Month: September 2009

Owning By Proxy

by dday

Last night, Blanche Lincoln and Kent Conrad, who like to fancy themselves fiscal conservatives and whose entire rhetoric about health care has concerned “bending the cost curve” and reducing the price tag in the bill, joined with Republicans to hand up to $250 million dollars to states to teach children that sex is icky.

The Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday night approved an amendment providing tens of millions of dollars to fund abstinence education programs for teens.

The proposal, offered by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), would provide $50 million per year through 2014 exclusively for abstinence education programs. The measure would effectively reinstate the controversial Title V program, which offered $50 million per year to states for abstinence education, but prohibited them from tapping the funds for other sex-ed subjects like contraception. The same prohibition would accompany the Hatch amendment. “Abstinence education works,” the Utah Republican said.

The vote was 12 to 11, with Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Kent Conrad (N.D.) voting with every Republican to secure passage of the measure.

Abstinence education doesn’t work, this California Democrat says, backed up by every study ever done on the subject, including a 6-year study authorized by Congress that published in 2007. Even Max frickin’ Baucus agrees, and his competing amendment on comprehensive sex ed, which also passed, wouldn’t fund programs that were in his words “ineffective.” Suzy Khimm has more on this.

I’m sure that giving in to Republican fears about liberated women, whether through this measure or trying to gut reproductive coverage in private insurance plans (thankfully, that amendment did fail in the Finance Committee today), will cause members of the party who don’t think women should have the right to vote to flip on the bill and offer their support, right? We’re just so close to consensus, and if we can just add to that 80% agreement with selling out women and futilely indoctrinating children to abstinence, we can all sing kumbaya and have a bill everyone can support, right?

Wrong. Republicans like Orrin Hatch will ask for concession after concession and offer nothing themselves. That’s because they know that stooges like Blanche Lincoln and Kent Conrad will end up agreeing with them anyway, so there’s no need to take ownership of the bill when you can own it by proxy.

.

Heckuva Job Bushie

by digby

This is nice:

A federal judge approved a civil-court settlement requiring the Social Security Administration to repay $500 million to 80,000 recipients whose benefits it suspended after deeming them fugitives.

The supposed fugitives include a disabled widow with a previously suspended driver’s license, a quadriplegic man in a nursing home and a Nevada grandmother mistaken for a rapist.

They were among at least 200,000 elderly and disabled people who lost their benefits in recent years under what the agency called the “Fugitive Felon” program. Launched in 1996 and extended to Social Security disability and old-age benefits in 2005, the program aimed to save taxpayers money by barring the payment of Social Security benefits to people “fleeing to avoid prosecution.”

But some federal courts in recent years have concluded that most people the agency identified as fleeing felons were neither fleeing nor felons. The problem: Social Security employees relied on an operations manual stating that anyone with a warrant outstanding is a fugitive felon, whether the person is actually fleeing or attempting to avoid being captured.

In 2005, the Bush administration decided that all those alleged ancient felons on Social Security needed to be “brought to justice.” Meanwhile, Wall street was going completely unchecked. And they got it wrong on top of that.

Maybe this is something the Democratic congress and the Obama Administration could look into and correct? Seriously, they don’t have to cover up all the Bush era obscenities.

.

“This Is Ridiculous”

by digby

Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post is a fairly good gauge of where the village conventional wisdom is at any given point. And here’s what he had to say on David Shuster today:

Shuster: If the Democrats said it was wrong for Joe Wilson to say “you lie” on the House floor, shouldn’t they also be condemning Grayson for suggesting the Republican plan is “die quickly?”

Capehart: No. These are two different things. Joe Wilson shouted at the President of the United States during a joint session of congress which is a clear violation of House rules. Representative Grayson was speaking on the House floor to his collegues. Sure it’s hyperbolic language about policy but it was not a personal insult to anyone in the room.

And hey, if he has to apologize for “die quickly” whoever came up with “death panels” and “drop dead” and “pull the plu oon grandma” has to apologize too. This is ridiculous.

Yes, it certainly is. But all hissy fits are ridiculous. This one is particularly stupid because of the “death panel” stuff the Republicans have been flogging all summer, but the hissy fit is always made more potent the more stupid and hypocritical it is. This one may not end up with an apology, but it will probably be successful in creating a false equivalence between the two parties which is about the best they can do at the moment.

.

The GOP Plan

by digby

In case anyone still wonders if the Republican health care plan really is “don’t get sick and if you do, die quickly” read this essay about what the Republican plans really would do if implemented:

Mitch Berger, a Washington-based lawyer, has a rare, incurable and very expensive-to-treat cancer. He is not fond of insurance companies. As Democrats scramble to assemble a health care reform package that a majority of the party can support, Republicans have agreed on what they claim is a quick and easy way to reduce health insurance costs. In delivering the Republican reply to the President’s recent joint-session speech, Charles Boustany of Louisiana offered the GOP plan, saying “Let’s also talk about letting families and businesses buy insurance across state lines. I and many other Republicans believe that that will provide real choice and competition to lower the cost of health insurance.” It’s an approach conservatives have been talking up for a while. Probably its most vocal proponent is Representative John Shadegg of Arizona, who introduced the idea formally this July with “The Health Care Choice Act of 2009.” But a closer examination shows that it’s the “Drill baby Drill” of health care reform–a cynical slogan masquerading as a serious public policy solution. The basis for this approach is the work of the Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI). CAHI describes itself as “a research and advocacy association of insurance carriers”–in other words, the insurance industry. Its position? That state insurance benefit mandates “increase the cost of basic health coverage from a little less than 20% to perhaps 50%“. Based on this assumption, Republicans argue: To lower insurance costs dramatically, all you have to do is get rid of or drastically reduce benefit mandates.

See, the real problem is that the state governments have been passing laws that require insurance companies to offer coverage. That’s a problem because is order to have your profits rise 28% over seven years, they need to take your money and give you nothing in return. So, it’s a problem.
The Republicans say over and over again that the worst possible thing that could happen is these insurance companies facing competition from the government. They seem to think they are doing a great job and that costs would go down if only they could allow the insurance companies to stop covering sick people. Therefore, their plan is, as Alan Grayson pithily stated, “don’t get sick and if you do get sick, die quickly.”If you’d like to Get Grayson’s Back, you can donate here.
.

Hissy Fit Of The Day

by digby

So, let me get this straight: the same party that’s been saying the Democrats are planning to pull the plug on Grandma for months is having an epic fit of the vapors because Alan Grayson said that the Republican Health Care plan is “Don’t get sick and if you do get sick, die quickly?” Really? How do they live with this much gall?

Apparently, they are going to introduce a privileged resolution to sanction Grayson today. And Stephanopopulos says they deserve an apology. Seriously.

So this is a-ok:

But this isn’t:

Really?

Today is the last day of the quarter. I expect that Grayson could use a little boost so feel free to donate to him here; at our new page Getting Grayson’s Back. I hear the Democrats are pretty angry at the Republicans for this hissy fit, so if you feel like sending them a little token or giving a call to their offices to tell them that you appreciate them having Grayson’s back, that would be helpful too.

This is crazy time. You have the main Republican Senate negotiator saying publicly that the Democrats are trying to pull the plug on grandma, and Grayson is beyond the pale for saying the truth? Because the fact is that is you support the status quo, as they do, you are supporting the insurance company model which is based upon only insuring people who aren’t sick and not paying for their care if they get that way. That’s how they make their money. It is essentially: don’t get sick and die quickly. What he said is really not controversial at all.

.

If You Take Out The People Who Die, Americans Live Forever

by dday

So John Ensign, the adulterous Senator from Nevada who had his parents pay off his mistress and her family in possible violation of campaign laws, put forward the following argument today to prove the awesomeness of the US health care system:

“Are you aware that if you take out gun accidents and auto accidents, that the United States actually is better than those other countries?” Ensign said. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) had been citing the health care systems of France, Germany, Japan and Canada as more effective, but with lower costs.

Conrad responded that one can bend statistics in all sorts of ways.

“But that doesn’t have anything to do with health care. Auto accidents don’t have anything to do with h–,” Ensign said, cutting himself off. “I mean we’re just a much more mobile society. … We drive our cars a lot more, they do public transportation. So you have to compare health care system with health care system.”

I’m sure that if you take out truffle and eclair accidents, France’s health care outcomes skyrocket, too. But I’m wondering why this means anything, even if it were true, which it isn’t. First of all, if Ensign wants to improve health care in America, he seems to be saying that the way to do that is to move away from a car-centered transportation system and engage in strict gun control. Somehow I doubt that was his intention, since he’s never cast a vote in favor of more mass transit or bike lanes or gun control in his life, but there’s no other way to characterize this argument.

So in order to properly figure out what in the hell Ensign was trying to prove with that comment, you have to recognize that he read it in some talking points somewhere. And the talking points trace back to – you guessed it – Betsy McCaughey.

Where did he come up with such an argument? TPMDC’s Brian Beutler tracks down the source: Betsy McCaughey said as much when she appeared on the Daily Show last month. McCaughey is the former lieutenant governor of New York and the first person to push the idea that, under health care reform, the government would decide who gets care, who lives and who dies — a precursor to the “death panel” articulated by Sarah Palin.

On the show, McCaughey said that, without violence and auto accidents, the U.S. would have the highest life expectancy in the world. It was an attempt to undermine an argument for reform, that the U.S. spends more money than any other country but still lags in life expectancy.

The Wall Street Journal explains that McCaughey got the idea from a 2006 report published by conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute.

As that last link notes, the OECD rebuts this talking point, saying that the AEI report is “based in part on GDP. If you don’t factor in GDP, the U.S. ranks 17th in the world for life expectancy when the high U.S. rate of fatal injuries is ignored.” In fact, even the report’s writers walked away from this statement in future reports. It’s a moot point anyway, it says nothing about the health care system itself, nor is it comfort to anyone who experiences a gunshot or a car accident in the US, that if their death gets factored out, then the system works.

So the real lesson here is that the entire GOP position on health care – or really, anything – is based on irrelevant misinformation, and when you’re looking for such misinformation, all roads lead to Betsy McCaughey.

.

Taser Meeting

by digby

I would hope that this “public meeting” will include some people who will testify to the fact that tasers are killing people. But it doesn’t appear that they are enlisting anyone but the manufacturers to weigh in on the “safety” of these devices.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Electroshock Weapons Measurement Methods and Issues Public
Meeting

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), United
States Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

———————————————————————–

SUMMARY: NIST invites manufacturers of electroshock weapons that deploy skin penetrating barbs for operation to attend a public meeting. The purpose of the meeting is for manufacturers to present to NIST
nonproprietary information on their methods of measurement and test of the output of these weapons and associated lessons learned.

DATES: The public meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 21, 2009
from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at NIST, 100 Bureau Drive,
Gaithersburg, MD. Information on accommodations, location, and travel
can be found at: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/visitor/
visitor.htm. Please note admittance instructions under the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Stanley at 301-975-2756 or by e-
mail at cindy.stanley@nist.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To support the development of rigorous
performance requirements for electroshock weapons, the Office of Law
Enforcement Standards (OLES) at NIST, is developing methods to measure
the current and high-voltage output of these weapons, to calibrate
these measurement methods, and to compute measurement uncertainties.
NIST is holding this public meeting to obtain individual input from
workshop participants on their non-proprietary efforts in these areas.
All visitors to the NIST site are required to pre-register to be
admitted. Anyone wishing to attend this meeting must register by close
of business Monday, October 19, 2009 in order to attend. Please submit
your name, time of arrival, e-mail address and phone number to Cindy
Stanley and she will provide you with instructions for admittance. Non-
U.S. citizens must also submit their country of citizenship, title,
employer/sponsor, and address. Cindy Stanley’s e-mail address is
cindy.stanley@nist.gov and phone number is 301-975-2756.

Dated: September 23, 2009.
Patrick Gallagher,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. E9-23461 Filed 9-28-09; 8:45 am]

Always Be There For You

by digby

Jonathan Cohn writes about Jay Rockefeller’s strange effectiveness in talking about the public option, which I have found kind of surprising myself. He explains it this way:

It’s easy to treat health care as an abstraction–to make it all about economic theories and Congressional Budget Office projections. (I’m surely guilty of this myself.) Rockefeller sees it through the eyes of West Virginians making $30,000 a year–people who just want to know they can pay their premiums and that, if they do, the insurance they get will protect them when they get sick. Rockefeller’s ability to channel these feelings may seem odd, given his privileged pedigree. But it makes sense given what he’s done with his career. Remember, West Virginia didn’t choose him. He chose West Virginia, starting with his service as a VISTA volunteer. He knows his constituents very well. And he acts that way. You see this in his advocacy for the public plan. The arguments you hear in the debate are mostly about costs, payment rates, and how best to make a market function. But for Rockefeller, it really boils down to a simple proposition: A public plan is good because you know it will always be there for you. The government isn’t going to point to an obscure provision on page 152 of your manual and deny you essential services. The government isn’t going to comb through your medical records and decide that, having taken your premiums for several months, you’re not eligible for coverage after all. The government isn’t going to stop offering coverage next year because it can’t make a profit big enough to satisfy Wall Street. Reform without a public option can still remedy a lot of these ills, as long as there’s enough regulation. But it’s not clear there will be, which is why Rockefeller is speaking out–and why he should be.

(Considering the bipartisan whorishness of our current political system, it’s almost a guarantee that there there won’t be the kind of regulation needed to give security to average people. We’ve just seen that you can nearly destroy the world economy and wipe out more than a decade of accumulated wealth with unbridled greed and they won’t properly regulate you.)

I think Blanche Lincoln, Kent Conrad and Max Baucus all have plenty of constituents who make 30k a year just like Rockefeller. But they’d rather see them suffer than risk being called a socialist by some confused teabagger or lose a big campaign check from Blue Cross. It’s a choice. And what they choose tells you a whole lot about the character of those making it.

.

In Case You Were Wondering

by digby

… who the “national problem” is, Lou Dobbs is here to tell you:

And this Newsmax columnist knows one way to begin to solve it:

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it.

[…]

Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a “family intervention,” with some form of limited, shared responsibility?

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later.”

In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.

Yes. Nine months in, it’s obvious that the only choice Real Americans have is to stage a coup. The lessons they’ve learned from recent presidencies is that impeachment is no sure thing and that unless you can get close enough to steal elections, you might get stuck with someone you didn’t vote for. So they’re dreaming of more tried and true methods. That whole democracy thing is very inconvenient.

(And just the thought of “skilled, military trained, nation builders” bending the government to their will clearly sends one big thrill up these fellows’ legs. Oooh baby.)

.

Up Or Down Vote

by digby

Chris Cilizza asks a good question:

Five Democrats — Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.) Kent Conrad (N.D.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Tom Carper (Del.) — voted against the Rockefeller amendment. President Barack Obama‘s average percentage of the 2008 vote in those states was 49.4 percent.

The eight Senate Democrats who voted for the Rockefeller amendment represent states, by contrast, that gave Obama an average of 56.75 percent of the vote in the last presidential election.

While there will be more votes on the public option between now and when (and if) a final bill passes, the vote on the Rockefeller amendment shows how Democrats are approaching the politics of the issue.

Democrats representing red or swing states clearly believe the public option is a non-starter politically despite evidence in recent polling — in places like Arkansas and Montana — that voters in these states favor the idea of a government-run program.

Can the White House change their minds?

Carper and Nelson flipped on the Shumer public option amendment, leaving only Conrad, Lincoln and Baucus voting against it. This is good news believe it or not. It indicates that there are 51 votes for a public option in the senate.

The question most certainly is whether or not the president can change their minds. And frankly, if he doesn’t have enough juice to at least hold them together for one cloture vote then I have to wonder if he has any real juice at all. Every one of these corporate lackeys can vote against the final bill if they dare. Assuming they can bring Byrd in to do it, all they need to do is break a Republican filibuster and “allow an up or down vote.”

Update: Tom Harkin claims they have the votes for the PO.

Update II: Carl Cameron on Fox just said that today was the first time that anyone had a chance to vote on a public option and it got killed.

And he’s right — except for the Senate HELP Committee and the three House committees that already voted on it and passed it.

.