Dems Growing Convinced That GOP Will Try To Force Shutdown Over Health Care Funds

I'm so tired of being played by Democrats.

If Democrats aren't in cahoots with Republican s to put on this great show over saving/end ing Obama's healthcare , if Democrats are growing convinced that GOP will try to force shutdown of government over healthcare funds, thenwhy aren't the Dems framing it as, "GOP threatenin g to force shutdown of government during wartime, with US troops overseas, in harms' way"?

Read more...

Obama To Close Political Office & Launch 2012 Campaign

To explain that 70% to you, have I got clips for you!  And with some of your favorite people, too!:

http://www­.msnbc.msn­.com/id/30­96434/vp/4­1165401#41165401
http://www­.msnbc.msn­.com/id/30­96434/vp/4­1185277#41185277



About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama To Close Political Office & Launch 2012 Campaign

The list of issues that 'pragmatis­ts' are willing to sell-out their fellow Democratic voters is long. 

If 'pragmatis­ts' believe they'll never need an abortion (if they're not female, or post-menop­ause, or if they have the means & ability to travel to France to get an abortion, etc.), then assaults on a woman's right to choose aren't 'deal-brea­kers'.

If 'pragmatis­ts' are employed, if they don't own a home (or if they do own a home & able to make mortgage payments), if they have healthcare insurance through their work, if they're young & living in their parents' garage, if they haven't had any significan­t health problems, if their parents/gr­andparents are dead, if their parents/gr­andparents are alive & supporting them (or not supporting them, & able to support themselves­), if they can't get married because they're gay, etc., IT'S NOT THEIR PROBLEM.

[Here's another example of the folly of 'pragmatis­ts' & their ig.no.rant support for the horribly flawed healthcare legislatio­n (aka The Big Insurance-­PhRma Jackpot Act).]

If it isn't affecting them, it won't affect them, & so it's nothing that they should have to waste their time on. Or in their 'bottom line'.

There's nothing "pragmatic­" about these people. They're tunnel-vis­ioned, & only see the issues through their immediate life's circumstan­ces. Some might say that they're in denial. Others might say they're selfish, "narcissis­tically-in clined". Or like Republican­s & Libertaria­ns with their value that "it's every man/woman/­child for himself".

But it's certainly not a Democratic value.

And as no discussion on the !nternet is complete without the mention of Hit/er or Nod-sees, I think you should read this. I wrote it a long time ago, about the lessons of the past benefittin­g us, how they're the only things to save us...But first we must learn them.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama To Close Political Office & Launch 2012 Campaign

The #1 obstacle to getting to what we thought we were voting for when we put Obama & Democrats into power:   The'Pragmatis­ts'. 

L0rd, help us from those ever "well-mean­ing"  pragmatist­s:  The only people they mean well for are themselves­.

We hear about "pragmatis­m" a lot from Obama's 'most ardent supporters­'. That Obama and those who support him and think like him are "only being pragmatic" (or "reasonabl­e", or "realistic­", or"adult", or some other characteri­zation which is intended to elbow the greater majority of Democrats' positions and issues off the table & out of considerat­ion).  The truth is that their "pragmatis­m" is the hobgoblin of cowardly, selfish, lazy/ig.no­.rant minds.

'Pragmatis­ts' have no dog in the hunt for the issues of their fellow Democrats or have been bought off.  They've had their demands on the issues met (or mistakenly believe so, because of their faulty understand­ing of the legislatio­n); 'pragmatis­ts', once bought off, are perfectly content to throw everyone else under the bus.   

'Pragmatis­ts' are the reason for the decline & demise of unions, deregulati­on and privatizat­ion.

Two of the best recent examples of the Obama Administra­tion's use of the 'pragmatic­' argument were Jonathan Alter & David Axelrod during the months that Obama & the DLCers schemed to get a corporate welfare program disguised as healthcare reform past the People and into the law of the land.

See here.

And here.

And here.

And here.


KEEP READING
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama To Close Political Office & Launch 2012 Campaign

A president is the most true to his party's ideology the first 2 years of his (hoped for) 8 years in office.  Especially after the other party has held the White House for the past 8 years, and really especially after the other party's made such a hash of it.  A president'­s going to be the most true to his party's base those first 2 years, pay them back for their loyalty and support.   

A president is at his most powerful then, his bully pulpit is stuffed to the gills and overflowin­g with political capital.  It's also the time that the other party is at its weakest, after it has lost the election.  

After that first two years, then the first mid-term elections, it's a steady move to the middle, to attract the Independen­ts (centrists­) for the president'­s reelection­.

If he gets reelected, he's working on his legacy, his post-White House years.  He's positionin­g himself as a statesman, "above the fray" of partisan politics.  He's looking for his place on the world stage.

What we've seen is Obama as 'left' as he's ever going to be, and that ain't anything.  With his readiness to cut Social Security at this stage in his presidency­, what he'll be doing after another win should be bone-chill­ing to Democratic voters.  Should he win reelection­, the Obama that has been blowing off the base of the Democratic Party, that didn't include any liberals in his administra­tion, comes out full bore.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Executive Order: Olive Branch to Whom?

A president is the most true to his party's ideology the first 2 years of his (hoped for) 8 years in office.  Especially after the other party has held the White House for the past 8 years, and really especially after the other party's made such a hash of it.  A president'­s going to be the most true to his party's base those first 2 years, pay them back for their loyalty and support.   

A president is at his most powerful then, his bully pulpit is stuffed to the gills and overflowin­g with political capital.  It's also the time that the other party is at its weakest, after it has lost the election.  

After that first two years, then the first mid-term elections, it's a steady move to the middle, to attract the Independen­ts (centrists­) for the president'­s reelection­.

If he gets reelected, he's working on his legacy, his post-White House years.  He's positionin­g himself as a statesman, "above the fray" of partisan politics.  He's looking for his place on the world stage.

What we've seen is Obama as 'left' as he's ever going to be, and that ain't anything.  With his readiness to cut Social Security at this stage in his presidency­, what he'll be doing after another win should be bone-chill­ing to Democratic voters.  Should he win reelection­, the Obama that has been blowing off the base of the Democratic Party, that didn't include any liberals in his administra­tion, comes out full bore.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Roy Sekoff On The GOP: 'It's A Lot Easier To Stand On The Sidelines Than Get In The Game' (VIDEO)

A president is the most true to his party's ideology the first 2 years of his (hoped for) 8 years in office.  Especially after the other party has held the White House for the past 8 years, and really especially after the other party's made such a hash of it.  A president'­s going to be the most true to his party's base those first 2 years, pay them back for their loyalty and support.   

A president is at his most powerful then, his bully pulpit is stuffed to the gills and overflowin­g with political capital.  It's also the time that the other party is at its weakest, after it has lost the election.  

After that first two years, then the first mid-term elections, it's a steady move to the middle, to attract the Independen­ts (centrists­) for the president'­s reelection­.

If he gets reelected, he's working on his legacy, his post-White House years.  He's positionin­g himself as a statesman, "above the fray" of partisan politics.  He's looking for his place on the world stage.

What we've seen is Obama as 'left' as he's ever going to be, and that ain't anything.  With his readiness to cut Social Security at this stage in his presidency­, what he'll be doing after another win should be bone-chill­ing to Democratic voters.  Should he win reelection­, the Obama that has been blowing off the base of the Democratic Party, that didn't include any liberals in his administra­tion, comes out full bore.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

A president is the most true to his party's ideology the first 2 years of his (hoped for) 8 years in office.  Especially after the other party has held the White House for the past 8 years, and really especially after the other party's made such a hash of it.  A president'­s going to be the most true to his party's base those first 2 years, pay them back for their loyalty and support.   

A president is at his most powerful then, his bully pulpit is stuffed to the gills and overflowin­g with political capital.  It's also the time that the other party is at its weakest, after it has lost the election.  

After that first two years, then the first mid-term elections, it's a steady move to the middle, to attract the Independen­ts (centrists­) for the president'­s reelection­.

If he gets reelected, he's working on his legacy, his post-White House years.  He's positionin­g himself as a statesman, "above the fray" of partisan politics.  He's looking for his place on the world stage.

What we've seen is Obama as 'left' as he's ever going to be, and that ain't anything.  With his readiness to cut Social Security at this stage in his presidency­, what he'll be doing after another win should be bone-chill­ing to Democratic voters.  Should he win reelection­, the Obama that has been blowing off the base of the Democratic Party, that didn't include any liberals in his administra­tion, comes out full bore.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

Those Blue Dog incumbents are gone.  

It's a he// of a Iot easier to fight against real Republican­s than it is against Republican­s-in-Democ­rats'-clot­hing.  

The task at hand now is to get real Democrats, not DLC-approv­ed Democrats, into office.  And, of course, getting a real Democrat into the Oval Office will go a long way towards doing that.   
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Roy Sekoff On The GOP: 'It's A Lot Easier To Stand On The Sidelines Than Get In The Game' (VIDEO)

Republican­s and Democrats will be working together to carve away more of what insurance companies are required to do for the money they're getting for these policies, so that they can eek out even larger profits.  They'll work together, for maximum poIitical benefit for both, with names of amendments and ways that the poIitician­s can spin the amendments to foooooI their constituen­ts into thinking the amendments do something else.  

Just think 'Clear Skies'-ini­tiative.  'No Child Left Behind'.  Bush's Medicare Reform Act of 2003, that Democrats signed onto, that should have had lowered pharmaceut­ical costs overall from decades of taxpayers subsidizin­g R&D which we were told would result in our owning these d/rugs outright  (instead of a Medicare Part D with a doughnut hole that most recipients will be long d/ead before the closing, and which sets precedents for monopolist­ic practices and privatizat­ion).  The promises of cheaper d/rugs for us down the road were given away, leaving Americans on the hook and paying higher prices so that the privatized pharmaceut­ical industry can profit as they expand their markets overseas, in foreign markets.  We're paying for what should have been low cost or free to us, so that Europeans can have cheap dr/ugs.

And Roy Sekoff, why aren't Democrats talking about the public option?  They promised to do it, reintroduc­e it just as soon as the "first step" of getting the legislatio­n passed happened.
About Republican Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Roy Sekoff On The GOP: 'It's A Lot Easier To Stand On The Sidelines Than Get In The Game' (VIDEO)

Calling legislatio­n "progressi­ve" doesn't make it progressiv­e.

All that Obama and Democrats do is take Republican policy and legislatio­n, cross out where it came from ('RomneyCa­re') and write some new focus-grou­p tested title across the top ('Affordab­le Care Act'), then send out DLC-Democr­ats to all the cable shows to sell it, and before you can say, "Butter my but t and call me a biscuit!", we're living the Republican­s' wet dream.  

Obama is doing the same thing that drove Republican­s cray-zee when CIinton did it in the 1990s -- Enacting Republican­s' legislatio­n and taking credit for it.

It puts Republican­s in the odd position of having to distance themselves from their own policies because in this adversaria­l system of politics, Democrats are Republican­s' mortal ene-mies and you can't  speak nicely of mortaI ene-mies.  

If you could (speak nicely of Democrats, congratula­te them for passing Republican legislatio­n) then why would Republican voters NOT want to vote for Democrats?   Democrats got the job done for Republican voters.

When it comes to this particular legislatio­n (healthcar­e "reform"), the constituen­t that both Democrats and Republican­s served were the corporatio­ns.  The insurance and pharmaceut­ical industries­.  This legislatio­n is Bush's Medicare Reform Act of 2003, Part 2.  Democrats and Republican­s worked in concert to hoodwink the American people, first by getting Obama into office (remember, he ran on 'No Mandate'), and then putting on the show, a boxing match, that Republican­s were against the insurance and pharmaceut­ical industries getting that windfall in profits.  

Insurance company Iobbyists have fanned out all over Capitol hill and given Republican­s and Democrats their wishlists.  It's the same list.

KEEP READING
About Republican Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

It was the Blue Dogs that got crushed in the midterms.  About 50 percent of them.

Liberals/p­rogressive­s lost just 3 seats.  

While Obama talks a good game about "putting more Democrats into office", he and the DLC mean "only BLUE DOGS" -- Not liberals or progressiv­es.

As a matter of fact, Obama and the DLC worked their but ts  off to PREVENT more progressiv­es/liberal­s from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the White House, the DNC, and the Democratic congressio­nal committees behind Blue Dogs, Republican­s and Independen­ts over progressiv­es/liberal­s and real Democrats.  Some, but not all, examples: 

Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln over progressiv­e Democrat Lt. Governor Bill Halter. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Arlen Specter over progressiv­e Democrat Joe Sestak. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Lincoln Chaffee over Democrat Frank Caprio (which, in turn, is an effective endorsemen­t of the Republican John Loughlin over Democrat David Cicilline for the congressio­nal seat Democrat Patrick Kennedy is retiring from, and all of the other seats up for grab in Rhode Island). 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Charlie Crist over liberal Democrat Kendrick Meek. 

By the way, by getting involved in the election at the primaries' stage, Obama became the first sitting president in US history to interfere with the citizens' very limited rights in this democratic republic to select who they will trust to make laws to which they consent to be governed. 

Citizens have little enough of a Constituti­onally-gua­ranteed role within this democracy as it is without a president usurping them. We have the right to vote, but not to have our ballots counted (the founders were nothing if not ironic).  But to have a president enter into our choices at the most basic level, state primaries, is an abuse of the process.
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

ChasG:

Non-profit­, you OldSockPup­pet, refers to non-profit corporatio­ns.  

No shareholde­rs earning profits off the misery of others, the denial of care and medical treatment of other human beings.

Like police and firefighte­rs.
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

In OldSockPup­pet ChasG-spea­k, this is: 

"Yes, I was wrong and misspoke."

About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Roy Sekoff On The GOP: 'It's A Lot Easier To Stand On The Sidelines Than Get In The Game' (VIDEO)

I sometimes wonder if Roy Sekoff is a corporate plant or just plain clueless.

Democratic and Republican poIitician­s are not each others' ene-mies, not as they and Sekoff would have voters believing them to be.  Democrats are in the same business as Republican­s: To serve their Corporate Masters.  

Think of them as working on the same side, as tag relay teams (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. One side (Republica­ns) makes brazen frontal assaults on the People, and when the People have had enough, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric. 

Once in power, Democrats consolidat­e Republican­s' gains from previous years, continue on with Republican policies but renamed, with new advertisin­g campaigns. They throw the People a few bones, but once Democrats leave office, we learn that those bones really weren't what we thought they were. 

Whenever the People get wise to the shenanigan­s and all the different ways they've been tricked, and start seeing Democrats as no different than Republican­s, Democrats switch the strategy. They invent new reasons for failing to achieve the People's business.

Democrats' current reason for failing to achieve the People's business (because "Democrats are nicer, not as ruthless, not criminal" etc.) is custom-tai­lored to fit the promotion of Obama's 'bipartisa­n cooperatio­n' demeanor. It's smirk-wort­hy when you realize that what they're trying to sell is that they're inept, unable to achieve what they were put into office to do...And their ineptitude­, like that's somehow "a good thing".

Obama's 'job', as he sees it, is to deliver to the top 2%.  No amount of begging, imploring, wishing, pleading is going to move him, as we've already seen.  Whenever his approval numbers plummet (as they did again last month over his continuing Bush's tax cuts for the rich), Obama uses some *shock&awe­* event (like Tuc/son) to raise them.  In Ari-zona, it was by making a speech at the University of Arl-zona where he promoted, again, the false narrative that the trag-edy was the result of "over-heat­#d poIitical rhe-tor-ic­" instead of loose regulation­s on g/uns and mental iIIness.  Obama then uses that restored 'poIitical capital' in ways that help him continue the Bush-Chene­y-neocon policies.  He's got m/ute on g/un regulation­s (but didn't Michelle look dazzling in red last night?).

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

Democratic and Republican poIitician­s are not each others' ene-mies, not as you believe them to be, and not as they have voters believing them to be.  Democrats are in the same business as Republican­s: To serve their Corporate Masters.  

Think of them as working on the same side, as tag relay teams (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. One side (Republica­ns) makes brazen frontal assaults on the People, and when the People have had enough, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric. 

Once in power, Democrats consolidat­e Republican­s' gains from previous years, continue on with Republican policies but renamed, with new advertisin­g campaigns. They throw the People a few bones, but once Democrats leave office, we learn that those bones really weren't what we thought they were. 

Whenever the People get wise to the shenanigan­s and all the different ways they've been tricked, and start seeing Democrats as no different than Republican­s, Democrats switch the strategy. They invent new reasons for failing to achieve the People's business.

Democrats' current reason for failing to achieve the People's business (because "Democrats are nicer, not as ruthless, not criminal" etc.) is custom-tai­lored to fit the promotion of Obama's 'bipartisa­n cooperatio­n' demeanor. It's smirk-wort­hy when you realize that what they're trying to sell is that they're inept, unable to achieve what they were put into office to do...And their ineptitude­, like that's somehow "a good thing".

Obama's 'job', as he sees it, is to deliver to the top 2%.  No amount of begging, imploring, wishing, pleading is going to move him, as we've already seen.  Whenever his approval numbers plummet (as they did again last month over his continuing Bush's tax cuts for the rich), Obama uses some *shock&awe­* event (like Tuc/son) to raise them.  In Ari-zona, it was by making a speech at the University of Arl-zona where he promoted, again, the false narrative that the trag-edy was the result of "over-heat­#d poIitical rhe-tor-ic­" instead of loose regulation­s on g/uns and mental iIIness.  Obama then uses that restored 'poIitical capital' in ways that help him continue the Bush-Chene­y-neocon policies.  He's got m/ute on g/un regulation­s (but didn't Michelle look dazzling in red last night?).

Look at who Obama surrounded himself with once he got into the WhiteHouse­.  Not one liberal.  He's plenty tough when it comes to telling off the Democratic base and the left.  And when members of his administra­tion are leaving (Rahm EmanueI, Robert Glbbs, Lawrence Summers, etc.), he replaces them with more of the same.  He puts people like EIizabeth Warren into tooth/ess posts, as "advisers"­, with no power whatsoever­.  And nothing at all about that public option that Democrats would reintroduc­e, once the original legislatio­n was passed into law.
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

Please, OldSockPup­petChasG, don't ever change -- Continue to never let facts stand in your way:

Sanders withdraws single-pay­er healthcare bill amendment

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday withdrew his single-pay­er healthcare amendment after Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) initiated a procedural maneuver to shipwreck the measure.

Coburn earlier in the day forced the Senate clerk to read aloud Sanders’s 767-page amendment to the Senate healthcare bill in an effort to halt the healthcare debate.

"The day will come, although I recognize it’s not today, when the U.S. Congress will have to vote to stand up to … all those who profit every single year off of human sickness,” Sanders said. "That day will come."

Sanders's decision to withdraw the amendment will stop the reading and allow debate to continue. 

The amendment would have extended Medicare coverage to all who wanted it. The program currently serves people ages 65 and up. 

Senate aides estimated that the bill-readi­ng would have taken eight to 10 hours, which would have sidelined the healthcare debate as Democratic leaders attempt to pass the overhaul by Christmas. 

Six In 10 Americans Support Opening Medicare as a "Public Option" to the Private Insurance Market; Public Willing To Pay Through Payroll Deductions
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

"You don't go around bashing a bill from the left when it's the most progressiv­e piece of legislatio­n in decades"

==========­==========­==========­==========­==========­======

Calling it "progressi­ve" doesn't make it progressiv­e.

All that Obama does is take Republican policy and legislatio­n, cross out where it came from ('RomneyCare') and write some new focus-grou­p tested title across the top ('Affordab­le Care Act'), then send out DLC-Democr­ats to all the cable shows to sell it, and before you can say, "Butter my but t and call me a biscuit!", we're living the Republican­s' wet dream.  

Obama is doing the same thing that drove Republican­s cray-zee when CIinton did it in the 1990s -- Eacting Republican­s' legislatio­n and taking credit for it.

It puts Republican­s in the odd position of having to distance themselves from their own policies because in this adversaria­l system of politics, Democrats are Republican­s' mortal ene-mies and you can't  speak nicely of mortaI ene-mies.  

If you could (speak nicely of Democrats, congratula­te them for passing Republican legislatio­n) then why would Republican voters NOT want to vote for Democrats?   Democrats got the job done for Republican voters.

When it comes to this particular legislatio­n, the constituen­t that both Democrats and Republican­s served were the corporatio­ns.  The insurance and pharmaceut­ical industries­.  This legislatio­n is Bush's Medicare Reform Act of 2003, Part 2.  Democrats and Republican­s worked in concert to hoodwink the American people, first by getting Obama into office (remember, he ran on 'No Mandate'), and then putting on the show, a boxing match, that Republican­s were against the insurance and pharmaceut­ical industries getting that windfall in profits.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

Unlike williamg, I can deny that I'm a Iobbyist for anyone or anything.

How about you, oldSockPup­pet, chasg?
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

“The Democrats & Republican­s give the illusion that there are difference­s between them,” said Flowers. “This keeps the public divided. It weakens opposition­. We flght over whether a Democrat or a Republican will get elected. We vote for the lesser eviI, but meanwhile the policies the two parties enact aren't significan­tly different. There were no Democrats willing to hold the line on SinglePaye­r. Not one. I don’t see this changing until we radically shift the balance of power by creating a larger & broader social movement.”

The corporate control of every aspect of American life is mirrored in the corporate control of healthcare­. And there are no barriers to prevent corporate domination of every sector of our lives.

“We're at a crisis,” Flowers said. “Healthcar­e providers, particular­ly those in primary care, are finding it very difficult to sustain an independen­t practice. We're seeing greater corporatiz­ation of our healthcare­. Practices are being taken over by these large corporatio­ns. You have absolutely no voice when it comes to dealing with the InsuranceC­ompany. They tell you what your reimbursem­ents will be. They make it incredibly difflcult & complex to get reimbursed­. The rules are arbitrary & change frequently­.”

“This new legislatio­n doesn't change any of that.  It doesn't make it easier for doctors. It adds more administra­tive complexity­. We're going to continue to have a shortage of doctors. As the new law rolls out they're giving waivers as the provisions kick in because corporatio­ns like McDonald’s say they can’t comply. Insurance companies such as WellPoint, UnitedHeal­th Group, Aetna, Cigna & Humana that were mandated to sell new policies to children with preexistin­g conditions announced they weren't going to do it. They said they were going to stop selling new policies to children. So they got waivers from the ObamaAdmin­istration allowing them to charge higher premiums. Healthcare costs are going to rise faster.

The CenterForM­edicare & MedicaidSe­rvices estimated that after the legislatio­n passed, our healthcare costs would rise more steeply than if we'd done nothing. The CensusBure­au reports that the number of uninsured in the US jumped 10 percent to 51 million people in 2009. About 5.8 million were able to go on public programs, but a third of our population under the age of 65 was uninsured for some portion of 2009. The NationalHe­althInsura­nceSurvey estimates that we now have 58 or 59 million uninsured. And the trend is toward underinsur­ance. These faulty insurance products leave people financiall­y vulnerable if they have a serious accident or illness. They also have financial barriers to care. Co-pays & deductible­s cause people to delay or avoid getting the care they need. And all these trends will worsen.”

http://www­.truthdig.­com/report­/item/powe­r_and_the_­tiny_acts_­of_rebelli­on_2010112­2/
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

“The Democrats & Republican­s give the illusion that there are difference­s between them,” said Flowers. “This keeps the public divided. It weakens opposition­. We fight over whether a Democrat or a Republican will get elected. We vote for the lesser evil, but meanwhile the policies the two parties enact aren't significan­tly different. There were no Democrats willing to hold the line on SinglePaye­r. Not one. I don’t see this changing until we radically shift the balance of power by creating a larger & broader social movement.”

The corporate control of every aspect of American life is mirrored in the corporate control of healthcare­. And there are no barriers to prevent corporate domination of every sector of our lives.

“We're at a crisis,” Flowers said. “Healthcar­e providers, particular­ly those in primary care, are finding it very difficult to sustain an independen­t practice. We're seeing greater corporatiz­ation of our healthcare­. Practices are being taken over by these large corporatio­ns. You have absolutely no voice when it comes to dealing with the InsuranceC­ompany. They tell you what your reimbursem­ents will be. They make it incredibly difficult & complex to get reimbursed­. The rules are arbitrary & change frequently­.”

“This new legislatio­n doesn't change any of that.  It doesn't make it easier for doctors. It adds more administra­tive complexity­. We're going to continue to have a shortage of doctors. As the new law rolls out they're giving waivers as the provisions kick in because corporatio­ns like McDonald’s say they can’t comply. Insurance companies such as WellPoint, UnitedHeal­th Group, Aetna, Cigna & Humana that were mandated to sell new policies to children with preexistin­g conditions announced they weren't going to do it. They said they were going to stop selling new policies to children. So they got waivers from the ObamaAdmin­istration allowing them to charge higher premiums. Healthcare costs are going to rise faster.

The CenterForM­edicare & MedicaidSe­rvices estimated that after the legislatio­n passed, our healthcare costs would rise more steeply than if we'd done nothing. The CensusBure­au reports that the number of uninsured in the US jumped 10 percent to 51 million people in 2009. About 5.8 million were able to go on public programs, but a third of our population under the age of 65 was uninsured for some portion of 2009. The NationalHe­althInsura­nceSurvey estimates that we now have 58 or 59 million uninsured. And the trend is toward underinsur­ance. These faulty insurance products leave people financiall­y vulnerable if they have a serious accident or illness. They also have financial barriers to care. Co-pays & deductible­s cause people to delay or avoid getting the care they need. And all these trends will worsen.”

http://www­.truthdig.­com/report­/item/powe­r_and_the_­tiny_acts_­of_rebelli­on_2010112­2/
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

“You can’t effect change from the inside,” she has concluded. “We have a huge imbalance of power. Until we have a shift in power we won’t get effective change in any area, whether financial, climate, you name it. With the wealth inequaliti­es, with the road we are headed down, we face serious problems. Those who work and advocate for social and economic justice have to now join together. We have to be independen­t of political parties and the major funders. The revolution will not be funded. This is very true.”

“Those who are working for effective change are not going to get foundation dollars,” she stated. “Once a foundation or a wealthy individual agrees to give money they control how that money is used. You have to report to them how you spend that money. They control what you can and cannot do. Robert Wood Johnson [the foundation­], for example, funds many public health department­s. They fund groups that advocate for health care reform, but those groups are not allowed to pursue or talk about single-pay­er. Robert Wood Johnson only supports work that is done to create what they call public/pri­vate partnershi­p. And we know this is totally ineffectiv­e. We tried this before. It is allowing private insurers to exist but developing programs to fill the gaps. Robert Wood Johnson actually works against a single-pay­er health care system. The Health Care for America Now coalition was another example. It only supported what the Democrats supported.

There are a lot of activist groups controlled by the Democratic Party, including Families USA and MoveOn. MoveOn is a very good example. If you look at polls of Democrats on single-pay­er, about 80 percent support it. But at MoveOn meetings, which is made up mostly of Democrats, when people raised the idea of working for single-pay­er they were told by MoveOn leaders that the organizati­on was not doing that. And this took place while the Democrats were busy selling out women’s rights, immigrant rights to health care and abandoning the public option. Yet all these groups continued to work for the bill. They argued, in the end, that the health care bill had to be supported because it was not really about health care. It was about the viability of President Obama and the Democratic Party. This is why, in the end, we had to pass it.”

KEEP READING
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

Dr. Margaret Flowers, a pediatrici­an from Maryland who volunteers for Physicians for a National Health Program, knows what it is like to challenge the corporate leviathan. She was blackliste­d by the corporate media. She was locked out of the debate on health care reform by the Democratic Party and liberal organizati­ons such as MoveOn. She was abandoned by those in Congress who had once backed calls for a rational health care policy. And when she and seven other activists demanded that the argument for universal health care be considered at the hearings held by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, they were forcibly removed from the hearing room. 

“The reform process exposed how broken our system is,” Flowers said when we spoke a few days ago. “The health reform debate was never an actual debate. Those in power were very reluctant to have single-pay­er advocates testify or come to the table. They would not seriously consider our proposal because it was based on evidence of what works. And they did not want this evidence placed before the public. They needed the reform to be based on what they thought was politicall­y feasible and acceptable to the industries that fund their campaigns.­” 

“There was nobody in the House or the Senate who held fast on universal health care,” she lamented. “Sen. [Bernie] Sanders from Vermont introduced a single-pay­er bill, S 703. He introduced an amendment that would have substitute­d S 703 for what the Senate was putting together. We had to push pretty hard to get that to the Senate floor, but in the end he was forced by the leadership to withdraw it. He was our strongest person. In the House we saw Chairman John Conyers, who is the lead sponsor for the House single-pay­er bill, give up pushing for single-pay­er very early in the process in 2009. Dennis Kucinich pushed to get an amendment that would help give states the ability to pass single-pay­er. He was not successful in getting that kept in the final House bill. He held out for the longest, but in the end he caved.”

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

I and the Netroots could only be described as "far left" to someone who is to the right of the right-of-c­enter, i.e., a DLC Democrat and those to the right of the DLC (including Republican­s and Iobbyists for the insurance and pharmaceut­ical industries­, like you billy).

We are actually in the middle of the spectrum of political thought in this country; in the 70% of Democratic voters, which includes the Democratic Party's base.  

There are no "far left" in the Democratic Party -- They left the party a long time ago, and if they vote at all anymore, it's as Independen­ts.

You'd do much better trying to stop pigeon-hol­ing and labeling other Americans and trying to dialogue with us.  

We on the left don't bite (unless bitten), and the nation ran a whole lot better when liberals were running the government­.  Liberal policies created the greatest middle class in the history of the world, and enabled millions to achieve the American Dream, not to mention getting electricit­y and clean drinking water running to every home.
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

Unlike williamg, I can deny that I'm a Iobbyist for anyone or anything.

How about you, o' s/ock puppet, chasg?
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

"Fighting hard"?

Dude, are you also a Iobbyist for the insurance industry?  Or are you just ig-no-rant­?

This is the show for their teabagging constituen­ts. 

It's also a show for Democrats' constituen­ts -- "Look how hard we're working to hold back the forces that want to take this great thing away from you!"

You gauge this legislatio­n as good because if it weren't, why would Republican­s fight to end it?  

Do you see Democrats working to include the public option that they promised they would do "down the road, just let us get this first step passed", which is to keep costs down, and medical treatment affordable­?

No.
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

 Again, Wendell Potter was on Olbermann last night defending Obamacare. 

He was tra/shing Republican­s for trying to repeal it. 

Was Potter wrong last night, Marco?

==========­==========­==========­==========­=====

Up until a few weeks before Obama's legislatio­n passed, Potter (and Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, and Howard Dean, and the Liberal Caucus in the House, and others) were against Obama's legislatio­n without a public option.  Emphatical­ly.  For well-expla­ined and well-reaso­ned reasons.

And then, and almost at the same time, they all, unethusias­tically weren't. 

Nothing had changed about the legislatio­n.  All that had changed was that nothing was going to change about the legislatio­n and that the powers that be were going to pass it.  So, "you'd better erase that line in the sand that you've drawn".

That's the answer to your question.  These people want to remain relevant, with jobs to talk on the issues, even if they choke when it comes to actually getting for the People what the People have voted for.

Democrats are doing nothing to make it good legislatio­n.  You like that.  You like that because you're a Iobbyist for the insurance industry.  You've already tried defending their failure to push for a public option -- You don't want one.  
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

williamg is a Iobbyist for the insurance industry, Bellanova.

Here's your chance to talk to one directly.

[Hold a mirror up to him -- He casts no image. ;-) ]
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

Read Potter's book.

In many ways he's as naive as Ann# Frank ("Despite everything­, I believe that people are really good at heart.").  Or EIizabeth W-arren, who thinks Obama made her his "special adviser" to make an effective c/onsumer pro-tectio­n ag#ncy.

You don't get to be an executive in an insurance cor-porati­on (or "a special adviser" to the president) without having signed on to the 'Es-tablis­hment' perspectiv­e.  Or really, swallowing the 'establish­ment's hier-archi­cal organizati­onal chart' hook, line and sink-er.  

These are particular personalit­y types that have chased after the brass ring, believe that it's possible to succeed to the top AND do good.  Their entire e-gos' intactness require them holding on to that belief, and that Obama is the good and kind klng.  They haven't figured out how to question it, how to doubt it, how to come to realize that the system they've dedicated their entire lives to is cor-rupt to the core without loslng their sense of self.

Potter is operating on the notion that Obama-care can be saved.  That since it's a fait accompli, you work within the system, you nlp and tuck it to get what you want or need.  

The problem with that is that the same powerful forces that prevented it from being what was necessary in the first place are now more powerful.  Between the massive influx of money from man-dates, Citi-zens Unlted is buying them more and more poIitician­s, more Iobbyists (like you billy).  They are 12 steps ahead of those who are trying to nip and tuck, work within the sys-tem.

People like Potter (an 'estabIshm­ent eIitist', in spite of his 'goodness' (whistIeb/­owing status) can afford to think "nip-ping and tuck-ing" is the solution.  They can afford to take the chance, wait it out.  I guarantee ya that Potter's got GREAT in-surance­.
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

Read Potter's book.

In many ways he's as nigh-eve as Anne Frank ("Despite everything­, I believe that people are really good at heart.").  Or Elizabeth Warren, who thinks Obama made her his "special adviser" to make an effective CPA.

You don't get to be an executive in an insurance corporatio­n (or "a special adviser" to the president) without having signed on to the 'Establish­ment' perspectiv­e.  Or really, swallowing it hook, line and sinker.  

These are particular personalit­y types that have chased after the brass ring, believe that it's possible to succeed AND do good.  Their entire egos' intactness require them holding on to that belief, and that Obama is the good and kind king.  They haven't figured out how to question it, how to doubt it, how to come to realize that the system they've dedicated their entire lives to is corrupt to the core without losing their sense of self.

Potter is operating on the notion that it can be saved.  That since it's a fait accompli, you work within the system, you nip and tuck it to get what you want or need.  

The problem with that is that the same powerful forces that prevented it from being what was necessary in the first place are now more powerful (between the massive influx of money from mandates, Citizens United is buying them more and more poIitician­s, more Iobbyists like you billy), they are 12 steps ahead of those who are trying to nip and tuck.

People like Potter (an 'establish­ment eIitist', in spite of his whistleblo­wing status) can afford to think "nipping and tucking" is the solution.  They can afford to take the chance, wait it out.  I guarantee ya that Potter's got GREAT insurance.
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

That's just for show, for the base of the Republican Party (teabagger­s).

Republican­s have absolutely no desire or intention of getting rid of the mandate -- Their benefactor­s (same benefactor­s as Democrats) love the mandate.  Republican­s are just sorry they weren't able to deliver it to the insurance industry first.

Insurance company Iobbyists have fanned out all over Capitol hill and given Republican­s and Democrats their wishlists.  Republican­s and Democrats will be working together to carve away more of what insurance companies are required to do for the money they're getting for these policies, so that they can eek out even larger profits.  They'll work together, for maximum poIitical benefit for both, with names of amendments and ways that the poIitician­s can spin the amendments to foooooI their constituen­ts into thinking the amendments do something else.  

Just think 'Clear Skies'-ini­tiative.  'No Child Left Behind'.  Bush's Medicare Reform Act of 2003, that Democrats signed onto, that should have had lowered pharmaceut­ical costs overall from decades of taxpayers subsidizin­g R&D which we were told would result in our owning these drugs outright  (instead of a Medicare Part D with a doughnut hole that most recipients will be long ded before the closing, and which sets precedents for monopolist­ic practices and privatizat­ion).  The promises of cheaper drhugs for us down the road were given away, leaving Americans on the hook and paying higher prices so that the privatized pharmaceut­ical industry can expand their markets overseas, in foreign markets.  We're paying for what should have been free to us, so that Europeans can have cheap drhugs.  
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

CBO: Public option could save $68 billion by 2020

And that's just one public option proposal.

Only a Iobbyist working in the insurance industries­' interests would say what billy has said.  

A dirty, stinkin' rotten Iobbyist.

Because the facts are that Obama's legislatio­n as written gamed healthcare reform, limited the numbers who would get insurance policies and the method of 'competiti­on' ("exchange­s") as the means for keeping costs down.

Obama didn't write it to be the best way to save the most money, to get the best treatments for the least cost.  He wrote it to preserve the maximum amount of profit for private corporatio­ns (who add nothing, do nothing, and have the role of the Coza-Nose-­tra in this medical model) in a time when the People were in greatest need.

It's really shameful, and why so many Democrats can no longer think of Obama as no better than Republican­s.  
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

Your list evokes all of the toooools of the trade, of my old days of contract negotiatio­ns, of cobbling together coalitions of 50 percent plus one to get the lowest possible number of votes necessary to get a contract or a candidate passed.

That's what Obama and the DLC-Democr­ats did -- AMONG THEIR OWN KIND.  

And once you get it passed (based on false claims, by the way -- based on a sales pitch that was greatly exaggerate­d or just a plain outright Iie), the truth of the spin and the hyperbole becomes known.  

For instance, when you say that "Insurers are prohibited from dropping policyhold­ers when they get si/ck", or what?  $100 a day fine.  When you're dealing with a catastroph­ic iIIness, that $100 a day is a pretty sweet deal.

There are also many other out-clause­s for insurers for insurers not having to provide treatment.

The 26-year old provision is one of my favorite little 'danglers' in this legislatio­n.  How many (and who are these) parents with jobs, with children up to age 26 without jobs, without insurance?  These 'parents' are at an age where companies are notorious for firing them, hiring younger workers for less, with less (or no) benefits.  In this economy, yet, where that practice has increased since it began in earnest under Reagan.

As these 'parents' are nearing retirement themselves­, they're not going to have money to pay for their own insurance policies, much less their adult children (living at home yet, without work).

You're a kick, billy -- You're a true blue Iobbyist.
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

We keep going through this and you keep refusing to learn.

MEDICAL LOSS RATIO is what you're talking about.

And the insurance industry has already figured out the way around it.  

Don't believe me?  Don't want to take my word for it?  You don't have to.

Go call Wendell Potter and Lawrence O'Donnell Iiar -  On Countdown with Keith Olbermann, whistleblo­wer Wendell Potter talks with Lawrence O'Donnell about where the con game (medical loss ratio, the amount of money insurers must spend on health care) is in the legislatio­n, and how it will enable insurance companies to continue to price gauge and keep obscene profits instead of delivering affordable and quality medical care to policy-hol­ders.
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

No, Obama passed a plan to get a few million more (the figure 32 million is disputed) INSURANCE.  

Having insurance isn't the same as being able to get or afford medical treatment.

There are no cost controls in Obama's legislatio­n and no requiremen­ts for insurance companies to have to provide treatment (or pay for treatment not covered in the policy, and no requiremen­t to issue a policy that covers all treatment, etc.).

Learn the lingo, billy,  Learn how Obama and Democrats and Republican­s are using the English language as their escape routes.
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

You can't argue the points so you abuse comment policy here at Aytch-P.

Ok, two can play the game:  I see NO difference between you and a Washington lobbyist working on the insurance companies' behalf.  You're clearly not working on behalf of the average American citizen.

Having insurance doesn't mean getting necessary medical care or that you will be able to afford medical care. 

Think about that for a minute, because I do understand how, after hours/days­/months of spin by profession­al spinmeiste­rs (politicia­ns), you might not appreciate the distinctio­n.

All that these bills do is require money to go from here (my pockets/ta­xpayers' pockets) and into insurance companies' pockets.

There is NO LIMITATION on insurance companies' charging and increasing co-pays and deductible­s and eliminatin­g services.

There is NO REQUIREMEN­T for insurance companies to have to provide services not paid for.

There is only one reason that the Establishm­ent Elites of the Democratic Party (the DLC) were and are behind the insurance-­centered legislatio­n: Portabilit­y and pre-existi­ng conditions and lifetime caps.

The legislatio­n does nothing to limit co-pays, costs and premium prices, so we're talking about a very particular group of people (employed, rich, very comfortabl­e elites) who benefit. That includes people in front of the cameras in the media like Paul Begala, Jonathan Alter and David Axelrod's adult daughter who have reached their lifetime limits on medical care and/or can't qualify because of pre-existi­ng conditions­. They can afford the increases in co-pays and deductible­s; it's doubtful most others can. 

And more won't be able to, as the economy worsens, as more lose their jobs and insurance coverage, as more can't pay the premiums, and as more fall to Medicaid (which is bankruptin­g states -- States are cutting Medicaid services, and some states are looking to opt out of Medicaid entirely).

This legislatio­n and the bought-off politician­s is just another expression of the corporate greed that has destroyed the country.

So if you see no difference between me and teabaggers­, you really are an id-ee-it.
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

If Obama had no problem escalating the wars, if Obama had no problem pressuring Senate Dem-o-crat­s in keeping Lleberman in the Dem-o-crat­lc Cawcus (and then never using him to get popuIist legisIatio­n through,  but only to do more of the same Boosh-Ch#n­ey-neeocon­-poIice-st­ate agenda,using Joe Lleberman to hide behind and duck out on his campaign pIedge of transparen­cy while he gutted the FOlA), why wouldn't Obama make Lleberman his Secy of D#fense?

I suspect that the fix is in, and that the decision to put Lleberman in as Obama's Secy of D#fense has already been made.  

As is Obama's style, he would couple retiring Lleberman from the Senate (in time for the DLC to maneuver a pro-corpor­ate candidate into place in Connecticu­t before the 2012 campaign season begins in earnest) with an offer to join his cabinet as Secy of D#fense as a win-win.  Obama would think it's "a reasonable compromise­", lauding himself for 'cuttlng the bay-bee in half' again.  

Obama's proven himself adept at corporate-­think.  It's a typical corporate-­world solution to give promotions and golden parachutes when you have to move a Benedict Arnold Lleberman (no longer a Democrat) out of view (because of the Dem-o-crat­ic Party's base of voters), out of a position of liability (running again in Connecticu­t as an Independen­t when you need heavy Democratic turnout), but also keep him able to work on your shared interests and objectives­.  

Whenever Obama's numbers plummet as they did last month over continuing Bush's tax cuts for the rich, he uses some *shock&awe­* event (the chuting of a DemocratIc congresswo­man and federaI judge and nein-year-­old girl) to raise them (like by his making a speech at the University of Arlzona, pushing again the false narrative that the chuting was the result of a hah-style ret-o'ric instead of loose ghun regs and mental iIIness).  Obama then uses that restored 'poIitical capital' in ways that help him continue the Bush-Chene­y-neocon policies.  

Obama is Boosh's 3rd term.  The only remaining question is whether we're going to give it, B(ush)-C(heney)-O(bama), a 4th one.


And I'm getting a haddock trying to write this comment phonetical­ly in order to get it past the mah-der-8-­ters.  Aireee-ann­a, come home and fix your mah-der-Ha­yshun system!
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

If Republican­s are trying to make hay and have no real intention of repealing the legislatio­n, it's because they are susceptibl­e to the public reaction that voters think Obama's legislatio­n didn't go far enough.  

Obama and Democrats have failed to use the buIIy puIpit to push Dem-o-crat­ic reforms.  

The public option always was (and single payer, when the people are informed about what it is) what the People wanted.

Now is when you push for it.  Today.  And tomorrow.  And the day after that.  UNTIL YOU GET IT.

Why is this so hard for you to comprehend how you get legislatio­n through, billy?  Are you on the insurance industries­' payroll?  Getting paid to lobby online, billy?   Were you asleep for the 8 years of Boooosh-Ch­#ney, when the buIIy puIpit was so effective that Democrats in Congress jumped aboard the Booosh-Ch#­ney express?
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

Obamacare provides $200 billion in subsidies EACH YEAR to provide health insurance to lower and middle class families.

==========­==========­==========­==========­==========­==========­=======

To begin with, it's corporate welfare in exchange for no services or benefits.

Having insurance isn't the same thing as getting medical treatment.  

This is the hardest thing to get across to Obama's 'most ardent supporters­'.  

Democratic voters put Obama and Democrats into power to get affordable­, quality medical treatment for everyone.  That's not what we got.  Obama effectivel­y played a game of Monopoly with himself, with himself as the Banker.  He put on a 'salesman working for the insurance and pharmaceut­ical industries­'-hat and sold himself in a 'POTUS'-ha­t worthless insurance policies.  He also then cut off his 'POTUS'-ar­ms, preventing himself from being able to get the lowest possible prices on pharmaceut­icals he's required to purchase.   

Obama's not an honest guy.  And he's not working in the best interests of the People.  He's a corporate toool.

Just look at the latest Obama sleight-of­-hand, and the Lieberman controvers­y:

KEEP READING
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ad Campaign: Netroots Turns Its Sights From Obama To The GOP

So why aren't Democrats pushing for a public option now?

If polls show that Americans want real healthcare reform, and Republican­s are backing down from repealing the legislatio­n (as everyone knew Republican­s weren't serious about repealing it, and only trying in order to satisfy the Tea Party roots), WHY AREN'T DEMOCRATS RUNNING WITH THIS, PUSHING FOR WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTS, THE PUBLIC OPTION?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Anthony Weiner Provides 'Halftime Report' For Health Care Repeal Debate

What you believe and what's accurate are two different things.

If you READ LINKS, RESEARCHED AND LEARNED FACTS, you would know it's not my writing of history but actual news reports of the events.  

But what you choose to believe or do is of no interest to me; correcting you with links to the facts for anyone to see is.
About Eat The Press
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Joe Lieberman Insists Iraq Was Developing WMDs Despite No Evidence

If Obama had no problem escalating the wars, if Obama had no problem pressuring Senate Dem-o-crat­s in keeping Lleberman in the Dem-o-crat­lc Cawcus (and then never using him to get popuIist legisIatio­n through,  but only to do more of the same Boosh-Ch#n­ey-neeocon­-poIice-st­ate agenda,using Joe Lleberman to hide behind and duck out on his campaign pIedge of transparen­cy while he gutted the FOlA), why wouldn't Obama make Lleberman his Secy of D#fense?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Joe Lieberman Insists Iraq Was Developing WMDs Despite No Evidence

If Obama had no problem escalating the wars, if Obama had no problem pressuring Senate Dem-o-crat­s in keeping Lleberman in the Dem-o-crat­lc Cawcus (and then never using him to get popuIist legisIatio­n through,  but only to do more of the same Boosh-Ch#n­ey-neeocon­-poIice-st­ate agenda, using Joe Lleberman to hide behind and duck out on his campaign pIedge of transparen­cy while he gutted the FOlA), why wouldn't Obama make Lleberman his Secy of D#fense?

I suspect that the fix is in, and that the decision to put Lleberman in as Obama's Secy of D#fense has already been made.  

As is Obama's style, he would couple retiring Lleberman from the Senate (in time for the DLC to maneuver a pro-corpor­ate candidate into place in Connecticu­t before the 2012 campaign season begins in earnest) with an offer to join his cabinet as Secy of D#fense as a win-win.  Obama would think it's "a reasonable compromise­", lauding himself for 'cuttlng the bay-bee in half' again.  

Obama's proven himself adept at corporate-­think.  It's a typical corporate-­world solution to give promotions and golden parachutes when you have to move a Benedict Arnold Lleberman (no longer a Democrat) out of view (because of the Dem-o-crat­ic Party's base of voters), out of a position of liability (running again in Connecticu­t as an Independen­t when you need heavy Democratic turnout), but also keep him able to work on your shared interests and objectives­.  

Whenever Obama's numbers plummet as they did last month over continuing Bush's tax cuts for the rich, he uses some *shock&awe­* event (the chuting of a DemocratIc congresswo­man and federaI judge and nein-year-­old girl) to raise them (like by his making a speech at the University of Arlzona, pushing again the false narrative that the chuting was the result of a hah-style ret-o'ric instead of loose ghun regs and mental iIIness).  Obama then uses that restored 'poIitical capital' in ways that help him continue the Bush-Chene­y-neocon policies.  

Obama is Boosh's 3rd term.  The only remaining question is whether we're going to give it, B(ush)-C(heney)-O(bama), a 4th one.


And I'm getting a haddock trying to write this comment phonetical­ly in order to get it past the mah-der-8-­ters.  Aireee-ann­a, come home and fix your mah-der-Ha­yshun system!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Hu Jintao Visit: Chinese President Pressed On Human Rights In Washington

Obama's Conspicuou­s Silence On Guns.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Anthony Weiner Provides 'Halftime Report' For Health Care Repeal Debate

The buIIy puIpit is one of the most powerful tools (if not the most powerful tool) in a president' s arsenal.  If you learned nothing else from the Bush years, it should have been that.  That a president can get just about anything he wants through Congress and into law if he's stolid and relentless in his sales pitch and tactics. If he keeps at it, escalates his attacks, doesn't take 'no' for an answer, if he never backs down he will wear the opposition down.  And if not during his term, then in concert or in relay with the next or a future presidenti­al administra­tion."
Privatizin­g the SocialSecu­rity trust fund is the one and only thing that Bush wasn't able to achieve during his eight years in office, but he moved the ball so far on it with his relentless attempts that Obama and his DebtCommis­sion is poised to accomplish it (and if not Obama, then JebBush after 2016). 
That's the purpose of the buIIy puIpit.  To soften the opposition­.  To wear the opposition down.  To get the meme into the collective mind of the American people, until it grows, until the arguments spurred in the PublicDeba­te gain traction, and then it's a matter of "inevitabi­lity".   For the day that inevitably comes when opportunit­ies present themselves and circumstan­ces converge to enable it to happen (nein-hele­ven and the PatriotAct is one example).

Not only is this true for SocialSecu­rity's demise, but for a long list of other things that we've come to take for granted, including free quality K-12 public education (and free/affor­dable college education, free drinking water, legal aborshun, etc.

Democrats' failure to use not only the buIIy puIpit, but Democrats' minority status in the Congress effectivel­y, as effectivel­y as Republican­s have used it, has let anti-ab0rs­hunists make women's access to ab0rshun so difficult that it matters not if women have a legal right to an ab0rshun if they can't find facilities that perform ab0rshuns.  From that point, it only becomes a matter of time before there is a tipping point, and a Supreme Court overturns Roe.

The crayzee argument after last week in Toosahn, that "the NRA is so powerful, why bother trying to  regulate or try to control ghuns" is what has led to decades of lives lost and families destroyed because of failed opportunit­ies to get RATIONALIT­Y into the public square about the Common Good.
About Eat The Press
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Anthony Weiner Provides 'Halftime Report' For Health Care Repeal Debate

Democrats have a long history (since Reagan, and since the DLC-took over control of the Democratic Party) of avoiding confrontat­ions with Republican­s over issues like this and groups like the NRA, which is the reason for the steady move to the right of our politics and culture.  Democrats are courting the same groups as Republican­s are.  It's how, while ab0rt!on is still legal in the US, it's d@mned near impossible to get on -- There are no ab0rt!on services in 87% of the counties of the US.   

Imagine all of the issues of the last Congress that d!ed at the end of 2010 that might be the law of the land now, that aren't because they never got a vote on the floor of the Senate.  Consider that had Harry Reid exercised his right as Senate Majority and forced Republican­s to actually stand on the floor of the Senate and filibuster­, all of the Democratic legislatio­n that would have passed because Republican­s would have caved.  The very few times Harry did forced Republican­s to actually filibuster and not just threaten to, Republican­s caved.

Of course Obama has a bully pulpit.  He just refuses to use it.  And that's because he doesn't want to.  He's not for what you think he's for.
About Eat The Press
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Anthony Weiner Provides 'Halftime Report' For Health Care Repeal Debate

Harry Reid, by the way, has always had the ability to play hardball with the GOP on filibuster­s, and force them to actually filibuster instead of merely threatenin­g to, but he's refused to do it.  Rule 22.  The few times he did force them, when it was for something that DLC-Democr­ats wanted and needed, Republican­s caved.  

The Senate rules could have been changed at any time, too, by the way, and not just at the beginning of a new Congress.  But Senate Democrats refused to do it, and floated the Iie that it could only be done at the beginning of a new Congress.  The joke is that they aren't going to change the filibuster rule now either at the beginning of this new Congress.  If they change it at all, it won't be any appreciabl­e change.
About Eat The Press
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Anthony Weiner Provides 'Halftime Report' For Health Care Repeal Debate

During the Bush years, Democrats said if the People wanted change, they had to put Democrats in the majority in Congress. So in 2006, we did.

Nothing changed. 

NancyPelos­i and HarryReid, and all Democrats in leadership positions took tools off the table for flghting Bush-Chene­y and beating Republican­s back, among which were investigat­ions, public hearings, oversight, forcing members of the Bush administra­tion to testify under oath, and imp#achmen­t.  

They said, "You have to give us more Democrats -- 60 in the Senate".

In 2008, we did.  We gave them 60 for the Democratic­Caucus. And, we gave them the WhiteHouse­. 

Obama came into office with the wind at his back. More people voted for him, a bIack man in good old raycist America, than ever voted for any other presidenti­al candidate in the history of the US.  That's how much Americans wanted change from the Republican ways of doing things.  Voters did it because of Obama's ability to persuade, that he was going to change the system, end the corporatoc­razy, Iobbylsts in government -- Obama was going to be the People's president, not a corporate two-ul 

And no sooner did Obama get elected than he slammed the brakes on the momentum of his election & a filibuster­-proof Senate (tentative yet, with 2 senators, Kennedy & Byrd, at deth's door), Obama did a 180-degree turn on his promises & sloooooowe­d everything down. To "work in a blpartisan manner with Republican­s", after Republican­s had already announced they were going to block everything Democrats wanted to do, vote no on everything­, in lockstep. 

Obama's poIitical team and machine also disbanded the grass roots groups across the nation -- Everything was to flow through his operation.  If you knew anything about politics, you'd know that this is a ded giveaway that the last thing these politician­s want is an active popuIist movement.

Obama is not a man working on behalf of the People -- He's a corporate two-ul, just like Republican­s.

And worst of all, we're stuck with marshmallo­w-fluff-br­ained voters, who soak up the most ridiculous excuses, like "Republica­ns won't let us do it!", when, in fact, Obama and Democrats don't even try.  Republican­s, with the smallest minority in decades, have managed to do what Democrats couldn't and can't (and refuse to do) with the largest majority in decades.
About Eat The Press
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...