DOWNLOADS: (119)

PLAYS: (566)

Embed

No matter how many times this "death panel" myth gets debunked, you can count on Fox to do their best to continue to resuscitate it, as Fox's Neil Cavuto and one of their team of crackpot doctors, Manny Alvarez did this Thursday afternoon.

Leave it to Fox to take what otherwise looks like a pretty benign study by the University of California, San Francisco and turn it on its head as the new "death panels" in "Obamacare." Alvarez wrote an op-ed for the Fox News web site which you can read here which I'm quite sure was the basis for his appearance here with Cavuto: Dr. Manny: I am completely against this new medical ‘death test’:

Let me be very clear: I did not go into medicine to decide who lives and who dies.

I went into health care because I wanted to heal, to comfort, to educate and to study the illnesses that afflict my patients. And I don’t need a crystal ball to know when a patient is extremely safe or when he or she is going to die.

So I am somewhat confused as to the purpose of this new ‘mortality index.’ A new study from the University of California, San Francisco with funding from the federal government revealed 12 specific items physicians can use to help them determine whether costly screenings or medical procedures are worth the risk for patients unlikely to live 10 years or more.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (149)

PLAYS: (630)

Embed

As we await the Supreme Court's ruling on whether they're going to strike down either all or part of the Affordable Care Act, which could be coming as early as this Monday, leave it to Fox News to bring us such terribly insightful commentary as this tidbit by Brit Hume on this week's Fox News Sunday. What would either presidential campaign do without him?

WALLACE: I want to just bring that up in the time we have left with you, Brit, Assuming that the court were to strike down all or part of Obamacare, do you see the Obama White House campaigning against the court saying this is a political decision by a Republican court? And if you elect a Republican president he'll have -- the court will become even more conservative?

HUME: The administration of the president might do that. I think it would be a mistake to do that. Because this a president who has become known, I think, to the public as a blamer. And here again he would be blaming somebody else for something of his that failed. And my sense is, it wouldn't work.

What he, it seems to me, would be wise to do is the same thing Romney would be wise to do and that is to have some plan ready to go. And say OK, that has failed, let's move forward and try this, this, and this. Republicans would be in that situation as well. They'd been saying this wasn't any good. OK, what is your plan Mr. Romney.

Obviously, Governor Romney can come out and say, you know, we want to have tort reform. We want to do some of the ideas the Republicans tried to advance during the health care reform debate, didn't go anywhere with it. So they would have the outlines of something to say.

But it seems to me, that both sides need something constructive to say. I don't think blame casting is going to work.

Note to Brit Hume -- Mitt Romney had a health care plan that wasn't just "ready to go" but one he actually passed as governor of Massachusetts -- which looks an awful lot like the one that SCOTUS might strike down this week. I guess Hume doesn't think proposing something completely different now will be a political problem for Romney and that no one actually realizes that the Affordable Care Act was modeled after the legislation he signed as governor.

Hume's suggestions for an alternative was the typical Republican claptrap about tort reform and I'm sure if he was given a chance to elaborate, deregulation and a race to the bottom with insurance companies shopping for states to relocate to where they can abuse the system to maximize their profits instead of insuring their customers would have been included as well.

The Republicans have had no new ideas on reforming our health care system because they don't care if we stick with the status quo or not or they'd have done something besides a huge giveaway to big pharma when Bush was in office. I do actually agree with Hume on one point he made here and President Obama suggesting another program as we move forward from here, and that's if the entire law does get overturned, I really hope it leads to a push to bring us single payer.

If there's no desire for single payer, there is always another European model where the private insurance industry is what's available to the citizens, but that market is regulated in the same way utilities are regulated in the United States. Either way, we need to be taking the profit margin out of the system and CEO's and Wall Street speculators being allowed to get rich off of it and the industry being forced what they should be doing, which is providing a service to their customers instead of figuring out how to deny care and maximize profits for people who don't have any interest in caring whether the sick in this country can afford to go see a doctor.

Getting something done to change the status quo is going to involve a huge amount of public pressure or our politicians will be content to do nothing. Citizens being fed up and letting our elected leaders know about it might be the only good thing to come out of a bad ruling from our Supreme Court this week. They're going to do a lot of damage if they actually overturn the entire law and not just the mandate.

DOWNLOADS: (148)

PLAYS: (198)

Embed

While discussing whether Gov. Mitch Daniels is going to support Richard Mourdock, who just defeated incumbent Sen. Richard Lugar from his home state of Indiana and Mourdock's statement that his idea of compromise equals Democrats voting with Republicans if we're unfortunate enough to see them gain control of the Congress and the presidency again, Daniels was apparently suffering from a severe case of amnesia when he made this statement that was flagged from our friend Jed Lewison over at Daily KOS:

Another dazzling display of Romnesia: Mitch Daniels says we're in 'peacetime':

As you watch this or read the transcript, keep in mind that from 2001 to 2003—during which time the Bush administration launched two wars, one of which we are fighting to this day, and two rounds of tax cuts for the wealthy—Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels was George W. Bush's budget director. Yet now he is blaming President Obama for allegedly creating a debt bomb:

Well, you know, he's been the president of this nation for the three years in which we have drifted ever closer to the biggest peacetime crisis we may have ever faced. There's no doubt it. It's a mathematical certainty. [...] To me the central question of this election is why such an administration deserves a second chance.

The fact that Mitch Daniels apparently has forgotten we are at war in Afghanistan—even though he served in the White House when we began the war more than a decade ago—is a fitting tribute to the Romnesia that has infested the Republican Party.

As he noted, Daniels and his ilk want to erase from our memory banks the fact that George W. Bush busted the budget with billions wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is someone who worked for an administration that gave us those two "wars" off the books, an unfunded prescription drug plan and the Bush tax cuts which weren't paid for. And despite that, he's treated as someone we're supposed to take seriously by the media month after month.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (206)

PLAYS: (1390)

Embed

I already posted some of Mitt Romney's interview with Charlie Rose from this Monday night on PBS. Think Progress posted this portion where it looks like Romney is determined to help the Democrats with having an easy time making some negative campaign ads against him if he does end up being the Republican presidential nominee.

Romney Defends "Wall Street" And "Insurance Company Executives" From Obama’s Criticism:

Appearing on PBS last night with Charlie Rose, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney suggested President Obama is risking the very prosperity of the country and the middle class when he criticizes Wall Street and insurance executives:

ROMNEY: He has been the most divisive president I’ve ever seen. He has attacked one American after another, one group after another. He creates these straw men and says that Republicans believe this terrible thing, and aren’t they awful. He went after insurance company executives, Wall Street, all these bad people he finds out there. Look, Americans are not going to be a powerful and vibrant economic engine with a powerful middle class if we attack one another.

Romney doesn’t seem to be concerned with whether there’s any merit to Obama’s criticisms or not; he objects to the mere fact that the president would criticize anyone. For instance, Romney’s defense ignores the fact that Wall Street helped cause the financial crisis and ensuring recession. Obama’s main “attack” on Wall Street was the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, which has hardly hurt the industry. [...]

The comments likely won’t help Romney beat the rap off being “Mr. 1 percent.”

As they noted, Romney also defended his time at Bain Capital later in that same interview and "said that attacking Bain for laying off thousands of workers is almost tantamount to an attack on capitalism itself." As previously posted at this site, Mitt Romney is still raking in the dough from Bain to this day.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (1543)

PLAYS: (22218)

Embed

In the wake of Keith Olbermann's departure from MSNBC, I at least was able to take a little solace watching the Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore getting his ass handed to him on Real Time over the health-care law and insurance company mandates by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, former Reagan adviser David Stockman and Bill Maher. Moore, of course, defended the hypocritical Republicans who thought a mandate was a great idea until a Democrat proposed it and gave us more of the "government takeover of health care" lie, which Rachel, thankfully, shot down.

I really don't know why Bill Maher thinks having Moore on as a guest contributes much to his show because the man strikes me as being as dumb as a box of rocks -- but who knows, maybe he's some genius and I'm just not seeing it. Whether he's just not that smart or crazy like a fox with his lies, what he does is lie. I don't understand how that adds to any kind of dialogue that moves our country to a place where we're solving our problems for the working class, whether some might consider it entertaining or not. Stephen Moore had nothing to add to this discussion other than hyperbole and lying GOP/Rupert Murdoch talking points.

The insurance mandates he's claiming are unconstitutional are something Republicans loved before a Democrat proposed them. And those high deductible plans he's touting just mean a lot of people don't get treatment when they're sick because they can't afford it. As Rachel recommended, we need to actually have a "government takeover" of our health insurance programs and Medicare for all and we'd be a lot better off. Moore would prefer to keep lining the insurance companies' pockets instead.

I know there has to be a lot of pressure on Dennis Kucinich to change his vote on the health care bill. So far he's standing firm and still says he's not going to vote for it. The other day I watched an interview with him on Fox and it sounded like he was considering changing his vote. He was asked at least five times if he would vote no and he refused to answer. After meeting with the administration, not so much. He just gave a pretty firm "no" here.

Sadly they look like they might be more willing to make sure abortion is illegal for poor women who can't self-insure than not have this mess pass. I'm about as disgusted as Susie is right now about this whole process. They should have just found out what they had the votes for in the Democratic caucus and got it passed and quit pussy-footing around with Republicans pretending like they're honest brokers when it comes to anything months ago and explained to the public why they thought it was better than what we have now and lived with the consequences if the public didn't like it. Instead all they've done is demoralize their base. And worse yet, they appear completely tone deaf about what they've done or they just don't care.

At this point I'm torn about whether it should pass or not. I think it's terrible for the Democrats politically if it doesn't. I don't know if the House can trust the Senate to make the fixes and the Republicans are going to try to stop the ones they're willing to make. And I'm not sure if the additional people being covered is worth the mandates and the lack of price controls. Dennis is absolutely right with his concerns on what the final product might be.

UPDATE: Per Chris Bowers, Rep. Jerry McNerney is joining Kucinich in voting no from the left.

DOWNLOADS: (1010)

PLAYS: (6135)

Embed

At the end of separate interviews on Hardball, Chris Matthews gives Howard Dean a chance to respond to Mary Landrieu's statements and he comes at her hard for forcing everyone into private insurance by not allowing other choices in the bill. I'd call that a smack down for sure.

John Amato:

Sen. Landrieu drones on and on about her blind love and devotion to the insurance industry that has been a nightmare for many Americans. Why does she hate the idea that Americans deserve to have a choice about who they buy their health care from?

Dean: Mary, I'd like to know why you deny my people of the choice to sign up for an alternative? You are forcing us in to insurance companies. You took away our choice.

You would not let us choose another program. You forced us into the insurance industry and we don't want to be forced into the insurance industry and you took away our choice. That is wrong.

Landrieu: That is not true. You never had that choice to begin with.

Dean: The president campaigned on it, Mary...

Landrieu: No, he didn't. He did not campaign for a public option.

Dean: ...He most certainly did. He absolutely did, you are not accurate. He campaigned for a federal employee benefit with a public option. That's what he campaigned for.

Landrieu obviously never bothered to read the health care bill that President Obama ran on in the general election.

DOWNLOADS: (1133)

PLAYS: (2342)

Embed

From Face the Nation, Russ Feingold has to remind Bob Schieffer that the "public option" is not a "liberal" position on health care reform. It's a compromise. What liberals want is single-payer.

SCHIEFFER: Let’s talk a little bit about health care. Where do you think health care reform stands in the Senate right now? I know you want the public option, the government-run insurance program, like Medicare for older people. The majority leader now seems inclined to include that in the bill that he’s going to bring to the floor. Do you think that has any chance at this point of passage? Because for a while now, people have been saying the votes are just not there in the Senate.

FEINGOLD: Well, I want to give my majority leader, Harry Reid credit for seriously considering putting this public option in there. I think it’s very important. It’s a sign of strong leadership on his part that he has the guts to do that. Because the American people are for some alternative that will create some competition for the abuses of the insurance industry. So I believe that there’s a good chance it will be in the bill that comes before us in the Senate. I think we have some chance of prevailing in the Senate on it and if we don't I think there's a chance it will come through the House. So I’m becoming increasingly optomistic that we will have a health care bill that will not frighten the American people, that they'll be able to see as reasonable -- it's not a complete government take over health care, but will provide an option for those that don’t have health care or are unhappy with their health care to do something else and I'm frankly getting excited that we may have some momentum for something very positive.

SCHIEFFER: As I understand it, the liberals want the, want the public option. The conservatives don’t. Do you think there’s a possibility that this thing may just end up in a log jam, that liberals won’t vote for this plan without the public option and the conserves won’t vote for it if it includes the public option, and so we wind up with nothing instead of something?

FEINGOLD: Well, that could happen, but the truth is, what liberals want is a single-payer system. Medicare for everybody. So the idea of a public option is really a very moderate idea. Within the current context of a continuing private system, it’s a tough one to swallow for many people who want a single-payer system. So this is a very reasonable approach that I would think people who are both conservative and liberal and in the middle would say, let’s try this; let’s see if this can control and bring under some reason of measure that the insurance companies could finally improve their act.

That is exactly what -- what this is. It is not a liberal or left-wing concept at all.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (172)

PLAYS: (447)

Embed

The Villagers on the Chris Matthews panel all agree on a couple of points. The dirty f-ing hippies on the left have no right to demand anything of President Obama and were silly to think he’d live up to his campaign promise to reform our health care system. And two, any bill, whether it’s terrible or not that the President signs will be “transformational” and “historic”.

It doesn’t matter to them if it’s a crap sandwich which ends up being nothing but a giveaway to the insurance industry. What matters is that it passes. Andrea Mitchell seems positively giddy at the idea that it will be “criticized from all sides”. That’s a good thing Andrea?

While I agree with them on Afghanistan and that the President did not promise to get us out of there, President Obama did promise some real reform on health care and he also talked about cleaning the lobbyists and their influence out of Washington. This is hardly what’s going on now with Max Baucus and his lobbyists writing the health care bill in the Senate Finance Committee.

And Clarence Page conflates going between single-payer and the public option to the compromises being talked about now. Note to Clarence Page. Going from the public option to a trigger—or no public option at all—is not the same as hedging between single payer and the public option. One is an already bad compromise that might lead to reform. The other is just loading up the pockets of the insurance industry by forcing everyone into the system with no price controls.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (1548)

PLAYS: (4550)

Embed

Here's another portion of Michael Moore's interview with Wolf Blitzer from Sept. 24, 2009. Michael is exactly right about one thing here. You're not seeing the passion on the left in support of the President because he started from a compromised position instead of starting with single payer and compromising from there if need be. He is also correct that if, not when, the President ever came out for single payer, you would see massive amounts of people coming out and supporting him. You're not going to see that passion on the left for a watered down giveaway to the insurance industry.

BLITZER: That's what President Obama said back in 2003. But now he's backed away from that as president of the United States and he seems to be backing away even from the so-called public option, which would allow the government -- a government-run health insurance company to compete with the private insurance companies. Is this what you wanted?

MOORE: Well, here's the -- here's the problem with President Obama on the health insurance proposal. He's a nice guy. You know, I mean, really, I believe he came into the White House with an olive branch to the people on the other side of the aisle. He believed in bipartisanship. I mean you've got to give the guy credit. He really -- he did not come in wanting to fight. He came in saying, you know, we're all Americans here and we need to fix this and we need to put aside this partisan stuff.

The other side didn't want to put it aside. The other side wanted to fight him tooth and nail. And -- and as part of his nice guy thing, he -- he backs a half measure, a public option.

BLITZER: But that might not even...

MOORE: And we (INAUDIBLE)...

BLITZER: That might not even make the final bill that he signs.

MOORE: And that may not. Well, of course not, because any time you don't fight for the thing you want, any time that you start off compromising, you're never going to get what you want. He started off with a compromise position -- let the private insurance companies still sit at the table, have a public option. He should have started with what he truly believes in, what he believed in, what he said in 2003, a single payer, national health care system, like all other Western countries have. We should have the same thing.

I know he believes in that, but he was trying to reach out and say, you know what, I'm not just going to come in here and ram this, so I'm willing to work with you and listen to your concerns. They don't want to listen to him.

Continue reading »