Displaying 301 To 330 Of 485 Comments Senate Reaches Health Care Reform Agreement From Media Matters for America: » Posted By Scheherazade On December 20, 2009 @ 1:26 pm From Think Progress: » Posted By Scheherazade On December 20, 2009 @ 1:14 pm I can’t think of time in recent history that I’ve wanted to give someone a hug so badly. You may feel “demoralized,” but you truly are an inspiration to us all. 🙂 *HUGS* » Posted By Scheherazade On December 20, 2009 @ 1:06 pm From CNN’s political ticker:
Axelrod: ‘We’re on the one yard line’ Note: I hate it when they use sports analogies. I don’t understand them. 🙁 » Posted By Scheherazade On December 20, 2009 @ 1:03 pm No problem. I’m having a look at that now. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. » Posted By Scheherazade On December 20, 2009 @ 12:15 pm Do you have the URL for the FDL article handy? I’d like to look at that myself. **Update** I think I found it. Is that the one? » Posted By Scheherazade On December 20, 2009 @ 11:59 am From the New York Times:
Pass the Bill A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy. Declare that you » Posted By Scheherazade On December 20, 2009 @ 11:46 am From The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room: Conrad: Final health bill will have to hew closely to Senate’s version Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, suggested that if the health bill were made to more closely resemble the House’s bill, it would jeopardize Democrats’ ability to get 60 votes in the Senate. “I think any bill is going to have to be very close to what the Senate has passed, because we’re still going to have to get 60 votes,” Conrad said during an appearance on Fox News Sunday. “And anyone who has watched this process has seen how challenging it is to get 60 votes.” The Senate bill differs from the House version in several key ways, not least of which is its exclusion of a public option of any kind, whereas the House version has a full government-run plan. The Senate bill also opts for a basket of taxes, including a tax on high-value insurance plans, while the House bill relies on an income tax for millionaires. There will be a conference between the House and Senate to resolve some differences between the bill, though momentum seems to lie behind the Senate bill staying intact. “It is very clear that the final pill [sic] to pass in the United States is going to have to be very close to the bill that’s been negotiated here,” said Conrad.
» Posted By Scheherazade On December 20, 2009 @ 10:50 am You just had to go there, didn’t you? 😉 Heh. » Posted By Scheherazade On December 20, 2009 @ 10:46 am From Talking Points Memo: Abortion Compromise Unconstitutional? Key House Members Raise Objection Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), author of an early abortion compromise that would have required insurance companies to segregate federal and private dollars, and to finance abortions through the latter pool, is disappointed, but ultimately supportive. Capps says:
I am pleased the Senate appears to be moving forward on health reform, however, I am disappointed that women’s access to full reproductive health care is again paying the price. The provisions regarding abortion services in the underlying Senate bill, based on my earlier proposal, ensured that federal funds would not be used to pay for this legal medical procedure yet still provide women in need with access to this procedure. This latest compromise is far from perfect but it will allow most middle and low income patients to purchase comprehensive health insurance plans, something the House bill language would prevent. As we move forward with this historic legislation, we must ensure all patients can purchase health care plans that best meet their needs. I want to thank the Senators, especially Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Patty Murray (D-WA), who worked to maintain a common sense compromise approach to this challenging issue.
But Reps. Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Louise Slaughter (D-NY)–co-chairs of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucuse–say they’re not sold. They say the new compromise is possibly unconstitutional, and that they and other pro-choice House members could still reject it.
As the Co-Chairs of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, we have serious reservations about the abortion provision included in the U.S. Senate’s health care bill. This provision is not only offensive to people who believe in choice, but it is also possibly unconstitutional. As we have maintained throughout this process, health care reform should not be misused to take away access to health care. The more than 190-member Caucus will review this language carefully as we move forward on health care reform.
The Nelson compromise may ultimately allow health care reform to pass in the Senate–but with strong opposition from both pro-life and pro-choice members and constituent groups, the language still an open question in the House. Onward to conference!
» Posted By Scheherazade On December 20, 2009 @ 10:26 am You’ll probably be better able to handle issues relating to Climate Change. I’m afraid that’s not my area of expertise. Besides you’re a scientist. 😉 » Posted By Scheherazade On December 20, 2009 @ 9:32 am kk inc email in just a second » Posted By Scheherazade On December 20, 2009 @ 8:57 am Thanks. 🙂 No I don’t. 🙁 » Posted By Scheherazade On December 20, 2009 @ 8:54 am I tried to publish this to the Speaker’s Corner, but it doesn’t seem to be working. From the New York Times: Why the Senate Should Vote Yes on Health Care » Posted By Scheherazade On December 20, 2009 @ 8:53 am Hmm.. picture isn’t showing up on the Home Page. » Posted By Scheherazade On December 20, 2009 @ 8:46 am Thanks. 🙂 I tried to embed a link to the MTP broadcast, but I couldn’t seem to get it to work. 😐 Thank you for the link btw. I had not seen that one. 🙂 » Posted By Scheherazade On December 20, 2009 @ 8:20 am Awesome post! 😀 » Posted By Scheherazade On December 20, 2009 @ 9:02 am I didn’t get one! 🙁 Hehe. 😉 » Posted By Scheherazade On December 19, 2009 @ 8:59 pm Your words are speaking to us all I think. 🙂 » Posted By Scheherazade On December 19, 2009 @ 8:51 pm Un(der)reported News—Weekend Edition From Aljazeera: Iranians mourn dissident cleric Montazeri’s funeral was held in the holy city of Qom on Monday, amid speculation by some analysts that it could become a catalyst for fresh opposition protests. The reformist website Jaras said that hundreds of thousands of people joined a procession for Montazeri. “They were shouting slogans in his support and also in support of Mirhossein Mousavi [an opposition leader],” the website reported. The opposition Kalme website reported that a bus carrying opposition supporters to Qom was stopped and some of those on board arrested. It also reported some small clashes following the funeral. …continued at Aljazeera. » Posted By Scheherazade On December 21, 2009 @ 5:18 am » Posted By Scheherazade On December 21, 2009 @ 5:14 am Thank you. » Posted By Scheherazade On December 19, 2009 @ 9:38 pm Is there a way I can contact nellie, K7, or AdLib? I have a question. Several actually. » Posted By Scheherazade On December 19, 2009 @ 8:52 pm From Daily Kos:
Will Stupak block the Senate bill? So Bart Stupak (D-MI-01) not only opposes the abortion “compromise” that’s allowed the Senate to get to 60 votes for passing it’s version of the health care bill, but he’s been working with the Senate Republicans to undermine that “compromise.” That sets up an interesting question. How many of the 64 Democrats who voted with Stupak the first time around were just out looking a freebie “conservative” vote, thinking it’d be killed in conference, are going to stick with him if he looks to block the Nelson deal? If Stupak holds 45 or so of his 64, he’d have the numbers to start dictating terms, and Stupak becomes the new Nelson. And what will Nelson’s response be? Ordinarily, you could expect a Senator whose deal was blown up (especially one who’s been demanding no changes be made to it) to dig in and hold the line. But might Nelson’s fall-back position be that there simply must be some abortion-blocking language in the final product, and if it has to be Stupak’s, well, so be it? In hindsight — especially in hindsight — allowing that House vote on Stupak appears to be an enormous mistake. I say in hindsight, even though it certainly showed every indication of creating gigantic problems in the future, because it was very simply never 100% knowable whether the bill could have gotten out of the House without allowing it. But either way, Democrats who simply went along for the ride on that amendment, looking to burnish their “conservative” credentials but all the while secretly thinking it’d disappear in conference, have instead ended up emboldening Stupak to the point where allegedly he felt safe working with the Senate GOP on engineering a deal that endangers this bill all over again. How many of them were there? No one can say for sure, but we may find out soon enough, if the Nelson language stays intact in whatever package is presented to the House for approval. My guess is that Stupak could lose about half of his 64, and that’d be enough to get the bill through. But don’t expect many of them to own up to flip-flopping on abortion. They’ll have the luxury instead of perhaps saying they’re happier now with the absence of the public option from the bill — unless, of course, they’re pro-public option and anti-abortion. But even then, it’s not likely you’ll have seen the last of the Stupak amendment. Stupak, I would guess, is now the new Hyde amendment, and that means you’re likely to see it offered as the motion to recommit on appropriations bills (and maybe some others, depending on subject matter) for the foreseeable future. If so, the repercussions of the late evening decision to allow that vote to go forward in the name of expediency may be with us for a very, very long time.
» Posted By Scheherazade On December 19, 2009 @ 1:40 pm LOL It’s not really that bad. 🙂 I’ll keep a look out for you via my originpoint account in case you should happen to change your mind. » Posted By Scheherazade On December 19, 2009 @ 1:36 pm From Talking Points Memo: CBO: Health Care Bill Now $871 Billion, Public Option Compromise Does Not Lower Premiums That’s about $22 billion more than the bill was originally expected to cost, before the new changes–including nixing the public option–were offered to the bill. Democrats replaced the public option with a new plan to allow national or multi-state, non-profit insurance plans, regulated by the federal government, to sell insurance on state exchanges. The CBO has concluded that, on average, premiums will be the same as they would have been if the Senate had the public option, but that the public option saved the federal government more money by putting downward pressure on the premiums of low-cost private plans, which will be heavily subsidized. Senior Democratic aides are suggesting that the bill could reduce the deficit, compared to deficits projected under current law, by as much as $1.3 trillion. You can read the report here (PDF), and a summary on the CBO’s blog here.
» Posted By Scheherazade On December 19, 2009 @ 1:34 pm Umm… well yes, but I’m not sure how to show you via this medium. 🙁 Hard to explain, but I’m not sure it will work. If you want to email me I can show you what the source code looks like. Send me one to madefortv@originpoint.com and I’ll send you the source code from my other email addy. The originpoint one is a “screening” email if you will. So I don’t much care where it gets posted. » Posted By Scheherazade On December 19, 2009 @ 1:30 pm From Talking Points Memo*: One Premium, Two Checks: How Abortion Will Be Paid For Under The Nelson Compromise But what he did get might still draw the ire of pro-choice activists and legislators. According to a senior Senate leadership aide, under the Nelson compromise, “[i]ndividuals receiving subsidies will have one premium that they pay with two distinct transactions.” Put another way: If you’re buying insurance with help from the government, and the policy you want to buy covers abortions, you have to write two checks (or authorize two credit card transactions, etc.) for your plan. If the plan costs $1000 a month, and the insurer plans to sequester $50 to put into a pool that covers abortions, you have to make one payment of $950 and a separate payment of $50. So far, leading pro-choice Democrats in the Senate say they can abide by that. Here’s Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Patty Murray (D-WA):
We said all along that we wanted to ensure there was a firewall between private and public funds — this compromise achieves that. And we said we would stop Stupak — which we did. Let’s be clear — we were both much happier with the Capps language and the language in the underlying bill. But compromise was necessary to get a health care bill for the American people, and this compromise achieves that. We know that Republicans are already gearing up their opposition to the compromise on pro-life grounds. And Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) may be gearing up to oppose it. But what will other pro-life and pro-choice Dems in the House say? We’ll let you know as reactions crystallize.
*Yes, I love that website. It kicks total ass. » Posted By Scheherazade On December 19, 2009 @ 1:24 pm From Talking Points Memo: Snowe Clinches Deal To Turn Logic On Head » Posted By Scheherazade On December 19, 2009 @ 1:20 pm Don’t go sufring your way over to Media Matters then. 😉 I go there several times a day and continually find that I soon start fantasizing about burning Roger Ailes’ home down to the ground. » Posted By Scheherazade On December 19, 2009 @ 1:16 pmComments Posted By Scheherazade
Obama adviser David Axelrod tells John King that his administration is on the cusp of reforming health care.
I do appreciate it.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 17, 2009
The final health bill to pass Congress will have to hew closely to the Senate’s version to be successful, a top Democrat warned Sunday.
A number of key pro-choice Democrats–including Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Patty Murray (D-WA)–have said they can get behind the new abortion compromise in Senate health care legislation.
By JOE BIDEN
Published: December 19, 2009
Tens of thousands of Iranians have turned out to attend the funeral of Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, a senior cleric who was critical of the Iranian government.
…
by David Waldman
The soon-to-be amended Senate health care bill will cost $871 billion over 10 years according to a new, long-awaited report by the Congressional Budget Office.
The bill remains a big deficit slayer–$132 billion in the first 10 years. Over the next 10 years, CBO warns all estimates are very uncertain. But here’s a key conclusion: “CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law–with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP.”
In the House health care bill, consumers who receive federal premium subsidies would be forbidden from buying any insurance policy that covers abortion. That provision–the so-called Stupak amendment–threatened to blow up health care reform. Originally, it’s the language Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) wanted to see in the Senate health care bill. In the end, he didn’t get that.
We said we would not accept language that prohibited a woman from using her own private funds for her legal reproductive health care — this compromise meets that test.
After months in which the Senate health care bill was held up over efforts to find some form in which she would agree to sign on to it, Sen. Snowe (R-ME) now says she will oppose it because it is being “rushed.”
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats