievers who are just manipulating the people who are their faithful, and the faithful seem like mindless lemmings who can somehow rationalize their hatred in the name of love.

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 8:43 pm

Palin/Jesus 2012!

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 8:38 pm

WWJWHCF.

Who
Would
Jesus
Withhold
Health
Care
From?

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 8:33 pm

Conferees on the Senate side

I appreciated Al cutting him off though I imagine millions of Americans would love to cut him off, one way or another.

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 6:20 pm

Progressive Senators to Contact NOW

No sweat. For a timely or newsworthy item like this, make sure you don’t select Speakers Corner as a category or it won’t appear on the front page.

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 2:11 pm

A Mandate for Civil Disobedience

As long as there was a Public Option, I was not as bothered about the mandate…because it didn’t mean the government was acting as the enforcer for a corporate entity.

Now that the PO is gone, I’m PO’d. And I can’t support this huge step deeper into a plutocracy.

I don’t expect the Dems to be this clever anymore but using judo right now would make a lot of sense. The conservatives want to gut this bill, keep gutting it until it contains just the decent provisions, covering the 30 million, adding to Medicare, ending pre-existing conditions, etc.

Then come back next year through Reconciliation or use the Nuclear option to implement a Public Option and go ahead and mandate insurance then.

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 10:29 pm

nellie, the sad thing is that the Progressives in the House may be flexible if it’s this or nothing whereas the Senate asses like Nelson and Lieberman would be just as happy if the bill failed.

For a bill to have any chance of passing, it can only lean to the right and the Senate’s bill.

Then the House liberals would have to swallow hard and sign on.

I don’t know, this is all disintegrating Dem solidarity and enthusiasm.

If only Reid had a spine and started off by threatening the Nuclear Option if Repubs and Blue Dogs wouldn’t collaborate.

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 7:45 pm

First, did you get my email?

Second, there was a lengthy discussion about reconciliation with Bernie Sanders and another guest on KO tonight. Apparently the Dems would need Committee Chairmen to go along with it and some like Baucus wouldn’t be likely to. So, the read I got is that it would be a difficult thing to get to.

Damn right wing Dems, sabotaging everything worthwhile!

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 7:38 pm

Here’s the quote I was referring to:

If the conference committee drew up a compromise between the more progressive House bill and the more conservative Senate bill, it simply would not get the 60 votes it would need in the Senate.

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 7:31 pm

Night, bito!

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 7:29 pm

I read it very differently. It expresses that any changes to the Senate bill could doom the bill in the Senate.

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 7:28 pm

Thanks. It seems to say that we can’t expect any improvements to the final bill, that the final bill will pretty much be whatever comes out of The Senate.

That would be very troubling.

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 7:26 pm

I think it may be in the House Bill but it’s been removed from the Senate Bill which means it will be gone from the final bill.

I too would hate to give Republicans reason to celebrate, I want a HC reform bill passed.

But I don’t want a citizen slavery to Insurance corporations bill passed.

If they could at least remove the mandatory buy-in language I might be able to get around some of the other horrible stuff.

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 7:02 pm

I wouldn’t go so far as giving the GOP credit for Lieberman being a douche.

I’ve known douches, douches aren’t friends of mine and Senator Lieberman, you are a douche.

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 1:59 pm

Actually, Podesta is a DLCer who was part of the Clinton Admin.

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 1:47 pm

My bet is that if we didn’t have computers, a lot less people would be informed as to what’s really going on and wouldn’t be protesting at all.

The blessing and curse of technology and a corporate MSM.

Good questions you’ve asked. Under Bush we gave up many rights, many of which still are gone.

This bill would take away freedom of choice on health care and freedom to conduct our lives as we deem best financially.

Each time we lose more freedoms, we’re told it will make us more secure. And if it doesn’t…we will have less freedom to use towards redressing it.

Let’s consider this, if the insurance corporations are this powerful now that they can shape legislation to suit them and control the Senate, how much more powerful will they be as a legal monopoly to which the U.S. Treasury and all Americans by law must give their money?

And by becoming even wealthier and more powerful, how will the prospects of beating them at a future time in reforming health care even be conceivable?

IMO, the downfall here is in narrowly looking at aspects or in the short term. Like training the Mujaheddin, it seemed like a perfect near term solution but the blowback has been disastrous.

The near term effects of this bill would be positive but the long term effects seem to me to be very troubling.

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 12:52 pm

I know how you feel, Sue. The polls out today now show a majority of Dems opposing the passage of the bill, many of us are feeling cheated out of something the majority of this nation has clearly asked for.

Is this a declaration of the United States as a plutocracy? Perhaps, but we still have the numbers and always will.

Our voices and votes do matter and contacting our Senators to insist that reform be accomplished is something we can do.

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 12:39 pm

All we have to go on is what the top Dems are saying will be in the bill. The problem with wait-and-see is as I mentioned below, there will be no time to have our voices heard and have an impact before the vote.

If all goes to plan, the Dems will present the bill next week then quickly vote on it.

Granted, there will be the step of conferencing with the House afterwards, if it passes but anything not contained in the Senate Bill can’t be added in conference.

We need to do as you suggested yesterday, speak up now because next week will be too late.

As for Krugman, his points on how it helps with Medicare are solid but he completely ignores other provisions, especially the impact on those under Medicare age being mandated to buy expensive policies that can be raised at any time to any amount by insurance corporations. He is a sharp guy who I have often agreed with but taking just one slice of this complex issue and declaring the bill should be passed without balancing all the provisions, is an issue for me.

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 10:10 am

I appreciate your feelings on this.

The thing is, The Senate wants to pass this bill before Christmas. That means, if they succeed in doing so, it will be passed one week from today, at the latest.

If the bill comes out next week, it will be voted on quickly. There won’t be time then to lobby our Senators.

These may be the last few days and our only opportunity for people to have any impact on the decision making process before a vote takes place.

One need not assume anything in particular will be in or out of the bill but we can surely express to our Senators what we are not willing to approve of if it was to appear in the final bill.

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 9:51 am

Howard Dean wrote the following article in the WaPo today which explains his position and analysis of the bill:

Health-care bill wouldn’t bring real reform

By Howard Dean
Thursday, December 17, 2009

If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current health-care bill. Any measure that expands private insurers’ monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform.

Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these.

Real health-care reform is supposed to eliminate discrimination based on preexisting conditions. But the legislation allows insurance companies to charge older Americans up to three times as much as younger Americans, pricing them out of coverage.

The bill was supposed to give Americans choices about what kind of system they wanted to enroll in. Instead, it fines Americans if they do not sign up with an insurance company, which may take up to 30 percent of your premium dollars and spend it on CEO salaries — in the range of $20 million a year — and on return on equity for the company’s shareholders.

Few Americans will see any benefit until 2014, by which time premiums are likely to have doubled. In short, the winners in this bill are insurance companies; the American taxpayer is about to be fleeced with a bailout in a situation that dwarfs even what happened at AIG.

From the very beginning of this debate, progressives have argued that a public option or a Medicare buy-in would restore competition and hold the private health insurance industry accountable. Progressives understood that a public plan would give Americans real choices about what kind of system they wanted to be in and how they wanted to spend their money.

Yet Washington has decided, once again, that the American people cannot be trusted to choose for themselves. Your money goes to insurers, whether or not you want it to.

To be clear, I’m not giving up on health-care reform. The legislation does have some good points, such as expanding Medicaid and permanently increasing the federal government’s contribution to it. It invests critical dollars in public health, wellness and prevention programs; extends the life of the Medicare trust fund; and allows young Americans to stay on their parents’ health-care plans until they turn 27. Small businesses struggling with rising health-care costs will receive a tax credit, and primary-care physicians will see increases in their Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.

Improvements can still be made in the Senate, and I hope that Senate Democrats will work on this bill as it moves to conference. If lawmakers are interested in ensuring that government affordability credits are spent on health-care benefits rather than insurers’ salaries, they need to require state-based exchanges, which act as prudent purchasers and select only the most efficient insurers. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) offered this amendment during the Finance Committee markup, and Democrats should include it in the final legislation. A stripped-down version of the current bill that included these provisions would be worth passing.

In Washington, when major bills near final passage, an inside-the-Beltway mentality takes hold. Any bill becomes a victory. Clear thinking is thrown out the window for political calculus. In the heat of battle, decisions are being made that set an irreversible course for how future health reform is done. The result is legislation that has been crafted to get votes, not to reform health care.

I have worked for health-care reform all my political life. In my home state of Vermont, we have accomplished universal health care for children younger than 18 and real insurance reform — which not only bans discrimination against preexisting conditions but also prevents insurers from charging outrageous sums for policies as a way of keeping out high-risk people. I know health reform when I see it, and there isn’t much left in the Senate bill. I reluctantly conclude that, as it stands, this bill would do more harm than good to the future of America.

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 8:19 am

It is kind of like a hostage situation though I don’t think the “kidnappers” would learn from being denied their ransom.

I don’t agree with this dynamic. I would compare this bill to a pharmaceutical pill that lowers your blood pressure but is discovered years later to cause a heart attack.

The problem is that people are suffering today and need coverage. The insidious nature of this bill is that in order to help people today, we may have to voluntarily damage our freedom and our future.

I don’t think we have to accept this dynamic. We need to get those who can’t afford insurance covered but we need to protect the citizens from this nation from being oppressed by a permanent financial serfdom to insurance corporations.

We can’t allow the Dems to walk away if this bill isn’t passed, we must redouble our efforts to get it done through reconciliation or by disarming the filibuster. It may be controversial either way but the Dems we can trust need to stand up for us now if they ever would.

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 7:52 am

I agree, Dean is on the right track with this. I’m afraid that there is a bit of tunnelvision with Obama and Dems in the Senate. As Lawrence O’Donnell mentioned from personal experience, when Congress gets close to passage, they focus solely on pushing a bill across the finish line rather than what the bill has become.

We must continue to powerfully demand and work for true health care reform to be in place in months. As Dean believes, I just don’t think this decimated, corrupted bill is what we need to settle for.

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 7:42 am

KQ, I respect you and your position on this and I know you and many here have an urgent and vested interest in it.

However, let us please put aside trying to disqualify opposing opinions by branding them emotional.

As to your questions:

1. Why would people not be charged more for existing preconditions and a public plan won

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 7:31 am

I am a huge fan of Franken and don’t hold this against him. He is trying to be a loyal Dem and do what the party leadership is asking him to do.

I feel absolutely that Franken is as disgusted by what this bill has become as many of us are.

His loyalty to the party and Obama comes first and though I appreciate and respect him for that trait (Lieberman has no idea how to even spell “loyalty”) but short term loyalty to the party will mean longtime harm to the party and the nation.

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 6:54 am

Of the possibilities you suggest, the proposition that those who criticize the bill are all misleading the public out of spite is the least viable.

The proof is in the pudding, the Obama Admin has attacked Dean personally but could not refute a single one of his charges. Dean is correct, as is Olbermann and all the other critics.

The Dems are pushing this across the finish line for political reasons, they believe that if it fails, it will harm the Dems and Pres. Obama.

This is very short term thinking and I don’t agree in any case. I believe that The Dem base will be even more demoralized by this concession and legal slavery to Insurance corporations and Obama and the Dems will not see support for them turn around for the superficial reason that they passed a bill they call “reform”.

IMO, if they pass this abomination, it will hurt the Dems in a far greater way and for decades to come.

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 6:50 am

The unfortunate thing is, Obama no longer has any control over this, it’s all in the hands of Reid and the Senate.

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 6:38 am

Notice how even this desperate plea and regrettable use of fear tactics from the Obama Admin do not refute any of the charges by critics.

The charges are accurate and this bill is a travesty.

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 6:36 am

Oh, I’m right with you on that but I do think we have 51 votes in The Senate for a Public Option or Medicare buy in.

If we could get to reconciliation or use the Nuke Option, that is.

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 12:19 am

Thanks for the article. The invisible hand of the Insurance companies was quite at play then too, if not as reflected in the article. Remember good ol’ Harry and Louise?

» Posted By AdLib On December 17, 2009 @ 12:10 am