Paul Waldman in the American Prospect:

"Illness doesn't care where you live," the narrator says sympathetically, "or if you're already sick, or if you lose your job. Your health insurance shouldn't either." The ad ends with the hope that "the words ‘pre-existing condition' [become] a thing of the past." So say the people who won't insure you if you have a pre-existing condition and who will cut you off if you get a serious illness. It's kind of like a gang of home invaders expressing the fervent hope that people will get better alarm systems and stronger deadbolts.

What's going on? In simple terms, they cut a deal. It may not be written down on paper, but it goes like this: If the government imposes an individual mandate, forcing all Americans to buy health insurance – and thus guaranteeing us millions of new customers – we won't stand in the way of new regulations curbing some of our worst abuses. And this is their defense when those abuses are brought up. We've already agreed to those new regulations, they'll say, so why do we need to talk about it anymore? Let's just make sure there's no public option people can choose, because that would just be a step too far.

But here's a question: If the insurance companies have finally come to understand that it's wrong to kick people off their coverage when they get sick; and it's wrong to deny coverage to people who have previously been sick; and it's wrong to hide lifetime limits in the fine print, forcing people into bankruptcy if they face a serious illness; and it's wrong to discriminate against pregnant women and their families; why don't they stop doing these things? Like, how about today? Why are they waiting for Congress to outlaw their most abominable practices?

Continue reading »

David Waldman, also known as Kagro X at DailyKos and Congress Matters, appeared on a CNN webshow and showed these mealy-mouthed Democratic Party talking heads how to really frame and control the debate on torture. Finally, someone on who has a firm grasp of the facts and will not allow the discussion to get sidetracked to pointless distractions. Jane Hamsher put it best:

The successful hijacking of the torture debate by its proponents obscures the underlying facts, as Kagro makes abundantly clear:

1. Private contractors were conducting torture
2. It was torture for political gain
3. Pollsters should be asking if Americans support using torture to extract false confessions for political purposes, because that's what happened

There were no "ticking time bombs" -- as former State Department official Lawrence Wilkerson and McClatchey have confirmed, torture was conducted to extract false evidence linking Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. It was ordered by Dick Cheney and George Bush just as it was during the Spanish Inquisition, to force political compliance.

The Washington Examiner's Chris Stirewalt objects when Kagro invokes the obvious parallel, shamelessly hiding behind the military when he says "On behalf of American soldiers, on behalf of American soldiers, that's not cool." In classic Yellow Elephant fashion, Stirewalt apparently never served in the military.

You know what else is not cool, Chris? Invoking some quasi-patriotic symbol to obfuscate over what should be patently obvious to even mouth-breathing Republican apologists like you: Torturing people is a crime against humanity. Torturing people for political gain is an even more despicable crime against humanity. It doesn't matter who commits it: Spain, the Catholic Church, Japan or Dick Cheney. It is a crime. And you are an apologist for it.

Continue reading »