Congressional Democrats are calling for two inquiries after the New York Times reported earlier this week that drug companies were jacking up their prices, negating savings they promised for healthcare reform:

Responding to news reports of unusually high wholesale price increases in brand-name prescription drugs, four House leaders and one senator asked for government reviews of the pricing practices.

Although drug makers challenge the theory, some experts say the run-up in wholesale prices may be partly related to the industry’s concerns about future cost containment under any health care legislation.

“Recent studies have indicated that the industry may be artificially raising prices for certain pharmaceutical products in expectation of new reforms,” the House Democrats wrote in a letter to the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress. “Any price gouging is unacceptable, but anticipatory price gouging is especially offensive,” the letter added, asking the G.A.O. to conduct an expedited review of the price increases.

[...] Separately, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, a Democrat who has led efforts in the Senate to seek more concessions from drug makers, wrote to the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services asking for “an immediate and thorough investigation into drug industry pricing and recent increases, and the extent to which these increases may affect the Medicare and Medicaid programs.”

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

DOWNLOADS: (1197)

PLAYS: (1459)

So nice to see Sean Hannity isn't too concerned about ClusterFox being seen as an arm of the Republican Party with this latest hackery. On his Friday evening show on Fox he brought on Michele Bachmann to help promote her call for people to come protest the halls of Congress against the health care bill--as though they don't have enough problems with dealing with security as it is. If she wants people to show up in the Congressional halls next week, I hope they're showing up at her office to tell her to quit upping the ante with whipping up the crazies out there. The only time I've heard someone use the phrase "the whites of their eyes", it had to do with shooting someone.

Given Bachmann's lack of concern for her previous inflammatory rhetoric this is of little surprise. It seems she's not going to stop this stuff until someone gets hurt or killed out there. What's absolutely disgusting is the lack of will of from anyone in the GOP to tell her to stop it. While I certainly do not think that Michele Bachmann is hoping any harm will come to another member of Congress, she obviously is either oblivious to or just doesn't care what sort of response using this type of language might invoke.

From The Hill--Bachmann urges confronting lawmakers on healthcare bill:

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is urging Americans to come to Washington, D.C., next week to roam the halls of Congress and lobby lawmakers against the House Democrats' healthcare reform plan.

The strategy aims at resurrecting the momentum Republicans enjoyed during the August recess, when many critics challenged their members of Congress on healthcare reform. Since then, Democrats have regained their footing and have captured some political momentum to pass a bill.

During an appearance on Fox's "Hannity," Bachmann on Friday night said the plan can be defeated, but only if critics make their case face-to-face with legislators.

Bachmann told conservative commentator Sean Hannity, "The clock is ticking 11:59 ...I've never done this before but I am asking people to come to Washington, D.C., by the carload and next Thursday at noon I'll be at a press conference on the steps of the Capitol.

"I'd love to have every one of your viewers to join me so we can go up and down through the halls, find members of Congress, look at the whites of their eyes and say, 'Don't take away my healthcare.'"

And from Think Progress--Bachmann Calls For Health Care Protest Rally In DC Next Week: ‘We’re Going To Have A Big Party’:

In an interview with the Washington News Observer, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) revealed that, next week in Washington, D.C., the right wing is trying to galvanize yet another mass protest rally against health reform.

Following in the spirit of the “tea party” protests in April and the Glenn Beck-inspired 9/12 rally, Bachmann announced, “We’re going to have a ‘house call’ and a big party out on the National Mall [next week], and we’re going to tell Congress what they can do with their health care bill.”

Fashioning herself as the leader of this mass protest, Bachmann exhorted everyone to “get off the couch, get in your car, get a van together, get a bus together, but get here! We’re going to have a ‘house call’ next week, and we need every American to be here.” She then issued this dire warning (infused with pop culture references):

The American people realize this is it. Just like that brand new Michael Jackson movie came out, ‘This Is It.’ This is it for freedom. If you believe in liberty, and if you’re rejecting tyranny, this is it. Dr. Mark Levin wrote a seminal book that really swept this country called Liberty and Tyranny. And that’s what this debate is about next week. Liberty and tyranny.

Newshounds also had a nice run down of the entire interview Bachmann did on Hannity's show and had this to add:

As the segment ended, Bachmann could barely contain her joy as she said that the Blue Dog Democrats “are clearly on the fence.” She added, “That’s why this is such an exciting opportunity for us… This is our liberty and tyranny moment. This is it! This is about patriotism and manning up. And if we can get Americans literally by the busload to come to Washington, D.C. next week, look their Member of Congress in the eye, pay a house call on Congress, and say ‘Don’t you dare take away my health care,’ … we’ll stop this.”

After another plug for her event, Hannity said, “Maybe I’ll have to show up and observe this so our cameras can see democracy in action.”

It's funny, but while Bachmann was crowing about patriotism and participation in democracy, and asking Americans from all over the country to visit different Representatives (not just their own, presumably), she refuses to accept emails from anyone outside her district. But you can telephone. So if you can't make it to Washington either to support the bill or to let Bachmann know she does not represent the country which consistently supports a public option for health insurance, you can call her office at (202) 225-2331.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1124)

PLAYS: (1756)

Fox News' morning crews -- both Fox and Friends and the regular newsroom -- were going ape about the Moonie Times' report on the pushback by liberal Democrats on including undocumented immigrants in the current health-care reform effort:

Fearful that they're losing ground on immigration and health care, a group of House Democrats is pushing back and arguing that any health care bill should extend to all legal immigrants and allow illegal immigrants some access.

The Democrats, trying to stiffen their party's spines on the contentious issue, say it's unfair to bar illegal immigrants from paying their own way in a government-sponsored exchange. Legal immigrants, they say, regardless of how long they've been in the United States, should be able to get government-subsidized health care if they meet the other eligibility requirements.

"Legal permanent residents should be able to purchase their plans, and they should also be eligible for subsidies if they need it. Undocumented, if they can afford it, should be able to buy their own private plans. It keeps them out of the emergency room," said Rep. Michael M. Honda, California Democrat and chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.

Of course, this really is only common sense, especially from a public-health perspective; do we really want people not getting treated for contagious diseases simply because they can't prove they're here legally?

However, as sensible as it may be, these efforts realistically have little chance of succeeding, given the toxic political environment about immigration and health-care reform that's been floating about us ever since Joe Wilson shouted out, "You lie!"

Nonetheless, this set wingnut gums a-flapping about the horrid prospect of actually using taxpayer dollars for something they're already required by law to pay for anyway.

And the folks at Fox were all over this angle. Notably, they kept referring to these immigrants as "illegals". Illegals, illegals, illegals -- it was running on the chryon and out of their mouths.

There's a reason the National Association of Hispanic Journalists urges their colleagues to avoid dehumanizing terms like "illegals":

The term criminalizes the person rather than the actual act of illegally entering or residing in the United States without federal documents. Terms such as illegal alien or illegal immigrant can often be used pejoratively in common parlance and can pack a powerful emotional wallop for those on the receiving end.

Continue reading »

The writer of this Boston Globe op-ed, who works for a liberal think tank, pulls apart the Baucus bill and doesn't like what she finds. Hey, Kent Conrad likes it - that should have been her first clue:

It’s no surprise that his bill includes no public sector insurance plan. Instead, the only competition that giant insurers face will come from tiny co-operatives - and even then, to qualify for federal funding, they must be fledglings. Established co-ops will not qualify for help. Thus, private insurers can count on controlling the marketplace as millions of new customers who don’t have job-based coverage are required by law to come their way, tax subsidies in hand.

But what is shocking is that under the Baucus plan, a 50-year-old single parent could wind up paying far more for health insurance than a 28-year-old single adult who earns twice her salary. The Baucus bill won’t let insurers hike premiums because a customer suffers from a pre-existing condition. But it lets insurers charge older Americas five times as much as younger customers.

"Shocking"? Only if you haven't been paying attention.

In a July letter to House leaders, the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans called for the 5 to 1 ratio, saying anything less than that would force many young people to pay more to “heavily subsidize the naturally higher health care costs of older individuals.’’ House Democrats refused. The House bill, like Massachusetts, says that insurers can charge older adults no more than twice what they bill younger ones.

If the point of insurance is to pool risk and reduce costs, having young people subsidize the higher costs of older people makes sense. But never let it be said that the insurance industry will pass up a chance to rationalize jacking up somebody's rates!

The Baucus legislation also imposes a penalty on single-parenthood. If you live alone with one child, you will be asked to shell out 80 percent more than a childless adult.

Of course it makes sense that coverage for a mother and child would cost more than the premium for a single person. But since children typically use much less health care than adults, 80 percent is a steep surcharge for single-parenthood - especially since a couple with children would pay only 50 percent more than a childless couple.

The Baucus bill also punishes smokers, adding 50 percent to their premiums. No doubt many would argue that this is only fair. But the vast majority of adults who smoke are poor. Many will qualify for full subsidies; others will be eligible for partial subsidies to help them pay for their premiums.

So who will pay 50 percent more for their health care? You, the taxpayer. If the smoker receives a subsidy, the 50 percent surcharge isn’t likely to induce him to stop. This rule seems designed primarily to funnel more taxpayer dollars to private sector insurers.

Single parents also tend to cling to the lower rungs of the income ladder. Many will qualify for at least a partial, if not a full subsidy. Who lays out the extra 80 percent? That’s right - you and I.

Finally, if under the Baucus bill, insurers can charge middle-income 50-somethings five times as much as even the most affluent 20-somethings, a great many of those older customers are going to need fat subsidies, sending more tax dollars to Aetna.

Do we see a pattern, class? Of course we do! The purpose of the Baucus bill is to make insurance companies happy. That's why it has to be fixed, and that's why you should be calling your congressperson this week.

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

DOWNLOADS: (915)

PLAYS: (4172)

Johnny Isakson actually took into account the Terri Schiavo fiasco and wanted to put an end to most of it when he added his "living will" provision. He didn't realize that it would lead to the Palin's to cry Obama's got death panel's and the new health care bill will kill old people. Who's fault is that? he even responded to Ezra's intervieww by saying these people were acting like nuts over the issue. Well, President Obama talked about the nonsense at the NH town hall yesterday and Isakson probably felt like he had to save face with his teabagger pals and issued this statement.

“This is what happens when the President and members of Congress don’t read the bills. The White House and others are merely attempting to deflect attention from the intense negativity caused by their unpopular policies. I never consulted with the White House in this process and had no role whatsoever in the House Democrats’ bill. I categorically oppose the House bill and find it incredulous that the White House and others would use my amendment as a scapegoat for their misguided policies,” Isakson said. “My Senate amendment simply puts health care choices back in the hands of the individual and allows them to consider if they so choose a living will or durable power of attorney. The House provision is merely another ill-advised attempt at more government mandates, more government intrusion, and more government involvement in what should be an individual choice.”

Riiight. It's Obama's fault that the kooks got a hold of it and are lying about his amendment to turn old people off to any health care reforms. What a shock. it's too late for Isakson to blast the White House. he needs to go on TV and explain himself because the words that he wrote are being turned into a hot, heaping pile of dog poo.

Rather than simply describing the types of coordinated attacks on healthcare reform that are happening, I thought it would be easier to understand exactly what we're dealing with if you could instead read the type of lying, manipulative, inflammatory "facts" being fed to the elderly and conservative Christians by "Godly" men like Gordon Klingenschmitt - the Navy chaplain who was canned for disobeying orders. (Or as he puts it: Disclaimer: The views of Chaplain Klingenschmitt, who was honorably but involuntarily discharged from the Navy in 2007 after facing court-martial for praying 'in Jesus name' in uniform, (but was later vindicated by Congress), are his own personal views.)

This is the new email from In Jesus' Name, the fundamentalist fundraising machine ginned up by Klingenschmitt to replace the Navy pension he lost by willfully ignoring orders:

HOT NEW PETITION to STOP OBAMA'S SOCIALIST HEALTH CARE TAKEOVER. Please click, sign, and WE WILL FAX your petition automatically to all 52 "Blue-Dog" House Democrats and/or all 100 Senators, right away (saving you hours of labor!) and saving unborn children, grandmothers, grandfathers, and all other grand-genders created by this bill from Government-forced extermination.

Grandmas and Unborn Babies Face Extermination by Obama's "Health" Care Plan

Investors Business Daily has just exposed the Achilles' heel of Obamacare, that hostile, socialist government takeover of your hospital, doctors, children, and grandparents. In an editorial entitled, "How House Bill Runs Over Grandma," the editors report how President Obama was personally confronted by a North Carolina woman asking if "everyone that's Medicare age will be visited and told they have to decide how they wish to die."

In response Obama joked that he hadn't yet hired enough bureaucrats to conduct such an operation, yet he could not deny the New York Post's discovery the House bill "compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care" (pages 425-430). In other words, your grandmother will be told, when insufficient resources are rationed to young people, that her duty to die begins with mandatory "end-of-life counseling," or as Obama explained, "encourage the use of living wills" that terminate otherwise salvageable lives prematurely through signed "do not resuscitate" (DNR) legal releases.

1) EUTHANASIA is the first result of Obama's socialist government "health" care plan.

Bankrupt state can't afford to pay for grandma's hip replacement? Obama's plan sends her a lawyer to make her sign a DNR, explaining her hastened duty to die, and obtaining her signature legally absolving him of all guilt. Euthanasia begins where capitalism ends.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN PETITION, AND WE WILL FAX ALL 52 "BLUE-DOG" DEMOCRATS IN THE HOUSE, AND ALL 100 SENATORS, TO OPPOSE OBAMACARE.
Widely respected Minister Rick Joyner wrote this week, after reviewing Mat Staver's analysis of H.R. 3200 "Health" care bill, voicing his strong opinion that this bill "is about euthanasia, the power to determine who lives or dies in America. Hitler and Stalin would have loved to have had a means such as this for dispatching the millions they killed-it would have made their job much easier, and probably given them the ability to kill many more than they did. THIS BILL IS THAT SINISTER. This is not a joke." You can read Mat Staver's line-by-line analysis of the 1000 page health care bill at the bottom of this email.

Now here's something we can do. Any readers from Florida or Virginia can file a complaint with their state bar association that Matt Staver (aka Mathew D. Staver, Founder and Chairman, Dean and Professor of Law, Liberty University School of Law) has used his position as the dean of a law school to lie about the interpretation of this bill and deliberately inflame the public dialogue. (Rebuttals here and here.)

The rest of you? Well, you can call him at one of his offices (434-592-5200, 800-671-1776) and let him know what you think.

2) Tax-payer funded ABORTION on demand is another guaranteed result.

Last week several so-called "pro-life Democrats" executed a bait and switch that will fully fund abortion on demand in the new Obamacare "health" bill. Led by compromiser and ex-pro-life Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH), who was recently booted as an advisor to Democrats for Life of America for his lack of principle, the liberal House Democrats overruled conservative Republicans 30-28 to pass the hideous "Capps Amendment" to H.R.3200 in the Energy and Commerce Committee. This amendment now deceptively creates a phony accounting scheme that gives the false impression your tax-payer dollars will not subsidize abortion, while it simultaneously nationalizes free abortions for low-income urban neighborhoods, fulfilling the dream of Margaret Sanger (and her protege Ruth Bader Ginsburg) that African American babies will be the first exterminated in the government funded ovens that weed out "Populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) explained the Capps Amendment: "It's one of the most deceptive amendments I have ever seen. The bottom line is that money is fungible, and the plan itself will be subsidizing abortion-on-demand, with taxpayer funding commingled, and the numbers of abortions will go up significantly."

CLICK HERE TO SIGN PETITION, AND WE WILL FAX ALL 52 "BLUE-DOG" DEMOCRATS IN THE HOUSE, AND ALL 100 SENATORS, TO OPPOSE OBAMACARE.

Continue reading »

Greg Sargent has this wonderful catch of a House Democrat who speaks plainly about the hypocrisy of politicians who reject a public option that they themselves receive on the public's dime.

"When I listen to the hysterical descriptions of what is in this legislation, I would remind many members to look at themselves in the mirror. Because what they are presently entitled to as members of Congress is exactly what this legislation is proposing to create for all Americans."

Courtney went on to blast opposition to the public plan as "hogwash," and concluded: "At the end of the day, we must give the people of this country exactly what they give us."

Joe Courtney represents the second congressional district in Connecticut. From the Youtube video:

In 2006, Courtney promised not to accept taxpayer subsidized health insurance, a privilege offered to all Members of Congress, until all Americans have access to affordable and quality coverage.

It's kind of funny, isn't it? We seem to get more transparency out of the CIA director than we do out of the president:

WASHINGTON -- Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon E. Panetta has told lawmakers that CIA officials misled Congress "for a number of years" since 2001, according to a letter released Wednesday from seven Democratic lawmakers.

The lawmakers say the CIA also withheld information about unspecified "significant actions."

The letter didn't identify when Mr. Panetta made the statements or to what they referred.

"This is similar to other deceptions of which we are aware from other recent periods," the letter continued.

CIA spokesman George Little said "it is not the policy or practice of the CIA to mislead Congress." Mr. Little said the CIA itself "took the initiative to notify the oversight committees" about the lapses.

The release of the letter is the latest twist in a tussle between House Democrats and the CIA. Earlier this year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the CIA of misleading her in briefings about the agency's use of waterboarding, an allegation refuted by the agency and challenged by Republicans.

It also comes one day before the House is scheduled to debate an intelligence bill. President Barack Obama issued a veto threat on Wednesday over provisions that would require more expansive briefings of intelligence committee members on sensitive matters.

As Howard Dean has said, any reform effort that doesn't include a public plan is not really reform. So it's nice to know we're having an impact:

As Congress returns to begin an intense debate over reshaping the nation's $2.2 trillion health-care system, prominent left-leaning organizations and liberal House members are issuing a warning to their Democratic allies: Don't cave on us.

The early skirmishing -- essentially amounting to friendly fire -- is perhaps the clearest indication yet of the uphill battle President Obama faces in delivering on his promise to make affordable, high-quality care available to every American.

Disputes over whether to create a new government-sponsored insurance program to compete with private companies shine a light on the intraparty fissures that may prove more problematic than any partisan brawl.

More than 70 House Democrats recently warned party leaders that they will not support a broad health reform bill that does not offer consumers a government-sponsored policy, and two unions withdrew from a high-profile health coalition because it would not endorse a public plan.

"It's way too early" to abandon what it considers a central plank in health reform, said Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union. He said the organization pulled out of the bipartisan Health Reform Dialogue because it feared its friends in the coalition were sacrificing core principles too soon. "You don't make compromises with your allies."

Last week, two top administration officials suggested that Obama is open to compromise on the public plan, comments that set off alarm bells in some corners of his party.

"That's what got the left nervous. I took that as a signal to Senator Grassley" that Obama is willing to negotiate around an issue Grassley has vehemently opposed, said Len Nichols, health policy director at the New America Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, referring to Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa). "It was the first time the president indicated he could live without it."

DOWNLOAD (35)

PLAY (77)

Barack Obama delivered a another stemwinder to House Democrats last night:

"I welcome this debate, but, come on, we are not going to get relief by turning back to the same policies that, for the last eight years, doubled our national debt, and threw our economy into a tail spin '' Obama said, with a passion unseen in public since the campaign trail. "We can't embrace the same old formula that says only tax cuts will address the problems we face.''

Opponents say the plan is not a stimulus bill, it's a spending bill, he said. "What do you think stimulus is?'' Obama said, with visible frustration. "That's the point.''

The president's appeal marks a sharply accelerated drive for an economic stimulus that Republicans are criticizing and some members of his own party are starting to question as the Senate debates a plan that cleared the House with unanimous opposition from the GOP. Obama plans a prime-time news conference Monday night to take the same case to the American public, but they are unlikely to see the campaign-styled passion that Obama rolled out for his party at its retreat tonight.

"I don't care if you're driving a hybrid or SUV. If you're driving toward a cliff, you have to change direction,'' Obama told his party, applauding the words of their new president at the start of a weekend retreat. "That's what the American people called for."

Politico has more, including this quip:

“When you start hearing arguments, on the cable chatter, just understand a couple of things,” he said. “No. 1, when they say, ‘Well, why are we spending $800 billion [when] we’ve got this huge deficit?’ – first of all, I found this deficit when I showed up, No. 1.

“I found this national debt, doubled, wrapped in a big bow waiting for me as I stepped into the Oval Office.”

How long before the wingnuts and their Village enablers all simultaneously fall to their fainting couches? Ah, poor sweet Bipartisanship, foully struck low in the bloom of youth!

I think John Cole has it about right:

I really don’t understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane. Imagine trying to negotiate an agreement on dinner plans with your date, and you suggest Italian and she states her preference would be a meal of tire rims and anthrax. If you can figure out a way to split the difference there and find a meal you will both enjoy, you can probably figure out how bipartisanship is going to work the next few years.