Month: October 2010

“Because They’re Good Americans”

by digby

Think Progress reports:

In his book, Daschle reveals that after the Senate Finance Committee and the White House convinced hospitals to to accept $155 billion in payment reductions over ten years on July 8, the hospitals and Democrats operated under two “working assumptions.” “One was that the Senate would aim for health coverage of at least 94 percent of Americans,” Daschle writes. “The other was that it would contain no public health plan,” which would have reimbursed hospitals at a lower rate than private insurers.

I’m reminded of a White House conference call held right after they announced the hospital deal in which a reporter asked the official on the call why the hospitals would agree to all these sacrifices to their bottom line. The official replied, “because they’re good Americans.”

As TP points out, the White House continued to insist all the way to the end that the public option was not off the table and that they backed it to the hilt. But of course, as was obvious at the time, this was merely a negotiating chip to hand to Lieberman and his ilk when he demanded something to gratuitously hit the loathed hippies over the head with to prove his “independence.” And he did.

None of this is really news, but it is revealing that Daschle put it in his book without giving a second thought to how it would be received. (He’s now attempted to “clarify” and say that the president truly believed in the public option and fought for it, but whatever.)

The best we can hope for at this point is that the hospitals and insurers who are now pouring money into Republican politics in the hope they can extract even more from the government for their benefit will crash upon the ideological incoherence within the GOP:

Many Republican leaders have enthusiastically embraced the call to revise the healthcare legislation, vowing to “repeal and replace” the law in the next congressional session. But that call to repeal poses a delicate issue for the budding GOP/insurance industry partnership. The Republican Party thinks it has a winning position in denouncing the unpopular mandate that will require Americans to get health insurance starting in 2014, while insurers and independent healthcare experts see the requirement as crucial to controlling costs for everyone by spreading the risk.

The healthcare law will penalize Americans $95 in 2014 if they fail to get insurance. The penalty rises to $695 in 2016.

“The one thing that insurance companies would love to see are penalties that are actually stronger,” said Jeff Fusile, a partner at consulting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The insurance industry, attracted by the prospect of millions of new customers as a result of the coverage mandate, initially backed President Obama’s campaign to overhaul the healthcare system. And insurers scored a key victory when Democrats abandoned plans to create a government insurance plan, or “public option.”

But insurers are increasingly balking at the myriad new directives in the healthcare law.

Among other things, the law prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage to sick children and canceling policies when customers become ill. The law bars insurers from placing lifetime caps on how much they will pay when their customers get sick.

Many consumers will also get new rights to appeal denied claims and win access to preventive care without being asked for co-pays.

“The health reform law did not deliver the uninsured in the way that insurers wanted,” said veteran healthcare analyst Sheryl Skolnick, senior vice president at CRT Capital Group.

They love the mandate. Indeed, it was the part of the deal the insurers and hospitals loved the most. What they don’t like is any requirements that they cover sick people or, if they are required to cover sick people, to restrict their ability to raise prices. That’s what they are paying the GOP to take care of for them.

But Republicans are running on the notion of repeal and replace, which can mean anything, but which the crazed ideologues who are coming into power now have fairly well defined as repeal of the mandate, replace with … nothing. You can be sure that the new Medical Industry overlords are not going to allow that. They want that mandate.

I would guess that the GOP strategists are hoping the courts will overturn it, but they shouldn’t count on that. The right wing courts are also in the thrall of corporate power, so they could easily see it from the industry’s point of view, which is that it’s only right that all Americans be forced to purchase this necessary product, but that it’s very, very wrong for the government to tell the insurers and hospitals what they can charge for it. That’s the new American way.

It will be interesting to see how this all unfolds. If I had to guess, I’d think that the Republicans will relentlessly chip away at the funding mechanisms for the big medicaid expansion wherever they can, even if it requires changing the law the first chance they get a Republican majority w/president again. I would think the mandate will stand but that the mechanisms requiring that they keep prices manageable will be tweaked in such a way that the insurance companies will have much more latitude for charging customers. And they will be relieved from having to create comprehensive policies and will be able to go back to the old expensive premiums for crappy coverage model they love so much. In other words, it will take a while, but they’ll probably be able to go back to some version of the status quo, only with a mandate that all citizens buy shitty insurance.

The proof will be in the pudding about a decade from now when the court cases all finish and whatever is left of the program is in place. At this point we are dealing with theoretical outcomes even if the plan is unchanged for the worse (and I am very skeptical that it will be.) Politically, this is not a winner for the Democrats or Obama because average people don’t see any positive change and until full implementation it’s likely they will continue to see their rates going up. But then, that was baked in the cake as well. It is what it is.

And we can guarantee one thing: all the talk of “improving” the legislation will be a joke if the Republicans get the chance to gut it before it ever gets going. That long window to implementation is a land mine that was set when everyone was still singing Kumbaaya about the Permanent Democratic Majority. It doesn’t look so smart right now.

.

Intergenerational Conman

by digby

Just what in the hell does Rand Paul have against disabled people? First he said that he wouldn’t have voted for the Americans with Disabilities Act because it inconveniences business, then he said that old and sick people should be forced to be more responsible by paying a huge 2,000 deductible and now he wants to balance the budget on the backs of impoverished sick and disabled people on Medicaid.

I sure feel sorry for his patients. He has all the compassion of a rabid jackal.

On major changes in government, Paul said the country needs a balanced budget amendment and must better control spending on federal entitlement programs.

He focused on the high costs of Medicaid, a federal-state health-insurance program that now covers about 800,000 poor and disabled Kentuckians and costs nearly $6 billion.

“When we have a government program to help those who are in need or who have unfortunate problems, let’s help those truly in need,” Paul said.

He claimed that lenient eligibility standards have led to “intergenerational welfare.”

Conway’s campaign press secretary, John Collins, called Paul’s comments “troubling and show how far out-of-touch he is with life in Kentucky.”

Sheila Schuster, who works with organizations who advocate for disabled Kentuckians, said the state does not have the most liberal eligibility standards for Medicaid and disputed that it has become a welfare system.

“It’s a system of taking care of people with serious needs,” she said, noting that she is not endorsing any candidate in the U.S. Senate race.

And here I thought you couldn’t balance the budget by “cutting off the welfare queens.” But, Medicaid is “intergenerational welfare,” presumably because it creates a sense of dependency among the sick an disabled children who should be begging in the streets to pay for their medical care. (Or just dying — that would be the most responsible of all.)

The man should not just be beaten soundly in this senate race, he should be stripped of his (so-called) medical license. Anyone Doctor who holds his views is unfit for the profession.

And naturally, as it turns out there’s remarkably little fraud and abuse in Kentucky:

“Any system will have some degree of fraud, but I recall how the administration of former Gov. Ernie Fletcher said it would get rid of waste, fraud and abuse and didn’t turn up many who shouldn’t be on the Medicaid rolls,” she said.

Keep in mind that if Rand Paul wanted to live his libertarian principles, he’d stop taking Medicare and Medicaid patients. But he believes he “deserves to make a comfortable living” and takes in hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer funded medical care each year. It’s “other people” who have to sacrifice.

.

Stupak’s Army On The Move

by digby

Stupak’s army will be working this forever. Having laid the groundwork during the health care fight, they’ll have people screaming about how their tax dollars are used for murderous purposes in all 50 states. (Never mind that they are used to murder hundreds of thousands of already born people, including babies and children, in various part of of the world.)

New state legislation that would sharply restrict abortions in Pennsylvania was condemned on Friday by a statewide abortion rights group, Pennsylvanians for Choice. A bill introduced by Sen. Don White, R-Indiana, would prohibit private health insurance plans sold in Pennsylvania’s state “exchange” — created under the new federal health care law — from offering abortions and require rape victims to report the crime within 72 hours in order to receive an abortion. The insurance exchanges, which don’t go into effect until 2014, will serve those who do not have access to employer-based health plans, including the unemployed and small business employees. Under the law, any health insurance plan that contracts with the exchange must create a system to ensure no federal funds are used for abortion coverage — including the collection of two separate payments from the beneficiary, one for abortion coverage and one for all other health care coverage. The proposed bill would deny insurance plans participating in the exchange from covering abortions except in cases where the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest, or where the life of the woman is in danger. The bill would require also rape survivors to personally report the crime and identify the assailant, if known, within 72 hours in order for their health insurance to cover an abortion procedure.

That last is just punitive — essentially punishing the rape victim for failing to properly report a crime by forcing her to pay out of pocket for an abortion if she chooses to have one. What on earth does insurance have to do with the circumstances of conception? And why should it have anything to say about whether a woman names her rapist? (But hey, they aren’t trying to stone the rape victim so they’re actually really nice people and we shouldn’t be rude to them by calling them unpleasant names that evoke primitive laws to control women.)

The pro-choice movement will now have to devote precious, scant resources to fighting this as well as the other assaults on the right to choose around the country. And if Roe is ever overturned — not impossible in the next few years — they’ll have to fight with everything they have, state by state. Forever.

.

The Chamber Takes Care Of Business

by digby

… by any means necessary.

Welcome to the John Roberts era:

The largest attack campaign against Democrats this fall is being waged by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a trade association organized as a 501(c)(6) that can raise and spend unlimited funds without ever disclosing any of its donors. The Chamber has promised to spend an unprecedented $75 million to defeat candidates like Jack Conway, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Jerry Brown, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), and Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA). As of Sept. 15th, the Chamber had aired more than 8,000 ads on behalf of GOP Senate candidates alone, according to a study from the Wesleyan Media Project. The Chamber’s spending has dwarfed every other issue group and most political party candidate committee spending. A ThinkProgress investigation has found that the Chamber funds its political attack campaign out of its general account, which solicits foreign funding. And while the Chamber will likely assert it has internal controls, foreign money is fungible, permitting the Chamber to run its unprecedented attack campaign. According to legal experts consulted by ThinkProgress, the Chamber is likely skirting longstanding campaign finance law that bans the involvement of foreign corporations in American elections.

The chamber says it has a system in place to prevent the mingling of funds so i’m sure it must be ok.

Frankly, however, I don’t know if it matters as much where the money comes from than that they are spending it to elect lunatic teabaggers to run this country.

.

Tough Love For The Frail And Sick

by digby

If the world was sane, this would be the end of the Rand Paul campaign:

A new video today catches Rand Paul repeatedly supporting a $2,000 Medicare deductible on Kentucky seniors – despite his claims just last week that such a statement was a “lie.”

Because it’s important the elderly people with dozens of health problems be more responsible with their health care dollars. We certainly can’t expect people like Dr Paul to
take that role. After all, they “deserve to make a comfortable living” and can’t be expected to ensure that these frail old people aren’t overusing the system. These “greedy geezers” need to take more responsibility for themselves and maybe a little of that Paulite “tough love” will snap them into reality.

By the way, the average social security check is $1,000 a month.

.

Foxifying America

by digby

NY magazine is featuring an unusually insightful article about the Foxification of our politics and makes a number of observations that add up to something quite frightening. Here’s just one piece of it:

The game may be destroying American politics—but it’s the only game in town, and CNN, thus far, is out of it. “Being a passionate centrist is always a bit harder than a raving lunatic on each side,” Eliot Spitzer told me. “They do not recognize a reality that Fox and MSNBC recognize,” says a former senior CNN staffer. “You have to be real showmen and hook into America, which is blue collar and angry. The CNN culture is still very strange. You walk into that building, you think you’re the Jesuits and you’re protecting a certain legacy. They still look at Fox as a carnival—not Fox as a brilliant marketing entity. It’s weird. They’re decades into it, and they’ll protect it to the end.”

Stop and think about that for a moment. They are saying that America is and angry blue collar country which Fox has brilliantly market to with a collection of right wing demagogues feeding their anger. Is that true?

I know it’s true of a certain group of Americans. But “America”? Well, it wouldn’t be the first time a journalist characterized “America” that way:

Most of us in what is called the communications field are not rooted in the great mass of ordinary Americans–in Middle America. And the results show up not merely in occasional episodes … but more importantly in the systematic bias toward young people, minority groups, and the of presidential candidates who appeal to them.

“To get a feel of this bias it is first necessary to understand the antagonism that divides the middle class of this country. On the one hand there are highly educated upper-income whites sure of and brimming with ideas for doing things differently. On the other hand, there is Middle America, the large majority of low-income whites, traditional in their values and on the defensive against innovation.

“The most important organs of and television are, beyond much doubt, dominated by the outlook of the upper-income whites.

“In these circumstances, it seems to me that those of us in the media need to make a special effort to understand Middle America. Equally it seems wise to exercise a certain caution, a prudent restraint, in pressing a claim for a plenary indulgence to be in all places at all times the agent of the sovereign public.”

That was written in 1968. Plus ca change and all that rot.

It is the essence of the Village, which has since shifted its perspective to incorporate the view that yes, America is composed of angry blue collar white people but the people who run the news businesses share the same worldview naturally and thus perfectly represent the masses.

So you end up with a parade of millionaires from the late Tim Russert to Brian Williams to Rick Sanchez to Bill O’Reilly to Glenn Beck doing some variation of Howard Beale on television every night, keeping that segment of resentful, afraid white Americans all riled up, clutching their remote controls, screaming at the television. You can call this “journalism” if you want, but I think we all know that it is something else entirely.

.

DREAMING Of Change

by digby

What with all the sturm and drang about depressed Democratic turnout, it’s possible to overlook some of the important, under the radar work that’s being done to change the dynamic. One of the places this is happening with great energy is in the Hispanic community which, aside from all the other reasons Americans are feeling under siege, are also experiencing a nativist assault.

Aside from the incredibly courageous young people who are putting their lives and futures on the line to advocate for the DREAM act, groups all over the various communities are putting their money and time where their mouths are to get out the vote and keep these crazed tea partiers from power.

Here’s one initiative,United We Win, from Voto Latino, which is devoting resources to important work like voter registration and get out the vote.

I particularly like this one because it’s so outside the normal social networking beat:

Everyone loves grandmas. But grandmas adept at new technologies? We love them even more.

Our friends at Cuéntame organized an online voter registration drive outside of Our Lady of Los Angeles Church in Downtown Los Angeles last weekend as part of their “Tan facil que hasta tu abuela lo puede hacer!” (So easy your grandma can do it) campaign. These abuelas were out there registering despite of the heat because, as one of them put it, “our youth are the future and we must protect them!”

Our Los Angeles Field Organizer Jesus Malverde got to spend some time with them. High-tech grandmas? Que envidia.

Cuéntame, mentioned above,(working in concert with our friends at Brave New Films is another great organization working out of the social networking world to connect with the Hispanic community.

There’s a whole lot of this work going on, under the radar, which will hopefully offset some of the lethargy that’s overtaken the Democratic coalition. These folks are on the front lines of the Tea Bag power grab and the ramifications of allowing them to seize power hit all too close to home.

America’s Voice is a sort of central clearing house for a number of these initiatives if you’re inclined to take a look and see if there’s something you can do. It’s quite inspiring at a time when inspiration is hard to find.

.

Silver Linings

by digby

If you’re wondering where to focus your energies in the coming month, read this post from Howie, which culminates in an important observation:

With very few exceptions, the Democrats in the most vulnerable positions are conservatives who have voted most consistently with Boehner and the untrusted GOP minority, Blue Dogs like Bobby Bright (AL), Glenn Nye (VA), Chris Carney (PA), Travis Childers (MS) and Frank Kratovil (MD) and inherently reactionary political cowards with no moral compasses like Tom Perriello (VA), Suzanne Kosmas (FL) and Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ). If Democrats can manage to hang onto the few progressives who refused to play the Republican lite game who are in jeopardy in swing districts– Carol Shea-Porter (NH), Alan Grayson (FL), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), Phil Hare (IL)– and at the same time, manage to shed some of the dead weight, the House Democratic caucus will be far better off, far more focused on helping ordinary American families and far less susceptible to blackmail from corporate conservatives in its own midst.

.

What Actually Watching Beck Teaches You

by digby

I have never been a great fan of Dana Milbank who has often seemed to have been competing for the chance to succeed Maureen Dowd as Queen Bee of the Mean Girls.But he is doing great work on Glenn Beck. (Perhaps it takes a special kind of snarky perspective to be able to get Beck right.) Milbank wrote this in his most recent piece over the week-end:

When the subject turns, as it usually does, to President Obama, Beck again sees lessons from history. In particular, he has seized upon two individuals who he believes provide excellent historical parallels to the 44th commander in chief: Woodrow Wilson and Adolf Hitler.

You don’t understand how Obama is tied to a genocidal monster and to an American president who died 86 years ago? Allow Professor Beck to explain.

On Aug. 11, 2009, in the middle of a summer of rage-filled town hall meetings over health care, Beck said he would describe some Obama administration plans that “should horrify America . . . particularly if you’re elderly, handicapped or have a very, very young child.” And with that, the lesson began.

American “progressives” such as Wilson, Beck explained, were responsible for inspiring “the Nazi eugenic idea [which] evolved naturally into the eventual Holocaust and the deaths of 6 million Jews.” He went on: “The builder of the master race was only part of the problem in Germany, made possible after they began to devalue life. They tried to figure out how much is a life worth, and put a price on how much each individual was worth — and some were worth more than others.”

Naturally, this led straight to Obama. Beck explained — without benefit of actual fact — that Obama’s advisers favor health-care rationing and sterilants in drinking water, and then he went on to endorse Sarah Palin’s allegations that Americans would have to stand before Obama’s “death panel” so bureaucrats could decide who was worthy to live.

Voila! We go from Hitler’s eugenics to Obama’s health-care plan, with an assist from poor Woodrow Wilson.

The good news is that nobody listens to him, right?

He averages more than 2 million nightly viewers on his Fox show, brings in $32 million in annual revenue from his various ventures, according to Forbes magazine, and is an unofficial leader of the tea party and its mass anti-government rallies.

Beck is, by far, the most admired leader in the Tea Party movement. Indeed, Americans rate him only below Obama, GWB and Mandela as most admired person in the world. And according to recent polling, he is extremely popular among the Tea Partiers:

Glenn Beck is the most highly regarded individual among Tea Party supporters of the people we tested. He scores an extraordinarily high 75 percent warm rating, 57 percent very warm.

This affinity for Beck came through very clearly in the focus groups. The only news source that participants said they could trust was Fox. Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity were cited as people who “are not afraid to tell it like it is” and support their arguments with solid facts. Beck was undoubtedly the hero in these groups. Participants consider him an “educator” (in contrast to the popular Rush Limbaugh who is an “entertainer”) who teaches people history and puts himself at risk because he exposes the truth. In the words of a woman in Ft. Lauderdale, “I would trust my life in his hands.”

Other comments are just as laudatory:

I like the way he’s trying to get back to the basics of the Constitution of the United States because I think that’s where our government is losing focus. They’re trying to change the Constitution or somehow twist it…

He brings out facts… And he actually shows the people saying the things. It’s not like just sound bites. It’s not chopped and really edited. And he is scary because every time I watch the show, which is pretty much every day, my heart feels…and I feel like I want to do something.

I’m frightened for him… Because of the things that he says. I think that he is stepping on some big toes.

He really does his research and he really lays it out to you well; a good professor.

Keep in mind that he has also made a recent and significant shift to the religious right, synthesizing his “historical” perspective with the Christian Reconstructionist views of David Barton (who follows the same line as theocrat Bill Gothard — mentor to Grayson’s opponent Daniel Webster and Mike Huckabee.)

Beck is where all the strains of anti-Obama far right energy culminate — his roiling, fertile, inchoate imagination bringing it all together in a toxic stew of paranoia, fundamentalism, victimization, exceptionalism and violence. He may be a clown, but he’s an evil clown. And his power shouldn’t be underestimated. Good for Milbank for using his new perch to say it.

Update: Read this transcript with Milbank on Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz trying with everything he has to help Beck avoid responsibility for his rhetoric. What’s interesting about it is that Milbank is a Villager in extremely good standing and he is breaking the rules and being quite shrill about a Real American. It’s obvious that Kurtz doesn’t want him to go where he’s going, but he’s doing it anyway, in a pretty serious way, which is unusual in itself.

I’m guessing that the difference between them at this point is that Milbank has actually watched Beck.

Update II: This gives reason for hope that at least in some parts of the country, his schtick has started to wear thin.

.

.

Sovereign Hotheads

by digby

Alternet is doing great work on the various strands of the right wing these days and it’s essential reading every day if you are interested in following this riveting, unfolding story. Today Justine Sharrock takes a look at the “Sovereign Citizen” movement which I last heard of back in the 90s. These are a very American brand of wingnuts, a far right form of anarchism rooted in the “gold standard” conspiracy theories. And, as with all the far right groups, it appears to be growing smartly in the Obama era:

The sovereign citizens movement has seen a recent resurgence similar to its heyday in the 1990s — no surprise, given the recession, increase in federal laws, and the right-wing rhetoric of shock jocks and Tea Party politicians. Since it’s not an organized movement, there are no reliable statistics. But sovereign citizens themselves say there is an increase of people visiting their Web sites, attending their lectures, and listening to their radio shows. Mark Pitcavage from the Anti-defamation League, who has been studying the movement for over 15 years, says he’s received more and more calls from law enforcement and others asking for advice on how to deal with sovereign citizens.

Their basic premise is, like so many things these days, based on an unorthodox interpretation of the 14th Amendment. They claim that when the nation was founded, citizens had prime authority and the government was set up to protect our God given “unalienable rights.” But the 14th Amendment created a new hierarchy: God, citizens, government, and then former slaves. Over time, through specific wording used in laws, forms and court rulings, the government has managed to trick all citizens into subservience. Now, every time you sign or register with the federal government, be it a driver’s license, Social Security number, tax form, or even something as simple a construction permit, you are entering a contractual and legal relationship with the government, according to the sovereign citizen philosophy.

Another example of citizen subservience: they argue that FDA drug laws use the phrase “man or other animals” which demotes people to the status of animals without inalienable rights. This, they argue, goes against the Bible, which differentiates man from beast, and thus, according to sovereign citizens, all drug laws represent a violation of religious freedom. There are endless examples, and sovereign citizens continually discover new ones.

Read the whole thing. It’s a mind-blower. I hadn’t known the religious aspect before, thinking this was a sort of fanatical libertarianism. But these folks are all swimming in the same philosophical stew at some level, so it makes sense that they would start to merge.

By the way, these are among the most likely members of the far right fringe to resort to violence.

.