You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1229)

PLAYS: (3829)

I want to propose a new amendment be added during the conference committee when the House and Senate get together to merge the health-care reform bills. I know the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops will love it, since they are officially members of Congress now. Here it is.

All pro-life male members of Congress who ejaculate without the express intent of making a baby will be considered to have had an abortion. (This will include airport-bathroom encounters.) Under this new rule, the male pro-life members then must fall in line with the same restrictions to health care as women will have to under the Stupak Amendment. Then starting in 2013, all pro-life men in America will be covered under this provision as well.

Remember, sex is for one thing and one thing only. I believe a man has an even greater responsibility than a women does just by the fact that the Congress is made up of mostly men.

Out of the 56 women in the Democratic caucus, only two voted for Stupak. All 17 Republican women voted for it.

What this adds up to is that 97% of the Democrats who voted for the Stupak amendment were male. 90% of the Republicans were male.

I would have to guess that if more than 17% of the congress were women, there would be a little bit less likelihood that women's rights would be so often used as a handy tool to placate neanderthals.

If men want to lead this country in the debate about abortion, then they should show real leadership and take responsibility for their behavior. Are you with me, Bishops? A woman can't just stand around and get pregnant. She needs our seed to be planted in her garden, so why should a woman be held to a higher standard than a man? Is that the democracy and freedom our troops are fighting for?

I'm sure the USCCB will gladly jump on board with this because they are in the sex business and are considered the world's No. 1 experts in that field. They understand better than any living person how a baby is made -- after all, they are Bishops. Imagination is a wonderful thing and can inform and educate people who have never experienced sex. Wow, who knew?

From Greg Sargent at the Plum Line, this cheering news:

I’ve got the latest internal whip count numbers from Dem Rep. Raul Grijalva, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressional Caucus, who tells me that nearly three-fourths of House Dems will support a health care reform bill with the most robust version of the public option. That’s the one that would reimburse providers at Medicare rates plus five percent.

“I am confident that we have the support of over 70% of the Democratic Caucus,” Grivalva said in a statement emailed my way. That means according to him, around 180 of the 256 Dems in the House are prepared to back the robust public option right now.

The support in the House for the robust public option is a crucial number, and is being closely watched by reform proponents, because it will have a direct impact on the final bill. If a bill passes with a strong version of the public option, that would give House Dems more leverage when the bill is merged with the final Senate version.

Grijalva’s office disputed a recent report in The Politico citing anonymous aides claiming the robust public option only had the support of 145 Dems.

Grijalva and other progressive leaders have been counting votes at the request of House Dem leaders, who are putting together their final bill and asked liberals to show them the support they can muster for a strong public option.

To be sure, liberals still have a ways to go before securing the 218 votes needed for passage, and it’s unclear how many more votes they can pull together and whether the most robust public option will end up in the House bill. But liberals are not done whipping votes yet, and they think the public option has the momentum.

Bottom line: The stronger the support for the most robust version, the greater the pressure on the House leadership to keep a strong public option in the final bill. More later.

UPDATE: Harry Reid has kissed and made up with the Finance Committee Republicans. So much for that momentary attack of leadership!

I think it's pretty clear that Rahm's original statements were some kind of trial balloon. I know some of you would like to think Rahm was acting as a loose cannon, but that's just not the way political operations are run, especially at the White House level.

It's just as clear that the pushback from every direction has sent a very strong message to the White House. That's why Rahm rushed to meet with members of the Democratic caucus last night: to quell the firestorm. Nice work, everyone! Don't let up on the pressure, because Obama may yet compromise on the public option:

Liberal groups on Tuesday made it clear that they are not happy with news reports that the White House may be considering alternatives to a public plan in health care reform.

Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chairman of the 77-member Congressional Progressive Caucus, fired off a letter to President Barack Obama warning him against dropping a public insurance option from health care reform plans.

Grijalva described the “alarm and dismay” he felt after reading a Wall Street Journal story that cites White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel offering support for a “trigger” mechanism, under which a public plan option is only part of health care if the marketplace fails to provide sufficient competition on its own.

“I want to be crystal clear that any such trigger for a strong public plan option is a non-starter with a majority of the Members of the Progressive Caucus,” Grijalva said.

“Moreover, I consider it unacceptable for any of the cost savings that you are negotiating with hospitals and other sectors of the health care industry to be made contingent upon a robust public plan option not being included in the final legislation,” Grijalva continued.

Obama sought to ease liberals’ concerns by issuing a statement that reaffirms his support for a public option. But many House liberals remain concerned that Emanuel is still pushing a deal for hospitals.

And in a meeting last night with House Democrats, Rahm Emanuel reassured rebellious members the president strongly backs a government-run public plan:

Progressive Caucus Co-Chairwoman Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) warned Emanuel that he would lose the caucus’ votes if the White House compromised on the issue and included a “trigger” that could delay a public insurance plan indefinitely. The trigger idea is backed by conservative Democrats but is anathema to liberals.

“We have compromised enough, and we are not going to compromise on any kind of trigger game,” Woolsey said she told Emanuel. “People clapped all over the place. We mean it, and not just progressives.”

Now, let's parse what Rahm continues to say. Obama "strongly backs" a government-run public plan - but is not willing to draw a line in the sand? What, then, does "strongly back" mean to Obama? He simply shrugs and says, "Whatever"?

Emanuel met with House Dems yesterday to reassure them that the President remains firmly behind the public option. But it’s still not quite clear what Rahm said or how strongly the White House remains committed to it.

Here’s how Rep. Henry Waxman, who says he was reassured by the meeting, characterized what Rahm said:

“He doesn’t stand by that trigger,” Waxman said. “He said the president and his administration and he are for a public plan as one of the options.”

The claim that Rahm “doesn’t stand by” the trigger is a bit opaque. If it means that Rahm took back his claim that the White House sees the “trigger,” which many see as a back-door way to kill a public plan, as a viable option, that will reassure many Dems.

However, if Rahm said that the President backs the public plan as “one of the options,” that doesn’t really go much further than what the President said yesterday, which left the White House plenty of wiggle room on this question.

In other words, it looks now like Rahm told House Dems that the President strongly backs the public option, but isn’t willing to draw a line in the sand over it. Which, of course, is what Obama has been saying all along.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1370)

PLAYS: (1648)

With DINOs like DiFi, who needs to worry about Republicans?

President Barack Obama may not have enough votes in the U.S. Senate to pass his effort to overhaul the nation’s health-care system, California Democrat Dianne Feinstein said.

“I don’t know that he has the votes right now,” Feinstein said today on CNN’s “State of the Union” program. “I think there’s a lot of concern in the Democratic caucus.” Controlling costs of the new system is a “difficult subject.”

So the very wealthy DiFi, who hasn't met an appropriation she wouldn't try to swing to her husband's company and ended up having to resign from the Military Construction Appropriations committee when this conflict came to light, and lucky recipient of free healthcare, courtesy of the U.S. Senate, doesn't think that the 59 (nay, 60, if Franken ever gets his seat) Democrats can actually pull it together to vote for the health care reform that a HUGE percentage of Americans want?

Pardon my French, Di, but WHY THE FRAK NOT???? Her answers don't make a lot of sense, frankly:

FEINSTEIN: Ergo, you have enormous problems in my state. California’s bigger than the populations of 21 states and the District of Columbia put together. We have an enormous health care industry, 350 hospitals. University of California alone has 34,000 health care workers, has health care worth $4 billion a year. So it’s complicated. Additionally, the state is in a state of financial catastrophe. I think that’s clear. So, if you change the Medicaid rate, for example, it has an impact on California between $1 billion and $5 billion a year. Now, how could I support that? Because it would take down the state.

Er...huh? Does the fact that these costs are offset by the savings to employers not come into play? How about the fact that by creating a public option, health care costs would be a lower percentage of the average income to individuals and companies? How about the greater costs we all absorb now to cover the uninsured and underinsured? This is not that complicated: COVERING EVERYONE WILL SAVE LIVES AND MONEY.

Then Feinstein becomes even more puzzling:

You also have enormous profit centers in the health care industry, in pharmaceuticals, in medical insurance. And I wonder about these profit centers. Because, unless you have some method to control these profits, premiums continue to rise in the private sector, as they have over the past eight years, substantially.

Therefore, controlling costs is a very major and difficult subject, as long as you have a large private-sector involvement. So this needs to be worked out.

The profits in health care are obscene. Look at what CEOs took home. Elizabeth Edwards famously said that $1 out every $700 spent in this country for health care went to pay the CEO of UnitedHealth. But here's where I'm flummoxed by this statement by Feinstein. If we have a public option that lowers the costs to consumers, doesn't the "free market" then naturally depress these profit centers in health care by forcing them to be competitive with the public option? Isn't that a good thing, Di?

The stakes are too high for these kind of nonsensical arguments from ridiculously privileged politicos ignoring the will of the people. Please consider donating to our Campaign for Health Care Choice to make your voice heard.

Transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »

Not that I had any doubts, but it's exceedingly clear that the banking industry owns Congress. The failure of the cramdown vote is nothing less than a disgrace:

The Senate on Thursday rejected an effort to stave off home foreclosures by a vote of 51 to 45. It was an overwhelming defeat, with the bill's backers falling 15 votes short -- a quarter of the Democratic caucus -- of the 60 needed to cut off debate and move to a final vote.

The death of the bankruptcy reform measure -- which would have allowed a small number of homeowners who met strict conditions to renegotiate mortgages under bankruptcy protection -- is a major tactical win for the banking industry. But allowing the foreclosure crisis to continue unabated may end up being a failed strategy for the financial sector.

It wasn't easy for Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who led the effort on behalf of homeowners, to wrangle the 45 votes.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who had been on the fence for weeks, gave Durbin his support and nudged him on the way out of the chamber, alerting him of the anti-bank position he'd just taken.

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, a conservative Democrat, also cast a courageous vote in favor of the measure. He gave Durbin a hard slap on the arm on the way out.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a strong backer of the bill, spent a good deal of time trying to persuade his colleague Jim Webb (D-Va.).

As she got close to convincing him, she called in Durbin. "Hey Durbs," she could be heard saying, "help me with Jim."

I wonder how our newest Democrat voted? Why, Sen. Specter voted nay! In other words, it's perfectly okay to help the wealthy hang onto their vacation homes, boats and cars (because they're allowed the use of the same bankruptcy procedure for which Congress just deemed You the People unworthy). Other nominal Democrats who agreed that you didn't deserve that kind of help included many of the usual suspects: Baucus, Bennet, Byrd, Carper, Dorgan, Johnson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson (NE), Pryor, and Tester.

Let's give props to Bayh and Warner, who did vote with the majority of the Dems - for a change.

Arianna Huffington is having a WTF? moment:

Continue reading »