Health Care Bill Passes House; Senate Next

I’m sure I’ll have plenty to write about this legislation as it continues to make its way through Congress and as its effects become more clear.  Quite frankly, I get the feeling that there is more I don’t like about it right now that there is I do like about it.  Supposedly, that’s the process that must take place for progress to be made … someday.  But this is today and the American people did not get out of the House what they voted to get out of the House.  Smart people will assess the landscape that developed this year as Democrats sold out issue after issue to appease their corporate masters and desperately trying to avoid mean-sounding ads in the media next year.  As to that latter point, does any sane person really expect future Republican challengers to go easy on Democrats because they voted against this bill?

The main point I wanted to highlight in this post is the truly disgusting and immoral Stupak Amendment – the one that was written to prevent private insurance plans from covering abortions.  Somehow, something like this still has the ability to stun me.  As written, a woman’s private insurance would be prevented from covering a procedure that she and a doctor came to a decision about.  This issue must be resolved – and so-called advocacy groups are failing time and time again to do anything about it.

I’m going to copy and paste a list from another blog.  It is the list of the 64 Democrats who voted with the Cons to pass this foul intrusion into women’s lives.  Not so surprisingly, only 2 of the Democrats voting for it were women.  So 62 male Democratic Representatives voted to make a procedure for women even harder to perform.  I’m keeping an eye on their 2010 races.  If some look close, I’m donating to their opponents’ campaigns.  If NARAL and Planned Parenthood won’t hold these trolls accountable, I hope the people will.  Emphasis below is mine.

For future reference, here is the list of Democrats who voted “Aye” on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.

AL-2 Bright, Bobby; AL- 5 Griffith, Parker; AL-7 Davis, Artur; AR-1 Berry, Robert; AR-2 Snyder, Victor; AR-4 AR-4 Ross, Mike; CA-18 Cardoza, Dennis; CA-20 Costa, Jim; CA-43 Baca, Joe; CO-3 Salazar, John.

GA-2 Bishop, Sanford; GA-8 Marshall, James; GA-12 Barrow, John; KY-6 Chandler, Ben; IL-3 Lipinski, Daniel; IL-12 Costello, Jerry; IN-2 Donnelly, Joe; IN-8 Ellsworth, Brad; IN-9 Hill, Baron; LA-3 Melancon, Charles; ME-2 Michaud, Michael.

MA-2 Neal, Richard; MA-9 Lynch, Stephen; MI-5 Kildee, Dale; MI-1 Stupak, Bart; MN-7 Peterson, Collin; MN-8 Oberstar, James; MS-1 Childers, Travis; MS-4 Taylor, Gene; MO-4 Skelton, Ike; NM-2 Teague, Harry

NC-2 Etheridge, Bob; NC-7 McIntyre, Mike; NC-11 Shuler, Heath; ND Pomeroy, Earl; OH-1 Driehaus, Steve; OH-6 Wilson, Charles;  OH-9 Kaptur, Marcy; OH-16 Boccieri, John; OH-17 Ryan, Timothy; OH-18 Space, Zachary.

OK-2 Boren, Dan; PA-3 Dahlkemper, Kathleen; PA-4 Altmire, Jason; PA-10 Carney, Christopher; PA-11 Kanjorski, Paul; PA-12 Murtha, John; PA-14 Doyle, Michael; PA-17 Holden, Tim; RI-2 Langevin, James

SC-5 Spratt, John; TN-4 Davis, Lincoln; TN-5 Cooper, Jim; TN-6 Gordon, Barton; TN-8 Tanner, John; TX-16 Reyes, Silvestre; TX-23 Rodriguez, Ciro; TX-27 Ortiz, Solomon; TX-28 Cuellar, Henry.

UT-2 Matheson, Jim; VA-5 Perriello, Thomas; WV-1 Mollohan, Alan; WV-3 Rahall, Nick; WI-7 Obey, David.

Here is the list of 26 Democrats who voted “Aye” on Stupak (to discriminate against women) but “Nay” on the final bill (H.R. 3962; to deny Americans health care choice):

Altmire, Barrow, Boccieri, Boren, Bright, Chandler, Childers, Davis (AL), Davis (TN), Gordon (TN), Griffith, Holden, Marshall, Matheson, McIntyre, Melancon, Peterson, Ross, Shuler, Skelton, Tanner, Taylor, Teague

Catholic Church & Life

Wouldn’t it be nice to hear about the Catholic church requiring Congresspersons to amend legislation so that people that were already born weren’t killed by U.S. military action?  They keep saying they’re against wars, invasions and occupations – on the pretense of preferring people stay alive.  But there was no strong-arming Representatives to hold up legislation to invade Afghanistan or Iraq.

This particular exercise was futile for additional reasons: private insurers are already barred from using federal funds to pay for abortions.  That’s been the law for years.  This amendment is simply political grand-standing by a group of people who love to proclaim how victimized they are.  The amendment would prevent women who buy private insurance from being able to us that insurance to pay for an abortion in the unlikely event they need one.

This is encouraging:

Female Democrats on the Rules Committee, including Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter, left the room during consideration of the Stupak amendment and didn’t cast a vote.

They should do more than this.  They should vote against the bill in its entirety if the amendment hangs on to the end.  Why?

“This amendment would violate the spirit of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for all, by creating a two-tiered system that would punish women, particularly those with low and modest incomes,” said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America in a late-night release.

What procedures do Catholics object to men having?  None?  Gee, I wonder why that is.  The Catholic church wants to set up a health care system where women continue to be treated as second-class persons.  In the 21st century.  That’s immoral.

[Update]: As another blogger reminded me, this is why I don’t donate to NARAL or Planned Parenthood anymore.  They know this amendment was likely to be introduced and they chose to do nothing to prevent that.  They both have millions of dollars at their disposal that they could use to pressure Democrats with, but they choose not to.  The people donating to these organizations and using their services are the ones who will suffer the most because of the political decisions the groups have made.  Hope that works out well for them.

CDC Approved H1N1 Shots For Wall St Firms; Massive Shortages Elsewhere

In contrast to this diarist, words don’t fail.  It’s the same thing over and over again.  The $12Trillion bailout with taxpayer money wasn’t enough.  Despite vaccine shortages across the country, someone at the CDC made an immoral decision: staff at Wall St. firms were somehow cleared to receive some of the sought-after vaccine doses.

159 million shots are needed to cover every at-risk person in America.  To date, only 32.3 million have been manufactured.  The diarist was correct about this: Someone should be fired.  Immediately.

Oh, these same firms are planning on issuing Billions more in bonuses to executives who created the Great Recession, the worst economy since the Great Depression.  I supported Obama with some reservations.  This is why I had reservations.  Where is the change?

 

Corporate-Dems Trying to Take Wrong Lesson From 2009 Elections

The 2009 election is now behind us. The 2010 election is moving toward us quickly. What have I picked up from this year’s election results? That Democrats, especially those which I label CorporateDems, who run away from the Democratic base will lose, and deservedly so.

If CorporateDems want to chase down Con votes, I say go for it. The Cons won’t vote for them and there’s now proof that progressives won’t turn out to help them. Having a (D) after their name isn’t enough.

Unprincipled Whiners

No matter what the issue, Cons have demonstrated that their only party platform is whatever anti-Obama happens to be.  In a growing number of cases, this holds true … until the Cons end up working for the opposite of what they initially “stood for”.  Confused yet?  Don’t be – let’s look at the latest example.  The Cons were entirely against the stimulus funding late last year and early this year.  They issued their typical free-market-religious talking points that made no sense and patted themselves on the back for opposing anything that President Obama wanted done.

Now, a different story emerges.  The same Cons who voted against the stimulus are now begging for some of those stimulus dollars to be doled out to NASA instead of other places.  Now, don’t get me wrong.  They certainly haven’t had an epiphany about the role that science should play in our society.  No, we’re still a looooong way from that.  Like everything else, this beg-session is all about politics.  In this case, they can bring home some federal money (since they refuse to pay for things themselves, socialists that they are) and pat each other on the back about that.

The best part?  They continue to slam the stimulus funding while begging for it to be redirected toward NASA.  Two opposing viewpoints in the same request!  How uniquely conservative of them.

It would make more sense for these clowns to request an increase in NASA’s operating budget for FY10 or FY11, if they’re really so concerned about the space program.  But that won’t happen.  They’re anti-public-investment, anti-health care reform, pro-rich tax cuts and pro-occupation.  You see, Trillions of future taxpayer dollars can be spent occupying Iraq and Afghanistan.  Billions and billions of taxpayer dollars can be redistributed from the middle class to the rich.  But health care reform and stimulus?  Not a chance!  Unless they can get something out of it politically.  That’s immoral.

Climate Bill Action In The Senate – 9/30/09

The Senate version of the 2009 energy and climate bill, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, has made some small progress this week.  The draft version of their version of the legislation, largely constructed thanks to Sen. Boxer and Sen. Kerry, is reported to include a 20% reduction of 2005 GHG emissions by 2020, which is slightly better than the 17% goal in the House ACES bill.  This version should have been released after a 11:30A EDT press event in D.C. today.  Like the House bill, a cap-and-trade system is established.  Also, pollution allowances will be generated, but no distribution plan has been laid out yet.

It is well worth noting that GHG emissions are estimated to have been reduced by 6% below 2005 levels thanks to the Republican’s Great Recession.  So the 20% reduction is really an additional 14% reduction, according to the Senate version, and an additional 11% reduction according to the House version.  Which means it is very, very doable.  Energy efficiency measures alone would likely help us achieve those reductions in time for the 2020 goal.  Between now and then, as climate change effects continue to take hold, and political willpower to do something about climate change hopefully grows, technologies will be developed and marketed and it will become normal to reduce our greenhouse forcing.

Why We Can’t Trust Insurance Companies To Keep Costs Down

Because when they have the opportunity, they spend millions of dollars of Americans’ premiums to maintain the shitty status quo:

A campaign finance watchdog’s analysis of insurance and HMO political contributions and lobbying expenses found the industries spent $126,430,438 over the first half of 2009 and $585,725,712 over the past two and a half years to influence public policy and elected officials. The group, Public Campaign Action Fund, found that in the first part of 2009, the industries were spending money at nearly a $700,000 a day clip to influence the political process and that the monthly pace of political spending this year has increased by nearly $400,000 over the average spent per month in the previous two years.

CorporateDems and Republicans are equally sought after by these immoral corporations.

How much health care could have been provided for $126 Million?

How much health care could have been provided for Half A Billion dollars?

Guess what, America – those of us with health insurance – we paid that money so the corporations can keep their monopoly on the market.  There’s no competition.  There’s not enough care going on (way too much management!).  The crap in Congress?  Health insurance “reform”, not health care reform.  There is a critical difference.

So the next time your premiums are increased by a double-digit percentage, you know exactly where the money is going.  To prevent reform of the system.

Tell me again why we’re so proud to have insurance middle-men get between us and our health care.

Will Progressives Hold Blue Dogs Accountable?

There are early signs that progressives are truly fed up with being treated like free piggy banks to the Blue Dogs.  There are two articles that indicate things could be shifting under the Blue Dogs’ feet.

Up front, h/t to PaulVA at Daily Kos.

The first comes from the union side of things.  The Sheet Metal Workers International Association is the first union to have suspended all campaign donations to every Democratic candidate until the Employee Free Choice Act and true health care reform have been passed.  Now that’s letting the money talk!  Further, AFL-CIO Secretary Treasurer Richard Trumka puts a shot right across the ConservaDems’ bow:

And then there’s that other group: those fair weather friends who can’t seem to decide which side they’re on. I’m talking about politicians who love to have our help come election time, but, always seem to forget us after the votes are counted.

He continues with language that allows for no misunderstanding:

we need to send them a special message: it’s that you may have forgotten what the labor movement did to get you elected; but, by God, we never will! And if you stab us in the back on health care this year don’t you dare ask us for our support next year!

PaulVA points out that labor has contributed more in this cycle than the health care industry, financial services or any other interest group to the Blue Dogs.  More importantly, labor supporters have provided the greatest difference in field operations for Democrats than any other group for a long, long time.  These ConservaDems, by and large, represent relatively right-leaning districts.  If the troops don’t show up in 2010, it will be much, much harder for these clowns to win their re-election campaigns.

Rep. Salazar is one of the folks, representing CO-03.  If substantial numbers of real Democrats don’t show up, Rep. Salazar, do you think you can power yourself to victory?  Will you really take the chance to find out?

T-shirts vs. Guns

Back when Bush was busy running the country into the ground, he had events around the country, kind of like what President Obama is doing today.  There are some important differences, not that the corporate media is going to get into them.  Among them:

Democrats couldn’t attend Bush events if they wore the “wrong” t-shirt.  On more than one occasion, they were removed from the area.  Sometimes, they were removed by people who didn’t have the legal authority to remove them.  More than one spent time in jail.  That’s what “free speech” amounted to in the Bush years: agree with Bush or go to jail.

Right-wing cranks are protesting near Obama events with guns on their hips.  Yes, you read the right: a civilian (not a law enforcement person), with a gun on the hip in a holster.  Are you freaking kidding me?!  Right-wing shock jocks will insist that this person had the undeniable right to exercise his 2nd amendment rights – possibly his 1st amendment rights if they strain really hard.  Um, that’s great.  What about those Democrats who didn’t show up to Bush’s events with anything but a t-shirt?  The Cons didn’t stand up for their rights, did they?  I know what would have happened if a Democratic civilian had showed up to a Bush event with a gun in a holster on their hip, and you should too: they’d have been carted off to Gitmo and withheld indefinitely.  Such is the hypocrisy of the Cons.

[Update]: Cenk Uygur sums it up quicker than I did.  Think a Muslim-American could have been anywhere near a Bush rally with a gun on his hip and a weapons permit?

Bush events were carefully screened so that the Cowardly Boy King didn’t have to face opposition to his bat-shit insane policies.  Every single event for years was screened very carefully.

President Obama Puts Focus On Wrong Issue

I caught this headline and quickly clicked to read the short tidbit on it:

Obama: ‘Left-wing groups’ should back off.

Here’s the bulk of what else was written:

The President discussed how the current tone and culture in Washington made it more difficult than it has been in the past to work in a bipartisan fashion. In particular, he singled out Republican Senators who are trying to work in a bipartisan fashion even in the context of a vocal minority in their party who doubt that the President was born in the US. In this context about the less productive tone of the debate in Washington, he said he didn’t like to see ‘left wing groups attack fellow Democrats’.

Mr. President, you’re wrong about this.  There is no other way to describe it.  Where is your condemnation of right-wing, corporate ads attacking Congressional legislation?

Why is Washington less bipartisan than it used to be?  Because Republicans have been replaced with extremist Cons.  Democrats have gotten steadily more moderate in the past 30 years, trying to track down the elusive Holy Bipartisan Grail, to no avail.  The American people are fed up with Con policies – they want progressive legislation passed and many of us aren’t afraid to call ConservaDems to task for working harder to find the Grail than they are on writing good legislation.  ConservaDems are also working harder for their corporate benefactors than they are for their constituents.

ConservaDems and Cons are working to enact health insurance “reform”, not health care reform (I hope most of us recognize the critical differences).  What possible use do Americans have with a plan that will force them to pay for insurance but not receive the care they deserve?!  These limp noodles have accepted millions upon millions of dollars from corporations.  What true incentive to they have to write good legislation if the people stand on the sidelines?

Republican Senators (Cons) aren’t trying to work in a bipartisan fashion.  They’re trying to slow down bills’ progress long enough so that it is effectively killed, because they don’t want the public record of having voted against real health care reform.  The Cons have no interest in ever voting for the bills that they’re working to water down.  What Con will vote for the bill, Mr. President?  Can you tell us that?  Have Con Senators promised you they’ll vote for it if they can just work on it a few weeks or a few months longer?  Who are they?  What concessions need to be given up?  No, sir, there are no such Cons.

Which is why progressive advocacy groups are running ads against politicians who found it convenient to put a ‘D’ after their name.  They’re not writing what Americans have said in overwhelming numbers for years they want.  It’s time to put up or shut up.  Put a piece of legislation together and let’s have the freaking vote on it already.  And please stop chasing the Holy Bipartisan Grail.  It doesn’t exist.  When reasonable Republicans take their party back over, we can have honest, bipartisan debates about substantive policy.  Until then, don’t acknowledge the Cons’ insanity.