Lieberman Pledges To Filibuster House Bill: The Public Option Is ‘Unnecessary’
Lieberman Pledges To Filibuster House Bill: The Public Option Is ‘Unnecessary’
This morning on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) about the House’s historic passage of health care legislation last night. Lieberman said that as a “matter of conscience,” he will join a Republican filibuster if a public option — which has supposedly been put forward “by people who really want the government to take over all of health insurance” — is also included in the bill that goes before the Senate:
LIEBERMAN: A public option plan is unnecessary. It has been put forward, I’m convinced, by people who really want the government to take over all of health insurance. They’ve got a right to do that; I think that would be wrong.
But worse than that, we have a problem even greater than the health insurance problems, and that is a debt — $12 trillion today, projected to be $21 trillion in 10 years.
WALLACE: So at this point, I take it, you’re a “no” vote in the Senate?
LIEBERMAN: If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote because I believe debt can break America and send us into a recession that’s worse than the one we’re fighting our way out of today. I don’t want to do that to our children and grandchildren.
Watch it:
Late last month, Lieberman told reporters that he was planning to filibuster a public option. But a few days later, the Hill reported that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office was confident Lieberman would “vote with Democrats in the necessary procedural vote to end debate, perhaps with intentions to change the bill.” Today, Lieberman made it clear where he stands.
It isn’t really Lieberman’s “conscience” that is driving him to oppose the public option — more likely it’s his ego (since he told reporters that he likes feeling “relevant“). After all, Lieberman opposed the Senate Finance Committee bill even though it didn’t have a public option, and in 1994, his “conscience” told him that the filibuster was “unfair” and shouldn’t be used to block major legislation. He has also asserted that the public option would raise premiums and increase the debt, even though the Congressional Budget Office has disputed those claims. Furthermore, 60 percent of his constituents support a public option, but Lieberman has dismissed them as just being “confused.”
Transcript: More »
- Comments
- 105
Tom Tancredo storms off the set of MSNBC during debate with DailyKos’ Markos Moulitsas.
Tom Tancredo storms off the set of MSNBC during debate with DailyKos’ Markos Moulitsas.
Today on the Ed Show, former Republican congressman Tom Tancredo tried to argue that all veterans are unhappy with their health care under the Veterans Administration — as proof of why government-run care doesn’t work:
Every veterans group I ever went and talked to complained about the Veterans Administration and the way it was a bureaucratically-run program that didn’t serve their needs. They would much rather have vouchers that would let them go out and buy their insurance in a private marketplace.
When the other guest on the program, DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas, started laughing, Tancredo replied, “You’re laughing, but talk to the veterans. They talk to me, and that’s why they said.” Markos then informed Tancredo that he actually is a veteran, adding, “I did not get a deferment because I was too depressed to fight in a war that I supported in Vietnam. I’m a veteran, Tom.” Tancredo became incensed at Markos, calling his comment “stupid” and demanding that he apologize. When he didn’t, Tancredo stormed off the set. Watch it:
As Markos noted, Tancredo was eligible to serve in Vietnam and was a supporter of the war, but received a deferment after “he went for his physical, telling doctors he’d been treated for depression.” After Tancredo left, Markos went on to say that Republicans are “terrified of government programs that work” because it threatens the myths they have built up.
Pence: ‘We Actually Do Deal With Pre-Existing Conditions’ In The GOP Health Bill
Pence: ‘We Actually Do Deal With Pre-Existing Conditions’ In The GOP Health Bill
This week, House Republicans officially released their alternative health care legislation, which the Congressional Budget Offices estimates would still leave 52 million Americans uninsured by 2019. The plan has been met with widespread criticism, focusing around the fact that the plan doesn’t bar insurers from rejecting coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Today on Fox News, however, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) tried to whitewash this point and simply insisted, “We actually do deal with pre-existing conditions in our bill”:
PENCE: You know, the Speaker has said it was scandalous — some interpretation of the Republican plan, which I am happy to talk about. We actually do deal with pre-existing conditions in our bill. But what’s scandalous is the Democrats launching a massive $1.2 trillion government takeover of health care paid for with more than $700 billion in tax increases on individuals and small businesses at a time when unemployment may well today come close to 10 percent.
Watch it:
Yesterday on MSNBC, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) similarly said that they “address the pre-existing conditions.” Both statements are misleading, and Republicans clearly recognize that they’re in an uncomfortable position because their bill doesn’t address one of the public’s top priorities in health care reform. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found that the public overwhelmingly wants final legislation to require “that health insurance companies cover people with pre-existing medical conditions.” Sixty-three percent of the respondents said that it “must” be included, and another 26 percent said they would “prefer” that it were there.
As Roll Call reported, Republicans “deal” with Americans with pre-existing conditions by forcing them into expensive high-risk pools:
And states would be eligible for a total of $15 billion [in federal funds] over the next 10 years in aid for creating high-risk pools for people whom private insurance companies refuse to cover because of pre-existing health conditions.
People with pre-existing conditions would pay up to 50 percent more than average for insurance coverage under the plan. States would have to cover the rest of the tab with a “stable funding source,” although the modest federal subsidy would cover a portion of the cost.
Most states already have such plans, which typically are much more expensive than regular insurance and have not made much of a dent in the ranks of the uninsured.
Even worse, high-risk pools would be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions that made people eligible in the first place. So people would be forced into the pools because of their pre-existing conditions, but the pools wouldn’t pay for treatment of that condition. President Obama and the Senate Finance Committee have also supported increased funding for high-risk pools, but only as a stop gap until 2013, when insurers would be prohibited from denying people coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
The disappointing refusal to bar insurers from rejecting Americans with pre-existing conditions comes after numerous Republican officials promised to address this problem.
Government health care rescues protesters at anti-government health care rally.
Government health care rescues protesters at anti-government health care rally.
Thousands of protesters came to Capitol Hill yesterday for Rep. Michele Bachmann’s (R-MN) protest against health care reform, capping months of fear-mongering about the dangers of so-called “socialized” medicine. However, the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank notes that at one point, one of the protesters had a heart attack. Luckily, federally-employed medical personnel were able to quickly attend to him — even though they were part of government-run health care, which is supposedly quite dangerous:
More ominously, a man standing just beyond the TV cameras apparently suffered a heart attack 20 minutes after event began. Medical personnel from the Capitol physician’s office — an entity that could, quite accurately, be labeled government-run health care — rushed over, attaching electrodes to his chest and giving him oxygen and an IV drip.
This turned into an unwanted visual for the speakers, as a D.C. ambulance and firetruck, lights flashing, pulled in just behind the lawmakers. A path was made through the media section, and the patient, attended to by about 10 government medical personnel, was being wheeled away on a stretcher just as House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) stepped to the microphone. “Join us in defeating Pelosi care!” he exhorted. A few members stole a glance at the stretcher.
By the end of the day, “medics had administered government-run health care to at least five people in the crowd who were stricken as they denounced government-run health care.”
‘Let’s Learn About Coal’: Industry Front Group Distributes Coloring Book On The ‘Advantages’ Of Coal
‘Let’s Learn About Coal’: Industry Front Group Distributes Coloring Book On The ‘Advantages’ Of Coal
Friends of Coal (FOC) is a front group created by the West Virginia Coal Association. Its mission is to “inform and educate West Virginia citizens about the coal industry” and “provide a united voice” for the industry. To make dirty coal seem appealing, FOC has sponsored or initiated license plates, football games, basketball practices, plane jumps, fishing events, and scholarships.
FOC is now selling coal to children. ThinkProgress obtained the “Let’s Learn About Coal” coloring book, which asks children to unscramble statements about the “advantages” of coal, such as “Than coal other cheaper is fuels” (”Coal is cheaper than other fuels”). Kids also learn that coal is “important” and “provides jobs for lots of people!”:
The FOC Ladies Auxiliary has been handing the coloring book out to children around West Virginia as part of a “Coal in the Classroom” campaign. Coal officials go into schools and give presentations about the importance of coal. “We’d really like this to be statewide, that it be mandatory in the schools that they learn about coal,” said FOC ladies auxiliary president Regina Fairchild in January. The ladies auxiliary is also recruiting members for its “junior” FOC group, open to “girls and boys ages 8 to 16.”
Additionally, FOC ladies auxiliary members have visited children in West Virginia hospitals to give them a “special present“: Mr. Coal, “a small, black Labrador stuffed puppy meant to bring a smile to kids’ faces during hospital stays.” (Coal pollution kills 24,000 Americans each year.)
Last year, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), another industry front group, also tried to make coal seem warm and fuzzy by creating the “coal carolers” — illustrated lumps of coal singing Christmas carols whose altered lyrics praised coal power. After widespread scorn, ACCCE took down the carolers. Find out more on what coal is really doing to Appalachia at Appalachian Voices.
Rep. Todd Akin screws up the Pledge of Allegiance, leaves out ‘indivisible.’
Rep. Todd Akin screws up the Pledge of Allegiance, leaves out ‘indivisible.’
Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) had the honor of leading the anti-health care protesters on Capitol Hill today in the Pledge of Allegiance. To show his fervent devotion to the Pledge, he gave a short speech about the importance of the phrase “under God.” However, when it came time to actually recite the Pledge, he was so excited about that one phrase that he forgot to say “indivisible” before “with liberty, and justice for all.” The crowd seemed to remember the actual words though, which threw Akin a bit off track. Watch it:
When right-wing radio host Mark Levin took the stage a short while later, the American flag fell over, and he exclaimed, “What the hell is this? Dare I say it? The flag drops. Hold up the flag and drop that [the health care bill]!”
Michael Steele and Rep. Mike Pence to host a 12-hour online health care town hall called ‘Pelosi Plan Exposed.’
Michael Steele and Rep. Mike Pence to host a 12-hour online health care town hall called ‘Pelosi Plan Exposed.’
Today, the Republican National Committee (RNC) sent out a press release announcing that Chairman Michael Steele and Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) will be hosting a 12-hour online town hall called “Pelosi Plan Exposed” tomorrow from 1:00 p.m. to Friday 1:00 a.m. ET. The intent of the forum is to “expose the 12 truths of Nancy Pelosi’s health care bill” and promote the “Republican alternative.” Topics include “your money,” “the culture of life,” “taxes,” and “families and women.”
In his video announcement, Pence said that he and his House colleagues “will present an interactive broadcast marathon on the Democrats’ plans to launch a government takeover of health care. We’ll take your calls, answer your tweets, and talk to people on the street.” Watch it:
Maybe they’ll explain why they’re in favor of allowing insurers to deny people coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
Rep. Joe ‘You lie!’ Wilson: I needed to look up ‘dithering’ in the dictionary, but I still agree with Cheney.
Rep. Joe ‘You lie!’ Wilson: I needed to look up ‘dithering’ in the dictionary, but I still agree with Cheney.
In a speech last month to the Center for Security Policy, Vice President Cheney criticized President Obama on Afghanistan, saying he was “dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger.” The Hill notes that an interview yesterday with WorldNetDaily radio, Rep. Joe “You lie!” Wilson (R-SC) said that he agreed with Cheney’s assessment — but only after he looked up Cheney’s big word in a dictionary:
You know, I’m really disappointed, and I actually agree with Vice President Cheney that the President is dithering. And I actually had to look up what “dithering” meant, and it’s “indecisive.” And that’s what the President is being.
Listen here:
After insisting he’s not ‘crowing’ about GOP victories, Steele gloats by striking the Heisman pose on MSNBC.
After insisting he’s not ‘crowing’ about GOP victories, Steele gloats by striking the Heisman pose on MSNBC.
This morning, RNC Chairman Michael Steele appeared on CBS’s Early Show and attempted to convince the audience that he was humbled by yesterday’s GOP victories in New Jersey and Virginia, saying, “We’re not crowing, we’re smiling.” But just an hour later on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Steele dropped all pretense and struck the Heisman pose to gloat:
Of course, the GOP’s favored candidate, Doug Hoffman of the Conservative Party, lost the special congressional election in New York’s 23rd district, despite attracting heavy conservative endorsements from the likes of Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Sean Hannity, and eventually the RNC and Newt Gingrich. The district now has a Democratic congressman for the first time since the mid-19th century. Watch Steele’s two morning segments here:
CNBC Reporter: Keflezighi’s Marathon Win Was ‘Empty’ Because He Was An Immigrant Rather Than U.S.-Born
CNBC Reporter: Keflezighi’s Marathon Win Was ‘Empty’ Because He Was An Immigrant Rather Than U.S.-Born
On Sunday, U.S. media outlets reported that for the first time in 27 years, an American had won the New York City Marathon. Meb Keflezighi was born in Eritrea, “growing up in a hut with no electricity.” He and his family moved to Italy when he was 10 years old, and came to the United States two years later. Keflezighi “began running in junior high in San Diego, then went on to star at UCLA.” He said he it was with “big honor and pride” that he wore the USA jersey while running in the marathon. Watch a post-marathon interview with Keflezighi here:
However, CNBC Sports Business Reporter Darren Rovell doesn’t think Keflezighi deserves all this praise because when his mother gave birth to him, she wasn’t in the U.S. Rovell wrote a column yesterday saying that Keflezighi’s victory wasn’t “as good as it sounds” because Keflezighi is an immigrant, and this fact “takes away from the magnitude of the achievement the headline implies”:
Given our disappointing results, embracing Keflezighi is understandable. But Keflezighi’s country of origin is Eritrea, a small country in Africa. He is an American citizen thanks to taking a test and living in our country.
Nothing against Keflezighi, but he’s like a ringer who you hire to work a couple hours at your office so that you can win the executive softball league.
Around noon today, Rovell posted a “convoluted sort-of apology” clarifying yesterday’s piece, writing, “Let me be clear: Meb Keflezighi is an American and any suggestion otherwise is wrong.” He now granted Keflezighi’s win legitimacy only because the runner was “brought up through the American system”:
I said that Keflezighi’s win, the first by an American since 1982, wasn’t as big as it was being made out to be because there was a difference between being an American-born product and being an American citizen. Frankly I didn’t account for the fact that virtually all of Keflezighi’s running experience came as a US citizen. I never said he didn’t deserve to be called American. [...]
It turns out, Keflezighi moved to the United States in time to develop at every level in America. So Meb is in fact an American trained athlete and an American citizen and he should be celebrated as the American winner of the NYC Marathon. That makes a difference and makes him different from the “ringer” I accused him of being. Meb didn’t deserve that comparison and I apologize for that.
How long does someone have to be in the U.S. and go through the American “system” to be counted as legitimate? In today’s New York Times, academics who study race and sports note that there are still “undercurrents of nationalism and racism that are not often voiced” in sports. “There is this notion about innate physiological gifts that certain races presumably possess. Quite frankly, I think it feeds into deep-seated stereotypes,” said David Wiggins, a professor at George Mason University.
Yesterday, Keflezighi responded to the criticisms, saying, “I’ve had to deal with it. But, hey, I’ve been here 22 years. And the U.S.A. is a land of immigrants. A lot of people have come from different places.”
(HT: bustacap at DailyKos)
During D.C. hearing on same-sex marriage, witness interrupts by proposing to his partner.
During D.C. hearing on same-sex marriage, witness interrupts by proposing to his partner.
The D.C. City Council held a hearing yesterday on a bill allowing same-sex couples to marry in the nation’s capital. However, the hearing was briefly interrupted when witness Andy Hertzberg stopped to propose to his partner. “I would like to take a huge step in my own life,” Hertzberg said. “Andy [Rollman], I’d like to ask you: Will you marry me?” One marriage equality opponent was outraged that they would show their love for one another, saying that for “something like this” to happen in the Council’s chambers, it showed a lack of “respect.” According to the local ABC report, however, most council members were supportive of the proposal. Watch it:
Arizona Republican National Committeeman tries to show solidarity with the ‘brown people’ in his city.
Arizona Republican National Committeeman tries to show solidarity with the ‘brown people’ in his city.
Arizona Republican National Committeeman Bruce Ash recently called in to the radio show of right-wing host Jon Justice — who has been called the “Rush Limbaugh of Tucson” — to take issue with local Democratic Party chairman Jeff Rogers’ opposition to a city ballot initiative. Ash said that Rogers doesn’t understand levels of crime in the city. To show how aware he is personally, Ash recounted some of his conversations with the city’s “brown people”:
I listen to the event and I heard the argument, and what was really truly amazing to me, Jon, was the pomposity that Jeff Rogers displayed. He sits in his little house in midtown with his kids who go to school, with his little job, and his job as the Democrat county chairman, and he is blind to all of the crime that is going on in this city.
It’s maybe not happening in his little neighborhood, but you ask any of the brown people who live on the South Side, or the West Side, or the South Central side of Tuscon, and they will tell you, in no uncertain terms, the fear they have getting in their car, walking in the street, and sometimes just sitting in their house.
Listen here:
The Arizona blog Rum, Romanism and Rebellion gives Ash the benefit of the doubt and says it might not have been blatant racism. However, the site says that Ash’s “sudden care for ‘brown people’ on the South Side” comes off as “good old fashioned patronizing and nothing more.” Huffington Post blogger Marlene Phillips also notes that crime statistics don’t support Ash’s claim that crime is higher in the city’s Hispanic neighborhoods. (HT: AMERICAblog)
Why Hatch Is Really Blocking Health Reform: Americans Will Love The New System And Vote Democratic
Why Hatch Is Really Blocking Health Reform: Americans Will Love The New System And Vote Democratic
In a new interview with CNS News, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) repeated his concern that requiring Americans to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional. Hatch offered typical run-of-the-mill conservative arguments about “socialized medicine.” But at one point, he let it slip that the real reason he is trying to stop health care reform is that the American public might really like it and therefore vote for Democrats:
HATCH: That’s their goal. Move people into government that way. Do it in increments. They’ve actually said it. They’ve said it out loud.
Q: This is a step-by-step approach —
HATCH: A step-by-step approach to socialized medicine. And if they get there, of course, you’re going to have a very rough time having a two-party system in this country, because almost everybody’s going to say, “All we ever were, all we ever are, all we ever hope to be depends on the Democratic Party.”
Q: They’ll have reduced the American people to dependency on the federal government.
HATCH: Yeah, you got that right. That’s their goal. That’s what keeps Democrats in power.
Watch it (at approx. 19:50):
A scenario whereby the two-party system is abolished because of government-run health care is unlikely at best. Republicans were also fear-mongering about the “socialized” system that became Medicare. In 1961, Ronald Reagan stated:
[I]f you don’t [stop Medicare] and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.
Republicans, of course, have had no problem getting elected with Medicare in place, and they now wholeheartedly support the program (recognizing that it’s popular with American seniors). For months, it’s been clear that electoral considerations are behind the GOP’s efforts to block reform. In July, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said that if they could “stall” or “block” any legislation, it would be a “huge gain” for the 2010 elections.
In June, President Obama pointed out Republican’s illogical opposition to a public plan, saying that if government-run health care will really be as bad as they say it will be, how could it “drive” private insurers out of business anyway?
Rep. Steve King is open to running for president but not yet making plans: ‘It is flattering.’
Rep. Steve King is open to running for president but not yet making plans: ‘It is flattering.’
A few weeks ago, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said that while she wasn’t considering a run for president, she was very interested in seeing the “stunning” Rep. Steve King (R-IA) as a candidate. “I have a very high opinion of Steve King and his ability, so I would encourage him to consider any position for higher office,” she said. In a new interview with the Des Moines NBC affiliate WHO-TV, King refused to say that he was interested in running, but also refused to rule it out:
KING: It is flattering, and I am stunned. … Here’s what I’d like to do, and that is be engaged in the national debate. I want to lay out the parameters on what we need to do to refurbish the pillars of American exceptionalism. We’ve got to have a vision, and it needs to be offered by more than one person. And I’d like to see a number of candidates who are able to articulate the vision, sort those visions, bring the best one forward. We’re going to need a lot of help in 2012, and being in Iowa, from Iowa, representing Congress in a strong district in Iowa, gives me a platform to be able to articulate those arguments, and I intend to do that.
And we’ll see what happens, but I’m making no plans to run for president. I didn’t make any plans to run for Congress either, and so – I’ve long surpassed my personal aspirations, and I just count it as a blessing to be able to engage in this debate.
Watch it:
(HT: Iowa Independent)
Rape Victim Confronts Vitter Over His Vote Against Franken’s Amendment Holding Contractors Accountable
Rape Victim Confronts Vitter Over His Vote Against Franken’s Amendment Holding Contractors Accountable
In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones’ Halliburton/KBR co-workers gang-raped her while she was working in Baghdad. The company then detained her in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would be heard in private arbitration only.
Last month, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts if companies “restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” Although the amendment passed, 30 Republican senators voted against it.
One of the Republicans singled out for especially harsh criticism following the vote was Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), who has a track record of siding against women’s rights. The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports that at a town hall meeting this past weekend, a constituent confronted Vitter about his vote. The woman, a rape victim, demanded that he explain why he opposed Franken’s amendment. Vitter refused to give her a straight answer:
WOMAN: It meant everything to me that I was able to put the person who attacked me [behind bars]. And what allowed me to do that was our judicial process. I showed up in court every day to make sure that happen
VITTER: And I’m absolutely supportive of any case like that being prosecuted criminally to the full extent of the law. [...]
WOMAN: But how can you support [a law] that tells a rape victim that she does not have the right to defend herself?
VITTER: Ma’am The language in question did not say that in any way shape or form.
WOMAN: But it is unconstitutional to have a law that says a woman does not have a right to defend herself.
Vitter then tried to deflect blame to the Obama administration, saying that it was also against the amendment. When the woman replied, “But I’m not asking Obama. I’m asking you,” Vitter retorted, “Do you think he’s in favor in rape?” Watch it:
Vitter’s criticism of the Obama administration isn’t quite correct. “While the Obama Defense Department raised concerns about the reach of the Franken amendment,” notes Stein, “the White House itself said it supported ‘the intent’ and was working to make sure it was ‘enforceable.’”
Sebelius: Public Should Ignore Beck On H1N1 Vaccine And ‘Talk To Somebody With A Little Scientific Background’
Sebelius: Public Should Ignore Beck On H1N1 Vaccine And ‘Talk To Somebody With A Little Scientific Background’
In recent weeks, pundits with little knowledge of public health have been warning the public to stay away from the H1N1 flu vaccine. Fox News host Glenn Beck recently said that the vaccine may be “deadly,” adding, “You don’t know if this is gonna cause neurological damage like it did in the 1970s.” Hate radio host Rush Limbaugh claimed that H1N1 warnings are “a bunch of typical government panic and hype” and even HBO’s Bill Maher stated that you’d be an “idiot” to get the vaccine.
Last night in an interview that aired on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius responded to these skeptics, saying the public should listen to “doctors and scientists,” not pundits:
SEBELIUS: Well, I tend to like to get my health advice from doctors and scientists. And that’s what we would urge people to do. I think it’s advisable to ask questions, to figure out — as a parent or a pregnant woman, or somebody with an underlying health condition, what the facts are, but probably not get your facts from — with all due deference — TV commentators. Maybe talk to somebody with a little scientific background and a medical degree about what actually is your risk and your opportunity to be safe and secure.
Watch it:
In fact, 60 Minutes spoke to the deans of the top 10 U.S. schools of public health, and found that “[a]ll of them endorsed the vaccine.” Bruce Gellin, director of the national vaccine program, said that after three weeks, “he has received fewer than 200 reports, mostly about muscle aches, stomach aches and sore arms.” Out of 10 million doses, he hasn’t yet found “any serious side effects related to the vaccine.” While, as Sebelius pointed out, it’s important to ask questions and raise concerns about vaccines, the World Health Organization has said that flu vaccines are “among the safest” that exist, and it hopes that “everyone who has a chance to get vaccinated does get vaccinated.”
GOP establishment-backed candidate Dede Scozzafava withdraws from NY-23 special election.
GOP establishment-backed candidate Dede Scozzafava withdraws from NY-23 special election.
In recent weeks, the special congressional election in New York’s 23 district has been heating up, with “big tent” and “establishment” Republicans — such as Newt Gingrich, the RNC, and the NRCC — backing Dede Scozzafava, and “purist” Republicans — such as Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, and Bill Kristol — backing Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman. Scozzafava had been “under siege” from these conservatives “because she supported gay rights and abortion rights and was considered too liberal on various fiscal issues.” Today — just three days before the election — Scozzafava has announced that she’s withdrawing because polling shows her too far behind to win:
“Today, I again seek to act for the good of our community,” Ms. Scozzafava wrote in a letter to friends and supporters. “It is increasingly clear that pressure is mounting on many of my supporters to shift their support. Consequently, I hereby release those individuals who have endorsed and supported my campaign to transfer their support as they see fit to do so. I am and have always been a proud Republican. It is my hope that with my actions today, my party will emerge stronger and our district and our nation can take an important step towards restoring the enduring strength and economic prosperity that has defined us for generations.
Scozzafava has not yet thrown her support behind either Hoffman or Democratic candidate Bill Owens, and her name will remain on the ballot. Gingrich recently slammed his fellow conservatives for the “precedent” they’re setting, saying, “So I say to my many conservative friends who suddenly decided that whether they’re from Minnesota or Alaska or Texas, they know more than the upstate New York Republicans? I don’t think so. And I don’t think it’s a good precedent.”
Rep. Markey Warns About Right-Wing Misinformation: Net Neutrality May Be The Next ‘Death Panels’
Rep. Markey Warns About Right-Wing Misinformation: Net Neutrality May Be The Next ‘Death Panels’
Last week, the Federal Communications Commission voted to move forward with regulations to preserve the open architecture of the Internet. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is trying to make our current system’s “net neutrality” official by ensuring that broadband providers “cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications” and are “transparent about their network management practices.” That same day, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) introduced legislation to block the FCC, inexplicably arguing that preserving net neutrality would be a “government takeover of the Internet.”
Yesterday, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) held a conference call with bloggers to discuss net neutrality. He and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) have introduced legislation — which currently has seven co-sponsors — to “establish overarching national broadband policy and ensures an open and consumer oriented Internet.” Markey stressed the importance of fighting “misinformation,” invoking death panels and the other red herrings the right wing slung into this summer’s health care debate:
As you all know, a lot is being written and said about what open Internet requirements would mean for broadband investment innovation and consumers. [...]
It’s almost as though some people want to have their own equivalent of “death panels” that we had in the health care debate back in August. That was a red herring that took us off the main point of providing health care to everyone, for a month or six weeks. Now we’ve got that straightened out, but we have to battle hard to make sure the misinformation is responded and responded to in a very brief period of time.
Watch it:
Fox News host Glenn Beck has been fear-mongering on net neutrality for weeks, saying that the Obama administration is trying to shut down freedom of speech. “You have a freedom of speech or the government,” said Beck last week. “You can’t really have both.” He’s been getting his talking points from Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity, who also fueled Beck’s campaign against former Obama adviser Van Jones. Some telecom companies — which, along with the cable industry, is driving opposition to an open Internet — have begun astroturfing efforts as well.
The telecom and cable industries are the ones interested in controlling access to information on the Internet. What the FCC’s regulations on net neutrality would do are ensure that the Internet remains an open, non-discriminatory marketplace of ideas, rather than a pay-for-play system where broadband providers could make certain companies’ sites run faster if they’re willing to dole out large sums of money.
Net neutrality is essential to free speech, which both the Christian Coalition and the Gun Owners of America have acknowledged. From a 2008 testimony by Michele Combs, the Christian Coalition’s vice president of communications:
Consequently, the reason the Christian Coalition supports Net Neutrality is simple. We believe that organizations such as the Christian Coalition should be able to continue to use the Internet to communicate with our members and with a worldwide audience without a phone or cable company snooping in on our communications and deciding whether to allow a particular communication to proceed, slow it down, or offer to speed it up if the author pays extra to be on the “fast lane.”
Free Press has put together a report here debunking some of the myths on net neutrality, and our Progress Report today has more information.
Lieberman plans to campaign for Republicans in 2010.
Lieberman plans to campaign for Republicans in 2010.
After joining with Republicans this week in a promise to filibuster health reform if a public option is included, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) tells ABC News that he plans on campaigning for some GOP candidates in the 2010 elections:
I probably will support some Republican candidates for Congress or Senate in the elections in 2010. I’m going to call them as I see them.
There’s a hard core of partisan, passionate, hardcore Republicans. There’s a hard core of partisan Democrats on the other side. And in between is the larger group, which is people who really want to see the right thing done, or want something good done for this country and them — and that means, sometimes, the better choice is somebody who’s not a Democrat.
Lieberman also said it remains an “open question” whether he will seek the Democratic nomination when he runs for re-election in 2012. Last month, Lieberman also joked that he may run as a Republican. In September 2008, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter — who was then still a member of the GOP — ironically said that Lieberman was “practically” voting as a Republican already and should just switch parties.
House Health Reform Bill Outlaws Treating Domestic Violence As A Pre-Existing Condition
House Health Reform Bill Outlaws Treating Domestic Violence As A Pre-Existing Condition
This morning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) unveiled the re-tooled Affordable Health Care for America Act (HR 3962). The bill will cost $900 billion over 10 years, extending health coverage to 36 million Americans (6-7 million more than the Senate Finance Committee’s version). As Igor Volsky points out, it also “includes a national public option that reimburses physicians at negotiated rates and requires individuals to acquire coverage and large employers to provide it.”
A less-noticed — but still significant — part of the bill would ensure that insurers in the individual market would no longer treat domestic violence as a pre-existing condition:
A health insurance issuer offering health insurance coverage in the individual market may not, on the basis of domestic violence, impose any preexisting condition exclusion (as defined in section 2701(b)(1)(A)) with respect to such coverage.
Eight states currently allow insurers to reject women who have survived domestic abuse for coverage. As the Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim has explained:
Under the cold logic of the insurance industry, it makes perfect sense: If you are in a marriage with someone who has beaten you in the past, you’re more likely to get beaten again than the average person and are therefore more expensive to insure.
In human terms, it’s a second punishment for a victim of domestic violence.
This provision is part of the bill’s larger ban on pre-existing conditions, which stipulates that insurers cannot discriminate based on “health status, medical condition, claims experience, receipt of health care, medical history, genetic information, evidence of insurability, disability, or source of injury (including conditions arising out of acts of domestic violence) or any similar factors.”
In 2006, Senate Democrats on the Health Education Labor & Pensions Committee tried to end domestic violence as a pre-existing condition, but lost in a 10-10 vote. All the “nay” votes were Republicans. Women currently pay up to 50 percent more for health insurance than a man would shell out for the same coverage, and most individual health insurance markets don’t cover maternity care.
The inclusion of a ban on domestic violence being treated as a pre-existing condition fulfills a promise Pelosi made earlier this month. “Think of this,” Pelosi told reporters. “You’ve survived domestic violence, and now you are discriminated [against] in the insurance market because you have a pre-existing medical condition. Well, that will all be gone.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll