Talk about double-dipping! I wonder if it would be too much to ask that media outlets ask about such conflicts before they offer them outlets as "objective" analysts:
WASHINGTON — After retiring from the Marine Corps in December 2003, Emil "Buck" Bedard headed back to work — for both the Pentagon and defense contractors.
Two months after leaving the service as a lieutenant general, Bedard became an adviser for the Pentagon's Joint Forces Command, a job that this year paid him about $1,600 per day to help run war games and mentor high-level commanders on how to lead troops in battle. Bedard also signed on with seven defense contractors as a corporate director or consultant.
For one of those firms, Bedard marketed a video surveillance system to the Marines during the time he was getting paid by the Pentagon for mentoring, even after a general concluded that the technology "did not work as advertised," a USA TODAY investigation found.
Bedard's activities present a case study of the kinds of situations that arise when retired senior officers become paid Pentagon advisers even as they market products to the military as consultants for defense contractors. USA TODAY reported last month that roughly 130 retired generals and admirals have held taxpayer-funded military jobs as "senior mentors" while also working for defense contractors.
Bedard's case goes beyond getting paid to advise the government and industry at the same time. E-mails and interviews show that Bedard pushed for his former service branch to buy the video system, including sending e-mails while on mentoring assignments.
"In the corporate world, this ... would not be tolerated," said Kirk Hanson, director of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University in California.
"It is not uncommon for someone to consult with their former employer, but it is a major concern if they are simultaneously representing groups that sell to or try to influence their former employer."
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: 55
PLAYS: 52
(Dr. W.S. "Stuart" McBirnie - warnings against the all-malevolent "them")
Every time I hear about "Liberal Media", another batch of tapes fall off my shelves, always from some extreme right-wing group, or quasi-religious organization with an extreme agenda. Never fails. There are thousands of them. The airwaves have been jam-packed with them since the beginnings of broadcasting.
This particular tape comes by way of The Voice Of Americanism, a daily radio (and later TV) show hosted by William Stuart McBirnie, a wildly anti-Communist preacher who was heard on over 300 stations from the early 1960's to the 1980s.
On this broadcast, from the 1980s (no exact date) he plays host to a Gordon Browning who was Executive Assistant to California State Senator H.L. "Bill" Richardson. Not much is known about Browning (although I'm sure someone out there has a whole file someplace), but Richardson, who has since "retired" from the State Senate, is around and flying slightly under the radar.
The subject of the broadcast is how the left manipulate people through issues - this issue being Clean Air. Sound familiar?
McBirnie: “Smog is not only a product of automobiles, it is also the product of many things. Now, help us understand though, how the leftists and the Stateists, the people who want to control people, are stepping into this picture to use this problem?”
Have a listen and have at it. Should be lively.
Oh . . .and hit the button below and feel a whole lot better!
File this one under "Law of Unintended Consequences" and hope to God someone brings this to the attention of the relevant parties:
Where are the chips falling, so to speak, when it comes to the popular State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)? The press ought to be finding out, and fast. Last week, the Children’s Defense Fund sent me an invitation for an informational call discussing SCHIP’s future: “If the Senate doesn’t take a stand for children in the next days or weeks, our worst fears could clearly come to pass.” The dire-sounding invite piqued my interest, especially since I had read in the House bill that SCHIP would be repealed. What was going on?
It turns out that the House indeed wants to repeal the program and require kids to get coverage via the insurance exchange, the government’s soon-to-be gigantic brokerage service. Their parents, of course, would be getting subsidies to help buy coverage, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. Rep. John Dingell, a Democrat no less, touted the advantages of dumping SCHIP. One advantage: the program wouldn’t be subject to the periodic and occasionally problematic Congressional reauthorizations that threaten its existence. Dingell said kids could have the same insurance as their parents—an incentive to force parents to cover their kids. (Sometimes parents, daunted by bureaucratic red tape, don’t enroll their children even if they are eligible.)
Another reason for killing SCHIP, some believe, is to force kids into the new exchange’s risk pool. Kids are usually healthy; bringing them into the pool may help spread the risk and keep premiums somewhat lower for the sick people whom insurers would have to cover.
But in return, kids would be hurt, says Alison Buist, director of child health at the Children’s Defense Fund. She told me that if the House provision were to take effect, kids might lose some valuable and comprehensive benefits now available to kids on Medicaid and SCHIP. If parents, strapped for cash, had to shop in the exchange, they might choose low-cost insurance with skimpy benefits and pay more out-of-pocket than SCHIP currently requires them to pay. SCHIP rules limit a family’s out-of-pocket costs to five percent of their income. States don’t even impose the five percent, Buist said, because they have found parents with low incomes couldn’t pay that much. So it seems that there’s a cost shift here—making poor families pay more so that sick (and most likely older) people buying in the exchange would pay less.
The more I see of this Frankenstein plan, the more I see we need single-payer universal coverage. Period.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (137)
PLAYS: (330)
Ex-White House Press Secretary Dana Perino told Greta Van Susteren last night on Fox that she wished President Obama would stop making those unpleasant allusions to her old boss, George W. Bush. Because, you know, Bush has not been taking shots at Obama.
Oddly, nary a mention of Dick Cheney was heard.
Perino was upset that Obama, in his interview for 60 Minutes, referenced Bush's military triumphalism:
Obama: And one of the mistakes that was made over the last eight years is for us to have a triumphant sense about war.
There was a tendency to say, "We can go in. We can kick some tail. This is some glorious exercise." When in fact, this is a tough business.
But Van Susteren at least pointed out that when George W. Bush was president, there was no shortage of blaming the previous administration:
Van Susteren: When President Bush 43 took office, was he critical in a similar way of President Clinton, his predecessor? Because one of the things I think we all want to think about, is we want our presidents having greatness about them and not getting petty.
Perino: I wasn't there at the beginning, and I think there is a certain amount of comparison that has to go on at the beginning. But almost everyone -- the left, right, and center -- columnists, even late-night talk-show hosts, are suggesting to President Obama that he lay off.
Well, no, Dana, you weren't around in the early years of the Bush administration. So maybe you weren't there for the endless list of things that Bush blamed Clinton for -- some of which included the following:
But the best part came when she suggested Obama should not blame Bush for anything because Bush has been nice and quiet since the election and not criticized Obama:
Perino: Look, I think the other thing that you've seen is that President Bush has been an incredibly gracious post-president during the transition, and he said, 'President Obama deserves my silence.' and I would daresay that he deserves a lot more respect than he's getting right now.
Sure, Bush has been "gracious" because all Republicans have to do is send out Bush's surrogate thug, Vice President Cheney -- who in fact probably had at least as much to do with the direction of policy matters in the Bush administration as Bush himself did -- to do the dirty work for him.
Yeah, pretty freaking gracious, those Republicans.
It's important to remind the public just how we got in this mess, and to remind them that the people who got us here want us to forget that fact. Their only hope is to cover their tracks, and Dana Perino is in the business of doing that.
Joel Surnow is swapping “real time” political intrigue for historical realism. The “24″ co-creator is executive producing “The Kennedys,” an eight-hour miniseries about one of America’s most iconic political families, for the History Channel. Unlike “24,” however, “The Kennedys” will be as historically accurate as possible and not feature any gimmickry.
“We’re not trying to be too clever about it,” said Surnow, who developed the project with Muse Entertainment for the Network. “We’re just telling the story on an episode by episode basis.” Surnow says he and series writer Steve Kronish were most interested in cobbling together a dynastic story about family ambition. “That some of the most important events of the 20th century, such as the Bay of Pigs or the civil rights movement, is in the background, is almost besides the point,” he said. Focusing on the idea of a father living out his ambitions through his sons (”primarily Jack and Bobby, though Teddy was in the mix”), the series — which Surnow likens more to a season of the “Sopranos” than a traditional miniseries — will take place between the years of 1960 and 1968, but with plenty of flashbacks, such as Joe Sr. being rejected by a Harvard club.
He's not a partisan hack at all. He simply makes the case that the Kennedys are just like the Sopranos, who made sure to whack as many people after they ate their cannolis and espresso as possible.
He also decries anyone who may try to tie his conservative politics into the project. “My politics have never guided my interest in stories and movies,” he said. “I completely understand where critics are coming from, because of my creating the ‘1/2 Hour News Hour’ show for Fox News and the issue over torture on ‘24.’ But it’s honestly not going to have much play in terms of where this story comes out. Steve Kronish is politically different from me, and at the end of the day, we’re telling a story about a family. So it’s not about the politics.” (Fox News is owned by News Corp, as is the Wall Street Journal.)
Kidnap subject. Strip off his clothes and dress him in a tracksuit. Blindfold and shackle him. Force headphones over his ears. Fly him to an unknown location to be interrogated, tortured, and imprisoned. Repeat.
This is the practice of "extraordinary rendition," and the experience of 35-year-old U.K. resident Binyam Mohamed on his journey home to London from Pakistan in July 2002. He was kidnapped to Morocco, where he was held for 18 months and tortured repeatedly. "They cut off my clothes with some kind of doctor's scalpel," he wrote in his diary. "I was totally naked…One of them took my penis in his hand and began to make a cut…He did it once, then stood still for maybe a minute, watch my reaction. It was an agony, [I was] crying, trying desperately to suppress my feelings, but I was screaming. There was blood all over."
This was just one of 20 to 30 incidents in which Mohamed was cut on his genitals while detained in Morocco. Interrogators routinely beat him, breaking bones and sometimes knocking him unconscious. He was frequently threatened with rape, electrocution and death, drugged repeatedly, and forced to listen to loud music day and night.
In January 2004, he was handcuffed and blindfolded again, placed in a van and driven to an airfield, then stripped, photographed extensively and put on a plane to a "Dark Prison" in Kabul, Afghanistan. Mohamed endured similar torture and daily interrogations in Kabul. In May, he was sent to Bagram. In September, he was sent to Guantánamo Bay. Mohamed was in Guantánamo for more than four years, and was released in February 2009. His military commission charges were dropped in October 2008.
I stand here day after day after day and hear my colleagues, my good friends from the other side, say things that are not based on fact. […]
Senator Thune did say that none of the benefits started next year. He just, I guess, hasn’t read the bill. .. I do find that many of my colleagues who I’m very friendly with, haven’t read the bill and are not very familiar with it.
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) sparred sharply on the Senate floor Monday evening, a departure from the usually dormant speeches in the august chamber.
Franken said he was struck by a speech in which he said Thune had refused to highlight when benefits to the health care bill would kick in and instead emphasized the negative parts of the bill.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Five people, including three police officers, have been indicted in the fatal race-related beating of a Latino man in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, the Justice Department said Tuesday.
Two indictments charge the five with federal hate crime charges, as well as obstruction of justice and conspiracy, authorities said in a written statement. A federal grand jury handed up the indictments last week, and they were unsealed Tuesday.
Derrick Donchak and Brandon Piekarsky are charged with a hate crime for beating Luis Ramirez in July 2008 while shouting racial epithets at him, according to the department. Ramirez died two days later.
"Following the beating, Donchak, Piekarsky and others, including members of the Shenandoah Police Department, participated in a scheme to obstruct the investigation of the fatal assault," the Justice Department said. As a result, Donchak faces three additional counts of conspiring to obstruct justice and related offenses, officials said.
Shenandoah Police Chief Matthew Nestor and two other officers are charged with conspiring to obstruct justice in the Ramirez investigation. Nestor and a fourth police officer are named in a third indictment and charged with extortion and civil rights violations related to police corruption, the Justice Department said.
It's genuinely disturbing to discover that local law-enforcement officers were involved in covering this matter up and obstructing justice. It adds just another twist to an already shocking case.
[T]his was a pretty clear-cut case of jury nullification: the weight of evidence against the accused was so powerful that it's clear the all-white jury -- like similar juries in the South during the Civil Rights struggle -- was not going to convict two young white men of murdering a Mexican. Even if, as Friedman says, "the only reason he is dead is because he was Mexican."
Prosecutors alleged that the teens baited the Ramirez into a fight with racial epithets, provoking an exchange of punches and kicks that ended with Ramirez convulsing in the street, foaming from the mouth. He died two days later in a hospital.
Piekarsky was accused of delivering a fatal kick to Ramirez's head after he was knocked to the ground.
As they poured out of courthouse, the teens' supporters shouted "I was right from the start" and "I'm glad the jury listened" at cameras that caught the late-night verdict.
But Gladys Limon, a spokeswoman for the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said the jury had sent a troubling message.
"The jurors here [are] sending the message that you can brutally beat a person, without regard to their life, and get away with it, continue with your life uninterrupted," she said.
Considering some of the details of the killing, it's also inordinately clear this was a classic bias crime, with the incident instigated by racially charged taunts that made clear the victim was selected because of racial animus:
"Isn't it a little late for you guys to be out?" the boys said, according to court documents. "Get your Mexican boyfriend out of here."
... Burke recalled hearing one final, ominous threat as the teens ran. "They yelled, 'You effin bitch, tell your effin Mexican friends get the eff out of Shenandoah or you're gonna be laying effin next to him,' " she said.
That is, of course, the entire purpose of bias crimes: To hold the victim up as an example: "You're next." The purpose is to terrorize the target community, to drive them out, eliminate them.
This is why Latino advocates demanded the Justice Department step in and deliver justice. It looks like they have.
But hey, it's not as if any of us can afford antidepressants, anyway!
In the meantime, bankers are doing better than ever and Joe Lieberman has decided that insurance companies are more important than you or your family. The Democrats haven't delivered on even one major promise and that light at the end of the tunnel sure does look like an oncoming train. Why wouldn't you be depressed?
More than half of the nation’s unemployed workers have borrowed money from friends or relatives since losing their jobs. An equal number have cut back on doctor visits or medical treatments because they are out of work.
Almost half have suffered from depression or anxiety. About 4 in 10 parents have noticed behavioral changes in their children that they attribute to their difficulties in finding work.
Joblessness has wreaked financial and emotional havoc on the lives of many of those out of work, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll of unemployed adults, causing major life changes, mental health issues and trouble maintaining even basic necessities.
The results of the poll, which surveyed 708 unemployed adults from Dec. 5 to Dec. 10 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points, help to lay bare the depth of the trauma experienced by millions across the country who are out of work as the jobless rate hovers at 10 percent and, in particular, as the ranks of the long-term unemployed soar.
Roughly half of the respondents described the recession as a hardship that had caused fundamental changes in their lives. Generally, those who have been out of work longer reported experiencing more acute financial and emotional effects.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (354)
PLAYS: (1033)
Without a doubt, one of the worst aspects of watching health-care reform crumble before our eyes is dealing with gloating of the wingnuts who made it crumble -- and especially watching them lying again and again and again as they do so. It's just in their nature to lie, and to do it repeatedly.
Case in point: Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Outer Wingnuttia, went on Fox News last night with Sean Hannity and talked about how she hoped the health-care reform was dead and finished, and both she and Hannity were obviously gleeful at the prospect. At every corner she was a font of disinformation and false "facts". The topper came at the end:
BACHMANN: We need bipartisan reform, and we Republicans are there ready, willing, and able. We want bipartisan reform. Let's scrap what we have and let's move forward, because President Obama's bill will mean 5.5 million jobs lost, and that's according to his own economist, Christina Romer.
Well, as Media Matters explains, there's simply no such figure anywhere in anything Romer has ever said -- indeed, she has said that "health care reform is an economic necessity," and that it will "allow lower unemployment".
Politifact seems to have uncovered the source of Bachmann's "5.5 million" figure, other than the nether regions of her posterior:
Obama's economic adviser -- Christina Romer, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers -- has never said that a tax in the health care bill would cost up to 5.5 million jobs. Republicans have used her 2007 research to develop a calculation for job losses for any type of tax increase. If you have a number for tax revenues generated, then this model will give you a number of jobs lost. But there are factors that make this type of analysis troublesome when it comes to the health care bill. Romer's 2007 research, for example, said that tax increases that fund spending for social programs tend to balance out, and economic growth stays on an even keel. Another problem is that the Republicans take tax increases that happen over 10 years and treat them as if they happen in one year, which inflates the numbers of jobs that might be lost. Finally, this particular Republican analysis includes more taxes than just the surtax of page 336; it also includes the employer mandates of page 313. We find this analysis to be problematic and contrary to how Obama's economic adviser said the model should work.
Ah, but being truthful would not be as much fun as going on national television and lying.
To move the process forward, Reid had three options. The first, many would say, was reconciliation. But that would have required going back to the committees to refashion a reconciliation bill, and going back to the House of Representatives so it could craft a reconciliation bill, and then going back through the votes. There wasn't time for that, and even if there was, throwing the process so far back onto itself would have been an enormous risk.
The next was to cut a deal with Olympia Snowe. But Snowe had made it clear that part of any compromise with her was a deceleration in the bill's momentum. "The more they try to drive this process in an unrealistic timeframe, the more reluctant I become about whether or not this can be doable in this timeframe that we're talking about," Snowe told reporters. "There's always January."
That left Joe Lieberman. And Lieberman's price for signing onto the bill was the destruction of the public option and, unexpectedly, the Medicare buy-in provision. There would be no triggers, no opt-outs, no compromises. Lieberman swung the axe and cut his deal cleanly, killing not only the public option, but anything that looked even remotely like it. Some on the Hill remain worried that Lieberman will discover new points of contention in the coming days, as they believe he had signaled that he wouldn't filibuster the Medicare buy-in. They worry whether his word is good. But assuming it is, he can provide the 60th vote Reid needs to move the bill by the end of next week, and keep health-care reform on some sort of schedule.
Lieberman is not interested in helping the millions of Americans who need help, but screwing liberals who held him accountable for the Iraq war. Even Jay Rockefeller, who has been so strong on the public option, defended Joe's behavior, seemingly as a way to get a bill passed as soon as possible. Then the Medicare buy-in came up and we celebrated, but of course resident Lieberman couldn't allow to happen.
Senate Democrats signaled their intention Monday to back away from a plan to expand Medicare, in a bid to break a deepening impasse on sweeping health legislation.
The move came at an evening caucus convened just off the Senate floor, where Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) and other party leaders made clear they wanted to head off a widening dispute -- pitting centrists against liberals -- over a proposal that would open Medicare to people below the age of 65.
There you have it. Everyone knows that liberals must lose, so down goes the public option and the Medicare Buy-in. The question remains whether King Joseph will allow the government to help older people with long term care needs or any of the other things that anyone could possibly construe as liberal policies.
I think we have a way to go before this bill is bad enough for him and his cronies to allow the Democrats to commit political suicide with it.
Reconciliation doesn't seem to be the way Harry Reid wants to go because it's a slow process that might not produce any meaningful results.
At this point, the assistance to the people who need it most is the critical moral and policy decision. Would it be a band-aid? Yes, but even a band-aid can staunch bleeding, and right now that's what we desperately need. The insurance reforms matter a great deal, too, and can be passed through regular process. It will be a lot harder for Senators to stand up and vote to allow insurance companies to continue to deny coverage to the American people.
We have to keep fighting to strengthen the bill before conference. There are millions of people who need our help. We still haven't seen the bill yet, so we're not sure how much it would help America. Howie and I wrote a bunch of posts during the whole general election process that Barack Obama wasn't a progressive, but a moderate Democratic politician.
That's what his voting record told us. We focused on the National Journal article that tried to paint Obama as the most liberal Senator in Congress -- which was a lie -- and we wanted everybody to be aware of it during the election. And that's where we come in now along with all the other great liberal groups. Many of us believed that one of our major tasks was to keep pushing for as much progressive policies as we could as soon as we took the White House.
Conservatism has been a complete failure as an ideology to govern America. George W. Bush had to promote himself as a new kind of conservative, a Compassionate Conservative who would do things differently, but as soon as he took office that was proved to be another lie. What we witnessed for eight years of Bush was an utter disregard for working class families and a foreign policy that sanctioned torture and the "preemption doctrine." A straw man was needed so Bush and Cheney could manipulate the media to justify an invasion of Iraq that didn't attack us.
A financial bubble was allowed to proceed because without that bubble, Bush's tax cuts and conservative philosophy would have been exposed as another conservative failure before the 2004 election. The end result was a global financial meltdown.
And we can't forget about Hurricane Katrina. We witnessed firsthand how conservatives protected our country during a natural disaster.
We fight as progressives because we have to. America is not a Bill Kristol academic exercise. It's full of real Americans who are worth fighting for as they try to survive. If not for us, who will speak for them?
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (383)
PLAYS: (671)
Looks like Dick had to send his daughter out to do his dirty work for him again this week on Fox News Sunday. It's hard to say who was more repugnant among this past week's panel line up--Liz with her denial that the United States tortured prisoners or Bloody Bill Kristol with his war mongering.
WALLACE: Liz, several leading conservatives applauded the president's speech -- Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich. How about Liz Cheney?
CHENEY: There were certainly parts of his speech with which I wholeheartedly agree, and I think it was really good, frankly, to have the president finally enunciate some of these things, talk about, you know, the insufficiency of engagement with respect to dealing with terror or dealing with enemies, talk about the importance of America supporting democracy around the world, and also talk about the role that America has played particularly in post-World War II Europe.
I think the key will be whether the policies now follow that, and I certainly hope that they do. But we still had in this speech -- you know, it's almost like it's become reflexive, this notion that America abandoned our ideals after 9/11, and I think that it is -- you know, as we see this president repeatedly go onto foreign soil and accuse America of having tortured people, talk about Guantanamo Bay as an abandonment of our ideals, you know, I -- that part of the speech to me really is nothing short of shameful.
And it's not just an attack on political opponents. You know, it really is casting aspersions and, I would say, slandering the men and women in the CIA who carried out key programs that kept us safe and the people, frankly, right now at Guantanamo Bay who are guarding some of the world's worst terrorists.
So I think that part of the speech represents something I hope the president will stop soon.
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (362)
PLAYS: (323)
Claire McCaskill of Missouri is just another Democratic deficit scold and she proudly said that she wouldn't vote for a health care bill that didn't totally reduce the deficit. With friends like these, conservatives need no enemies. She ratifies conservative beliefs. Thanks Claire.
The wonderful and all powerful OZ, the CBO, will guide her vote as if it came from GOD! And she was so proud to be in a bipartisan agreement with Mr. Wingnut himself, Judd Gregg, that she almost couldn't control herself.
Senator McCaskill, do you know enough about the Reid compromise to say whether you’ll support it?
MCCASKILL: Well, the whole reason we’re doing this bill is to bring down cost, first for the American people in health care, and secondly for the deficit. So until we get the numbers back from the Congressional Budget Office, we’re all on hold.
Until -- I have to be assured that this is going to bring down the deficit and it’s going to bring down health care costs for most Missouri families. WALLACE: And if it doesn’t?
MCCASKILL: Well, then we are going to have to go back to the drawing board. I’m optimistic we’re going to get a bill. There’s a lot of good stuff in this bill. There’s a lot of misinformation out there about this bill. So I’m optimistic we’re going to get a good piece of legislation passed.
But all of us are focused on those two very important ingredients, bringing down the deficit and bringing down health care costs for most American families.
WALLACE: Senator Gregg, do you know enough about the Reid compromise to be able to say whether or not you’ll support it?
GREGG: I don’t think anybody’s seen it. Basically, it’s being drafted in camera, behind closed doors, by Senator Reid and a few folks. We’ve seen the outlines of it, which are very, very suspicious relative to their effects on cost, which Claire has outlined is one of the primary concerns.
We just got an actuarial summary of the present bill, the present Reid bill, which was done by the president’s actuary, CMS. They said that the cost curve goes up under the Reid bill by $235 billion.
In addition, we know that if you let people buy into Medicare at age 55 instead of going on Medicare when they qualify for it in the 60s that you’re going to definitely get the people who are the sickest buying in, and therefore the cost of Medicare is clearly going to go up.
Now, Medicare is already a bankrupt program. It’s got $38 trillion of unfunded liability out there. And I think putting more people into Medicare is going to simply aggravate the bankruptcy of the program which is coming at us.
WALLACE: Senator McCaskill, those were two of the points I was going to raise with you. I mean, the Reid plan would expand Medicare, which is already in serious financial trouble, and no one knows how much this plan will cost.
Isn’t it crazy to talk about passing a plan that affects a sixth of the economy in the next couple of weeks?
MCCASKILL: No, it’s not. We’ve been working on this for months and months. There’s...
WALLACE: But not this part of it.
MCCASKILL: Well, there have been all kinds of things in this bill that the Republicans -- in fact, there’s a lot of Republican amendments in this bill that we’re debating right now.
And here’s the thing. We’ve got two different analysis of this bill, and the bill’s not complete yet. Both of them say that this bill is going to extend the life of Medicare. Both of these -- both CMS and CBO say we’re going to extend the life of Medicare.
And both of them say we’re going to reduce the deficit long term.
And both of them say for most Americans it’s going to stabilize the cost of health care over time and begin to bend that cost curve.
So we’ve got to stay focused on the positive things in this bill. You know, there’s a lot of politics around this thing. This is the time of year not only do the planes stack up in terms of legislation we’re considering, but it’s also the time of year that we drift away from policy and start playing bare-knuckled politics.
On Tuesday, frothing at the mouth Tea Party faithful will protest health care reform legislation by descending on the Senate and holding a "die-in." But while the Tea Baggers will feign dropping dead to dramatize their opposition to health care reform they wrongly believe will leading to rationing, they seem blissfully unconcerned about the thousands of Americans who actually die each year due to lack of insurance.
Tea Party organizer Mark Meckler writes on his site: "The intention is to go inside the Senate offices and hallways, and play out the role of patients waiting for treatment in government controlled medical facilities. As the day goes on some of us will pretend to die from our untreated illnesses and collapse on the floor."
Of course, in the American health care system as it actually is, estimates of the yearly body count from private health insurance range as high as 45,000.
Back in September, a study by Harvard Medical School found that almost 45,000 Americans die each year due to lack of health insurance. To translate that into a metric even Tea Baggers can understand, that annual death toll exceeds the number of U.S. military personnel killed during the entire Korean War.
Even using more conservative models, the Washington Post's Ezra Klein noted, the $900 billion Democratic health care plan could save 150,000 American lives over a 10-year span. (Again, translated into Tea Bagese, that's more than was lost by the United States armed forces during World War I.) As Klein describes the " 150,000-life health-care bill":
Washington — On a recent Saturday afternoon, after completing his Sabbath morning prayers, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut braved a four-mile, snowy walk to the Capitol building from his Georgetown synagogue.
“I have a responsibility to my constituents, really to my conscience, to be here on something as important as health care reform,” Lieberman told the congressional newspaper The Hill, describing his wish to combine his Jewish beliefs with his duties as a lawmaker.
By walking to a special Saturday Senate debate on health care reform, Lieberman was complying with the traditional religious ban against driving during the Sabbath. But Lieberman’s many critics in the Jewish community claim that the Connecticut independent is missing the broader Jewish concern.
Well, yes. This is exactly the kind of pious showboating Joe likes to substitute for actual faith. The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism released a statement back in 1993 on Judaism and Health Care Reform, in which they pointed out the thinking behind their stand:
It is a positive commandment to save the life of a person in danger from illness. This duty falls under the general obligation of saving life, which is grounded in a number of biblical verses, including "Thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of your fellow," (Lev. 19:16) "And your fellow shall live by your side," (Lev. 25:36), and "You shall restore it [in this case, life] to him" (Deut. 22:2). So great is the mitzvah of saving life, that nearly all other religious obligations are subordinated to it: we violate the Sabbath to save a person's life (Pikuah nefesh doha et ha-shabbat, Yoma 85b), and there is a general principle in Jewish law that danger to life and health is of greater religious concern than ritual matters (Hamirah sakanta mi'issura, Hullin 10a).
Tzedaka -- Communal Obligations to Meeting Basic Human Needs: Just as the Jewish community recognizes an obligation to provide for such basic needs as food, clothing, and shelter through the collection and distribution of communal funds, so, too, have Jews insisted that no person be denied access to health care on account of inability to pay.
While physicians are not required to provide their services for free ("A physician who takes nothing is worth nothing" -- Baba Kamma 85a), communal subsidies matched by reduced rates for poor patients have been the norm.[Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 249:16; see also Responsa Ramat Rahel of Rabbi Eliezer Y. Waldenberg, sections 24-25]
Yes, Joe. It's about saving lives. Danger to life and health is more important than ritual matters. But then again, it seems like you're more concerned with making yourself look "religious." Shame on you for using your faith as a protective cover for hardball corporate politics.
“Health care reform is the key moral issue facing the country right now,” said one of those critics, Rabbi Charles Arian of Beth Jacob Synagogue in Norwich, Conn. “I will be personally disappointed if it stops dead in its tracks because Senator Lieberman invokes a filibuster.”
Lieberman has vowed to vote against ending a Republican filibuster of the health care reform bill that the Senate is now debating if it includes a government-run insurance program. Due to the Senate’s current balance of forces, that would effectively kill a historic effort to reform the country’s ramshackle health insurance system, which now excludes millions of people from obtaining health coverage.
[...] Lieberman’s threat is being met with harsh criticism within the Jewish community in Connecticut, where public-opinion surveys show that strong general majorities support a government-sponsored insurance option.
Widely seen as the key domestic cause for American Jews right now, health care reform has several national Jewish groups actively lobbying for it. Among them is Jewish Federations of North America, the umbrella organization for the nation’s local Jewish philanthropic federations, which are deeply involved in funding health care. But national Jewish organizations are not, by and large, focusing on Lieberman.
It's time they start, because he's the main stumbling block. From the Hartford Courant last week:
A group of religious leaders is still trying to sway U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman to drop his opposition to government run health insurance, also known as public option.
They drew hundreds of supporters to a candlelight vigil outside the senator's Stamford home last month. Nine days later, they gathered outside his Hartford office and delivered hundreds of prayers for health reform with a public option, written by supporters, to Lieberman's staff.
Leaders of the group, called the Interfaith Fellowship for Universal Health Care, met with Lieberman on Monday but said he maintained his opposition to the public option.
Their latest attempt to lobby the senator will appear in newspapers across the state today, an advertisement featuring a letter from Norwalk Rabbi Joseph Ron Fish describing the imperative of multiple faiths to seek the welfare of everyone, particularly the meek and vulnerable. The advertisement includes the signatures of 240 Connecticut religious leaders and will argue that Lieberman must support "real reform" as a matter of conscience, according to the group.
Joe doesn't care what happens in Connecticut, because he probably won't run again. But he does care what the national media thinks about him, and those shallow scribes take his "faith" on faith. I'd love to see one reporter from a major publication or network ask him how to justify his opposition to his bill in light of his faith - and they should have a rabbi who supports health care reform to challenge him.
