A fundraiser launched Tuesday by progressive bloggers as part of an effort to support progressive members of Congress with the guts to stand up to Big Insurance, Big Pharma and to the pressure from their own party bosses has topped $100,000 from more than 1,500 donors in just 24 hours and counting.
By Friday morning the ActBlue fundraiser has taken in over $300,000 -- with over 5,200 contributors.
The effort is being driven by FireDogLake.com and backed by blogs across the country.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
How Can Only 40 Senate Republicans Stall Health Care Reform?
And How Senate Democrats Can Out Maneuver The Republicans
Updated Thursday August 20, 2009 10:10 AM
So far the new era of bipartisanship in Washington is more uni-lateral that bi-lateral. Last winter Pres. Obama kindly offered Republicans a bipartisan olive branch and extended them a place at the table of ideas to craft an economic stimulus package.
The response to that bipartisan olive branch was that Republicans trash talked Democrats and voted in mass against the stimulus bill anyway. Pres. Obama's stimulus package passed the in the U.S. House with zero Republican votes and only three Republicans broke ranks in the Senate to vote yes on cloture, which narrowly avoided a 'cloture filibuster' of the stimulus bill.
Pres. Obama, who had hoped for a widely supported bipartisan economic stimulus bill, got stonewalled despite conceding away large parts of the stimulus package to Republican objections that many economists said were essential.
Sound Familiar? The same thing is happening on health care reform legislation! How can only 40 Senate Republicans, with maybe the help of half-a-dozen conservative blue dog Democrats, kill, or at least stall, health care reform legislation?
In the Senate a mere threat of a no vote by 41 Senators on a cloture motion to limit debate on a bill amounts to a filibuster.
It certainly did not routinely takes sixty votes to do almost everything in the Senate during the years Republicans were in the majority and controlled Senate business. When Republicans controlled the U.S. Senate during the Bush presidency they accused Democrats of being obstructionists any time they said they might call for and vote down cloture in response to Republicans pushing very partisan conservative legislation and judicial nominees through congress. Ranking Republicans in the G.O.P who then controlled the U.S. Senate, threatened the "nuclear option," against Democrats, which would have effectively eliminated filibustering from the senate rule book.
Republicans were singing a different tune after they they lost control of the senate in the November 2006 election and became the minority party in the 110th Congress. The number of cloture votes (stealth filibusters) forced by Senate minority Republicans skyrocketed in the 110th Congress.
So, before Republicans were for using the filibuster as the minority party, they were against it when they were the majority party - A clear flip flop!
The Senate was forced by Republicans to voted on 112 cloture motions (filibuster attempts) in the 110th congress controlled by Democrats, exactly double the number (56) of cloture votes in the 109th Congress, when Democrats were in the minority and Republicans were in control. The 110th congress cloture motions were two-and-a-half times as many as the average number of cloture votes (44) over the previous nine Congresses.
Of these cloture motions, 51 were rejected, meaning that Republicans succeeded in "procedurally filibustering" an up-or-down vote because at least 41 Republican Senators merely said they would vote against limiting debate to allow a floor vote. They effectively accomplished a "procedural filibuster" without actually holding the senate floor to continue debate for hours and days and weeks in a "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" type of filibuster. On the 61 cloture votes to limit debate that did succeed, thus defeating the procedural filibuster, Republicans at the very least successfully stalled for time.
With the Republican minority numbers slipping to just 40 Senators for the 111th Congress (now that Al Franken D-MN has been seated) Republicans have formed a united front in threatening to use the power of the cloture vote to stall legislative business at every opportunity. Republicans forced the legislative pendulum to the far right during the Bush years and now with the help of up to six or so conservative blue dog Democrats they are determined to do everything possible to keep it stuck in the far right position using the 60 vote cloture rule.
With the Republican minority in the senate, along with a handful of blue dogs, exerting every effort to kill any health care reform legislation, Senate Democrats have two options to skirt Republican cloture vote filibusters against health care reform legislation:
Legislation passed under the Budget Reconciliation rule is allowed to contain only provisions for policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve government spending and revenue goals. Therefore, Republicans would undoubtedly contest "Budget Reconciliation" legislation that includes health reform items, such as regulations on rescission and pre-existing conditions practices employed by private insurance companies. Republicans would argue such items do not conform to Budget Reconciliation rules. [NYTimes]
The question of whether or not the public health insurance option legislation conforms to Budget Reconciliation rules is a gray area and would likely also be challenged by Republicans. [Dailykos] Even so,
White House and Senate Democratic leaders are reportedly considering a strategy shift that would present health reform legislation in two separate bills. One bill would include health reforms that do conform to Budget Reconciliation rules and would reportedly include a public insurance option to compete with private insurers. This bill could be passed with just 51 votes through the Budget Reconciliation parliamentary maneuver. [WSJ Online]
Current
Updated Thursday August 20, 2009 10:10 AM
So far the new era of bipartisanship in Washington is more uni-lateral that bi-lateral. Last winter Pres. Obama kindly offered Republicans a bipartisan olive branch and extended them a place at the table of ideas to craft an economic stimulus package.
The response to that bipartisan olive branch was that Republicans trash talked Democrats and voted in mass against the stimulus bill anyway. Pres. Obama's stimulus package passed the in the U.S. House with zero Republican votes and only three Republicans broke ranks in the Senate to vote yes on cloture, which narrowly avoided a 'cloture filibuster' of the stimulus bill.
Pres. Obama, who had hoped for a widely supported bipartisan economic stimulus bill, got stonewalled despite conceding away large parts of the stimulus package to Republican objections that many economists said were essential.
Sound Familiar? The same thing is happening on health care reform legislation! How can only 40 Senate Republicans, with maybe the help of half-a-dozen conservative blue dog Democrats, kill, or at least stall, health care reform legislation?
In the Senate a mere threat of a no vote by 41 Senators on a cloture motion to limit debate on a bill amounts to a filibuster.
Cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on debate of a bill or other matter, and thereby guarantee that an up or down vote will be called on the bill. This is the only way to overcome a Senate filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes. The cloture rule, adopted in 1917, allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote. The new 'two-thirds' rule still made breaking up a filibuster difficult; therefore, the Cloture rule was amended by the senate body in 1975 to reduced the number of votes required to end the filibuster from two-thirds (67 votes) to three-fifths (60 votes).Democrats in the Senate today do not seem ready to make Republicans actually stand on the Senate floor and publicly filibuster health care reform in front of the Senate cameras for hours and days and weeks. (As in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington - youtube clip) Neither do Democrats seem ready to threaten the "nuclear option," to eliminate or amend filibustering in the senate rule book, as Republicans did against Democrats when the G.O.P controlled the Senate.
It certainly did not routinely takes sixty votes to do almost everything in the Senate during the years Republicans were in the majority and controlled Senate business. When Republicans controlled the U.S. Senate during the Bush presidency they accused Democrats of being obstructionists any time they said they might call for and vote down cloture in response to Republicans pushing very partisan conservative legislation and judicial nominees through congress. Ranking Republicans in the G.O.P who then controlled the U.S. Senate, threatened the "nuclear option," against Democrats, which would have effectively eliminated filibustering from the senate rule book.
(The term "nuclear option" was coined by Lott, one of the leading advocates of a proposal to change the Senate rule that requires a three-fifths supermajority to invoke cloture and end a filibuster. After Republican strategists deemed the term a political liability, Republican senators began to attribute it to Democrats. As Media Matters for America noted, at the time, many in the news media followed suit, repeating the Republicans' false attribution of the term to the Democrats.)The nuclear threat worked - Senate Democrats were consistently cowed into allowing Republicans to pass very partisan conservative legislation and confirm very conservative judges, effectively unopposed. Ultimately, this left Democrats with no voice in the Republican controlled Senate! - None!
So, before Republicans were for using the filibuster as the minority party, they were against it when they were the majority party - A clear flip flop!
The Senate was forced by Republicans to voted on 112 cloture motions (filibuster attempts) in the 110th congress controlled by Democrats, exactly double the number (56) of cloture votes in the 109th Congress, when Democrats were in the minority and Republicans were in control. The 110th congress cloture motions were two-and-a-half times as many as the average number of cloture votes (44) over the previous nine Congresses.
Of these cloture motions, 51 were rejected, meaning that Republicans succeeded in "procedurally filibustering" an up-or-down vote because at least 41 Republican Senators merely said they would vote against limiting debate to allow a floor vote. They effectively accomplished a "procedural filibuster" without actually holding the senate floor to continue debate for hours and days and weeks in a "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" type of filibuster. On the 61 cloture votes to limit debate that did succeed, thus defeating the procedural filibuster, Republicans at the very least successfully stalled for time.
With the Republican minority numbers slipping to just 40 Senators for the 111th Congress (now that Al Franken D-MN has been seated) Republicans have formed a united front in threatening to use the power of the cloture vote to stall legislative business at every opportunity. Republicans forced the legislative pendulum to the far right during the Bush years and now with the help of up to six or so conservative blue dog Democrats they are determined to do everything possible to keep it stuck in the far right position using the 60 vote cloture rule.
With the Republican minority in the senate, along with a handful of blue dogs, exerting every effort to kill any health care reform legislation, Senate Democrats have two options to skirt Republican cloture vote filibusters against health care reform legislation:
- The Nuclear Option of changing senate rules on the cloture vote threshold, or
- Use Senate Budget Reconciliation rules, which disallows a motion for a cloture vote, to vote on health care legislation
Legislation passed under the Budget Reconciliation rule is allowed to contain only provisions for policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve government spending and revenue goals. Therefore, Republicans would undoubtedly contest "Budget Reconciliation" legislation that includes health reform items, such as regulations on rescission and pre-existing conditions practices employed by private insurance companies. Republicans would argue such items do not conform to Budget Reconciliation rules. [NYTimes]
The question of whether or not the public health insurance option legislation conforms to Budget Reconciliation rules is a gray area and would likely also be challenged by Republicans. [Dailykos] Even so,
White House and Senate Democratic leaders are reportedly considering a strategy shift that would present health reform legislation in two separate bills. One bill would include health reforms that do conform to Budget Reconciliation rules and would reportedly include a public insurance option to compete with private insurers. This bill could be passed with just 51 votes through the Budget Reconciliation parliamentary maneuver. [WSJ Online]
Republicans repeatedly used reconciliation to pass President Bush's agenda when they controlled congress to circumvent any possibility of a filibuster by Senate Democrats. Republicans used the budget reconciliation process to pass President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as well as the 2005 "Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act." The Senate also used the reconciliation procedure to pass a bill containing a provision that would permit oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Although, the final version of that bill signed by President Bush did not contain the provision on drilling.)The second health care reform bill would include non-budgetary items such as the stricter insurance regulations central to Pres. Obama's health-care message. This bill would be advanced as normal legislation. The second bill would likely set new rules for private insurers, including stopping the practice of rescission and requiring they accept anyone, regardless of pre-existing medical conditions. This portion of the health-care overhaul has already drawn some Republican support and wouldn't involve new spending, leading Democratic leaders to believe they could clear the 60-vote hurdle.
The Nuclear Option From Talking Points Memo: Should the Democrats Change the Filibuster Rule? December 10, 2008, 9:00PM With the Democrats holding the presidency and solid majorities in both houses in Congress, Republican filibusters are now the only thing preventing truly progressive legislation. Should the Democrats therefore try to change or get rid of filibusters? We should keep in mind that the Democrats could do this if they wished, possibly turning the Senate into a majority-rule chamber like every other legislative body. How could this be done? There are two possible ways to change the rules. Rule changes in the Senate currently require a two-thirds majority of Senators present and voting. So theoretically this is possible, but the Republicans of course would never allow it. The other way is to use what is called the nuclear option (by its opponents), or the constitutional option (by its advocates). This is a complicated use of parliamentary procedure that ultimately results in a simple majority vote that ends a filibuster. Essentially a Senator wishing to end the filibuster makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote and the presiding officer of the Senate upholds this, citing the Constitution rather than Senate precedent as a guide (hence the name Constitutional option). When this happens the only recourse in parliamentary procedure is to appeal the decision of the chair. If one of the filibustering Senators does this, then an anti-filibuster Senator immediately moves to table that appeal. Since motions to table are non-debatable in parliamentary procedure, a vote to table the appeal is held immediately, and if it is passed by a simple majority then the chair's ruling that a vote must take place is upheld, and so a vote is taken. The filibuster is broken by a simple majority. The Republicans threatened to use this option when the Democrats were filibustering some of George Bush's judicial nominees, but a compromise was eventually reached and it was not employed. It has been used in the past, however, and it definitely does work. If the Democrats wanted to use it they could, and once this option is employed it becomes precedent-setting, so the Senate would then become a majority-rule body. There is no question, really, about whether this would work. It does work if a majority votes for it. The only real question is political: does the majority want to do it? A bit of history is in order here. The Senate had unlimited debate, and no cloture rule, until 1917, when a rule was adopted requiring a supermajority of two-thirds of Senators present and voting in order to cut off debate and end a filibuster. This rule remained in force until 1975, and filibustering was used most importantly by Democratic Senators from the south in order to block civil rights legislation. The longevity of this rule despite the fact that it can be overridden demonstrates the political considerations, as does the next step in the evolution of the rule. In 1975 a version of the nuclear option was used to change the filibuster rule by a simple majority vote of 51-42. However, the filibuster was not eliminated, rather the supermajority that was required to end a filibuster was changed from two-thirds of Senators present and voting to three-fifths of the Senate's full membership. This shows the political caution that Senators feel they must exercise regarding the filibuster rule. Polls have shown support for the filibuster rule, so Senators have two reasons not to use the nuclear option. First, they might want to use filibusters themselves at some point, second, they might not get re-elected if voters disapprove. The result is that Senators are very reluctant to get rid of the rule completely. The 1975 change was supposed to reduce the use of filibusters by lowering the cloture requirement from two-thirds to three-fifths, but it hasn't worked out that way. In the past, the requirement of two-thirds of those present and voting meant that the filibustering minority had to keep its Senators constantly present in order to maintain a one-third blocking minority anytime a vote to cut off debate might be held. This required a lot of personal commitment and discomfort f the majority decided to keep the Senate in session around the clock. This also produced high drama at times, as was depicted in the classic Jimmy Stewart movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. The 1975 change made the required supermajority to cut off debate three-fifths of the Senate's full membership, or sixty Senators if there are no vacancies. This means that the filibustering minority really only needs to mobilize one Senator at a time to conduct a filibuster, just the one doing the talking. If they rotate people speaking, then even if a cloture vote winds up 59-1 in favor of cutting off debate, it still fails and the filibuster continues. The result has been that the minority now just tells the majority that they intend to filibuster, and if the majority can't find sixty votes, it gives up. This is called a procedural filibuster, because an actual one is no longer necessary. Due to this, filibusters have proliferated tremendously. In the old days, filibusters were only employed when the minority felt very strongly about something, because filibusters were really uncomfortable and took a lot of effort and sacrifice. Now, any time a minority has 41 votes, they just announce a procedural filibuster, and they win. Given all this, I think we can expect that in the very near future we will see a huge number of filibusters. There is a lot of pent-up demand for progressive legislation, and the Democrats control the presidency and both houses of Congress, but the 41 or 42 Republican Senators can still effectively kill all the new legislation that the country needs. We also should keep in mind that several Democratic Senators are from Republican states, and we are as likely to lose votes at the margin as to gain them. So, the question soon will be: should the Democrats use the nuclear (oops, I mean Constitutional) option? I think they should, but in the same cautious way it was used in 1975. The Democrats will not be willing to just go completely to majority rule, because voters are not in favor of it. I feel that the Democrats should use the constitutional option to amend the filibuster rule, changing it from three-fifths of the full membership of the Senate to three-fifths of those present and voting. That would make it like the old days, but with the magic number being three-fifths instead of two-thirds. Then the chronic absenteeism of Senators becomes a very big factor. If only 90 Senators are present for example, then you would only need 54 votes to end a filibuster. This would require the Republicans to work for it if they really wanted to oppose something. They would have to do the Jimmy Stewart thing, which would also have the added benefit of making the Senate a lot less boring. I think we should expect this issue to be prominent in the coming months and prepare for it. The slogan should be "the filibuster - amend it, don't end it", and I have some talking points. The first is "when a vote is 59-1, one shouldn't win, and the second is "90% of life is showing up, except in the US Senate". Be prepared. |
Correcting The Record
AirAmerica Radio: President Obama asked Americans to ratchet down the rhetoric. It's time to have a conversation on the topic of health care reform--not a screaming match.
Some people are heeding the president's call for reason. At Monday's City Place town hall meeting in Dallas between Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson and Republican Rep. Pete Sessions some of the opposing points of view actually joined in meaningful debate, but [according to a segment aired on AirAmerica Radio] the paper of record distorted the facts.
One such media-distorted town hall attendee (the woman pictured on the DMN front page) called Montel to set the record straight. Listen:
Some people are heeding the president's call for reason. At Monday's City Place town hall meeting in Dallas between Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson and Republican Rep. Pete Sessions some of the opposing points of view actually joined in meaningful debate, but [according to a segment aired on AirAmerica Radio] the paper of record distorted the facts.
One such media-distorted town hall attendee (the woman pictured on the DMN front page) called Montel to set the record straight. Listen:
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Republican U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions Health Care Town Hall Discussion - Aug 19th
Republican U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions will be in Irving for a Health Care Town Hall Discussion on Wednesday, August 19th, 5:30 PM. (Rep. Sessions opposes Pres. Obama's call for a national health insurance option.)
Supporters for health care reform are planning to rally outside the event venue. RSVP to join that healthcare reform support rally outside the venue by clicking here. If you are Congressman Sessions' constituent please call 972-392-0505 to RSVP to get inside to hear Rep. Sessions.
Ranchview High School in Irving,
8401 Valley Ranch Pkwy
Irving, TX 75013 (Map)
Wednesday, August 19th, 5:30 PM
Supporters for health care reform are planning to rally outside the event venue. RSVP to join that healthcare reform support rally outside the venue by clicking here. If you are Congressman Sessions' constituent please call 972-392-0505 to RSVP to get inside to hear Rep. Sessions.
Ranchview High School in Irving,
8401 Valley Ranch Pkwy
Irving, TX 75013 (Map)
Wednesday, August 19th, 5:30 PM
FreedomWorks Head Dick Armey Endorses Hutchison's Run For TX Gov's Office
Star-Telegram.com: Hutchison: It's time to retire Gov. Perry
According to the Star-Telegram article, Texas political veteran and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey is traveling with Hutchison to endorse her candidacy.
In 2009, FreedomWorks, which is headed by Dick Armey, launched a campaign against President Barack Obama's health care proposals, accusing the Obama administration of attempting to "socialize medicine."
In Rachel Maddow's investigative report the reporter says that FreedomWorks' strategy has been to disrupt and shut down the August 2009 town hall congressional meetings on health care reform. Sen. Hutchison has said she opposes Pres. Obama's call for national health care reform.
Hutchison, who has been in the Senate since 1993, opened the gubernatorial campaign Monday in her hometown of La Marque and ended the day in Austin at her alma mater, the University of Texas at Austin, after stops in Houston and San Antonio. A five-day, 19-city swing, continues through Friday, when she will be in Fort Worth for a morning appearance at the Cowgirl Hall of Fame. Hutchison also plans a Metroplex stop Tuesday night at Eddie Deen’s restaurant in Dallas. Read the full story @ the Star-Telegram.comFor Hutchison's facebook schedule of stops on her week long campaign kickoff tour of Texas click here.
|
In 2009, FreedomWorks, which is headed by Dick Armey, launched a campaign against President Barack Obama's health care proposals, accusing the Obama administration of attempting to "socialize medicine."
In Rachel Maddow's investigative report the reporter says that FreedomWorks' strategy has been to disrupt and shut down the August 2009 town hall congressional meetings on health care reform. Sen. Hutchison has said she opposes Pres. Obama's call for national health care reform.
National Healthcare Debate Came To Dallas On Monday
ABC Affiliate Channel 8 News - The national health care debate came to Dallas on Monday:
A few hundred invited guests of the debaters and local health care organizations packed Cityplace Conference Center, listening to Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson and Republican Rep. Pete Sessions, both of Dallas, debate healthcare reform. So far, this townhall discussion is the only bipartisan congressional town hall meeting on health care in the nation during the August recess. Johnson is a registered nurse with 15 years' experience at patients' bedsides.Full video of complete Dallas town hall discussion on CBS Affiliate channel 11 click here.
Organizers said they couldn't be more pleased with the outcome of the two-and-a-half hour meeting at Cityplace. The audience was very respectful of the speakers, and that gave everyone involved time to absorb a lot of information about the pros and cons of health care reform.
Nearly a quarter of the state's 24 million people are uninsured, and North Texas has some of the highest health care costs in the state. Johnson said that in 2008, there were 690 personal bankruptcies in her district, primarily because of health care costs. She also cited Parkland Memorial Hospital's more than $500 million in uncompensated care to treat the uninsured.
This year, Texans and their employers are paying $1,800 per family and $630 per individual in higher premiums to help pay for the uninsured, according to the Center for American Progress, primarily a Democratic think tank. The cost shift represents about 13 percent of all private premiums paid, far more than the national average – slightly above 8 percent.
For full story and ABC Affiliate Channel 8 News video click here and here.
Noted with picture in the NYTimes here.
Noted with picture in Reuters here.
Texas has the highest percentage of those without health insurance in the entire country. A U.S. Census Bureau report released last August showed that nearly 25 percent of Texans (just over 5.5 million residents) lacked insurance (compared to a national average of 15.5 percent). A Families USA report released in March found that the number of uninsured in Texas throughout 2007 and 2008 is much higher, around 9.3 million:
The report went further to say that 7.5 million Texans were uninsured for six months or more during that same time period and about 82.6 percent, were in working families, either working full or part-time.
An estimated 5,550 Texans are losing their health coverage each week, Families USA says in another report out in July 2009. “Rising like a deadly tide, escalating health care costs will have caused 866,580 Texans to lose their health coverage between January 2008 and December 2010,” the organization says.Selected videos of the event from the iflizwerequeen YouTube channel:
August 17, 2009 Mary Warren, President Park Cities/Central Dallas Democrats is shown in this video clip outside the Conference Center where Representatives Eddie Bernice Johnson (D) and Pete Sessions (R) are scheduled to appear in a panel discussion on health care reform. Those who stood for healthcare reform in the crowd on the outside outnumbered those who were against it five to one. More citizens should get out there with their Flip videos and capture the truth. AMERICANS DO WANT HEALTH CARE REFORM AND NOW. | ||
August 17, 2009 The numbers grew as the time drew closer to the scheduled panel discussion with Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson and Pete Sessions. However the ratio remained as you see it in these two videos--about 5 to 1 in favor of health care reform | ||
This young woman and her husband are both cancer patients and they have two young children. Her healthcare insurance is paid for by her employer. However she worries about her job security since she works in the financial industry. If she loses her job, she and her husband are uninsurable--tell that to their two young children. |
Monday, August 17, 2009
New Poll 57% of Republicans Believe Or Aren’t Sure About “Death Panel” Claim
theplumline: A forthcoming poll by the nonpartisan Research 2000 for DailyKos finds that 57% of Republicans either believes or is uncertain about the veracity of claims that the Dem health care proposal will create “death panels” to determine whether the sick or injured get health care depending on their “productivity in society,” versus only 43% of of Republicans who don’t believe it.
Question: Do you think the health care reform plan being considered by President Obama and Congress creates “death panels” which have the authority to subjectively determine whether or not a gravely ill or injured person should receive health care based on their “level of productivity in society”?More at dailykos.com
Republicans Answered:Yes: 26
No: 43
Not sure: 31
Rightwing Blasting "Usolicited" Healthcare Reform Mis-Information Spam
|
Go to Reality Check to get the straight information!
The following are just a few samples of the "unsolicited" healthcare reform mis-information email spam being sent by the right wing:
EUTHANASIA ADVOCATES AUTHORED PART OF OBAMACARE
Tell Congress to Oppose Obama Health Care Bill
[...]message to all 535 members of the House and Senate for YOU.
Alert: Part of the controversial Obamacare proposal pending in Congress that discusses "end-of-life" counseling and medical procedures that could be rationed based on the age of the patient and other factors was written by suicide advocates who argue openly for the "right" to death, according to reports.
The sources for the Obamacare provisions have been documented on a blog for Family Research Council Action and discussed by prominent pro-life columnist Jill Stanek.
"Come again that promotion of euthanasia isn't part of Section 1233?" Stanek wrote in her new explanation of the dangers of Obamacare. "Kudos to FRC's The Cloakroom …for drawing attention to the fact that the two authors of Section 1233 are major proponents of euthanasia and assisted suicide."
The authors include an Oregon congressman who has argued for assisted suicide before federal courts and an organization that openly boasts it helps "thousands of clients each year by ... guiding their search for a peaceful, humane death...."
FRC Action reports on its website the group "has been getting some heat" for its criticism of the plan.
"Today comes (a) smoking gun … with the group Compassion & Choices coming out defending the questionable rationing portions of the bill and admitting THEY ACTUALLY WROTE THE LANGUAGE!" FRC Action said.
Stanek took up the explanation:
"The group Compassion & Choices, formerly known as the Hemlock Society, also says it had a hand in crafting Section 1233, writing July 27: 'Compassion & Choices has worked tirelessly with supportive members of Congress to include in proposed reform legislation a provision requiring Medicare to cover patient consultation with their doctors about end-of-life choice (section 1233 of House Bill 3200),'" she wrote.
"Compassion & Choices calls itself part of the 'aid-in-dying movement,'" she continued, quoting from the organization's description of itself:
... An organization dedicated to care of terminally ill patients, including those seeking a hastened death....
Compassion & Choices... improves care and expands choice at the end of life....
Our professional staff and trained volunteers help thousands of clients each year by... guiding their search for a peaceful, humane death....
We offer information on self-determined dying...
The second party claiming authorship of some of the controversial parts of the plan is Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., who wrote about his state's "Death with Dignity" law that allows doctors to give patients fatal doses of medication:
"The amicus brief I have filed with other members of the delegation supports the (appellate) court's decision to uphold Oregon's Death with Dignity law. In 1994, Oregon overwhelmingly approved physician-assisted suicide in a statewide vote. … Former U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft repeatedly attempted to undermine the Oregon law using various methods. Each time the judge ruled in favor of the Oregon law. I am pleased that Attorney General Gonzalez' attempt to overturn the will of the people has been no more successful than his predecessor's."
While physician assisted suicide is a contentious issue, it is an issue handled at the state level and the attorney general should not be permitted to deprive the citizens of Oregon and the nation the opportunity to make end of life decisions."
Blumenauer has condemned criticism of Obamacare's provisions.
"The provision included in H.R. 3200 simply allows Medicare to pay for a conversation between patients and their doctors if the patient wishes to speak about his or her preferences and values," the congressman said. "The new Medicare benefit would allow doctors to be compensated for these conversations every five years, and more frequently if a patient has a life-limiting illness or health status changes."
He said without such "discussions," "families are left struggling to make decisions in the midst of turmoil."
Compassion and Choices also condemned criticism of the bill.
Citing its work on the language of the bill, it said, "Anti-choice extremists and their allies in Congress have begun attacking this critical provision, saying it will 'promote euthanasia' and that it's part of a cynical plan to deny health care to the elderly and terminally ill."
On Stanek's blog, participants shared her alarm.
"What's conspicuously absent is a provision that the patient consents to orders written after the counseling session. Or that the orders be written by the patient's primary care physician," wrote one.
"'Self determined dying' sounds as innocent and good for us as 'women's reproductive health,'" said another. "Have to dress it up to sell it."
"Frankly, the death culture has strongly permeated our nation, especially among the liberal elite," wrote a third. "Many of them will either deny, make fun of or outright oppose the pro-life position."
Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, has had his organization analyze the plan, and confirmed it contains health care rationing, a national health ID card complete with government access to personal bank accounts, government decisions on what health care benefits are available and mandatory taxpayer support for abortion.
Staver condemned the health plan as worse than China's mandatory one-child policy.
The Liberty Counsel analysis said under Section 1308, the government will dictate marriage and family therapy as well as mental health services, including the definitions of those treatments, and under Section 1401, a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research would be set up, creating a bureaucracy through which federal employees could determine whether any treatment is "comparatively effective" for any individual based on the cost, likely success and probably the years left in life.
It also, according to Staver, "covers abortions, transsexual surgeries, encourages counseling as to how many children you should have, whether you should increase the interval between children."
The Liberty Counsel analysis also pointed out the government would be allowed to ration health care procedures, prevent "judicial review" of its decision, tell doctors what income they can have, impose new taxes for anyone not having an "acceptable" coverage, regulate whether seniors can have wheelchairs, penalize hospitals or doctors whose patients require "readmission," prevent the expansion of hospitals and set up procedures for home visits by health care analysts.
Under Section 440, Liberty Counsel said, the government "will design and implement Home Visitation Program for families with young kids and families that expect children." And Section 194 provides for a program that has the government "coming into your house and teaching/telling you how to parent," LC said. (WND)
Thank You Patriot!
DO NOT BE SILENCED BY ANYONE STAND UP! MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!
TAKE ACTION: Send YOUR blast [...] to ALL 535 Congressman NOW!
NOTE: Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know who supports saving America and Protecting our Middle Class. Thank you!
We Support Responsible Email Compliance:
This email cannot be considered spam as long as we include: Contact information & remove instructions.
-------------------------
PROOF: OBAMACARE WILL LEAD TO 'MEDICAL MURDER'
Tell Congress to Oppose Obama's Health Care Mandate
[...]message to all 535 members of the House and Senate for YOU.
Alert: Imagine lying in some government-run hospital, hospice or nursing home many years from now. Imagine languishing unattended for days in soiled sheets, suffering from hunger and thirst, covered with bed sores, your flesh aboil with untreated infections. Imagine living in fear of resentful, underpaid health aides who take out their anger on you and abuse you. And imagine spending your final moments on earth in the company of a government health care worker with a syringe, who injects you with a lethal cocktail.
Do you find this hard to imagine? You should. In any civilized country, such things should not happen ever. But President Obama's health care proposals have the very real potential to turn this nightmare into a reality for many Americans, according to an in-depth investigation reported in the August edition of Whistleblower magazine, titled "MEDICAL MURDER: Why Obamacare could result in the early deaths of millions of baby boomers."
Especially vulnerable are the 80 million baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964. "If you belong to that group, take note," says Richard Poe, author of the August cover story. "Your generation has been targeted for a program of age-based medical rationing such as our country has never before experienced."
Adds Whistleblower Editor David Kupelian, "If this dire end-of-life scenario sounds too awful to be possible, that is only because the reality of Obamacare has not been sufficiently reported. For this is not a fantasy it is what is already occurring in other 'civilized' nations, including Canada and Britain, that have adopted the same government-run system."
For instance, the cover story, "Medical Murder," documents how British seniors, under a government-run system, "are routinely denied treatment for cancer, heart disease and other deadly illnesses," many dying "in filthy, overcrowded hospitals or nursing homes, rife with pestilence, including the deadly, antibiotic-resistant superbugs." Numerous horror stories of needed medical care intentionally denied reveal the stark reality of government-run health care worldwide.
To a small degree, Obamacare's ominous implications are starting to leak out. Here's how columnist Charlotte Allen explained it recently in the Los Angeles Times:
In looking for a way to fund healthcare, Obama has set his eye on the oldest and sickest. You see, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, about 30 percent of Medicare spending nearly $100 billion annually goes to care for patients during their last year of life. What if there were no 'last year of life,' the president seems to be asking. ... [W]hy not save billions of dollars by killing off our own unproductive oldsters and terminal patients, or since we aren't likely to do that outright in this, the 21st century why not simply ensure that they die faster by denying them costly medical care? The savings could then subsidize care for the younger and healthier.
And for those who have been paying close attention, Obama himself has ever-so-gently hinted at his true intentions. At a town hall event in June televised by ABC News, Obama cited the case of his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who died on the eve of his election, suggesting one way to cut medical costs would be to stop expensive procedures on people about to die.
Families, Obama said, need better information so they don't approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."
"Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," the president offered.
Obama was slightly more explicit in a May 3 interview with the New York Times, when he said there ought to be a national "conversation" over whether "sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else's aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they're terminally ill is a sustainable model." Such decisions, added Obama, shouldn't be left to patients or their relatives, but to a "group" of "doctors, scientists, ethicists" who are not part of "normal political channels."
One such elite medical decision-maker would be Obama's special adviser for health policy, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel. He's a longtime advocate of "age-weighted medical rationing" meaning, the older you are, the less care you get, as in Britain. But what about the Hippocratic Oath, you might ask, the sacred vow doctors have always taken to do all they can to heal their patients? As Whistleblower documents, Emanuel advises doctors to stop taking that oath so literally, and instead to be "prudent" in assessing how much time, effort and money each patient is worth, for the greater good of society.
Moreover, as "MEDICAL MURDER" reports, a bill being pushed hard by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Health Care, will take from Congress all authority over federal health spending and decree that such decisions in the future would be made by a secretive committee of "experts" modeled after are you ready? the Federal Reserve Board.
"Obamacare is arguably the single most important issue of our time," said Kupelian. "It's not about taxes, debt, wasteful spending or burdensome regulations it's about our very lives, and the lives of our loved ones. Americans seriously need to wake up and see the horror staring them in the face, and then they need to let their elected representatives know, in no uncertain terms, exactly what they think of Obamacare." (WND)
DO NOT BE SILENCED BY ANYONE STAND UP! MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!
TAKE ACTION: Send YOUR blast [...] to ALL 535 Congressman NOW!
Thank You Patriot!
NOTE: Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know who supports saving America and Protecting our Middle Class. Thank you!
We Support Responsible Email Compliance:
This email cannot be considered spam as long as we include: Contact information & remove instructions.
------------------------
OBAMACARE WILL REPLACE MEDICARE
Tell Congress to Oppose Obama's Health Care Mandate
[...]message to all 535 members of the House and Senate for YOU.
Alert: Political Insider Dick Morris is worried that complacency among citizens could result in a disastrous healthcare overhaul costing Americans for generations to come.
In an exclusive interview Morris was asked whether he thinks Democrats will do what Sen. Chuck Schumer has alluded to: Ram health reform through without any Republican support using a process called “reconciliation.” That requires only a simple majority instead of 60 votes.
"Yeah, I think they're going to try it. I think there's no chance that they’ll get 60 votes, there's no chance of any real Republican support," Morris said. "They're going try and jam this thing through, and of course, it will pass the House because they march in lockstep."
"So it is absolutely crucial for us to be aggressive and active in taking the steps to fight it," he said.
The key is spreading information about the mammoth healthcare bills and mobilizing the conservative grass roots, Morris said.
"The fact that public opinion is moving against this legislation does not guarantee its defeat, because he (Obama) can still ram this thing through."
Morris contends that senior citizens will pay the biggest price under the overhaul.
"This healthcare reform proposal really is the repeal of Medicare," Morris said. "That's really what it comes down to, because they're going to provide medical care to 50 million new people without expanding the number of doctors or nurses," he said.
"You can't do that; you can't just write a check for more healthcare, got to have more doctors or more nurses to administer it," he added. "That means there's going to be less health care for each person and that will force rationing."
What will endanger the elderly most, Morris said, is the rationing of heart and hip operations, which constitute the bulk of elder care.
"Rationing involves a decision that is supposedly rational as to who should get care and who doesn't get it," Morris explained. "And inevitably that's going to mean saying no to the elderly, no to people that want hip transplants, no to people that need new knee surgery, or no even to people who have bypass surgery."
Morris cited the medical care system in Canada as an example of why socialized medicine doesn't work.
"In Canada, where they have a system like this . . . there is an eight-week wait for cancer radiation: You have cancer, you have to wait eight weeks. There's an eight-month wait for colonoscopies and as a result the incidences of colon cancer in Canada is 25 percent higher than in the United States," he said. "The top drug we use to treat colon cancer, Avastin, is not permitted in Canada and the result is 41 percent of Canadians who get colon cancer die of it as against only 32 percent in the United States. Sounds horrific, but those are the stakes," Morris said.
Since Democrats have enough votes to pass the overhaul without any Republican support, why are they trying to win some GOP votes?
"They're worried about needing Republican support because they know how unpopular this thing is going to be when it’s adopted and after it's taken effect, and we're not just talking about the medical portion, we're talking about the tax hikes, too," Morris said.
"So they want to be able to say this was a bipartisan bill, don't blame the Democrats, Republicans put it over the top, too, just like they do with the stimulus package now where they got three Republicans to come on board. But I don’t think the Republicans are going to bite on this one." (Newsmax)
DO NOT BE SILENCED BY ANYONE STAND UP! MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!
TAKE ACTION: Send YOUR blast [...] to ALL 535 Congressman NOW!
Thank You Patriot!
NOTE: Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know who supports saving America and Protecting our Middle Class. Thank you!
We Support Responsible Email Compliance:
This email cannot be considered spam as long as we include: Contact information & remove instructions.
Sen. Hutchison Statewide Kickoff Campaign Tour Of TX
Houston Chronicle: LA MARQUE — U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison this morning formally announced as a Republican primary challenger to Rick Perry, the longest serving governor in Texas history.
Related posts and links:
As the storm of controversy surrounding the health care reform bills rages on, Texas Senators Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Cornyn are throwing themselves into the thick of things to oppose reform, teaming up with the Texas Medical Association for a series of town hall meetings across the state.
Appearing at La Marque High School, the Class of '61 graduate launched both her campaign and a five-day, 19-city tour of Texas.Hutchison will bring her statewide kickoff campaign tour to Dallas, TX on Tuesday, August 18, 2009 from 6:00pm - 7:30pm at Eddie Deen's Ranch, 944 South Lamar - View Map
In her announcement, Hutchison made no direct reference to her stated plans to resign her Senate seat in either October or November to concentrate on the March 2 GOP primary. But she promised to fight President Barack Obama's health care overhaul "while I'm in the Senate."
Hutchison made it clear that she plans to aggressively contest Perry on issues. But she also is going after his political base among social conservative and rural voters by reminding them of Perry's past support for state-mandated vaccinations against a sexually transmitted disease.
"Let me start by saying this about Rick Perry. He's a dedicated public servant. I know he loves Texas. But now he's trying to stay too long — 14 years, maybe longer," said Hutchison.
Hutchison said she will propose term limits of eight years for governor. Hutchison in 1994 had promised a self-imposed term limit of two full turns in the Senate, a promise she broke in 2006 to successfully seek a third full term in the Senate.
Related posts and links:
As the storm of controversy surrounding the health care reform bills rages on, Texas Senators Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Cornyn are throwing themselves into the thick of things to oppose reform, teaming up with the Texas Medical Association for a series of town hall meetings across the state.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Obama's Administration Waffling On A Public Option?
|
Obama himself seemed to be waffling on the public option commitment in his statement at a town hall meeting in Grand Junction, CO.,"All I'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform. This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it."
On the other hand, speaking on CBS News’ Face the Nation on Sunday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs emphasized that President Barack Obama still supports a “public option” for health care. Gibbs' statement seems to run contrary to Sebelius' statements on CNN's State of the Union Sunday program, that a public option is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul.
Update Monday August 17, 2009 @ 10:18 AM - A White House official told the Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius “misspoke” when she said that a public health care option was not “essential” to the administration’s health reform efforts.Sen. Curt Conrad (D-ND) told Fox News anchor Chris Wallace on Sunday that the U.S. Senate will not allow a public option, adding his belief that, “to continue to chase that rabbit is just a wasted effort.”
After comments made by President Barack Obama and Sebelius over the weekend implying that the White House would be willing to sign into law a health reform bill that doesn’t offer a public health care option, members of the administration countered that Pres. Obama does strongly support the public option.
The push to emphasize that the president will indeed fight for a public option reflects continued strong support for a public option from progressive Congressional Democrats as well as nationwide progressive groups, such as the President's old campaign organization that reorganized under the DNC as Organizing For America. According to an article at Politico.com, more than 100 liberal Democrats in the House are unlikely to vote for a health reform bill that does not include a public option.
If it comes down to an either/or choice, the lion's share of Democrats agree with Democratic strategist James Carville who suggests that instead of just throwing in the towel on a universal public health insurance option, Pres. Obama and Democrats in congresss should allow the conservatives to defeat it, then defeat those conservatives at the ballot box in 2010.
At a roundtable discussion on CNN's State of the Union Sunday program, Carville argued that if the Democrats can come up with an agreement that is supported by most Democratic members of Congress, they should let the GOP filibuster it, thereby killing health care reform and effectively painting the Republicans as being the party that opposed fixing the system.
That, Carville implied, would backfire on the GOP in upcoming elections. "Put a bill out there, make them filibuster it," Carville said. "Make them be what they are — the party of no. ... And you know what? Run on it. Let them kill it. Let them kill it with the interest group money, then run against them. That's what we ought to do."
From CNN's Web site:
“What about this?,” Carville said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, “Suppose they pass a House bill that can get 56 Senate Democrats.” Then, Carville suggested, instead of using reconciliation, a special budgetary maneuver in Senate procedure that frustrate GOP attempts to mount a filibuster, Democrats should call for a vote. “And make [Republicans] filibuster it. But the old kinda way is that they filibuster it and make’em go three weeks and all night and [Democrats] will be there the whole time.
“Then, you say, ‘They’re the people that stopped it. We had a majority of Democrats. We had a good bill. They stopped it.’"
|
Charting America's Health Care Future Event
An event started by the Progressive Center, and joined by MoveOn and Organizing For America OFA, is encouraging people to participate in a non-confrontational SILENT MAJORITY demonstration outside of the Charting America's Health Care Future event, with Congresspersons Eddie Bernice Johnson and Pete Sessions' forum in Dallas on Monday morning Aug. 17th.
This forum has been moved from the SMU campus to CityPlace Tower - 2711 Haskell & I-75 in Dallas. This is likely the only time that Congressional members of both the Democratic and Republican parties will meet in the North Texas area to discuss health reform. They recognize that this is an excellent opportunity to showcase the differences between advocates of health reform and the opposition. The call is out for progressives to stage a peaceful demonstration of support. We WILL showcase that difference.
Event contact phone number: 979-319-2443. Please RSVP to this number or this link to sign up for Monday demonstration so that we can get a headcount to prepare properly. We want everyone to be safe and comfortable. Thanks!
This forum has been moved from the SMU campus to CityPlace Tower - 2711 Haskell & I-75 in Dallas. This is likely the only time that Congressional members of both the Democratic and Republican parties will meet in the North Texas area to discuss health reform. They recognize that this is an excellent opportunity to showcase the differences between advocates of health reform and the opposition. The call is out for progressives to stage a peaceful demonstration of support. We WILL showcase that difference.
Event contact phone number: 979-319-2443. Please RSVP to this number or this link to sign up for Monday demonstration so that we can get a headcount to prepare properly. We want everyone to be safe and comfortable. Thanks!
Democratic Party of Collin Co. Honors Gov. Ann Richards
|
Sharp, who served as Texas State Comptroller from 1990 through 1999, told the Collin County Democrats that turning out the Democratic vote in Collin Collin will be key in electing Democrats to statewide office in future elections.
Sharp reminded dinner attendees that the first of those statewide elections, the special election to fill U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's vacated senate seat, could be in the not so distant future.
On Monday (Aug. 17) U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison will begin a five-day statewide campaign tour to formally announce that she will oppose Rick Perry in the March 2, 2010 Republican primary. Sen. Hutchison is scheduled to kick off her gubernatorial campaign tour of Texas at 8 A.M. Monday morning (Aug 16) in the gym of her hometown high school in La Marque.
Hutchison's formal gubernatorial campaign announcement will be no surprise, but everyone is waiting to see if she will surprise with a resignation announcement. There has been much speculation over her possible senate resignation and rumors are once again circulating that she will announce a resignation date during her Monday morning La Marque High School campaign kickoff event. (see Sen. Hutchison Says Will Resign Senate Seat In Oct. Or Nov.)
|
Unlike most other states, Texas allows the Governor to make a temporary senate appointment only until he can order a special or emergency election. Texas election law allows Perry to call that special election as soon as 36 days after Hutchison resigns.
After a ceremonial bill signing of House Bill 3 at R.L. Turner High School in Carrolton in late July Gov. Perry said he might quickly call a special election to replace Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison because too many important things are going on in Washington, D.C. [StarTelegram blog, July 29]So, Texas could have a special election as soon as November 3, 2009, or at any time as late as May 8, 2010 depending on exactly when KBH resigns. Sharp said it is even possible that Texans will go to the polls on the November 3, 2009 uniform election date to vote on the dozen or so amendments to the Texas Constitution, scheduled to be on the ballot, and then return to the polling place again sometime later in November or December 2009 to vote for a new U.S. Senator in a special election, if Hutchinson resigns in October, as many Texas politicos are now speculating.
|
"Comparing 2008 to 2004, there were 20,000 more straight ticket Democratic voters in 2008, while the Republicans’ straight ticket votes were virtually unchanged. Also, the raw Democratic vote in Collin County went up by 40,000 votes, while the raw Republican vote went up by only 10,000, a 30,000 net gain for the Democrats, reducing the vote gap between the Democratic and Republican vote by around 17.5 points."A representative for Houston Mayor Bill White, who has also announced his intention to run for for Kay Bailey Hutchison's vacated U.S. Senate seat, also made a few remarks during the dinner event.
"Increasing the Democratic vote in Collin County is critical on a statewide, and perhaps national, level. Because of our large population, a few more percentage points in our county can tip a statewide race blue."
Stevens observed that in November 2008 the Democratic vote for Pres. Obama was just under 38 percent. That turnout was a significant increase from the 28 percent given to presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004 and the 24 percent given to presidential candidate Al Gore in the November 2000 election. Stevens told the county Democrats that if they can help bump the Democratic vote turnout by just another 5 or 6 points, to 43 percent, in statewide races, this county can provide the margin of victory for Democratic gubernatorial, U.S. Senatorial and other statewide candidates.
Sworn in as Dallas County District Attorney on January 1, 2007 -- keynote speaker Craig Watkins -- was the first elected black district attorney in Texas. In November 2006, Watkins, then 39, was elected as part of a Democratic sweep in Dallas in which the party took 42 judgeships and six other countywide offices.
For his pursuit of a range of reforms designed to protect the wrongly accused and appropriately punish the guilty and for his willingness to stake out politically precarious territory to create a "conviction integrity unit," an operation that has freed prisoners who have been wrongly incarcerated, Mr. Watkins in 2008 was named "Texan of the Year" by the Dallas Morning News.
|
Dallas DNA chronicles the pioneering CIU where post-conviction DNA testing is being used to clear the innocent, as well as confirm the guilty.
Mr Watkins maintained a mostly non-partisan tone during his keynote speech emphasizing that elected officials must always remember that they were elected by the people to serve the community, not themselves or their political party.
|
Related posts and links:
- Sen. Hutchison Says Will Resign Senate Seat In Oct. Or Nov.
- Governor’s Race Exposes Republican Rift in Texas
- March 2010 Texas primary could define GOP future
- Is The GOP Shrinking In Collin Co. Like It Is Nationally?
- Republican Brand Growing Weak In Texas
- Where Did All the Republicans Go?
- Texas voters increasingly unhappy with GOP - DMN
- Poll's shocking SOS for Texas GOP - DMN
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Obama Weekly Address - Special Interests, Lobbysits Engaging In Fear To Stop Health Care Reform
|
Health Care Speaker Dr. Winfred Parnell - Sat. Aug. 22nd
Joe Duffy, Dallas Field Organizer for OFA and Dr. Winfred Parnell, member of Doctors for America will be available for an informative discussion on HealthCare Reform Legislation on Saturday, August 22 from 10:30 AM - 12:30 PM @ Schimelpfenig Library in Plano.
Discussion agenda includes an overview of how you can support HealthCare Reform Legislation on a local and national level. Dr. Parnell will also give a presentation on Health Care legislation now going through the legislative channels.
(Schimelpfenig Library - 5024 Custer Road, Plano, TX 75023 - map)
For additional details available on the OFA site click here.
Discussion agenda includes an overview of how you can support HealthCare Reform Legislation on a local and national level. Dr. Parnell will also give a presentation on Health Care legislation now going through the legislative channels.
(Schimelpfenig Library - 5024 Custer Road, Plano, TX 75023 - map)
For additional details available on the OFA site click here.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
The Town Hall Mob
The Town Hall Mob
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published in NYTimes: August 6, 2009
There’s a famous Norman Rockwell painting titled “Freedom of Speech,” (left) depicting an idealized American town meeting. The painting, part of a series illustrating F.D.R.’s “Four Freedoms,” shows an ordinary citizen expressing an unpopular opinion. His neighbors obviously don’t like what he’s saying, but they’re letting him speak his mind.
That’s a far cry from what has been happening at recent town halls, where angry protesters — some of them, with no apparent sense of irony, shouting “This is America!” — have been drowning out, and in some cases threatening, members of Congress trying to talk about health reform.
Some commentators have tried to play down the mob aspect of these scenes, likening the campaign against health reform to the campaign against Social Security privatization back in 2005. But there’s no comparison. I’ve gone through many news reports from 2005, and while anti-privatization activists were sometimes raucous and rude, I can’t find any examples of congressmen shouted down, congressmen hanged in effigy, congressmen surrounded and followed by taunting crowds.
And I can’t find any counterpart to the death threats at least one congressman has received. So this is something new and ugly. What’s behind it? . . .cynical political operators are exploiting that anxiety to further the economic interests of their backers.
Does this sound familiar? It should: it’s a strategy that has played a central role in American politics ever since Richard Nixon realized that he could advance Republican fortunes by appealing to the racial fears of working-class whites.
Read the rest of the story in the NYTimes:
The Health Care Debate Is Making Me Sick by Brian Unger NPR - The health care debate is toxic, revealing a lot about us as a nation. And it feels embarrassing — like the whole world can see our underpants. Or hear us fighting in the kitchen.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published in NYTimes: August 6, 2009
There’s a famous Norman Rockwell painting titled “Freedom of Speech,” (left) depicting an idealized American town meeting. The painting, part of a series illustrating F.D.R.’s “Four Freedoms,” shows an ordinary citizen expressing an unpopular opinion. His neighbors obviously don’t like what he’s saying, but they’re letting him speak his mind.
That’s a far cry from what has been happening at recent town halls, where angry protesters — some of them, with no apparent sense of irony, shouting “This is America!” — have been drowning out, and in some cases threatening, members of Congress trying to talk about health reform.
Some commentators have tried to play down the mob aspect of these scenes, likening the campaign against health reform to the campaign against Social Security privatization back in 2005. But there’s no comparison. I’ve gone through many news reports from 2005, and while anti-privatization activists were sometimes raucous and rude, I can’t find any examples of congressmen shouted down, congressmen hanged in effigy, congressmen surrounded and followed by taunting crowds.
And I can’t find any counterpart to the death threats at least one congressman has received. So this is something new and ugly. What’s behind it? . . .cynical political operators are exploiting that anxiety to further the economic interests of their backers.
Does this sound familiar? It should: it’s a strategy that has played a central role in American politics ever since Richard Nixon realized that he could advance Republican fortunes by appealing to the racial fears of working-class whites.
Read the rest of the story in the NYTimes:
[Listen - 2 min 57 sec] |
Republican “Death Panel” Talk Just "Nuts" Say GOP Lawmakers
In the multi-million dollar PR campaign to kill off health care reform, insurance companies, special interest groups and Republicans are lying to seniors telling them that health care reform will literally kill them; That government agents will be sent to senior's homes to ask them how they want to die or they will be required to have five-year medical reviews that could result in death sentences, if Pres. Obama's health care reform is enacted. Many Republicans in Congress are completely on board with this "kill granny" campaign of terror against senior citizens.
Last week, Sarah Palin echoed the audacious "kill granny" claim that President Obama plans to institute a system of “death panels” where “bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of people's level of productivity in society, whether they are worthy of health care.”
On his radio show Glenn Beck said that he thinks Palin has a point. ” I believe it to be true, but that’s quite a statement,” said Beck, adding, “I believe she at least should be listened to and you should question, ‘Is it evil?’” Listen to video above left:
Georgia’s junior Republican senator Johnny Isakson says that “death panel” talk is just “nuts.” The Republican lawmaker made that assessment in an interview with the Washington Post.
“In the health-care debate mark-up, one of the things I talked about was that the most money spent on anyone is spent usually in the last 60 days of life and that’s because an individual is not in a capacity to make decisions for themselves,” Isakson said. “So rather than getting into a situation where the government makes those decisions, if everyone had an end-of-life directive or what we call in Georgia ‘durable power of attorney,’ you could instruct at a time of sound mind and body what you want to happen in an event where you were in difficult circumstances where you’re unable to make those decisions.”
How someone could take end of life directives or living wills as [“death panels”] is nuts. You’re putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don’t know how that got so mixed up.”
The senator noted that all fifty states — including Palin’s Alaska — have some power of attorney or end-of-life directives aimed at protecting guardians from having to make life-or-death decisions.
“All 50 states now have either durable powers of attorney or end-of-life directives and it’s to protect children or a spouse from being put into a situation where they have to make a terrible decision as well as physicians from being put into a position where they have to practice defensive medicine because of the trial lawyers,” Isakson said.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) of Palin's home state doesn't much like Palin's "death panel" talk either. Speaking to a crowd of over 100 at an event in Alaska, Murkowski took aim at her former governor, Sarah Palin, by talking some sense about "death panels." "It does us no good to incite fear in people by saying that there's these end-of-life provisions, these death panels," Murkowski said.
|
On his radio show Glenn Beck said that he thinks Palin has a point. ” I believe it to be true, but that’s quite a statement,” said Beck, adding, “I believe she at least should be listened to and you should question, ‘Is it evil?’” Listen to video above left:
Georgia’s junior Republican senator Johnny Isakson says that “death panel” talk is just “nuts.” The Republican lawmaker made that assessment in an interview with the Washington Post.
“In the health-care debate mark-up, one of the things I talked about was that the most money spent on anyone is spent usually in the last 60 days of life and that’s because an individual is not in a capacity to make decisions for themselves,” Isakson said. “So rather than getting into a situation where the government makes those decisions, if everyone had an end-of-life directive or what we call in Georgia ‘durable power of attorney,’ you could instruct at a time of sound mind and body what you want to happen in an event where you were in difficult circumstances where you’re unable to make those decisions.”
How someone could take end of life directives or living wills as [“death panels”] is nuts. You’re putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don’t know how that got so mixed up.”
The senator noted that all fifty states — including Palin’s Alaska — have some power of attorney or end-of-life directives aimed at protecting guardians from having to make life-or-death decisions.
“All 50 states now have either durable powers of attorney or end-of-life directives and it’s to protect children or a spouse from being put into a situation where they have to make a terrible decision as well as physicians from being put into a position where they have to practice defensive medicine because of the trial lawyers,” Isakson said.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) of Palin's home state doesn't much like Palin's "death panel" talk either. Speaking to a crowd of over 100 at an event in Alaska, Murkowski took aim at her former governor, Sarah Palin, by talking some sense about "death panels." "It does us no good to incite fear in people by saying that there's these end-of-life provisions, these death panels," Murkowski said.
Quite honestly, I'm so offended at that terminology because it absolutely isn't [in the bill]. There is no reason to gin up fear in the American public by saying things that are not included in the bill.
Southern Republicans, It Seems, Have Seceded From Sanity
In a recent column Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker wrote:
". . .Not all Southern Republicans are wing nuts. Nor does the GOP have a monopoly on ignorance or racism. And, the South, for all its sins, is also lush with beauty, grace and mystery. Nevertheless, it is true that the GOP is fast becoming regionalized below the Mason-Dixon line and increasingly associated with some of the South's worst ideas.
It is not helpful (or surprising) that "birthers" -- conspiracy theorists who have convinced themselves that Barack Obama is not a native son -- have assumed kudzu qualities among Republicans in the South. In a poll commissioned by the liberal blog Daily Kos, participants were asked: "Do you believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America or not?"
Hefty majorities in the Northeast, the Midwest and the West believe Obama was born in the United States. But in the land of cotton, where old times are not by God forgotten, only 47 percent believe Obama was born in America and 30 percent aren't sure.
Southern Republicans, it seems, have seceded from sanity.
Republicans have been harvesting Southern votes for decades from seeds strategically planted during the civil rights era. When Lyndon B. Johnson predicted in 1965 that the Voting Rights Act meant the South would go Republican for the next 50 years, he wasn't just whistling Dixie.
A telling anecdote recounted by Pat Buchanan to New Yorker writer George Packer last year captures the dark spirit that still hovers around the GOP. In 1966 Buchanan and Richard Nixon were at the Wade Hampton Hotel in Columbia, S.C., where Nixon worked a crowd into a frenzy: "Buchanan recalls that the room was full of sweat, cigar smoke, and rage; the rhetoric, which was about patriotism and law and order, 'burned the paint off the walls.' As they left the hotel, Nixon said, 'This is the future of this Party, right here in the South.' "
That same rage was on display again in the fall of 2008, but this time the frenzy was stimulated by a pretty gal with a mocking little wink. Sarah Palin may not have realized what she was doing, but Southerners weaned on Harper Lee heard the dog whistle.
The curious Republican campaign of 2008 may have galvanized a conservative Southern base -- including many who were mostly concerned with the direction Democrats would take the country -- but it also repelled others who simply bolted and ran the other way. Whatever legitimate concerns the GOP may historically have represented were suddenly overshadowed by a sense of a resurgent Old South and all the attendant pathologies of festering hate and fear.
What the GOP is experiencing now, one hopes, are the death throes of that 50-year spell that Johnson foretold. But before the party of the Great Emancipator can rise again, Republicans will have to face their inner Voinovich and drive a stake through the heart of old Dixie. "
Monday, August 10, 2009
White House Introduces 'Healthcare Myth' Fact Check Website
The White House is introducing a new health care website section today that “debunks some common myths” and provides visitors “with online tools and content to share the facts with friends, family and anyone else in your social network.” Click here.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) write in a USA Today op-ed, condemn the “ugly campaign” this August to “to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue.” “Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American,” write the two House leaders.
Jon Stewart took on these town hall uprisings and their leaders in two segments, the first focusing on the media hypocrisy over the coverage of these events, and the second mocking the "death panel" debate.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) write in a USA Today op-ed, condemn the “ugly campaign” this August to “to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue.” “Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American,” write the two House leaders.
Jon Stewart took on these town hall uprisings and their leaders in two segments, the first focusing on the media hypocrisy over the coverage of these events, and the second mocking the "death panel" debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)