When the average voter is asked an intelligent, non-loaded question regarding what is popularly called the "public option", support seems overwhlelming.   It is also true that when the "public option" is called "government takeover" of insurance public support drops well below 50%.

It seems to me that most of this debate truly is a matter of semantics.  And because a public option is absolutely critical to any kind of effective short and long term medical cost control, maybe its time to think about "a rose by any other name"..

Why not change the talking point to allow anyone, any business or any group to simply buy into Medicare.  Stop saying "public option".  Start saying "Medicare".  Start talking at the very beginning about how this will "Strengthen Medicare".  In every TV interview, supporters and/or Obama officials must say the words "Strengthen Medicare".

The long term problem we have always faced is losing the war of words with the forces of evil on the right.  They are much better at sloganeering than any thoughtful Democrat has ever been.  Why not pretend to capitulate to the right and admit there will be no "government run" health care provision in the bill.  We are just going to allow anyone who wants to, to buy into Medicare at their own cost, and we'll help subsidize those few who can't afford health care premiums.

The evildoers will come back and say "It's just a government takeover by another name".  And our obvious response would be "You think Medicare is a government takeover; how dare you attack Medicare!".

We need to grab the rhetorical high ground.  How can you be against allowing someone to voluntarily buy into a popular government sponsored health insurance plan?  Easy if you successfully label it as "government takeover".  Not so easy if you simply call it "Medicare", which has the added benefit of being an existing program that does not require a new start from scratch bureaucracy.

The bottom line need to change the status quo and give everyone a right to government sponsored health insurance seems to me to be paramount.  Once that right is esconced in law, reconciliation rules apply and future changes, which we can assume may be more generous, can more easily pass without the threat of filibuster.

If the "public option" [not necessarily a bad moniker when originally proposed but now inevitably tarnished] fails because of semantics, what a tragedy for all of us.

The right to buy into Medicare sets us on the glidepath to single payer, "Medicare for all"! Let's not lose the forest because the bad guys renamed the tree.

job approval on this headline (if I get a call from a pollster, I definitely will take him down):

White House appears ready to drop 'public option'

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Bowing to Republican pressure, President Barack Obama's administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system.

Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession probably would enrage Obama's liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.

Officials from both political parties reached across the aisle in an effort to find compromises on proposals they left behind when they returned to their districts for an August recess. Obama had sought the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation's almost 50 million uninsured, but he never made it a deal breaker in a broad set of ideas that has Republicans unified in opposition.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory.

Let's limit the jurisdiction of the "Palin Death Panels" to deciding the fate of only the following:

1) White supremacists;
2) Regularly listeners and viewers of False News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck et al.;
3) Anybody carrying a sign of President Obama with a swastika, a Hitler moustache, or the words "Keep Your Guvmint Hands Off My Medicare".

Maybe we can proceed then to quickly thin the herd and get back to some semblance of republican democracy. 

How about Obama and the Democrats getting together and drop any mention of "public plan" or "robust public plan" or "viable public plan" or even the overused "single payer" and simply use a word familiar to most Americans and all Canadians:  MEDICARE

Yeah I know that would be too simple.  Telling the American public:

"You and/or your employer will have the right to purchase an insurance policy with the program commonly known as MEDICARE.  You get all the coverage that anyone over 65 gets, including the new revised prescription drug plan, and you get it for a reasonable monthly fee. If you can't afford the premium, we'll help you pay for it."

How about folding SCHIP and Medicaid in there while we are at it.

Simplify the system and simplify the talking points.

And just 41 percent approve of the president's job on health care, which is nearly identical to Bill Clinton's scores from 1994, when he failed to get Congress to pass health care reform...(but) when read the specifics of his goals for health care -- like requiring insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions, providing low-income families with subsidies to help them afford insurance, and raising taxes on the wealthy to pay for the subsidies -- 56 percent say they support Obama's plan. Only 38 percent oppose.

Wow!  You'd think that would be a wake up call for the MSM to help the country understand what it is the Democrats/Obama are trying to accomplish. 

Unfortunately its much easier to say: "$1 trillion plan, will add to deficit and cost you more to go to your government assigned doctor. Old People will be murdered."

In my last post I apparently got the party wrong.  It's the Democrats who are the liars, cheaters, and quitters.  These bright young freshmen were supposed to be the answer to Republican stonewalling.  To call them enablers is to be too kind.  Two of these dickwads represent my State of Colorado.

Nine freshman Democratic senators, several from conservative states, have put their support behind the bipartisan healthcare reform negotiations being orchestrated by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.). While the Senate leadership, President Obama, Senate liberals and House Democrats continue to express impatience with Baucus's efforts to forge a deal with Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and other Republicans on a healthcare reform package, these freshman senators offered their backing of the process and the issues Baucus is pursuing. "We applaud you and Sen. Grassley for your continued work and dedication toward a bipartisan effort," a letter from the freshmen to Baucus says. "We stand ready to serve and to help you and the Senate Finance Committee to craft a bill that bends the healthcare cost curve, provides affordable coverage, and rewards value-added services." Democratic Sens. Mark Begich (Alaska), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Roland Burris (Ill.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Mark Udall (Colo.), Tom Udall (N.M.) and Mark Warner (Va.) signed the letter. Baucus has been courting the freshmen in recent weeks, hosting meetings with groups of them in his office in between his negotiating sessions with Grassley, Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad (N.D.) and Jeff Bingaman (N.M.) and Republican Sens. Mike Enzi (Wyo.), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and Grassley. The freshman senators, like Obama and the centrist Blue Dog Democrats in the House, place special emphasis on urging Baucus to come up with policies to reduce long-term healthcare spending. "We hear daily from our constituents about this issue; many of them are concerned that we are not doing enough to control costs. We strongly urge the Senate Finance Committee to continue to remain centered on realigning incentives to stabilize healthcare costs," the letter says.

And I thought it was just the party of homophobes, xenophobes, sexists and racists.  Add liars, cheaters and quitters and you just about covered the whole lot.  The New Whig Party. 

Watch for the indictment.  It will give False News a new round of "nothing more than a political prosecution" and "here come the internment camp" memes.  Poor Sarah.  Another victim of the Fascist Obama Dictatorship.

Here's to praying she decides to run for Prez in 2012.

How about President Obama inviting every member of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate to the White House and getting a public commitment, televised, from each of them:

"I hereby solemnly swear that I will vote for cloture on every bill presented by our caucus whether or not I wholeheartedly endorse its aims.  I reserve the right to vote against the bill on final passage, but under no circumstances will I vote to uphold a filibuster of a bill sponsored by our caucus.  If I break this pledge I fully understand that I will be labeled a Republican swine and will forgo all privileges given to me including committee chairs and assignments.  So help me ..."

Why isn't this doable?

Norman: If the mission was to be as big an asshole for as long as politically possible, you accomplished your mission.  The party of NO got most of what they wanted here.  It would have been nice for them if they could have kept Al out of the Senate for another 3-4 months (one less vote for healthcare, cap and trade and EFCA) but Norm can leave now with his fat Republican head held high, knowing he fought the bad fight for his rapidly evaporating party.

Goodbye, good riddance, and please let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

It seemed like all the talk a few months back when the EPA finally did what the Supreme Court ordered it to do years ago, i.e. make a declaration on carbon as a pollutant, was "What a breakthrough for carbon emission regulation".

Can someone explain to me why the administration isn't just saying: "If you don't like the climate bill (and I'm talking to you, Claire McCaskill) fine.  We'll just let the good folks at EPA determine the proper amount of carbon emissions over the next 4 years."

I had thought that this climate bill was a compromise to the big polluters to ensure that EPA couldn't destroy their current business models.  If the Senate decides to gut or filibuster this bill, I say fine.  Let Lisa Jackson and her crew issue tough carbon emission restrictions and get it done that way.

Besides the ephemeral and ad nauseam desire for bipartisanship, what's the downside to effective carbon control if this bill just doesn't pass?  Might that in the end be a better result?

It's amazing to me that I suddenly don't mind listening to Michael Jackson music anymore.  The idea of listening, let alone buying any of his music, repulsed me for the last 15 years until just today.  The old enabling a child molester thing I guess.

Suddenly I take great joy in the wonderful artist he truly was.  What a very sad and tragic figure.  I hope wherever he is now he has found some peace.

But what a superstar he was!  I doubt we'll ever see his like again in our lifetimes.

Here's to praying that once the major the legislative issues are resolved this summer and fall (health care, carbon cap and trade, financial reform and wouldn't it be great immigration reform, among others) that our President and his Attorney General will suddenly show their progressive stripes and:

1)  The President immediately stops the enforcement of DADT pending legislation in the Congress to permanently revoke the law;

2) Holder decides, based upon recommendations from the Intelligence Committees to appoint an Independent Counsel to investigate the unlawful torture of individuals in federal custody, in compliance with international treaties.

Methinks our Dear Leader and his administration believe that time is on their side as far as these two issues are concerned, and if we can take this once in our lifetime opportunity to set America on the glidepath to single payer health care and an effective carbon emission control regime, that those of us concerned with gay rights/national security and those of us who demand accountability for Bush War Crimes will just have to be patient and not put the cart before the horse so to speak.

I wish he had issued an executive order suspending enforcement of DADT on the afternoon of January 20th.  And I wish Holder had ordered a special prosecutor to investigate Bush War Crimes five minutes after that.

But I also know our President is a student of history, especially recent history circa 1993, and realized that starting off your tenure with gays in the military and prosecuting former administration officials for war crimes might have had a negative impact on his ability to effect real change.

Prioritize these issues to yourselves:

1) DADT
2) War Crimes Prosecutions
3) Real Health Care Reform
4) Real Energy Reform
5) Real Immigration Reform
6) Real Financial Reform

I think if I wanted to get all 6 of these things done, I would not have put the first two first.  It's a matter of practicality.  When you already have the mainstream right wing media expounding every single day on the enormous budget deficit, something they just discovered, blaming the entire mess on Obama and Geithner, and you have the Ariannas of the world as part of this echo chamber, add "gays in the military" and "Bush saved us/now Obama wants to prosecute him" to the endless reverberations and poof, no real Health Care Reform and No Real Carbon regime.

Yes I know the polls say 70% of Americans no longer oppose "gays in the military".  Trust me, the second Obama signs the Executive Order stopping its enforcement our very vocal right wing lying noise machine will be all over it, nonstop, 24 hours a day.  Watch that 70% evaporate overnight. 

Consider also that a large majority of Americans want real health care reform; it doesn't mean the right isn't demagouging it.

Our President is walking a tightrope to get his promised agenda passed through a thoroughly bought and paid for Congress.  He is asking many Congresspersons and Senators to betray the very special interests that get them elected.  The forces arrayed against him in health care and carbon alone are more than formidable.  Getting a real bill passed this year on either of these issues will be a phenomenal accomplishment considering the entrenched and powerful opposition to any change whatsoever. 

Name me one President who has taken on Big Oil, Big Pharma, or Big HMO and survived to tell the tale.  This guy wants to keep his eye on the ball, take these monstrous challenges one at a time and succeed.  I got to give him the benefit of the doubt, for now.

My guess is that sometime in November we'll see the Executive Order banning the enforcement of DADT.  Eric Holder might need a bigger push. 


 

My wife went to the hospital with massive chest pains a few weeks back. She got all the tests including the treadmill stress test.  Everything was fine, no heart attack.  We still don't know what caused it but it wasn't cardio or neuro, probably some kind of intense muscular event.

Anyway, the bill came and it was $12,600 (and that was just the hospital, not the various doctors.) If we didn't have insurance, that is the amount we would have had to pay and I can guarantee you that the next time either of us had chest pains, we would probably not even consider dialing 911.

Here's the kicker.  We have insurance.  The adjuster knocked down the overall bill, get this, to $700 and since we had met our deductible already we paid 20% of that $700 with insurance paying the rest of the $700.

That's a 95% reduction in the bill.  Think about that for a moment.  No insurance? Please pay us $12,600.  Oh, you have insurance and we are a preferred provider under your plan. Well then, the bill is now only $700.
How does this make any sense? 

68% of bankruptcies have medical bills as their root cause.  Every person in America actually paying for insurance pays $1000 per year in additional premiums just to make up for the uninsured. 

We had insurance so we called 911.  Without insurance, how many people wouldn't dare.

This couldn't be a more ridiculous system.    

The four wise men of the Republican Party: a traitor - Karl Rove for outing a CIA Agent; a serial adulterer and disgraced former Speaker of the House- Newt Gingrich; and a drug addicted radio "personality"- Rush Limbaugh are the GO TO Guys for the national, cable and print media when it comes issues of public interest.  Oh, and on issues of torture they pull out the  draft-dodging psychopath - Cheney.  Four viscerally repulsive assholes.

Could it get any better than this for Obama when these mean spirited, pot bellied jerks are your competition?  Four more years of this and Democrats will have their permanent majority.

as Vatican Ambassador! You know, kill two birds ...

Reposted from Americablog

Maybe Obama should send a Nazi sympathizer to the Vatican

by John Aravosis (DC) on 4/14/2009 06:41:00 PM

The Vatican has reportedly vetoed three of Obama's proposed ambassadors, including Caroline Kennedy, because they're pro-choice. Which is funny, since the Vatican isn't nearly as discerning about welcoming Holocaust-deniers into its ranks. Speaking of which, when does the Pope plan on doing something about the Nazi-sympathizer he's now embracing, even though he knew the man is a Holocaust denier? The Pope told him to recant or else. No recant. And nothing from the Vatican, as if we'll all just forget that the German-born Pope, who was a member of the Hitler Youth, welcomed a Holocaust-denialist into the Vatican. Fat chance.

and from the AP...

Federal court halts deportation of Demjanjuk

By M.R. KROPKO, Associated Press Writer M.r. Kropko, Associated Press Writer 33 mins ago

CLEVELAND - The return of alleged Nazi death camp guard John Demjanjuk to Germany for trial on war crimes was delayed again Tuesday by a federal court, shortly after six immigration officers removed the retired autoworker from his suburban Cleveland home in a wheelchair.

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay until it could further consider Demjanjuk's motion to reopen the U.S. case that ordered him deported, in which he says painful medical ailments would make travel to Germany torturous.