DOWNLOADS: (737)

PLAYS: (2391)

Embed

The obsession Republicans have with lawsuits and the amount of money someone should receive if they win a case is very perplexing and disingenuous to me. I mean, they are the first people to use lawyers and sue you, like Fox News did to Al Franken over a book. But during the Obama health-care summit, I heard more garbage about "tort reform" from the Republicans as if it will cure our ailing health-care system. (Sen. Dick Durbin dispelled that myth perfectly, by the way.)

But that was just a drop in the bucket compared to the garbage we get served up on a daily basis from the media elite pundits who take to our airwaves and say the most insipid things to defend their positions. Fox News' Megyn Kelly earlier this week gave probably the most ludicrous argument against trial lawyers and for tort reform than anyone I've ever seen. She sacrificed her arm for the cause. For some reason, if malpractice cases disappeared, suddenly health care premiums would majestically be reduced.

Kelly was discussing tort reform with Debbie Wassermann-Schultz and dove into the twilight zone by arguing that if her arm was cut off, it really wasn't worth all that much as long as you can still function. And what the hell? It's only an arm. I mean how much of an impact does it have on your life if you lose one arm, because you have a back up, right?

Kelly: this is a CNN poll and thy ask people about tort reform and 66% of those asked said they favor limiting the amount of money patients can get if they win a medical malpractice lawsuit. 66 % want that. 33 % don't want that. Why can't there be an agreement on tort reform?

Schultz: They support that until it's them or their family member that is injured in a medical malpractice suit and then the poll numbers change.

Kelly: You just have to limit the economic damage, in other words you, if a doctor cuts my arm off. I can get the money back from what my life is to live like without this arm so I can function. You can't get punitive damages.

WTF? How does a person figure out how much one of my limbs is worth? And then I'm not allowed to get punitive damages because I don't deserve it? Are you confused?

You know, if some moron of a doctor cut off my arm through incompetence, not only would I want to get enough money to make my life whole, I would want to make sure the doctor paid a price too, just to try to assure it didn't happen to anyone else. It might not put him out of business, but it would take a piece out of his hide that he would never forget.

Maybe we should have Kelly draw up a diagram of a body and then monetize each part as it relates to how a person functions. She could then pass it on to Michael Steele, Sarah Palin and the teabaggers, because I'm sure they would argue that one foot is only worth about thirty three hundred dollars and sixteen cents.

Why would anyone care if I won $10 million dollars from a f*&king doctor if he cut my leg off and I sued his ass because he was supposed to only drain a little fluid out of my knee? This is the kind of crap Republicans argue for on Fox News every day, and conservative pundits on all the channels spew regularly. They really are ethically bankrupt.

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association has released their own version of the AHIP propaganda report.

By releasing a transparently hyperbolic and self-serving study on the effects of health reform, the insurance industry appears to have blundered in a big way. They discredited themselves in the eyes of the media elite, alienated potentially sympathetic members of Congress, and rallied Democrats around a common foe.

So what are they doing now? They seem to be trying the same stunt again, with a brand new study. It's not as deceptive as the last one. But it's not going to win any points for intellectual honesty, either.

This time the study's sponsor is the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA), rather than America's Health Insurance Programs. The hired gun accounting firm is Oliver Wyman, instead of PriceWaterhouseCoopers. But the message is the same as before: Pass reform, as currently envisioned, and insurance premiums will go way up...read on

Cohn thinks this report is slightly better than the last one, but they both end the same. If we implement health care reform they promise to raise your rates. Why isn't the media reporting this? They are threatening American lives and families and this should not be tolerated.

Digby also catches this and is not a happy camper about it either.

Can someone please explain to me why this isn't a blatant threat? Nice little health care system you have here. Be a shame if anything happened to it.

In a normal country, this kind of corporate threat, in which they openly say that unless they get their way, they will raise premiums sky high and make everyone suffer, would be considered criminal. After all, premium pricing is entirely in their hands --- and that's why we are in the terrible situation we are in today.

This is f*&king criminal. I'm sitting here and having a nice dream. I see Harry Reid acting like a real majority leader telling Congress that this is unacceptable. And then he fades to black and I'm transported to the House of Representatives. They are spending the day rebuking these reports for the phonies that they are and they pass legislation that makes it a criminal offense with a maximum of up to three years in jail for any lobby-bastards who put out bogus reports that are circulated to intimidate Americans. Now this is a fantasy I know, but they do spend hours of time making dedications of parks to the rich and famous people and in my fantasy they spend a couple of hours and threaten all groups that actively work to undermine legislation with lies.

And Alan Grayson leads the charge.

By the way, PricewaterhouseCoopers took so much heat for their frakked up AHIP report that they issued this statement.

PricewaterhouseCoopers, the authors of AHIP's report, put out a statement last night that basically said, "Hey, we weren't paid to evaluate the effects of the entire bill, but rather a small slice of it." The statement only seems to reinforce critics' view that the report is skewed precisely because it doesn't take into account the totality of reform. PwC's report estimates that insurance premiums will rise faster under the proposed reforms than under the current system.

The last, and key, line from the statement: "If other provisions in health care reform are successful in lowering costs over the long term, those improvements would offset some of the impacts we have estimated.”

In other words, PwC is saying if reform's cost containment measures work, their estimate could be wrong.

So they are admitting that AHIP were liars. Nice.

David Sirota with a really insightful piece on the forces opposing progressive reform. Please note: as he points out, Blue Dogs are not actually constrained by their constituents. It's all about the money!

The health care debate has reminded us that there really are three separate but coordinated armies that defend the status quo in Washington - and will defend that status quo, whether on health care or any other economic issue. In my newspaper column today, I look at who these factions are, and what their motives are. You can read the column here.

In a nutshell, you have the Land Rover Liberals, many coming from the 14 out of 25 wealthiest congressional districts that Democrats now represent. Right now, their opposition to health care and tax reform is being led by Boulder, Colorado Rep. Jared Polis (D).

You also have the Corrupt Cowboys - those lawmakers from very poor, mostly Southern and Western parts of the country. These people give themselves Americana sounding nicknames like "Blue Dog Democrats" or "Main Street Republicans" so as to pretend their opposition to health care comes from their being down home guys "representin' the folks back home." Of course, these same lawmakers are among the most rapacious corporate fundraisers and lobbyist-connected insiders in Congress. And as I pointed out yesterday, there's no evidence that the districts and states the Corrupt Cowboys represent despise health reform by virtue of the fact that they are culturally conservative bastions. In fact, Nate Silver says there's exactly the opposite evidence:

There's not really any evidence that health care reform is unpopular in the Blue Dog districts. Although there are exceptions, most of the Blue Dog districts are fairly poor. A Quinnipiac poll released earlier this month suggested that while 53 percent of voters overall think "think it's the government's responsibility to make sure that everyone in the United States has adequate health care", 61 percent of voters making under $50,000 do. Also, while Quinnipaic did not break out the results for moderate and conservative Democrats, which are plentiful in these Districts, one can reasonably infer them. In this poll, 79 percent of liberals agreed with the statement as did 77 percent of Democrats -- not a very big difference. Since almost all liberals are Democrats and about half of all Democrats are liberals, that suggests that support for health care reform among non-liberal Democrats is something like 75 percent.

Thus, the story about the honest, god-fearing, good ol' boy cowboys opposing health care reform out of representational obligation has only been able to become conventional wisdom through the Millionaire Media - the elite national press corps, chock full of very wealthy people, that disseminates the most pernicious kind of anti-reform propaganda. These are the same people who insisted we should immediately rush $12 trillion in bailout cash out to Wall Street speculators, and who now insist that 64 years of debates over a $1 trillion health care proposal is inappropriately "rushing" health care reform. They are also the voices who are actually deriding health care reform as an inhumane proposal to legislatively waterboard the poor, persecuted richest one percent.

In the column, I look at the motives of all these groups, and give President Obama huge props for taking them on. As a sometime critic of Obama, I really think he's doing a fantastic job right now, and the news this morning from the New York Times that "the president planning trips across the country" to campaign for health care reform is just fantastic. He's going to have to take on the three groups I discuss in my column - and if he can beat them, we're going to get universal health care.

I just turned on the tevee. It's good to see them on the stage together in NH. The Villagers will be having a field day later---trying to tear them down. This is Obama's party and he calls the shots. When you start hearing the media elites attack Bill Clinton just turn it off. They need controversy. They don't want us to come together....McCain' Media will be on display.

And John McCain isn't too happy right now...Maybe he'll run another battery contest on The Situation Room...

We'll have video later...

Moyers sure has shaken the right wingers up...He focused on the entire media elite...With all the traffic we've been sending PBS---how could an O'Reilly hit piece end up #1? Inquiring minds want to know. (h/t Jason) Below is a full size graphic

Continue reading »

David Sirota: The media elite finally admit the truth about themselves....but some news orgs and voters are wising up to Bush and Cheney's reign of error. This is gonna be the Republican campaign strategy: "a vote against us is a vote for Osama!"

Pharyngula: Put the blame where it belongs--God and the Republican Party.

Suburban Guerrilla: Lou Dobbs looks at the lies of the 9/11 report. The BushCo. answer? Another round of air security hysteria...but nothing for new homeland explosives dectection tecnology.

The Horse's Mouth: Connecticut Wrap-up

Talk To Action: Evidence that the war of attrition and division against mainline Protestant churches has been orchestrated by some of the leading neo-conservative Catholic intellectuals in the United States.

The Green Knight: Things I've learned on the Internet(s)

FOX News Watch: Fox created the " War on Christmas" story

There was a heated debate on Fox News Watch, between the four panelists and the host. Jane Hall got very upset after she felt like she was being attacked by Pinkerton for her views. (Later on-Neal Gabler called it like it is.)

Jane: Jesus is for tolerance-to have Bill O'Reilly-has made this a huge issue. He's obviously getting a lot of feedback. John Gibson has a book about it, another Fox anchor. I think this is a largely a fundraiser for Jerry Falwell to pick up on some run-amok-PC...

Jim Pinkerton called Jane and Neal "media elites."

Jane: Do you go to church? You don't need to help me Jim, I resent the way you're characterizing this..

Download | play -WMP Download | play -QT (rough transcript)

Neal: ...I want to talk about the media angle because we have avoided it-it's the elephant in the room. It's Fox News. Come on-It's Bill O'Reilly, it's Sean Hannity, it's Gibson. They're demogogues (A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace) who realized that in Christmas time you can-(garbled)- rouse the masses on this issue. They'll do it every Christmas. They did it last Christmas, they'll do it next Christmas.

Neal: We're at war, there's Darfur, there's an AIDS crisis and you're worried about whether people should say Merry Christmas? What world do you live in?

Pinkerton makes an idiotic statement that the world is changing and Neal doesn't like it. How about common sense Jimbo? Good job Neal. You stated the obvious and didn't shy away from the network you are employed by or their big guns. Since Bill is soooo sensitive to all of his critics, will O'Reilly go after Neal and Jane on his upcoming programs?