I have always been puzzled by the fact that so many who fight, vehemently, against abortion are either indifferent to, or sometimes strongly in favor of, the loss of life caused by the death penalty.  I mean, is life sacred and to be protected at all costs or is it not?   This apparent dichotomy has been explained to me this way:  abortion deprives innocents of their lives, while the death penalty affects only those who have been given the gift of life and made choices that show they are not worthy of continuing to have that gift.  -----------  Okay, as a matter of strict, cold logic I guess one can hold to both beliefs.

But now we're talking about protecting the rights of the unborn over the rights, and needs, of those who are already born but will die under our present health care system.  .........   The old abortion/death penalty logic simply does not work.   How to Stupak and others explain this dichotomy?

There IS one explanantion that works .... but it reveals a great deal about the true beliefs of those who are supposedly "pro life."   You could believe that the people who will die because they can't access adequate health care are less "worthy" or "inferior" not because of evil decisions but because they have not proven their worth by becoming wealthy.  After all, no truly *wealthy* person is going to die because they lack health care under the present system.  So the real choice is between the unborn (some of whom may be "superior" enough to become wealthy) and the inferiors (who had free choice and therefore the chance to become wealthy but didn't).

How - if you truly are a fighter for the sanctity of life - do you rationalize condeming some to death so that others have the chance at life?  (And how do you do it when, as someone noted on another thread, allowing access to health care - pregnancy prevention, care of mother and child, reduced financial strain from choosing life - will on its on decrease the number of abortions.)

So take your "principled"stand, Rep. Stupak and others --- but please, be honest this time about what those principles are.

I don't doubt Nancy Pelosi's statement that she doesn't have the votes to get the Senate bill passed by the House ........................ but why can't we find out what votes she does have and which ones she doesn't? 

How do I know whether my Representative is one of those telling her that he *will* or *won't* vote for it?  (I've asked him.  He's equivocal - wouldn't commit.)   How are we supposed to hold our representatives accountable if we aren't allowed to know where they stand on one of the most important issues of our time?   That would seem to be the most basic kind of "transparency"

Bottom line:  if my children (one self-employed, one with a serious pre-existing condition) are not going to be able to get health care, then I want to know - specifically - who failed to take the final, critical step.  

Here's a riddle:

Q.  Why is it so easy for the Republicans to defeat the Democrats so often, even when they (the Reps) are in a weaker position?

A.  Because the Dems just keep making the same mistakes over and over again, and all the Republicans have to do is push the right buttons or create the right situation to trigger that dumb, stupid, idiotic, self-defeating behavior!   

I wrote that over a month ago at the end of a post in which I reviewed what happened to the health care effort in 1993.  At that time, it was the Democratic Senators who were threatening to repeat their inglorious actions ........... but now I'll dedicate it to the LIBERAL House Democrats who, it turns out, will be playing the decisive role this time.   You know, I could understand if yesterday's vote made some of the Blue Dogs step back, but that's not who is killing the only chance to grab back the control and show that Dems CAN accomplish things (not to mention saving a lot of lives).

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/e/l/elizabeth2/2009/12/what-happened-in-1993-is-histo.php

In 1993, the Democrats' inability to agree on a bill  "weakened Clinton politically [and] emboldened Republicans"  --  and, as in 1993, all the Republicans had to do was just sit and watch.  Nice of us to spare them all the effort yet again.

 

Whoever and whatever else was to blame for last night's results, one factor -- perhaps a big one -- was a rather aloof, unexciting candidate who had been annointed by "the establishment" and who ran a poor campaign.  

People  -- a LOT of them -- from Gillibrand's former Congressional disctrict see her as very much the same and she hasn't done anything as Senator to register on the radar.   Her two Congressional victories shouldn't be overstated - Sweeny shot himself in both feet (to say the least) and Treadwell is, to be honest, a horrible, horrible campaigner himself.  Her vaunted fund-raising strengh is *local* - lots of nepotism that supports her locally and means nothing statewide or nationally. 

The Republicans will *not* be running a weak, unexciting, or fatally flawed candidate against her, not after last night.   And they can find one that sounds more progressive than a lot of her past statements.

I don't even dislike Gillibrand but she is pretty lightweight and has a decided air of entitlement and having had things handed to her.  Sound familiar? 

So -- if you see a train wreck coming...........?

from Taegan Goddard's Political Wire:

Palin Gets Motivated

Sarah Palin has joined the Get Motivated! speaking series, joining former President Bush as a previous speaker for the organization. Her topics:

How to Successfully Manage and Balance Your Personal and Professional Priorities

• How to Overcome Obstacles with Creative Solutions
• The Secrets to Effective Decision-Making
• How to Have Grace Under Fire
• How to Become a Person of Influence

The one thing that most sticks in my craw about all this is not, like most of you, the fact that there is no public option (never believed for a moment that it would be possible to get one this round) but the, well, blatant nature of the sweetheart deal worked out with Ben Nelson - with the Feds picking up Nebraska's Medicaid costs .. in perpetuity.   It really sort of smells to high heaven.    ---   Not necessarily saying I'd have given up the whole thing rather than do that, but still.....

Anyway, I was complaining and grouching about it and a friend said that his take was a little more complex:  that a benefit so blatantly for one state probably won't hold up in conference but rather than chucking it, they may agree to put all the states on the same basis:  with the Feds picking up Medicaid for all the states.   ????  That was me scratching my head as such a big, over-generous, illogical change.    But my friend just smiled and said "Sure would make a nice nation-wide, federally run health care delivery system, don't you think?"

Is it possible?   I didn't know enough about Medicaid to know whether to laugh or applaud or cross my fingers.   Thoughts?

Just to follow up on an earlier post, MSNBC First Read sets out the schedule

Tuesday: 2 votes at 7am

      Passing "Manager's Amendment"  (51 needed)

      Cloture on "substitute amendment"  (60 needed) 

        (This is what I'd referred to as the "technical thing"  I now gather it's all the other parts of the Senate Finance/House version bill except that changed by the Manager's amendment)

Wednesday: 2 votes at 1pm

       Passage of the 'substitute amendment' (51 needed)

       Cloture on the  "underlying bill"   (60 needed)

       (Described as the "shell" into which the manager's amendment and substitute amendment fit)

Thursday: final vote at 7pm

       Passage of the "underlying bill"   (51 needed)

If *a* health care bill is to be passed into law, what has to happen?

--  Senate: Vote on cloture (60 votes needed)

-- Senate: Vote on Senate bill (51 votes needed)

(conference: House and Senate versions)

-- Senate: Vote on cloture again (60)  and then vote on conference bill (51)?

-- House: Vote on conference bill (majority)?

Are there any more committees (other than the Conference committee) and committee votes inserted in there?  any full house votes I'm missing?

Thanks -- should remember from Civics but, candidly, I don't.

Mine seem to have disappeared  (I can believe that many people could have decided to quit paying attention to my posts ---- but I didn't 'un-follow' anyone).  Has this happened to anyone else?

I was around in '93 and paying some, not a lot, of attention to the Clintons' health care effort.  I don't recall precisely what legislative steps had been taken and when or how the effort died -- just that it wound up dead and radioactive - something very few people were willing to touch. 

So I went to the source of "conventional wisdom" (not necessarily accuracy) on most things, Wikipedia.  Now, maybe the entry gets it all wrong; maybe some of you remember, or know from research, and can explain why what happened then bears no resemblance to what's starting to happen now.  But here's what it says:

"Opposition to the plan was heavy from conservatives, libertarians, and the health insurance industry. The industry produced a much-talked-about television ad, "Harry and Louise", in an effort to rally public support against the plan. Democrats, instead of uniting behind the President's original proposal, offered a number of competing plans of their own. By September 1994, the final compromise Democratic bill was declared dead by Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell. Opponents of the plan continued to deride it in future years as "HillaryCare"."

. . .

"Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan [[someone respected and well-informed like perhaps Dr. Dean??]] qualified his agreement that "there is no health care crisis" by stating "there is an insurance crisis" but also indicated "anyone who thinks [the Clinton health care plan] can work in the real world as presently written isn't living in it."[ Meanwhile other Democrats, instead of uniting behind the President's original proposal, offered a number of competing plans of their own. Some criticized the plan from the left, preferring a single payer system. 

. . .

In August 1994, Democratic Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell introduced a compromise proposal that would have delayed requirements of employers until 2002, and exempted small businesses. However, "even with Mitchell's bill, there were not enough Democratic Senators behind a single proposal to pass a bill, let alone stop a filibuster."[24]

A few weeks later, Mitchell announced that his compromise plan was dead, and that health care reform would have to wait at least until the next Congress. The defeat weakened Clinton politically, emboldened Republicans, and contributed to the notion that Hillary Clinton was a "big-government liberal" as decried by conservative opponents.[

--------------

If this is indeed something that is happening again,  the Republicans and insurance companies have got to be laughing themselves sick!!!    Here's a riddle:

Q.  Why is it so easy for the Republicans to defeat the Democrats so often, even when they (the Reps) are in a weaker position?

A.  Because the Dems just keep making the same mistakes over and over again, and all the Republicans have to do is push the right buttons or create the right situation to trigger that dumb, stupid, idiotic, self-defeating behavior!   

 

"both [are] essentially children craving attention and a lot of drama, and wired to delight in being as subversive as possible."

http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/2009/12/lieberman-palins-alter.html#comments

From HuffPo:

The Senate Finance Committee narrowly passed an amendment Thursday from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) that moves the conservative panel as close as it will likely get to a public health insurance option.

The amendment creates a "federally funded, non-Medicaid, state plan which combines the innovation and quality of private sector competition with the purchasing power of the states,"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/01/senate-committee-passes-q_n_306831.html

Baucus and Conrad voted for it; Lincoln and Snowe against it.

I don't know if this is cricket (although it used to be done) but I'm going link to a previous post and thread I found very interesting.  It's now gone off the main page and thanks to some spammers, off the first page of "All Reader Posts" as well.  

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/wwstaebler/2009/09/gender-discrimination-in-healt.php

It was a great post on gender discrimination in health care by wwstaebler that evolved into a more general discussion about how private health insurance works.   Thought those who missed it might want to see - and possibly continue - the discussion. Some good links there also. 

I was particularly fascinated to learn what vast differences there are in the cost (and possibly quality) of health coverage that various ones of us are paying for right now, from the individually-purchased plan to the huge employer plans.  Really shocking - and (to me) absolutely impossible to justify!!  (Tell me, would you rather pay $932 a month or $30 a month????? and, I'm willing to bet, get better, more hassle-free coverage for $30 a month?)

I so **rarely** get to write that statement .....  or any part of it.  Still, credit where it is due.

I caught just a bit of the show this am while heading out to work.  They had shown a clip of Glenn Beck with Katie Couric (she gets *all* the fun ones to interview!) and Joe S. started taking Beck to task, seriously to task, about his inflammatory talk and his responsibility for the logical consequences of such talk.  AND he said that conservative Republican leaders should speak up and disavow such talk or *they* would bear responsibility also.  'Bout time someone said it!!

And in Sullivan's Daily Dish this morning

"I am not going to give into sentiments that I think degrade the office of the president and that degrade the debate and the culture of our country. So if you come up to me calling the president a socialist, a Muslim, you're talking to the wrong guy," - Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

Are fall breezes bringing a tiny bit of sanity???    One can hope.

" I want that. I want, not for personally for me, but for working Americans, to have a option, that if they don't like their health insurance, if it's too expensive, they can't afford it, if the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the folks."

????

No, I didn't find this on The Onion ... 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/bill-oreilly-backs-public_n_290658.html

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/bill-oreilly-backs-public_n_290658.html