[If this video won't play, try this C-Span link and start at about 10:12:09]

One of the aspects of the current Medicare debate that just drives me crazy is how the Beltway pundits treat it as "bold, new, and courageous." I've written a lot on that particular frame in the past, but I ran across something tonight that reminds me of just how not-new it really is.

During the Medicare Advantage debate, Sherrod Brown said this, as recorded in the Congressional Record:

[Privatization] has really been the thrust. From President Bush to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) to Speaker Gingrich a few years ago, to back in 1965, Republicans really wanted this system turned over to the insurance companies. Privatize Medicare and give it to the insurance industry. Go back to 1965, out of roughly 200 Republican Members of the House and Senate, only 23 voted for the creation of Medicare. Gerald Ford in 1965, a future President, voted against it. Congressman Dole, future Senator Dole, Republican Presidential candidate, voted against it. Senator Strom Thurmond voted against the creation of Medicare. Congressman Donald Rumsfeld in 1965, later Secretary of Defense and the architect of this plan, I put in quotation marks, of the rebuilding of Iraq, voted against the creation of Medicare.

Then in 1995, the first time Republicans had an opportunity to do something about Medicare, the Republicans under Speaker Gingrich tried to cut it by $270 billion in order to give a tax cut to the most privileged Americans, the same old story. Speaker Gingrich said in October 1995 that he hoped Medicare would wither on the vine.

Gosh, that sure sounds familiar. But wait, there's more, from Rep. Cardoza:

This motion instructs the Medicare conference committee to reject the controversial and risky privatization scheme of premium support and reallocate that money to increase the payment to physicians who care for Medicare beneficiaries.

Let me first discuss the issue of premium support and why I am concerned that this scheme could potentially dismantle the program of Medicare. I am concerned about subjecting a proven health care delivery system like Medicare to the uncertainty of the private market. I am especially hesitant about the system that relies on HMOs to provide this service to our seniors.

And this, from Rep. Pete DeFazio:

It is a funny thing here, we are being told that the Republicans want to inject competition into the insurance market. Well, if they really want to do that, why do they not support my bill to lift the antitrust exemption from the insurance industry?

[...]

Now we are going to throw our seniors onto the tender mercies of this collusive, anticompetitive industry. O, that is great. My seniors already had this experience. We had Medicare+Choice, HMOs. Oh, this is going to be great. You are going to get more benefits than under fee-for-service. Well, the companies were not able to collude and set the prices quite high enough to satisfy their profits, so they up and left with very little notice. My seniors were left in the cold.

Now there's much, much more in this particular section of the Congressional Record. I urge you to read it. But in a day where 24 hours seems too long for news cycles to last and memories to reach back, this is a really important piece of history in the long, protracted debate over Medicare for seniors and indeed, Medicare for all.

The Affordable Care Act basically repealed most of what Republicans did in 2003 with Medicare Advantage. It stripped away the bonus payments to insurers and established an outcomes-based system of reimbursements. Republicans are now trying to reverse that process yet again and ratchet it back up to their original dream: Full privatization of the Medicare program, lock, stock and barrel.

The part of the debate that's not happening in a meaningful way right now is really the answer to the "problem" of Medicare costs. Medicare costs are rising because it is, by definition, a program designed for adverse selection. It covers the disabled and elderly, a group that will generate the highest costs and the highest need for health care, but the young and healthy are covered under private insurance at far greater cost.

If the Beltway pundit class has a need for a 'bold, strong plan' then progressives should play the Medicare for All card much harder than they are right now. Countering with "don't repeal the Affordable Care Act" is not strong enough. This nonsense about Paul Ryan's 'innovative, bold plan' is just that -- nonsense. What makes sense is to counter it with sensible arguments for Medicare for all, and it should be countered with boldness and facts as to why that, and that alone, will save Medicare and lock it in as something untouchable by conservatives in the future.

Republicans are terrified of Medicare for all because they know they will never be able to undo what has been done. It will be too popular, too right. As long as they can keep Medicare in the realm of adverse selection and costly, they have a chance to kill it.

Checks and Balances and the "F-Word"

via SeeingtheForest

Is there enough going on to make you nervous yet? The Vice President of the United States was the keynote speaker at a conference where other speakers called for "a new McCarthyism" to bring "terror" to intellectuals, saying "let's oppress them [liberals]," and "the entire Harvard faculty" are "traitors." A Congressman said, "America's Operation Iraqi Freedom is still producing shock and awe, this time among the blame-America-first crowd," ? Then he said, "We continue to discover biological and chemical weapons and facilities to make them inside Iraq."

Meanwhile, right-wing commentators talk about killing American journalists, their premier blogs talk about former president Carter as being on the side of the enemy and leftists have "seamlessly taken up the cause of Islamic fascism". I have provided only afew examples.

When you hear threatening talk like this,in thecompany of the country's leadership, you know that whatever comesnext isn't going to be pleasant. Things do not appear to be heading in agood direction at all. If you have been following this in the blogs, youknow that more and more people are becomming concerned that the Right'srhetoric is growing ever more violent and totalitarian. Serious peoplehave started referring tothe"f-word." (See alsohere,here,here,here and manyother places.)

Oliver Williswrites,

You cannot deal with that sort of ideology in any sort ofaccomodationist manner. Liberals need to understand this, from Democraticsenators in Washington who still ? still ? refuse to vote theirconscience out of some sense of loyalty to a long-dead notion of civilityin Washington, to progressive pundits who actually believe that theirright-wing counterparts in the nation's media are actually there for agive-and-take rather than a chance to paint everyone to the left of JoeLieberman as a terrorist sympathizer. . I have provided only a few examples.

When you hear threatening talk like this, in the company of the country's leadership, you know that whatever comes next isn't going to be pleasant. Things do not appear to be heading in a good direction at all. If you have been following this in the blogs, you know that more and more people are becomming concerned that the Right's rhetoric is growing ever more violent and totalitarian. Serious people have started referring to the "f-word." (See also here, here, here, here and many other places.) read on

Seeing The Forest

Tim Roemer is one of the candidates for DNC Chair. Here's something I came across, Roemer's bio at the Mercatus Center: Tim Roemer is a distinguished scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and president of the Center for National Policy.

Is that THIS Mercatus Center and George Mason University? (Also, see this and this.)

Explanation, please!

At Seeing the Forest I write about the Right's network of organizations, and how they influence our politics by influencing public attitudes as well as setting up channels to influence politicians themselves. Some of these organizations are set up to "educate" opinion leaders and public officials on why they think right-wing ideology offers better solutions to public policy problems. (I'm trying to paraphrase typical right-wing wording...) Without going into detail, let me just say that their solutions are not always what you and I would consider to be in the best interest of the public-at-large. For example, their "market solutions" often translate to "one-dollar-one-vote" corporate-oriented policies -- as compared with boring, old-fashioned, democratic "one-person-one-vote" solutions that require such pesky oversight provisions as transparency, accountability, public consensus, equal opportunity, serving all citizens equally, etc. -- all those things the Right calls "inefficient" and "bureaucratic..."

The Mercatus Center, for example, at George Mason University describes itself as promoting the

"use of market-based tools and analysis to discover workable solutions to pressing economic and governmental problems"

And just look at who is funding them, as well as the amounts! (Click here, and see the reports linked at the end of this post, for some background on who these funders are and what they stand for. Carthage Foundation is a Richard Mellon Scaife (more here) foundation, for example.) Here are some things that this humble blogger would like to know. What will be going on at this "retreat?" What kind of "sound economic thinking" is a right-wing-funded organization going to be promoting at the retreat? What sort of "Social Security, tax and pension reform" is a right-wing-funded organization going to be promoting to Democratic Chiefs of Staff? Who is funding this retreat (and why?)? And, most important to me, what is a candidate for head of the Democratic Party doing working for this crowd? Anyone interested in the race to become head of the Democratic National Committee deserves answers to these questions, and a full explanation.

I would also be interested in knowing if any Democratic Chiefs of Staff have accepted the invitation!

For those interested in more infomation about the right-wing organizational infrastructure see the tables of contents of reports here and here. While these reports are written for trial lawyers and teacher unions, their intent is to describe the Right's infrastructure of advocacy/communication organizations, who is funding it, what their goals are, and looking at what we might do to counter this effort and recover our democracy.

Christopher Lee noted over the weekend, “If anything looked like a sure thing in the new Congress, it was that lawmakers would renew, and probably expand, the popular, decade-old State Children’s Health Insurance Program before it expires this year.” It’s a no-brainer, right? Who’s going to balk at an established, successful program that offers health insurance for kids? As it turns out, the president is.

Is it because he doesn’t think the program works? No, Bush acknowledges that S-CHIP works well. Is it because it’s fiscally irresponsible? No, it’s fairly inexpensive.

Bush’s opposition is entirely, by his own admission, ideological. Here’s what he told a friendly audience in Cleveland last week:

“[S-CHIP is] now aiming at encouraging more people to get on government health care. That’s what that is. It’s a way to encourage people to transfer from the private sector to government health care plans…. I strongly object to the government providing incentives for people to leave private medicine, private health care to the public sector. […]

“I mean, think of it this way: They’re going to increase the number of folks eligible through S-CHIP; some want to lower the age for Medicare. And then all of a sudden, you begin to see a — I wouldn’t call it a plot, just a strategy — (laughter) — to get more people to be a part of a federalization of health care.”

It doesn’t matter if it works, or if it’s affordable, or whether it’ll help children receive quality care — what matters is Bush’s ideology tells him it’s offensive. If that means less insurance for kids, so be it.

Lawmakers are moving towards passing a bi-partisan measure to extend coverage for about 4 million U.S. children, and late last week, the White House made it crystal clear: Bush will veto the bill because it conflicts with the president’s philosophy.

  Following up on an item from last week, Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr., Bush’s nominee for Surgeon General, has a record of activism that suggests a strong anti-gay bias. Opposition to his nomination has been growing, but it’s been unclear whether there was enough information available to sink his chances.

Maybe this will do the trick. Holsinger wrote a paper in 1991 arguing that, from a medical perspective, homosexuality is unnatural and unhealthy, a position rejected by professionals as prioritizing political ideology over science.

Holsinger, 68, presented “The Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality” in January 1991 to a United Methodist Church’s committee to study homosexuality. (Read the .pdf paper here.) The church was then considering changing its view that homosexuality violates Christian teaching, though it ultimately did not do so. Relying on footnotes from mainstream medical publications, Holsinger argued that homosexuality isn’t natural or healthy.

“A confirmation fight is exactly what the administration does not need,” said David Gergen, a former adviser to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, who predicted the paper would cause a “minor storm” among Democrats on Capitol Hill.

“You have to wonder given the quality of some of the nominations that have gone forward recently, whether the selection group in the White House has gone on vacation,” Gergen said. “There has been a growing criticism the administration favoring ideology over competence, and this nomination smacks of that.”

Keep in mind, it’s not just the ‘91 paper that’s raising questions about Holsinger’s anti-gay animus. He also helped found a religious ministry that seeks to “cure” gays of their “lifestyle.”

To fully appreciate the ideology of large parts of the Republican Party, one needs to look past Capitol Hill and consider what state GOP officials are up to. Take Utah, for example.

Several top Republican officials in Utah — including the lieutenant governor, the state attorney general, and U.S. Rep. Chris Cannon — gathered over the weekend for an annual GOP county convention where attendees debated a resolution on immigration. The debate didn't go well.

Don Larsen, chairman of legislative District 65 for the Utah County Republican Party, had submitted a resolution warning that Satan’s minions want to eliminate national borders and do away with sovereignty.

In a speech at the convention, Larsen told those gathered that illegal immigrants “hate American people” and “are determined to destroy this country, and there is nothing they won’t do.”

Illegal aliens are in control of the media, and working in tandem with Democrats, are trying to “destroy Christian America” and replace it with “a godless new world order — and that is not extremism, that is fact,” Larsen said. […]

Republican officials then allowed speakers to defend and refute the resolution. One speaker, who was identified as “Joe,” said illegal immigrants were Marxist and under the influence of the devil. Another, who declined to give her name to the Daily Herald, said illegal immigrants should not be allowed because “they are not going to become Republicans….”

Wow.

NY Times:

A decade after the Pentagon declared a zero-tolerance policy for racist hate groups, recruiting shortfalls caused by the war in Iraq have allowed "large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists" to infiltrate the military, according to a watchdog organization. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups, estimated that the numbers could run into the thousands, citing interviews with Defense Department investigators and reports and postings on racist Web sites and magazines...read on

I understand that we have a recruiting problem, but:

"Neo-Nazi groups and other extremists are joining the military in large numbers so they can get the best training in the world on weapons, combat tactics and explosives," said Mark Potok, director of the SPLC's Intelligence Project."We should consider this a major security threat, because these people are motivated by an ideology that calls for race war and revolution. Any one of them could turn out to be the next Timothy McVeigh."

The Swift Report: An amendment to the Constitution would bar gay aliens from penetrating the nation's borders and undermining our most sacred institution: legal heterosexual marriage. Our friend Patricia and hubby have prepared for the attacks that are surely to come on their marriage. DJ Paul has more on marriage, neocon ideology and "Homophobia and Anti-Semitism are part of the same disease."
The Democratic Daily: If you hadn't noticed, the economy sucks.

AlterNet: John McCain wants everyone to know that he's a conservative Republican, a friend of Jerry Falwell and a staunch supporter of the worst president in history. Let's help spread the message.

MCCS1977: Exposing the leftist agenda in Country Music

Donkephant: The Bush administration continues to ignore the ruIe of law. They are aided in their criminality by a grotesquely corrupt congress.

Seeing the Forest: The Big 666--wingnuts going nuts!!!

Mike's Blog Round Up

BAGnews Notes: In Arlington

Needlenose: You'll pardon the Iraqi's if they're not as shocked as Americans over the news of a massacre. They're used to massacres.

The Mahablog: Just think — our military misadventure is helping Iran expand into Iraq. We should send them a bill for services rendered.

And The Clocks Were Striking Thirteen: An amazing list of GOP lies, half truths, and obfuscations

The Blogging of the President : Income implosion + Debt explosion= Bush's ecomomy

Talk To Action: A disaster for abstinence ideology