<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
   <title>Connecticut Man1&apos;s Blog</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/" />
   <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/atom.xml" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1//1666</id>
   <updated>2009-10-30T23:38:36Z</updated>
   
   <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type Pro 4.21-en</generator>


<entry>
   <title>Some Basic Info on CBO Scoring of Healthcare Bills</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/2009/10/some-basic-info-on-cbo-scoring.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1//1666.299213</id>
   
   <published>2009-10-30T20:48:27Z</published>
   <updated>2009-10-30T23:38:36Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Via ThinkProgress, both the Baucus Bill and the plan put forward by Pelosi will enroll some more people but most will not be in the Public Option and it will not cover everyone:-----------------------------CBO: Public Option To Attract Only 6 Million...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Connecticut Man1</name>
      <uri>http://drinkliberal.blogspot.com/</uri>
   </author>
   
   <category term="16510" label="CBO" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="22019" label="Public Option" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="9221" label="Single Payer" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/">
      <![CDATA[<p>Via ThinkProgress, both the Baucus Bill and the plan put forward by
Pelosi will enroll some more people but most will not be in the Public
Option and it will not cover everyone:</p><p>-----------------------------<br /></p><h2><a href="http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/10/29/house-cbo/">CBO: Public Option To Attract Only 6 Million Enrollees &amp; Doesn't Offer Lower Premiums</a><em> <br /></em></h2><p><em>The public option would <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf">attract about 6 million enrollees by 2019</a> and charge premiums that are "somewhat <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf">higher than the average premiums for the private plans</a>
in the exchanges." This is because the public option would "engage in
less management of utilization" by its enrollees and "attract a less
healthy pool of enrollees," the office concludes. Moreover, since the
House bill expands Medicaid up to 150% of the federal poverty line,
it's possible that the enrollees that would have enrolled in the public
option went into Medicaid instead. </em></p>
<p><em>Below is a comparison of the relevant provisions in the House and Senate Finance Committee legislation:</em></p>

<table><tbody><tr>
<td><strong>&nbsp;</strong></td>
<td><strong>CBO Score Of House Bill</strong></td>
<td><strong>CBO Score Of Baucus Bill</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Costs</strong></td>
<td>Reduce deficits: $104B/10yrs <br /> Cost: $894B/10yrs <br /> Spends on subsidies: $605B/10yrs<br /> On Medicaid/CHIP: $425B/10yrs<br /> On Small Employer Credit: $25B/10yrs</td>
<td>Reduce deficits: $81B/10yrs <br /> Cost: $829B/10yrs <br /> Spends on subsidies: $461B/10yrs<br /> On Medicaid/CHIP: $345B/10yrs<br /> On Small Employer Credit: $23B/10yrs</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Insured</strong></td>
<td>Uninsured reduced by: 36M <br /> Uninsured in 2019: 18M <br />In Exchanges: 30M | Public Plan: 6M <br />In Medicaid: 15M</td>
<td>Uninsured reduced by: 29M <br /> Uninsured in 2019: 25M <br />In Exchanges: 23M <br /> In Medicaid: 14M</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Revenue</strong></td>
<td>Mandate penalty: $33B/10yrs<br />Pay-Play penalty: $135B/10yrs<br /> New taxes: $572B/10yrs</td>
<td>Mandate penalty: $4B/10yrs<br />Free rider penalty: $23B/10yrs<br /> New taxes: $196B/10yrs  </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><strong>Medicare <br />and<br />Medicaid</strong></td>
<td>Total savings: 426B/10yrs <br />Medicare Advantage: $170B/10yrs</td>
<td>Total savings: 404B/10yrs <br />Medicare Advantage: $117B/10yrs</td></tr></tbody></table>

<p><br /></p><p>-----------------------------</p><p>With <a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what_is_single_payer.php">a Single Payer solution</a> it would be <a href="http://www.1payer.net/">everybody in and nobody out</a> - AND it would save a heck of a lot more money for everyone.</p><p><object height="332" width="450" /><param name="width" value="450" /><param name="height" value="332" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.veeple.com/swf/VeeplePlayer.swf?siteId=X6sXpl50kYc%253D&amp;videoId=1c58c123-8494-4177-9345-a1d839fda422&amp;userId=&amp;baseUrl=http://www.veeple.com/&amp;showSpots=1&amp;showViewBar=1&amp;showTabBar=1&amp;autoPlay=0&amp;allowAddComments=1&amp;allowShare=1&amp;allowEmbedding=1&amp;allowFullscreen=1&amp;allowRating=1&amp;stopPlayingOnInteractiveClick=1&amp;displayRelatedVideos=1&amp;playerMode=player&amp;playerWidth=450&amp;playerHeight=332&amp;isFlex=0&amp;recordEvents=1&amp;scaleMode=maintainAspectRatio&amp;deploymentURL=http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/some-basic-info-cbo-scoring-healthcare-bills" /><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff" /><param name="menu" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://www.veeple.com/swf/VeeplePlayer.swf?siteId=X6sXpl50kYc%253D&amp;videoId=1c58c123-8494-4177-9345-a1d839fda422&amp;userId=&amp;baseUrl=http://www.veeple.com/&amp;showSpots=1&amp;showViewBar=1&amp;showTabBar=1&amp;autoPlay=0&amp;allowAddComments=1&amp;allowShare=1&amp;allowEmbedding=1&amp;allowFullscreen=1&amp;allowRating=1&amp;stopPlayingOnInteractiveClick=1&amp;displayRelatedVideos=1&amp;playerMode=player&amp;playerWidth=450&amp;playerHeight=332&amp;isFlex=0&amp;recordEvents=1&amp;scaleMode=maintainAspectRatio&amp;deploymentURL=http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/some-basic-info-cbo-scoring-healthcare-bills" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="332" width="450" /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /></p><p>The difference is not just everyone being covered but <a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php">HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of DOLLARS saved every year</a><strong>:</strong><br /></p><blockquote><p><em>The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is
because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private
insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing
to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing
departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay.
Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to
deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration
consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans' health dollars.</em></p><p><em>Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted
money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per
year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without
paying any more than we already do.</em></p><p><em>Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all
medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, preventive,
long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental,
vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would
regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain
autonomy over patient care.</em></p></blockquote>



<p>There
are too many reasons why so many Doctors and Nurses support single
payer. Some frequently asked questions concerning Single Payer:</p>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#socialized">Is national health insurance 'socialized medicine'?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#rationing">Won't this result in rationing like in Canada?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#run_system">Who will run the health care system?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#research">What about medical research?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#bureaucracy">Won't this just be another bureaucracy?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#costs_down">How will we keep costs down if everyone has access to comprehensive health care?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#procedures">How will we keep doctors from doing too many procedures?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#income">What will happen to physician incomes?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#drug_prices">How will we keep drug prices under control?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#buy_healthcare">Why shouldn't we let people buy better health care if they can afford it?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#covered">What will be covered?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#alt_care">What about alternative care, will it be covered?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#private_insurance">Can a business keep private insurance if they choose?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#insurance_companies">What will happen to all of the people who work for insurance companies?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#aging_population">How will we contain costs with the population aging?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#ERISA">What about <span>ERISA</span>? Doesn't it stand in the way of states implementing universal health care plans?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#board">How will the Health Planning Board operate?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#40percent">Since
we could finance a fairly good system, like the Norwegian, Danish or
Swedish system, with the public money we are already spending (60% of
health costs), why do we need to raise the additional 40% (from
employers and individuals)?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#publicl_financed">How much of the health care dollar is publicly financed?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#MSA">Why not <span>MS</span>As/HSAs?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#subsidies">Why not use tax subsidies to help the uninsured buy health insurance?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#libertarian">What is <span>PNHP</span>'s response to libertarian proposals for health savings accounts and deregulated insurance plans?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#competition">Won't competition be impeded by a universal health care system?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#higher_risk">Why not make people who are higher risk pay higher premiums?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#raise_taxes">Won't this raise my taxes?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#payroll">Isn't a payroll tax unfair to small businesses?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#walter_reed">Walter
Reed Army Medical Center has been in the news lately for poor care and
treatment of returning soldiers from Iraq. Won't national health
insurance have similar problems?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#incremental">What about incremental reform of the health system?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#investor-owned">What happens to investor-owned hospitals under national health insurance (NHI)?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#undocumented_immigrants">What proportion of health spending is for undocumented immigrants?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#administrative_costs">The insurance industry says that <span>PNHP</span>'s figures on administrative costs are outdated. Is this true?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#statewide-sp">How much could the states save on administrative waste by adopting a statewide single-payer program?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#malpractice">What will happen to malpractice costs under national health insurance?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#public-option">Should <span>PNHP</span> support a public Medicare-like option in a market of private plans?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#public-option-right-direction">Would a "public plan option" at least be a step in the right direction?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#scalability">Universal
healthcare is okay for a small country or organization like
Switzerland, Canada, or the Veterans Administration, but it wouldn't
work when scaled up to meet the needs of a large country like the <span>US.</span></a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#response-papers">Responses to recent attacks on single payer health reform: Ideology Masquerading as Scholarship</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#canada-unions">When Canada adopted single payer, did she allow labor unions to opt-out and "keep what they have."</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#primary-shortage">What does <span>PNHP</span> have to say about the primary care workforce shortage?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#voucher">What is a Voucher Plan? What's Wrong With It?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#canada-mri">What
about the claim (in videos circulating on the internet) that a patient
in Canada would have died of a brain tumor if he hadn't come to the <span>U.S.</span> for an <span>MRI</span>?</a></li></ul>

<ul><li><a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#insurance-overhead">How much do private insurance companies spend on overhead and profit?</a></li></ul><br /><b>[update]</b> <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/heres-lowdown-are-affordability-credi">Susie Madrak at C&amp;L</a> suggests you do the math:<br /><br /><blockquote><p><i>The bill provides financial assistance on a sliding scale. Premiums
range from 1.5 percent of income to 12% for those at 400% of the
Federal Poverty Level. The plan provides additional assistance for
households up to 400% of the FPL by limiting cost-sharing to 3% of plan
costs at the lowest tier, to 30% of plan costs at 350-400% of the FPL.</i></p><p><i>For instance: If your income is under 133-150% of the poverty level,
your premiums will be limited to a range of 1.5 to 3%. That means
you'll pay 3% of plan costs, with an annual out-of-pocket cap of $500
for individuals and $1000 for families.</i></p><p><i>And so on:</i></p><p><i>150-200% - 3-5.5% - 7% - $1000/$2000<br />
200-250% - 5.5-8% - 15% - $2000/$4000<br />
250-300% - 8-10% - 22% - $4000/$8000<br />
300-350% - 10-11% - 28% - $4500/$9000<br />
350-400% - 11-12% - 30% - $5000/$10,000</i></p><p><i>The Federal Poverty Level is:</i></p><p><i>Persons in family<br />
1 	$10,830<br />
2 	14,570<br />
3 	18,310<br />
4 	22,050<br />
5 	25,790<br />
6 	29,530<br />
7 	33,270<br />
8 	37,010</i></p><p><i>For families with more than 8 persons, add $3,740 for each additional person.</i></p><p><b><i><u>So although I've been on unemployment for the past year, I would be
expected to pay approximately $4000 a year. Huh?</u> Your individual
mileage may vary, but those figures aren't very reassuring to me.</i></b></p><i>Do the math, and let me know if you think this is affordable.</i><br /></blockquote>







<b>Go ahead and figure it out for yourselves. Is this making healthcare more affordable for you?</b><br /> ]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>If you are like most Single Payer supporters...</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/2009/10/if-you-are-like-most-single-pa.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1//1666.297469</id>
   
   <published>2009-10-22T00:23:10Z</published>
   <updated>2009-10-22T00:24:42Z</updated>
   
   <summary>I think you&apos;ll find the following links are the bomb! Weiner Amendment || Kucinich Amendment || Public Option || Healthcare Reform || Republican Healthcare Plan || Democratic Healthcare Plan || Doctors on Healthcare Reform || Nurses on Healthcare Reform Don&apos;t...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Connecticut Man1</name>
      <uri>http://drinkliberal.blogspot.com/</uri>
   </author>
   
   <category term="17313" label="amendment" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="23449" label="Kucinich" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="28888" label="public optio" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="8642" label="single payer" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="28886" label="Weiner" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/">
      <![CDATA[I think you'll find the following links are <i>the bomb!</i><br />
<br />
<a href="http://pnhp.org/amendment">Weiner Amendment</a> || <a href="http://www.pnhp.org/amendment/">Kucinich Amendment</a> || <a href="http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/10/19/%e2%80%9cpublic-option%e2%80%9d-bait-and-switch-campaign-fools-pollsters/">Public Option</a> || <a href="http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php">Healthcare Reform</a> || <a href="http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/Die-Press-Release.jpg">Republican Healthcare Plan</a> || <a href="http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/october/senate_finance_bill_.php">Democratic Healthcare Plan</a> || <a href="http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/physicians_proposal_intro.php">Doctors on Healthcare Reform</a> || <a href="http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/facts">Nurses on Healthcare Reform</a><br />
<br />
Don't be shy to click on them and feel free to copy and paste them everywhere. <i>Nudge-nudge, wink-wink...</i><br />
<br />
And, ain't it <a href="http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/funny-what-cbo-scoring-single-payer-can-do">funny what news of the CBO scoring Single Payer can do?</a> ]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>The Buzz on Synergy and the New Media Conglomerates</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/2009/10/the-buzz-on-synergy-and-the-ne.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1//1666.296878</id>
   
   <published>2009-10-19T20:23:52Z</published>
   <updated>2009-10-19T20:53:40Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Over the years we have seen that a massive concentration of corporations and media synergy has been on the rise as a marketing tool: Synergy in the mediaIn media economics, synergy is the promotion and sale of a product (and...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Connecticut Man1</name>
      <uri>http://drinkliberal.blogspot.com/</uri>
   </author>
   
   <category term="14254" label="Blogging" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="3427" label="Media" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="28735" label="Synergy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/">
      <![CDATA[<p>Over the years we have seen that a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergy#Synergy_in_the_media">massive concentration of corporations and media synergy has been on the rise as a marketing tool</a>:</p>
<blockquote><h3>Synergy in the media</h3><p>In media economics, synergy is the promotion and sale of a product
(and all its versions) throughout the various subsidiaries of a media conglomerate, e.g.: films, soundtracks or video games. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney">Walt Disney</a> pioneered synergistic marketing techniques in the 1930s by granting dozens of firms the right to use his <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Mouse">Mickey Mouse</a>
character in products and ads, and continued to market Disney media
through licensing arrangements. These products can help advertise the
film itself and thus help to increase the film's sales. For example,
the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_films">Spider-Man films</a> had toys of webshooters and figures of the characters made, as well as posters and games.</p></blockquote><p> Even the lefts' <a href="http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/dylan-ratigan-goldman-sachs-magic-trick"><em>more trusted</em> corporate owned news sources</a> are almost always, to a degree, caught up in some <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_conglomerate">conflicts of interests because of Media conglomerates that can be damaging to the public good</a>:</p><blockquote><p>Critics have accused the larger conglomerates of dominating media, especially <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News">news</a>,
and refusing to publicize or deem "newsworthy" information that would
be harmful to their other interests, and of contributing to the merging
of entertainment and news (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensationalism">sensationalism</a>) at the expense of tough coverage of serious issues. They are also accused of being a leading force for the standardization of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture">culture</a> (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization">globalization</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanization">Americanization</a>), and they are a frequent target of criticism by partisan political groups which often perceive the news productions <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias">biased</a> toward their foes.</p><p>In response, the companies and their
supporters state that they maintain a strict separation between the
business end and the production end of news departments.</p></blockquote>
<p><strong>Eventually the truth leaks out.</strong></p><p>At times we get glimpses of honesty from even the supposed papers of record or television sources we are given <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1212-09.htm">by decoding buzz words</a>
and/or pulling out facts that, in retrospect on their part and in their
own self interests, those news sources would probably like to be able
to go back and kill <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/18/794536/-NYT-wrong%21-Obama-takes-on-Fox-News-is-a-winner.">before the more analytical readers</a> out there in the <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/18/fox-news-axelrod-emanuel/">New Media and Blogosphere</a> got their hands on it.</p><blockquote><p><a href="http://www.prwatch.org/node/8612">NY Times Admits Shutting Out Single Payer</a></p><p>The media analysis group <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fairness_and_Accuracy_in_Reporting">Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting</a> (FAIR) issued an action alert September 22 titled <a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3907">"NYT Slams Single-Payer"</a> that described lopsided reporting in a <em>New York Times</em> article about "Medicare for all," a form of a <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Universal_health_care">single-payer health care system</a>. FAIR noted that the article, titled <a href="http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/medicare-for-all-crazy-socialized-and-unlikely/">"Medicare for All? 'Crazy,' 'Socialized' and Unlikely"</a>,
laid
out a list of arguments against single-payer while failing to include
any balancing responses from the option's supporters. In explaining the
slant, article author Katharine Seelye said she was trying to explain
why Medicare-for-all was "not going anywhere." "I thought the substance
of [single-payer] had been dealt with elsewhere many times," she said.
On October 13, <em>Times</em>
public editor Clark Hoyt conceded that FAIR "had a point," and agreed
that the article excluded the point of view of single-payer health care
system supporters. FAIR said it finds Seelye's defense "alarming," and
points out that the <em>Times</em>, like the rest of the corporate-owned media, has given the issue of single-payer health care "scant attention."</p></blockquote>
<p>Not exactly the kind of reaction they would have received in the days before <a href="http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/open-thread-citizen-journalism-edition">Citizen Journalism</a> and <a href="http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/CJToolbox">the tools needed to practice it</a> were developed to help create a New Media. </p><p><strong>Control of the debate has shifted.</strong></p><p>But this has happened ONLY because they no longer control <a href="http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/10/17/193723/72">the voice of the debate</a> and <a href="http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=7721">especially what is considered acceptable to debate</a> the way they used to in the only outlets that used to be available to contradict their spin, obfuscation and sometimes <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/18/fox-news-axelrod-emanuel/">even lies</a>.
In the past, the only outlets we had to react were within the Op Ed.
and Letters to the Editor pages some of us were given the limited
access they were willing to give to us. Or by taking to the streets, <strong><em>IF</em></strong> they <a href="http://www.ourscenetv.com/posts/228/the-national-equality-march-on-washington">even bothered to cover it</a>, we might get <a href="http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2009/10/17/afghanistan-success-means-ending-the-war/">some to notice</a>. </p><p>The relatively <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&amp;address=389x6545288">non-event of <em>teabagrrriism</em> was wall to wall overblown and even lied about in some media</a> and paled in comparison to the well documented <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&amp;address=389x6538939">over a million peace activists that turned out against illegal invasions and occupations</a> that the traditional media mostly ignored.</p><p>It wasn't until places like <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/">TPM</a>, <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/">C&amp;L</a>, <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/">dKos</a>, <a href="http://firedoglake.com/">FDL</a>, <a href="http://www.boomantribune.com/">BooTrib</a>, <a href="http://www.myleftwing.com/">MLW</a> and even this place, <a href="http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/">ePluribus Media</a>,
came along to give the varying degrees of the left and moderates a
place to raise their voices - and especially in the cases of those that
are community Blogs - that we were able to change the entire debate as
regular people could connect, comment, factcheck and find what was
often the real hidden truths. At times, working together, we - the
Blogosphere as whole - have <a href="http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/chris-wallace-thinks-asking-eric-cantor-on">often worked against the grain to drive real news stories</a> from the ground up.</p><p>The stories that were <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-hasen/did-a_b_125842.html">burried beneath the deceptive headlines of the infotainment some call news</a> or <a href="http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/category/y-2009/">pushed aside almost completely</a>
suddenly were able to be put front center in the peoples debate, shared
far and wide and, at times, shame the old traditional media into
digging a little further after the truth. </p><p>I don't want or mean to put <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/opinion/18rich.html">every journalist or editor in the traditional media</a>
into the shame category, that would simply be generalising a bit too
much. But it has become clear that overall they can no longer be
trusted <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/18/794518/-Scientists-*Prove*-Toxic-Assets-are-Impossible-to-Regulate">to dig into and factcheck everything</a> and - even more often in these days of media conglomerates <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layoff">downsizing</a>, one of <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buzz_word">those kinder/nicer buzzwords used in the corporate owned media</a> in place of </em><strong><em>laying off/firing</em></strong> - many of them may no longer have the resources needed to cover a lot of the more local news anymore. </p><p><strong>A unique juncture in media time.</strong></p><p>Right
here and right now we are edging over into the future of both the
traditional media and the new media. Choices we make and things we do
can and will either return the control of important political
discussions to <a href="http://www.correntewire.com/kleptocracy_0">the kleptocracy that is the controlling interest of the traditonal media</a> or <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/wealthy-are-very-upset-people-are-ang">wrestle it from them</a> to allow us the opportunity to have a real, unfiltered and honest voice in the future of this nation. </p><p>Some of what may seem like <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/10/post_16.php?ref=fpblg">little battles</a> we are going through now will have huge implications on the future of the new media and the people's ability to find it.</p><p><strong>What can we do?</strong></p><p>I
am going to list a few things that, IMHO, we can and need to do to help
keep the table tilting towards the truth getting out. I am putting them
in an order that I believe does more to keep the hard working <a href="http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/conrad-public-option-with-medicare-level-of-reimbursement-could-not-get-the-votes.php?ref=fpb">views of many of the Bloggers and internet media</a>
that has developed from it out there and available to everyone, for
consumption and creation of what has been a gamechanger in the politics
of this nation.</p><p><strong>1. Support Net Neutrality</strong></p><p>Everything written and shared, both from the left and right, <a href="http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/why-obama-administration-hiding-evidence-torture">and all of the truths, information and actions</a> will all be for naught if corporations that own the access points to the internet can shut us down. </p><p><a href="http://www.savetheinternet.com/">Net Neutrality is the foundation</a>
that all Citizen Journalism, Blogging and grassroots advocacy is built
upon. Freely available information beyond the control of the
traditional media and their corpoate owned entities is not the <em>end all, be all</em>
but nothing else we do in the New Media will be worthwhile or bear
fruit if they can shut the people out from getting to our ideas and
actions. </p><p>Allowing the corporations control of the internet in the manner they are fighting desperately for would be tantamount to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine">taking away all access to paper and ink from the likes of Thomas Paine in the days leading up to the birth of this nation</a>:</p><blockquote><p>Thomas Paine has a claim to the title <em>The Father of the American Revolution</em> because of <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense_%28pamphlet%29">Common Sense</a></em>, the pro-independence <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monograph">monograph</a> pamphlet he anonymously published on January 10, 1776; signed <em>"Written by an Englishman"</em>, the pamphlet became an immediate success.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine#cite_note-16"><span>&nbsp;</span><span>&nbsp;</span></a>,
it quickly spread among the literate, and, in three months, 100,000
copies sold throughout the American British colonies (with only two
million free inhabitants), making it a best-selling work in
eighteenth-century America.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine#cite_note-17"><span>&nbsp;</span><span>&nbsp;</span></a> Paine's original title for the pamphlet was <em>Plain Truth</em>; Paine's friend, pro-independence advocate <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Rush">Benjamin Rush</a>, suggested <em>Common Sense</em> instead.</p><p>Paine was not expressing original ideas in <em>Common Sense</em>, but
rather employing rhetoric as a means to arouse resentment of the Crown.
To achieve these ends, he pioneered a style of political writing suited
to the democratic society he envisioned, with <em>Common Sense</em>
serving as a primary example. Part of Paine's work was to render
complex ideas intelligible to average readers of the day, with clear,
concise writing unlike the formal, learned style favored by many of
Paine's contemporaries.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine#cite_note-18"><span>&nbsp;</span><span>&nbsp;</span></a></p><p><em>Common Sense</em> was immensely popular, but how many people were converted to the cause of independence by the pamphlet is unknown.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine#cite_note-Jensen669-19"><span>&nbsp;</span><span>&nbsp;</span></a> Paine's arguments were rarely cited in public calls for independence, which suggests that <em>Common Sense</em> may have had a more limited impact on the public's thinking about independence than is sometimes believed.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine#cite_note-20"><span>&nbsp;</span><span>&nbsp;</span></a> The pamphlet probably had little direct influence on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Continental_Congress">Continental Congress's</a> decision to issue a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence">Declaration of Independence</a>, since that body was more concerned with how declaring independence would affect the war effort.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine#cite_note-21"><span>&nbsp;</span><span>&nbsp;</span></a> Paine's great contribution was in initiating a public debate about independence, which had previously been rather muted.</p><p>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_%28American_Revolution%29">Loyalists</a> vigorously attacked <em>Common Sense</em></p></blockquote>

<p><strong>2. In many ways Bloggers are the modern day Pamphleteers.</strong></p><p><a href="http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/kyl-doubts-people-die-lack-health-insurance">Our interests and work is as important to the United States of America remaining a truly free nation today</a>
and into the future as theirs and their work was in making the USA that
way at the outset. For most Blogs all you need is a free email account
any of the many providers and you too can have a voice in the debate.
As many individual Blogs grow and become community Blogs or their own
traffic becomes too much for the free providers to succesfully
accomodate all the time, often there is a need to buy a domain name and
web space to park the larger ones. </p><p>Unfortunately, the more popular a site becomes the more traffic they receive and the higher their costs to keep the lights on. </p><p>Often you will see them put up special donation buttons for various causes, <a href="http://firedoglake.com/">like FDL leading the charge in healthcare reform</a>,
that are pretty important to us all or they may offer "premium no add"
service options if you become a paying member of their communities, as <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/">dKos does</a>. Here at ePM, we are not above hauling out our own version of an ask for various reasons:</p>
<blockquote><h1><a href="http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/node/3650">Hauling out the Lemonade Stand</a></h1><p>Periodically, we are forced to haul out the old Lemonade Stand.</p><p>While ePluribus Media strives to be self supporting with ads, we are
barely covering the server bill with our ad income. That leaves other
expenses out of reach unless we can go to the community for support.</p><p>We need to raise some dollars for fees for FOIA requests, reprint
permissions, photos and graphics for our Journal stories. &nbsp;In other
words, we need cash to keep the servers humming, the backups running,
and the lights on.<a href="http://www.epluribusmedia.org/donate.html"><br />
<img src="http://www.epluribusmedia.org/images/epm_donate.gif" /> </a><br />
So if you can, <a href="http://www.epluribusmedia.org/donate.html"> donate</a> ...</p><p>Our operating costs are
pretty low and currently every cent of <a href="http://www.epluribusmedia.org/donate.html"> donations </a>goes to server rental, FOIA requests and other fees. &nbsp;<b>There is <strong> not one person</strong> involved in ePluribus Media who receives any money for services.</b></p><p>Whatever you do, thanks for all your support!</p></blockquote>




<p>Usually,
those who can help respond in their own interests of keeping the work
going at any and all of the sites you may visit. Some of the Bloggers
out there may be asking as a combination of <a href="http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/10/11/1703/2386">keeping
their site going and a direct source of income to allow them to
continue to have the time to provide the information that they are
producing</a>. Whatever their reasons, it is in your best interests to keep as many of these sites up and running and doing what they do.</p><p>Even Josh Marshall has, at times, asked this community and the Blogosphere in general to help him in the funding of the expansion of this place <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/158157.php">which has had an impact on driving hard journalism and news that you would not have found anywhere else in the recent past</a>:</p><blockquote>Okay, enough threatening. Like I said, we're expanding our operations
at TPM. That will include a redesign of TPM, with expanded coverage of
breaking news. But what we really want to do is more reporting, more
muckraking. And that's where we want your help. We want to hire at
least one reporter-blogger to report directly from Capitol Hill to you
every day. And we're asking for <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/tpmsubscribe.php">your contributions</a> to make that happen.<br /><br /><p>You've seen the kind of work we do with the <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/cats/us_attorneys/">US Attorney Purge story</a>, the <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/cats/jack_abramoff/">Abramoff scandal</a>, the <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/cats/duke_cunningham/">Cunningham investigation</a> and other shorter-term stories like the <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/cats/election_2006/">pre-election GOP robocall scam</a> or <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/cats/mark_foley/">Foleygate</a>.  That's what we do.  And now we'd like to do more of it.  And that means more reporters.  </p>

<p>If you'd like to contribute, you can contribute either electronically with PayPal by clicking the button below or with a <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/tpmsubscribe.php">check in the mail</a>.</p>


<a href="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_xclick&amp;business=operations%40talkingpointsmemo%2ecom&amp;item_name=DC%20Muckraking%20Fund&amp;item_number=1912&amp;page_style=PayPal&amp;no_shipping=1&amp;return=http%3a%2f%2ftalkingpointsmemo%2ecom%2ftpmthanks%2ephp&amp;cn=Share%20Your%20Comments&amp;tax=0&amp;currency_code=USD&amp;lc=US&amp;bn=PP%2dDonationsBF&amp;charset=UTF%2d8"><img src="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/contribute.jpg" /></a>
<br /></blockquote><br /><b>This place might never have had the opportunity to grow into Josh's own vision of the New Media without everyone across the Blogosphere that has allowed him this opportunity.</b><br /><br /><p><strong>3. Link Damnit!<br /></strong></p><p><b>These last two parts are things we can and should all work on together more in the future.</b> </p><p>We have all known for a longtime that <a href="http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2008/02/blogroll-amnesty-day.html">links are capital</a>.
The various communities out there have allowed some of the better
Bloggers to find new readers and create a loyal readership at their
own sites that they otherwise may not have ever had. <a href="http://drinkliberal.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-day-is-it.html">Many
of us have recognized the value of a simple link and in turn have tried
to use it is a weapon to our own and everybody else's advantage</a>.
Free and easy to use BUT still the most valuable thing we have we all
have to give to any other Blogger or POV out there on the net that you
want people to see. <br /></p><p><b><a href="http://xnerg.blogspot.com/2009/10/environmental-news-story-sunday_18.html">A simple link</a>. </b></p><p>The
Blog friendships and interlinkage between them all helps to bring in
those readers both through exposure provided by direct traffic and by helping increase <a href="http://www.google.com/">Google and other search engine rankings</a>.
Slowly building this credibility as a force in the Blogosphere has also
allowed many, in turn, to have the time and funds to turn out Books and
articles to put out in the general marketplace.</p><p>But we can do a lot more. </p><p><strong>4. New Media Conglomerates</strong><b> and Synergy</b><br /></p><p>We
have even more tools available that turn all of our own personal
perspectives, insights and political opinions into a real New Media Conglomaorate. Yes, TPM is certainly a New Media Conglomerate now. <a href="http://www.buzzflash.com/">Another perfect example of putting all of this together is a place like Buzzflash</a>.</p><p><a href="http://s17.photobucket.com/albums/b95/connecticutman1/?action=view&amp;current=buzzflash.jpg"><img src="http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b95/connecticutman1/buzzflash.jpg" alt="buzzflash" height="251" width="479" /></a></p><p>They
have become the equivalent of a National News organisation with
quality, peer reviewed stories from everywhere across the nation and
around the world along with <a href="http://blog.buzzflash.com/">their own high quality editorials</a> that provides both a source for Bloggers and a source of traffic for the Bloggers own Blogging material. </p><p><b>But they have added a dimension of <a href="http://www.buzzflash.com/store/all/">New Media Synergy by supporting themselves with a Buzzflash Marketplace</a>
made up of products produced by and for the lefts own interests.</b> <br /></p><p>The
books, many of them written by Bloggers that cut their teeth in the
Blog communities, products that are green, earthfriendly and/or
fairtrade produced and the bumper stickers and tshirts they sell are an
example of turning all of our production into a force of good for a New
Media Synergy both from a Bloggers perspective and a human perspective.
You buy a book, a bumpersticker or a tshirt and it may support not only
the person producing it but the many websites or causes that person may
be producing it for.</p><p>This is probably one of the most exploitable
ways we can help ourselves by helping others and we really need to get
the entirety of the left Blogosphere thinking about new and better ways
to make it work better for all of us.</p><p><strong>Those were just 4 small things... </strong></p><p>But I am sure many of you can and will come up <a href="http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/possible-breakthrough-solar-energy-collector">other ways and new ideas</a> to keep what is, already today, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/17/maddow-olby-sick-puppies/">the foundation of our own evergrowing New Media Conglomerate</a> that, instead of giving in to the <a href="http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/flushing-out-ongoing-bank-fraud-and-finacial-terrorism">evergrowing needs of for-profit corporate interests</a>
and their captive control of the media that keeps them profitable
enough to be able to drive the old politics that allowed them to keep
control of messaging, will keep us all working together in the
interests of "We, the grassroots people".</p><p><i>Just my thoughts on the subject and thanks for reading.</i> :)<br /></p> ]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Consumers Union to launch television policy issue ad for first time in 73-year history</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/2009/10/consumers-union-to-launch-tele.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1//1666.295650</id>
   
   <published>2009-10-13T13:21:22Z</published>
   <updated>2009-10-13T13:25:58Z</updated>
   
   <summary>What reasons spurred them on to take this first time action? The Consumers Union survey of 1,002 adults from Sept. 17 to 20 found that among the ways people have tried to cut back on health care costs: 28 percent...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Connecticut Man1</name>
      <uri>http://drinkliberal.blogspot.com/</uri>
   </author>
   
   <category term="28501" label="C. Everett Koop" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="15313" label="Healthcare Reform" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="11973" label="Insurance" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="22019" label="Public Option" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="9221" label="Single Payer" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="11623" label="Surgeon General" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="28502" label="Tobacco Industry" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/">
      <![CDATA[<p>What <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20091007/pl_mcclatchy/3328190">reasons spurred them on to take this first time action?</a></p>
<blockquote><p>The Consumers Union survey of 1,002 adults from Sept. 17 to 20 found
that among the ways people have tried to cut back on health care costs:</p>

<ul><li>28 percent put off doctors' visits.</li><li>25 percent have been unable to afford medical bills or medication.</li><li>22 percent put off medical procedures.</li><li>20 percent declined medical tests.</li><li>20 percent skipped filling prescriptions.</li><li>15 percent took expired medication.</li><li>15 percent skipped scheduled dosages of prescriptions.</li></ul>
<p>The problems were more prevalent among households with incomes of
less than $50,000 , in which about two-thirds said they'd cut back on
health care because of costs. Even where income topped $100,000 ,
however, about one-third made similar decisions.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Meanwhile, <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/12/788051/-AHIP-Making-Case-for-Public-Option-For-All">unwittingly making the arguments for the Public Option</a> for us, <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/12/792426/-AHIPs-Hissy-Fit">the anti-consumer union of AHIP defies all logic</a> when it comes to the real goals of reform and the public interest:</p>
<blockquote><p>On the eve of the Senate Finance Committee vote on the Baucus
Debacle, scheduled for tomorrow, AHIP (the helpful folks that represent
the private insurers) <a href="http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/ahip-releases-reportphp.php?ref=fpblg">released a memo</a>
and report yesterday to "Member Plan Presidents and CEOs" detailing
just how much they're going to have to raise rates if the Baucus bill
passes. Because they weren't going to raise rates regardless of reform
passing? From the memo:</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The report makes clear that several major provisions in the current
legislative proposal will cause health care costs to increase far
faster and higher than they would under the current system. The report
finds that the proposal "will increase premiums above what they would
increase under the current system for both individual and family
coverage in all four market segments for every year from 2010-2019."</p>

<p>For example, the analysis shows that the cost of the average family policy is approximately $12,300 today and will rise to:</p>

<ul><li>$15,500 in 2013 under current law and to $17,200 if these provisions are implemented.</li><li>$18,400 in 2016 under current law and to $21,300 if these provisions are implemented.</li><li>$21,900 in 2019 under current law and to $25,900 if these provisions are implemented.</li></ul>
<p>In fact, between 2010 and 2019 the cumulative increases in the cost
of a typical family policy under this reform proposal will be
approximately $20,700 more than it would be under the current system.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(Just as a point of comparison, insurance rates under the status quo have risen <a href="http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/News/News-Releases/2009/Aug/Employer-Sponsored-Health-Insurance-Premiums-Increase-119-Percent.aspx">119 percent</a>
in the last decade, and are projected to double again in the next
decade, if the status quo remains. Under the status quo, by 2020 the
Commonwealth Fund projects an average family policy to increase to
$23,842. So when they pretend they're looking out for you, don't buy
it.)</p>

<p>The report, produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers, (as <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/the_insurance_industrys_decept.html">Ezra points out</a>,
the same group that the tobacco industry turned to in the 90s to create
reports on the economic devastation which would result from taxing
tobacco), is long on dire predictions, short on comprehensive analsyis.
Ezra highlights a few problems in it: the analysis "assumes no
behavioral changes in response to new policies" in response to the
increased taxes on high value plans, assuming &nbsp;or that individuals and
employers won't demand cheaper plans that control their costs; they
also assume "full cost-shifting of cuts to public programs," as if
healthcare spending would remain constant and that "every dollar that a
public program cuts from its payments to hospitals is a dollar the
private health-care industry has to add to its reimbursements to
hospitals," which is insane--this is about cutting costs, not keeping
the level of money flowing throughout the system level because we're
spending way too much. Jonathon Cohn has another <a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/breaking-the-insurance-industry-declares-war">glaring deficiency</a> in the report: it doesn't take into account the subsidies the bill creates to help people purchase insurance.</p></blockquote><p>Yep!
They are going to raise rates if that bill passes. We can be certain
that they would raise rates no matter which bill is passed unless they
are forced to compete with a non-profit plan with teeth. <em>And if nothing passes?</em> Look forward to the costs doubling again in another decade. They almost seem to be making an argument for even bolder reform. </p><p><a href="http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/real-canadians-talking-real-health-care">If they are going to raise prices no matter what we may as well turn up the road to single payer</a>.</p><p>As
Ezra Klein notes, AHIP is turning to the same old tricks and tricksters we have
seen in the past. For an in-depth look at parallels between the
healthcare battle <em>now</em> and the earlier tobacco wars that defied all logic when it came to protecting consumers health, check <a href="http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/tobaccoup-road">the first installment of an ePluribus Media collaboration</a> effort between <a href="http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/users/deltadoc">deltadoc</a> and <a href="http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/blog/1327">TheFatLadySings</a> written back in August:</p><blockquote><p><a href="http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/tobaccoup-road">Tobaccoup Road</a></p><p>In 1999, speaking to physicians, <strong>Surgeon General C. Everett Koop,</strong> a Reagan appointee, <a href="http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Decades+of+deception:+secrets+of+lead,+asbestos,+and+tobacco-a056909661">decried</a> the hold of Big Tobacco on health care legislation.</p><p>He
called tobacco "the sleaziest, slimiest, most devious industry in the
world," whose members "also are the smartest and the richest," and then
added. "...that's a bad combination."*</p><p>Koop remarked:</p><blockquote>The biggest scandal in Washington was the Republican Senate selling out to the tobacco industry.</blockquote><p>Always prescient, Koop was drawing attention to a <em>coup d'etat:</em>
a bloodless takeover of government by big business...one that would
drastically effect us for over a decade and is still derailing
healthcare reform efforts today.</p><p>Koop warned, "We have lost control of medicine to the business world."</p><p>[<a href="http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/tobaccoup-road">Continue Reading</a>]</p><em></em></blockquote> ]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Since All of TPM Has Become an Ad for Obama&apos;s War...</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/2009/10/since-all-of-tpm-has-become-an.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1//1666.293734</id>
   
   <published>2009-10-02T16:25:31Z</published>
   <updated>2009-10-02T16:30:08Z</updated>
   
   <summary>I logged into my Blog today and was going to post on healthcare but since the entire background of TPM has become one big ass ad for a PBS video on &quot;Obama&apos;s War&quot;, IOW: The war in Afghanistan...Senator Chris Dodd...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Connecticut Man1</name>
      <uri>http://drinkliberal.blogspot.com/</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/">
      <![CDATA[I logged into my Blog today and was going to post on healthcare but since <b>the entire background of TPM has become one big ass ad for a PBS video on "Obama's War"</b>, IOW: The war in Afghanistan...<br /><br /><h2><a href="http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/senator-chris-dodd-obamas-afghanistan-strategy">Senator Chris Dodd on Obama's Afghanistan Strategy</a></h2><br />n this video, taken on Saturday, September 26th, '09, Senator Chris
Dodd makes sense on the situation in Afghanistan. It starts with
Nutmegger <a href="http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/user/Jon%20Kantrowitz">John Kantrowitz, from My Left Nutmeg</a> and the <a href="http://blog.ctnews.com/kantrowitz/">Conn-Post Blogs</a>,
discussing the shades of Vietnam parallels. But there is an 800 pound
guerrilla that too many ignore that I try to point out at the end of
the video:<p><object height="377" width="470" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HiMu0rSKO7U&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HiMu0rSKO7U&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="377" width="470" /><object /></p><p>Just so you understand what I am talking about at the end of the video, <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/01/28/the_petraeus_doctrine/">General Petraeus re-wrote the doctrine for dealing with counterinsurgencies</a>:</p><blockquote><p>The
first chapter of Petraeus's manual calls for a "force ratio" of 25
counterinsurgents (here meaning US, allied, and Iraqi soldiers and
police) per 1,000 residents. In Baghdad that would require a total
force of 120,000. But even with the additional 17,500 US troops
President Bush has called for, and a reallocation of Iraqi troops from
the North to Baghdad, the total force will be approximately 80,000, a
full third less than what the manual prescribes.</p></blockquote><p>I
was shooting from the hip and based on my faulty memory, but the
numbers I was talking about were sufficiently close to make the point.
Thinking in terms of the situation in Afghanistan a quick look at the
math tells you what you need to know.</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Afghanistan">The population of Afghanistan is 28,150,000 according to wikipedia</a> - And the math based on 25 soldiers per thousand residents?</p><p><strong>703,750 </strong></p><p>By
Genral Petraeus' own standard that is how many soldiers would be needed
to effectively stabelize Afghanistan. Accounting for US, UN and even
the Afghanistan soldiers that have been trained up to provide security
there are nowhere near enough. And there will never be anywhere near
enough without a draft. That is an 800 pound guerilla that nobody will
address.</p>
<p>Little wonder why <a href="http://enduringamerica.com/2009/09/28/afghanistan-obama-v-petraeus-part-379/">Obama may be suffering from buyer's remorse on campaign statements</a> and early decisions after he was sworn in:</p>
<blockquote><p>Once in office, Obama compounded the damage by doubling down his bet
on the war. In March, he introduced a "comprehensive new strategy for
Afghanistan and Pakistan" in his first significant <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/us/politics/27obama-text.html">public statement</a>
on the subject, which had expansion written all over it. He also agreed
to send in 21,000 more troops (which, by the way, Petraeus <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032002312.html">reportedly</a>
convinced him to do). In August, in another sign of weakness
masquerading as strength, before an unenthusiastic audience at a
Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, he <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-the-Veterans-of-Foreign-Wars-convention/">unnecessarily declared</a>:
"This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity." All of this
he will now pay for at the hands of Petraeus, or if not him, then a
coterie of military men behind the latest push for a new kind of Afghan
War.</p>
<p>As it happens, this was never Obama's "war of necessity." It was
always Petraeus's. And the new report from McChrystal and the Surgettes
is undoubtedly Petraeus's progeny as well. It seems, in fact, cleverly
put together to catch a cautious president, who wasn't cautious enough
about his war of choice, in a potentially devastating trap. The
military insistence on quick action on a troop decision sets up a
devastating choice for the president: "<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/20/AR2009092002920_pf.html">Failure to provide</a>
adequate resources also risks a longer conflict, greater casualties,
higher overall costs, and ultimately, a critical loss of political
support. Any of these risks, in turn, are likely to result in mission
failure." Go against your chosen general and the failure that follows
is yours alone. (<a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/v-print/story/75702.html">Unnamed figures</a> supposedly close to McChrystal are already launching test balloons, <a href="http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/475977/will_mcchrystal_quit">passed on</a> by others, suggesting that the general might resign in protest if the president doesn't deliver -- a possibility he has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/world/asia/24general.html">denied</a>
even considering.) On the other hand, offer him somewhere between
15,000 and 45,000 more American troops as well as other resources, and
the failure that follows will still be yours.</p>
<p>It's a basic lose-lose proposition and, as journalist Eric Schmitt <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/world/asia/22strategy.html">wrote</a> in a <em>New York Times</em>
assessment of the situation, "it will be very hard to say no to General
McChrystal." No wonder the president and some of his men are dragging
their feet and <a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/sns-ap-us-us-afghanistan,0,1920229.story">looking elsewhere</a>. As one typically anonymous "defense analyst" <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghanistan22-2009sep22,0,908493.story">quoted</a> in the <em>Los Angeles Times</em>
said, the administration is suffering "buyer's remorse for this war...
They never really thought about what was required, and now they have
sticker shock."</p></blockquote><p>At
this moment in time the Generals are asking for more troops and, even
by Petraus' own standards, they aren't asking for enough to deal with
the issue. And that is assuming the strategy of more boots on the
ground is even an effective one. <a href="http://zenhuber.blogspot.com/2009/09/velvet-junta.html">It isn't because the whole strategy is based on <em>loonytunes</em> logic</a> [<strong>emph.</strong> mine], according to <em><a href="http://zenhuber.blogspot.com/">Pen and Sword</a>'s Jeff Huber</em>:</p><blockquote><p>Obama said that he would only approve another escalation if he has "absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be." <span> </span><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/21/AR2009092100110.html?sid=ST2009092003140"><span>McChrystal's</span> report</a> is incoherent on the subject of strategy.<span>  </span></p>    <p>It
says, "We must conduct classic counterinsurgency operations" and states
that success depends not on "seizing terrain or destroying insurgent
forces" but on "gaining the support of the people."<span>  </span>That's laughable in light of the fact that classic <a href="http://ourarmylife.com/2009/09/07/clear-hold-build/">clear-hold-build</a> counterinsurgency operations involve seizing terrain and destroying the insurgent forces that occupy it.</p>    <p>The
notion that we can separate the Afghan people from the insurgents is as
ludicrous as the idea of invading Mexico to separate the Hispanics from
the Latinos.<span>  </span>Nor can we pretend to be the good guys when the Karzai government we prop up is as bad or worse than the insurgents.<span>  </span>McChrystal admits that Afghans have "little reason to support their government."</p>    <p><strong><span>McChrystal</span> says he sees <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/11/mcchrystal-no-major-al-qa_n_283634.html">no sign of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan</a>.<span>  </span>So, his argument goes, in order to disrupt al-Qaeda terror network, we need <a href="http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/21/gen-mcchrystal-warns-of-defeat-if-he-doesnt-get-more-troops/">45,000 more troops</a> to occupy a country al Qaeda is not in to make sure it doesn't come back. <span> </span>And what exactly is this al-Qaeda juggernaut we've come to quake in fear of?<span>  </span>As former CIA officer <a href="http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2009/09/16/war-without-end-2/"><span>Philip Giraldi</span></a>
recently noted, "An assessment by France's highly regarded Paris
Institute of Political Studies [suggests that] Osama bin Laden's
al-Qaeda has likely been reduced to a core group of eight to ten
terrorists who are on the run more often than not."</strong></p>  <p>  <strong>If McChrystal and his allies get their way, we'll have deployed over 135,000 troops to Afghanistan--on top of the roughly <a href="http://news.antiwar.com/2009/07/14/pentagon-prepares-to-maintain-iraq-troop-levels-through-early-2010/">130,000 troops still in Iraq</a>--for the purpose of rounding up fewer than a dozen bad guys.<span>  </span>Daffy Duck and Wiley Coyote could come up with a better strategy than that.</strong> <span> </span>Our
military leadership and its supporters are a thundering herd of
buffoons whose only real objective is to keep the cash caissons rolling
and the gravy ships afloat and the wild blue budget sky high.</p></blockquote><br /><br /> ]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Fun with tools...</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/2009/10/fun-with-tools.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1//1666.293432</id>
   
   <published>2009-10-01T11:47:54Z</published>
   <updated>2009-10-01T12:02:21Z</updated>
   
   <summary>I did a quick video of this and posted it here on September 21st, but for fun I did a mashup video using a couple of editing tools (Windows Movie Maker twice, and Muvee once) and more footage. Tell me...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Connecticut Man1</name>
      <uri>http://drinkliberal.blogspot.com/</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/">
      <![CDATA[<p>I did <a href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/2009/09/boehner-at-cpac-calling-all-of.php">a quick video of this and posted it here on September 21st</a>, but for fun I did a mashup video using a couple of editing tools (Windows Movie Maker twice, and Muvee once) and more footage. Tell me what ya think...<br /><br /><br /> <object height="344" width="425" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AEiLdLp9Wco&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;color1=0x006699&amp;color2=0x54abd6" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AEiLdLp9Wco&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;color1=0x006699&amp;color2=0x54abd6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425" /><object /><br /><object /><object /></p><p><br /></p><p><i>Talking heads and Republicans are tools too!</i><br /></p>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Senator Dodd on Kucinich Amendment Protecting States Rights for Single Payer</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/2009/09/senator-dodd-on-kucinich-amend.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1//1666.293401</id>
   
   <published>2009-09-30T23:13:08Z</published>
   <updated>2009-09-30T23:36:30Z</updated>
   
   <summary> At the end of the blogger outreach on Saturday, September 26th, &apos;09, I talked to Senator Dodd on the Kucinich Amendment Protecting States&apos; Rights to move forward on Single Payer. Essentially, Dodd refers to Senator Bernie Sanders&apos; efforts and...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Connecticut Man1</name>
      <uri>http://drinkliberal.blogspot.com/</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/">
      <![CDATA[ <p><object height="364" width="445" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KmETpM5ntuE&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;color1=0x234900&amp;color2=0x4e9e00&amp;border=1" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KmETpM5ntuE&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;color1=0x234900&amp;color2=0x4e9e00&amp;border=1" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="364" width="445" /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /></p><p>At the end of the blogger outreach on Saturday, September 26th, '09, I talked to Senator Dodd on the Kucinich Amendment Protecting States' Rights to move forward on Single Payer. Essentially, Dodd refers to Senator Bernie Sanders' efforts and <a href="http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/14/senate-help-rejects-enabling-legislation-for-state-single-payer-experiments/">Sanders legislation to deal with Erisa laws</a> and allow Single Payer in States that want to start an SP system. Dodd makes no commitment to support it, but he will look at it. Sanders had previously introduced a partial fix to the system and it was rejected in the Senate <span><span><span>HELP </span></span></span>committee <span><span><span>BUT </span></span></span>if we can get him to reintroduce it, or even a stronger fix? One possibly more sympathetic and newly minted Chairperson may have the will to twist a few arms:</p><p><em>&nbsp;</em></p><blockquote><em><a href="http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/14/senate-help-rejects-enabling-legislation-for-state-single-payer-experiments/">This entry is from Dr. McCanne's Quote of
the Day</a>, a daily health policy update on the single-payer health care reform movement. The QotD is archived on <a href="http://www.pnhp.org/news/categories/Quote%20of%20the%20Day/"><span><span><span>PNHP'</span></span></span>s website</a>.</em>

<p><br /></p><p><strong>Senate <span><span><span>HELP</span></span></span> Committee</strong><br />
<em>July 14, 2009</em></p>
<p>Sen. Bernie Sanders just offered an amendment to the Senate <span><span><span>HELP</span></span></span>
health care reform bill that would allow a limited number of state experiments with single payer systems. The proposal would have provided waivers from federal regulations such as <span><span><span>ERISA, </span></span></span>and would have authorized current federal spending on programs such as Medicare and Medicaid to be transferred to the state to be used in the single payer program.</p>
<p><strong>Those voting for the amendment:</strong></p>
<p>Bernie Sanders<br />
<strong>Tom Harkin</strong><br />Sherrod Brown<br />Jeff Merkley</p>
<p>All Republicans and all other Democrats voted against it.</p></blockquote><p><strong>Notably absent in support of that was former HELP committee Chairperson Senator Dodd.</strong> <br /></p><p>I have <a href="http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=connecticutman1&amp;view=videos">10 videos in my YouTube archives</a> from this one event alone. More video below the fold.<br /></p>]]>
      <![CDATA[<p>ctblogger, <i>the godfather of political video Blogging</i>, turned the camera on me during the Bloggers outreach event and uses a very slick two camera set up:<br /><br /><br /><object height="295" width="480" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xiBuyfamKtk&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;color1=0x006699&amp;color2=0x54abd6" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xiBuyfamKtk&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;color1=0x006699&amp;color2=0x54abd6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="295" width="480" /><object /></p><p><br /></p><p><b><a href="http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/senator-chris-dodd-obamas-afghanistan-strategy">And here is a diary of mine at ePluribus Media on Senator Dodd's statements on Afghanistan.</a></b> :)<br /><object height="295" width="480" /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /></p>]]>
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Wheels are coming off the ACORN story:</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/2009/09/wheels-are-comming-off-the-aco.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1//1666.291728</id>
   
   <published>2009-09-22T20:27:00Z</published>
   <updated>2009-09-22T21:07:53Z</updated>
   
   <summary> Seriously? Vera was fired over this, yet there is another hole shot in those GOP juvenile delinquents ACORN stories, as police confirm that Vera had contacted them over their pimp charade. That makes two videos completely discounted, the Healy...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Connecticut Man1</name>
      <uri>http://drinkliberal.blogspot.com/</uri>
   </author>
   
   <category term="5964" label="ACORN" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="27432" label="FOX news" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="27434" label="James O&apos;Keefe" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/">
      <![CDATA[<p> Seriously? Vera was fired over this, yet there is another hole shot in those <a href="http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/another-hole-acorn-story-gop-juvenile-delinquents"><span>GOP </span>juvenile delinquents <span>ACORN </span>stories,</a> as police confirm that Vera had contacted them over their pimp charade.</p>

<p>That makes two videos completely discounted, the <a href="http://drinkliberal.blogspot.com/2009/09/healy-is-still-fat-drunk-and-stupid.html">Healy embraced murder conspiracy idiocy that had everyone laughing at anyone that tried to push it</a> and this recent Vera story, and their <span>ACORN </span>videos completely discounted and their whole farcical frame up looking like Swiss cheese. </p>

<p>Ya think it is safe to say that all <a href="http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/9/18/18436/6106">James <span>O'K</span>eefe and his <span>FOX </span>noise accomplices have accomplished is to harass a lot of <span>ACORN </span>employees</a>? Wonder what kind of case these workers will have in court? Vera might have a case against <span>ACORN </span>for wrongful termination and certainly against <span>O'K</span>eefe and <span>FOX </span>noise for defamation of character and, likely, all kinds of other mean and nasty stuff. Never mind <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/09/12/maryland-may-prosecute-acorn-sting-video-makers">the trouble these <span>GOP </span>punks may be in for illegally taping <span>ACORN </span>employees in Maryland</a>.</p>

<p><b>These two kids are starting to look like very typical poster children for the modern day <span>GOP</span>: Incompetent and criminal in their actions.</b></p><p><i>Any guesses on when FOX will report on the journalistic fraud their network committed?</i><br /></p>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Boehner at CPAC calling all of Obama&apos;s Policies Socialist</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/2009/09/boehner-at-cpac-calling-all-of.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1//1666.291491</id>
   
   <published>2009-09-21T23:31:22Z</published>
   <updated>2009-09-21T23:54:21Z</updated>
   
   <summary> Boehner at CPAC calling all of Obama&apos;s Policies Socialist Flushing out Boehner&apos;s lie on Meet the Press and a David Gregory that doesn&apos;t follow politics well enough to be able to call him out on the obvious: Communists... Socialists!...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Connecticut Man1</name>
      <uri>http://drinkliberal.blogspot.com/</uri>
   </author>
   
   <category term="12658" label="Boehner" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="10173" label="David Gregory" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="7356" label="Meet the Press" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="58" label="Obama" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="5921" label="Socialism" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="6193" label="Socialist" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/">
      <![CDATA[<h3>
</h3><h2><a href="http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/boehner-cpac-calling-all-obamas-policies-socialist">Boehner at CPAC calling all of Obama's Policies Socialist</a></h2><h3>
</h3>


<p>Flushing out Boehner's lie on Meet the Press and a David Gregory
that doesn't follow politics well enough to be able to call him out on
the obvious:<br />
<br />
<object height="364" width="445" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qyCgrJslTDU&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca&amp;border=1" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qyCgrJslTDU&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca&amp;border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="364" width="445" /><object /><br />
<br />
<b>Communists... Socialists! <br /></b><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /></p><p><b><i>Boehner is no different then any other Bircher whackjob.</i></b><br />
<br />
<object height="364" width="445" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4I6Sa4zmoKE&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca&amp;border=1" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4I6Sa4zmoKE&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca&amp;border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="364" width="445" /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /></p> ]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Sebelius Teaches Todd The Elmo Sneeze Method</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/2009/09/sebelius-teaches-todd-the-elmo.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1//1666.291053</id>
   
   <published>2009-09-18T20:17:39Z</published>
   <updated>2009-09-18T20:23:21Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Via ABC&apos;s Political Punch:At a briefing just now, NBC&apos;s Chuck Todd just sneezed into his hand, rather than his arm, prompting the joking disapproval of Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and press secretary Robert Gibbs....</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Connecticut Man1</name>
      <uri>http://drinkliberal.blogspot.com/</uri>
   </author>
   
      <category term="Cafe" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/">
      <![CDATA[<p>Via <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/reporter-sneezes-the-wrong-way-in-front-of-secy-sebelius.html">ABC's Political Punch</a>:</p><blockquote><p><i>At
a briefing just now, NBC's Chuck Todd just sneezed into his hand,
rather than his arm, prompting the joking disapproval of Health
Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and press secretary Robert Gibbs.</i></p></blockquote><p><object height="364" width="445" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RG5pW6IqmHY&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca&amp;border=1" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RG5pW6IqmHY&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca&amp;border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="364" width="445" /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /></p>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Chris Murphy Calls On Congress To Walk The Healthcare Walk</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/2009/09/chris-murphy-calls-on-congress.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1//1666.289865</id>
   
   <published>2009-09-14T13:47:14Z</published>
   <updated>2009-09-14T15:40:40Z</updated>
   
   <summary> A release from CT-05 Rep. Chris Murphy: Murphy Calls for All Members of Congress to Purchase Health Insurance in Health Reform Bill&apos;s New Exchange NEW BRITAIN - After hosting public events in Waterbury, Danbury and Washington, Connecticut over the...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Connecticut Man1</name>
      <uri>http://drinkliberal.blogspot.com/</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/">
      <![CDATA[
<p>A release from CT-05 Rep. Chris Murphy:<br /></p><blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.chrismurphy.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=351&amp;Itemid=55">Murphy Calls for All Members of Congress to Purchase Health Insurance in Health Reform Bill's New Exchange</a></p>
<p>NEW BRITAIN - After hosting public events in Waterbury, Danbury and
Washington, Connecticut over the last two days, Congressman Chris
Murphy (CT-5) is announcing today that he is returning to Washington,
D.C. next week to call on Members of Congress to purchase their own
health insurance on the health insurance exchange. America's Affordable
Health Choices Act, the House version of the health care reform bill,
will make changes to our current health care system so that more people
can afford health insurance and increase choice through a health
insurance exchange, which would force private plans to compete with
each other and a government sponsored plan.</p>
<p>"For people and businesses that choose to go into the exchange, they
will have access to better and cheaper coverage than they have today.
There is no reason why Members of Congress shouldn't go into the
exchange and choose between the public option and private plans like
everyone else," said Murphy.</p>
<p>Murphy wants Members of Congress to be treated like employees of very small businesses are under the House reform bill. </p>
<p>[...snip...]</p>
<p>"We've got to act to bring down the cost of health care for people
in Connecticut. If we are going to enact health care reform that the
American people believe in, then Members of Congress aren't just going
to have to talk the talk, we are going to have to walk the walk. I
believe the health insurance exchange will be a good deal for people in
Connecticut, and I am willing to place my own health care coverage
needs in it to prove my faith in this effort," said Murphy.</p></blockquote>
<p>Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com did a great job of <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/analysis-public-option-is-likely.html">breaking down some poll numbers for the Public Option</a> on a district by district level and across the nation. I did a quick <a href="http://drinkliberal.blogspot.com/2009/09/support-for-public-option-in.html">cut and paste of the numbers just for Connecticut</a>:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/32666207@N08/3918856851/"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3422/3918856851_4e895966af_o.jpg" alt="connecticutpublicoptionpolls" height="314" width="405" /></a></p>
<p>The results beg the question of why some <a href="http://drinkliberal.blogspot.com/2009/09/murphy-call-on-congress-to-walk.html">more of Connecticut's Congress critters</a>
are not leading the charge for the Public Option? They know the people
want it and they have to know that it is the right thing to do. </p>
<p><i>It is an all around political winner and just plain old common sense good public policy.</i></p>
<p><a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/analysis-public-option-is-likely.html">Some important notes on this from Nate Silver</a>:<br /></p><blockquote>
<p>We can systematize these results by means of a regression analysis
that accounts for the Obama vote share and the poverty level in each
district. (Technically, we'll be using a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_regression">logistic regession</a>,
treating each of the voters included in one of these surveys as a
separate data point.) This analysis finds that support for the public
option nationwide is about 55 percent, against 36 percent opposed,
similar results to what I believe to be the <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/how-to-poll-on-public-option.html">most reliable</a>
polls on the subject.What's more interesting, though, is where we
project the public option in individual districts. We find that:</p>
<p>-- The public option is estimated to have plurality support in 291
of the 435 Congressional Districts nationwide, or almost exactly
two-thirds.</p>
<p>-- The public option is estimated to have plurality support in 235 of 257 Democratic-held districts.</p>
<p>-- The public option is estimated to have plurality support in 34 of 52 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Democrats">Blue Dog</a> - held districts, and has overall popularity of 51 percent in these districts versus 39 percent opposed.</p>
<p>Obviously, there is a margin of error inherent to this analysis when
applied to any individual district. The polls that inform this analysis
themselves have a margin of error, and there is an additional layer of
error introduced by the statistical process that we apply to the data.</p></blockquote>
<p>There is some pretty good reasoning behind this data to tell the few
Blue Dogs trying to stand in the way of the Public Option to suck it up
and do the right thing, as well. Go and take a look at the data
yourself. The information is a real eye opener as to where there is
some really strong support for the Public Option even in some
supposedly "conservative" districts across the USA.</p>
<p>A little extra previously posted, before Obama's speech last Wednesday, at <a href="http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/">ePluribus Media</a>, below the fold.<br /></p><p><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/32666207@N08/3919641044/"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2590/3919641044_8963fbdb5f_m.jpg" alt="epmvideotinymarker" height="47" width="226" /></a></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/real-canadians-talking-real-health-care">Real Canadians Talk Real Healthcare</a><br /></strong></p>]]>
      <![CDATA[For those of you that just don't get what single payer healthcare is all about, via Karoli at <a href="http://ushealthcrisis.com/2009/09/real-canadians-talking-real-health-care/">US Health Crisis</a>, real Canadians talk about healthcare:
<blockquote>
<p><object height="344" width="425" />
<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VQFX32Ed7ZQ&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca" />
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" />
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VQFX32Ed7ZQ&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425" /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /></p>
<p>Why this video? Why now?</p>
<p>In the spirit of truth, my friend <a href="http://www.shoqvalue.com/healthcarefaq.html">Matte Black</a>
(@Shoq on Twitter) and his brother took their video camera to Canada on
vacation to interview Canadians about their health care system. When we
talked about it, I asked him to try to get negative views with
specifics for balance. Here is the result. It has been edited for
brevity, but the negative views were not removed, because there were
none. He could not find one Canadian who thought they should kill the
system. These are everyday people. They have no agenda at all other
than being patriotic Canadians.</p>
<p>Please watch it and share it with as many people as you can.</p></blockquote>
<p>I get a kick out of the responses to the co-pay question: <i>"Co-pay? What does co-pay mean?"</i>
This is exactly what happens when the people demand a healthcare system
that works for the people instead of for the bottom line of a
corporation.</p>
<p><b>I lived in Canada for about 28 years.</b></p>
<p>I can't begin to list how much better everything is in Canada
compared to the health care disaster we all suffer from south of the
border. Cradle to grave, there is never any question about whether they
will do everything they can to treat you in a reasonable amount of time.</p>
<p>I could walk in to my primary care physician any time he was open.
If it was his golf day or something like his vacation time? I would go
a couple of blocks down the street to another doctor. I chose those
doctors based on my level of comfort with them.</p>
<p>My primary would even do house calls (probably still does?) if you or your kid were too sick to make it in.</p>
<p>If you had something so severe as to need more than what your
typical primary could provide? Walk into the emergency room (or take
the ambulance - they don't ask if you have insurance first because that
would be inhumane). It is my understanding that they now have CLSCs in
Quebec to cover the less severe emergencies like breaks, sprains,
stitches, etc., that might just need the basics or to use when your
primary caregivers office might be closed. This alleviates pressure on
emergency rooms at hospitals so they can concentrate more on the
serious emergencies.</p>
<p><b>My father was diagnosed with cancer not too long ago and given about six months to live.</b></p>
<p>He was treated by the best medical staff he could find for his
specific problems. He also had a good backup for second opinions. He
chose them based on how he wanted and needed to be treated and based on
consultations with many caregivers. He lived 3 more years after that
original dead end diagnosis and died in his 70s.</p>
<p>No healthcare or treatment is perfect but had he lived in the USA he
very likely would have been uninsured because of pre-existing health
conditions. <i>In the USA he wouldn't have even had that "six months" diagnosis.</i></p>
<p>And never, not even once, did he have to make any healthcare
decisions based on whether or not he could afford the treatment. He
decided (as do all Canadians) in conjunction with and on the advice of
his doctors. There was no insurance company in between them to turn him
down.</p>
<p><b>The American system is as cruel to the poor and those that really
need the medical help as it is profitable to the insurance companies.</b></p>
<p>Those are just some of the things I can say about the Canadian system.</p>
<p>Americans, in surveys, <i>appear to be "more satisfied"</i> with
their healthcare providers than Canadians do. Maybe you don't
understand this, being that you have had a crappy healthcare system all
of your life...</p>
<p><b>That is because Canadians expect a lot more from their healthcare system than Americans do.</b></p>
<p>Never mind that the polls I have seen always point to satisfaction
with providers BUT rarely address the cost and the mode of payment
directly. Why? Because the few times we hear the voice of the people on
this, for the most part, they say they hate their medical insurance
companies.</p>
<p>My primary doctor in the US is great. <i>He supports Single Payer</i>. Most of the hospital people I have dealt with are great at their jobs, too. <i>I always ask them and they support single payer by a large margin.</i> My children have a great pediatrician and, yes, <i>he supports single payer as well</i>.
Nothing to complain about the actual service providers. That side is
pretty much equal to the Canadian providers. Some are better and some
are worse, but competent and caring nonetheless. They want to give you
the best service possible. And, for the most part, the majority of
those providers want to give you single payer.</p>
<p>I am among the few that has half decent insurance. For how long, who
knows? In this economy corporations are stripping workers of higher
quality insurance for less costly junk plans. Our family's plan was
changed to add higher co-pays and more restrictions on usage AGAIN,
this year. And that is just a minor issue when many of these cash
strapped corporations and small businesses are laying people off people
all together so they have no insurance at all.</p>
<p>If our family lost our source of health insurance we know that our
budget would eliminate any possibility of keeping coverage regardless
of government's provision of the costly Cobra plans. On unemployment,
we would struggling to keep a roof over our heads and the kids fed.
Regardless of that, I expect more from my healthcare AND I expect it to
cost a hell of a lot less. But that is because I have seen and lived
with a better healthcare system than the one we have here.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE">I expect nothing less than Single Payer!</a></p>
<p>Of course, that does not mean I am completely rigid on this and
unwilling to compromise. It is just a higher standard that could be
attained in this country. More recently we have seen a lot of
discussion on the public option, since single payer has been banned
from the political discussion and the media's coverage of healthcare.</p>
<p><b>No single payer? Fine.</b></p>
<p>Most recently some morons are saying that is the "Left of the Left"
that are pushing for the public option and this supposed to be shocking
news to be breathlessly reported on in the traditional media... As they
continue their twisted and contorted takes on reality, let us look at
who really supports the public option, OK?<br /></p><blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693">67% of conservatives support having the choice between a public option and private insurance.</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693">71% of Republicans support having the choice between a public option and private insurance.</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693">77% of Americans support having the choice between a public option and private insurance.</a></p></blockquote>
<p>For those politicians and media stenographers that have a problem
with reading comprehension I took a moment to annotate this Survey USA
graphic. There is your "Left of the Left" in RED and BLUE...</p>
<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/32666207@N08/3918856949/"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2515/3918856949_30c80042a9.jpg" alt="healthcarepollsurveyusa" height="373" width="500" /></a></p>
<p><b>The black ink in the ledgers of insurance corporations is being balanced by the red blood of Americans.</b></p>
<p>Right now about 22,000 Americans die every year because they are
under or uninsured. This has got to stop. Now... You could do nothing
at all about this issue OR you could contact your Congress critters and
hammer them to bring some semblance of real reform to healthcare.
Americans are literally dying waiting for something to be done. And a
public option, at the very least, will allow for the uninsured to get
insurance and give the underinsured the opportunity to choose better
insurance.</p>
<p>Now... As a final thought, some more healthcare experts from Canada:</p>
<p><object height="344" width="425" />
<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DXXBCFnhsUc&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca" />
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" />
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DXXBCFnhsUc&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425" /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /></p>
<p><b>Addendum:</b> I wish that Obama would pay particular attention to
the final message from the former Premier of Saskatchewan. A very
simple and clear message of "Medicare for all", even if it is made as
the default "public option", would go a long way towards providing a
unifying message that everyone in the USA could understand as a really
good thing. People understand how good Medicare is. Since there is
literally a super majority of support for a public option, this would
be the nail in the coffin of the insane rantings from the opposition to
reform. Add to that the positive move of putting Congress into the same
position as the rest of America and people will understand that reform
really is about making healthcare better.</p>
<p>If Obama and the Conservative Democratic party members in Congress
think that the super majority of Americans called the "Left of the
Left" are going to be happy with just any reform... Then they are not
paying attention at all and do not deserve the offices they now hold.</p>
<p>The liberal left has, in large part, already made all of the
concessions they were willing to give when they let single payer go for
the compromised "public option". And many of us will be very loud and
very clear as the next elections come around in punishing politicians
for failure to act in our interests.</p>
<p>In a few days President Obama will be meeting with the AFL-CIO
leadership to talk about relaunching healthcare reform. I expect that
we will see a clearer message from the President on what he wants from
reform, since he has really had no clear messaging up until now. </p>
<p>Obama had better understand that he can either invigorate healthcare
activists with a strong message of honest reform, including a public
option that is even closer to the original Hacker proposal than
anything we have seen, or he can fall flat on his face and all alone as
allies in real healthcare reform desert him and the Democratic party
members that are willing to push for more of the same.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/32666207@N08/3918856903/"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2669/3918856903_11e77c0ecb_o.jpg" alt="maxbaucushealthcarebus" height="381" width="456" /></a><br /></p><p>Why? Via The NY Times:</p>
<blockquote><p><a href="http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/drug-makers-plan-to-back-baucus-plan-with-ad-dollars/">Drug Makers to Back Baucus Plan With Ad Dollars</a></p>
<p>The move would be a follow-up to the deal that drug makers struck in June with Mr. Baucus and the White House. Under that pact, the industry agreed to various givebacks and discounts meant to reduce the nation's pharmaceutical spending by $80 billion over 10 years.</p>
<p>Shortly after striking that agreement, the trade group -- the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA -- also set aside $150 million for advertising to support health care legislation.</p>
<p>[...snip...]</p>
<p>But an industry official involved in the discussions said the group and its advertising money would now be aimed specifically at the approach being pushed by Mr. Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.</p></blockquote>
Need we say more? <br /><p><br /></p><p><strong>[update]</strong> Ok... We can say more:
</p><h2><a href="http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/14/group-tied-to-swift-boat-veterans-willie-horton-ads-supporting-blue-dogs/">Group Tied to Swift Boat Veterans, Willie Horton Ads Supporting Blue Dogs</a></h2> ]]>
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Republicans Sacrifice Chickens For Healthcare</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/2009/09/republicans-sacrifice-chickens.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1//1666.288689</id>
   
   <published>2009-09-08T18:49:09Z</published>
   <updated>2009-09-08T18:53:21Z</updated>
   
   <summary> We know that the biggest reason you all are pissed about this is that your failed Reagonomic free-marketeers-run-amok ideas that caused the shadow bank meltdown and the economic mess we are in now have already been discredited to the...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Connecticut Man1</name>
      <uri>http://drinkliberal.blogspot.com/</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/">
      <![CDATA[<br />
        
    
    
         <p><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jlVTH9kD-WE/SqaAJRzmo5I/AAAAAAAABLk/zoySTTTo6nM/s400/reaganbush.jpg" alt="Reagan and Bush Voodoo Healthcare Economics" width="357" height="555" /><br /></p><p>We
know that the biggest reason you all are pissed about this is that your
failed Reagonomic free-marketeers-run-amok ideas that caused the shadow
bank meltdown and the economic mess we are in now have already been
discredited to the point that nobody wants to hear them anymore. Don't
tell me that your answer to healthcare is the free market.</p><p><a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/8/778573/-Is-health-care-a-moral-test-on-which-there-is-no-middle">You can not put a dollar value on life</a>, and that is all your free market answers are about, aren't they?</p><blockquote><p><em><b>a moral responsibility</b>
&nbsp; those words are clearly applicable to the health care crisis &nbsp;in this
country. &nbsp;Intellectually I knew that long before I first read (and
wrote about) the Remote Area Medical Mission in Wise Virginia. &nbsp;I lost
any doubt during the weekend I spent there in July, which is why I am
taking the first weekend in October to go to a similar event in Grundy,
VA.
</em></p><p><em>How do we compromise on morality? &nbsp;IF we can make the
case that what we are attempting do is a moral obligation, then I
believe the politics will be on our side - &nbsp;the conscious of most
people can be challenged. &nbsp;Clearly the late Senator Kennedy understood
this, which is why the words of Matthew 25 were so prominent at his
funeral. &nbsp;For whatever human flaws he had (and acknowledged both in his
letter to the Pope and in his soon to be published memoir). on this he
did not lack moral clarity.
</em></p><p><em>Part of the responsibility of those of us who speak
out on issues is to remember our dual responsibility to afflict the
comfortable as we comfort the afflicted.
</em></p><p><em>Yes, in politics we must look at what is possible. &nbsp;We
must "advance the ball" down the field, since Americans are too fond of
football metaphors. &nbsp;But one should also remember that it matters not
who gains the most yardage, only who scores the most points. &nbsp; Thus
speak not to me of points of agreement in negotiation if those do not
lead to meaningful action in legislation that becomes law.
</em></p><p><em>In moral tests one cannot be neutral.</em></p></blockquote>Here is <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/so-now-we-know-why-wall-st-doesnt-wan">the real and honest moral argument</a>:
<br /><blockquote>
<br />So now we know who the <em>real</em> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/business/06insurance.html?hp">death panelists</a> are!
<br /><blockquote>
<br />After the mortgage business imploded last year, Wall Street
investment banks began searching for another big idea to make money.
They think they may have found one.
<p>The bankers plan to buy "life settlements," life insurance policies
that ill and elderly people sell for cash - $400,000 for a $1 million
policy, say, depending on the life expectancy of the insured person. <strong>Then
they plan to "securitize" these policies, in Wall Street jargon, by
packaging hundreds or thousands together into bonds. They will then
resell those bonds to investors, like big pension funds, who will
receive the payouts when people with the insurance die.</strong>
</p><p><strong>The earlier the policyholder dies, the bigger the return
- though if people live longer than expected, investors could get poor
returns or even lose money.</strong></p></blockquote>
<br /></blockquote>
<br /><h3>Guaranteed Trickle Down Death</h3><p>That is what happens when
you put a dollar value on life. Investors would have twice the
incentive to deny care to the elderly. What incentive would investors
in healthcare insurance corporations have to keep them alive if they
can make more money denying care to them and then, also, make more
money on their investments in reverse mortgages?</p> ]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Real Canadians Talking Real Health Care</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/2009/09/real-canadians-talking-real-he.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1//1666.287862</id>
   
   <published>2009-09-02T23:15:16Z</published>
   <updated>2009-09-02T23:17:15Z</updated>
   
   <summary> For those of you that just don&apos;t get what single payer healthcare is all about, via Karoli at US Health Crisis, real Canadians talk about healthcare:Why this video? Why now?In the spirit of truth, my friend Matte Black (@Shoq...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Connecticut Man1</name>
      <uri>http://drinkliberal.blogspot.com/</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/">
      <![CDATA[ For those of you that just don't get what single payer healthcare is all about, via Karoli at <a href="http://ushealthcrisis.com/2009/09/real-canadians-talking-real-health-care/">US Health Crisis</a>, real Canadians talk about healthcare:<br /><br /><blockquote><object height="344" width="425" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VQFX32Ed7ZQ&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VQFX32Ed7ZQ&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;color1=0x402061&amp;color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425" /><object /><br /><br /><i><b>Why this video? Why now?</b><br /><br />In the spirit of truth, my friend <a href="http://www.shoqvalue.com/healthcarefaq.html">Matte Black</a> (@Shoq on Twitter) and his brother took their video camera to Canada on vacation to interview Canadians about their health care system. When we talked about it, I asked him to try to get negative views with specifics for balance. Here is the result. It has been edited for brevity, but the negative views were not removed, because there were none. He could not find one Canadian who thought they should kill the system. These are everyday people. They have no agenda at all other than being patriotic Canadians.<br /><br />Please watch it and share it with as many people as you can.</i></blockquote>I get a kick out of the responses to the co-pay question: <i>"Co-pay? What does co-pay mean?"</i> This is exactly what happens when the people demand a healthcare system that works for the people instead of for the bottom line of a corporation.]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Another GOP Healthcare Myth Busted</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/2009/08/another-gop-healthcare-myth-bu.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1//1666.287210</id>
   
   <published>2009-08-28T22:06:34Z</published>
   <updated>2009-08-28T22:08:24Z</updated>
   
   <summary>&quot;Socialism stifles creativity! Profit and the free market are why we are number one in drug research.&quot;You&apos;ve heard it OR some variation of it from faux patriots waving faded flags, right?Turns out it never was true and never will be...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Connecticut Man1</name>
      <uri>http://drinkliberal.blogspot.com/</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/">
      <![CDATA[<i>"Socialism stifles creativity! Profit and the free market are why we are number one in drug research."</i><br /><br />You've heard it OR some variation of it from faux patriots waving faded flags, right?<br /><br />Turns out <a href="http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/hlthaff.28.5.w969v1">it never was true and never will be unless we get our sciences back on track</a>...<br /><br /><blockquote>It
is widely believed that the United States has eclipsed Europe in
pharmaceutical research productivity. Some leading analysts claim that
although fewer drugs have been discovered worldwide over the past
decade, most are therapeutically important. Yet a comprehensive data
set of all new chemical entities approved between 1982 and 2003 shows
that the United States never overtook Europe in research productivity,
and that Europe in fact is pulling ahead of U.S. productivity. Other
large studies show that most new drugs add few if any clinical benefits
over previously discovered drugs. I discuss ways in which Congress,
employers, and insurers can increase the value of drugs and revitalize
the U.S. pharmaceutical industry.</blockquote>
Fact is we never caught up to those <i>socialists</i>
in Europe and - probably because they base decisions on science a
little more than the average American - they are pulling out further
ahead now... I am truly shocked to find out that what the right wing
teabaggers/birthers/deathers have been screeching about is the exact
opposite of reality... <i>Not surprised, either, are you?</i> ]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

<entry>
   <title>Do we need an even Greater Schlep for Healthcare Reform?</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/2009/08/do-we-need-an-even-greater-sch.php" />
   <id>tag:tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com,2009:/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1//1666.286964</id>
   
   <published>2009-08-27T18:44:44Z</published>
   <updated>2009-08-27T19:09:46Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Remember in the last election when when many people were talking about hitting the road to visit their Grandparents in order to alleviate their fears about voting for Obama, something that even many progressives in the elder category might have...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Connecticut Man1</name>
      <uri>http://drinkliberal.blogspot.com/</uri>
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/connecticut_man1/">
      <![CDATA[Remember in the last election when when many people were talking about
hitting the road to visit their Grandparents in order to alleviate
their fears about voting for Obama, something that even many
progressives in the elder category might have had some reservations
about?<br /><br /> 

<object width="425" height="344" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AgHHX9R4Qtk&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;color1=0x006699&amp;color2=0x54abd6" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AgHHX9R4Qtk&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;color1=0x006699&amp;color2=0x54abd6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344" /><object /><br /><br /> 

Take a look at the data Nate Silver <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/seniors-skeptical-on-health-care.html">has
compiled on whom actually has healthcare in the USA and whom is more
likely to be against expanded government involvement in it</a>, even if
much of the expansion will truly be beneficial to both those on
Medicare as well as those that are underinsured or do not have any
insurance at all.<br /><object /><object /><br />Clearly there is a cutoff of the Medicare-haves from the younger
generations and a disconnect that may seem to correlate directly to
worries about their own healthcare.<br /><object width="425" height="344" /><object /><br />  

<b>The Great Healthcare Schlep</b><br /><br />
 
Getting in Granny and Granpy's face, nationwide, to debunk the myths that are circulating might go a long way to <a href="http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/67-conservatives-are-left-left">solidifying
the momentum we have gained in the already strong public majority view
that healthcare reform with a public option is necessary.</a><br /><br /> 

<i>Make your Labor Day plans to visit...</i><br /><br />
Not only will you be helping the healthcare reform cause but... You can
also look at it as paying them back from your election promise to visit
if they helped elect Barrack Obama as president, which they surely did
given his decisive victory in 2008. Besides that... They want you to be
healthy too, don't they? And you do want to help them keep healthy for
years to come <i>so that you can be forced to visit them even more?</i> Right?<br /><br />
<a href="http://www.buzzflash.net/story.php?id=1032825"><img src="http://www.buzzflash.net/img/common/buzz-it-button.gif" /></a> <object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object /><object />]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

</feed>

 
