Pro-Life?

Upon voting in support of the Health Care Bill, after being assured an executive order would prevent federal funding for abortions, Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak received messages from supposed Right-to-Lifers...

"Congressman Stupak, you baby-killing mother f***er... I hope you bleed out your a**, got cancer and die, you mother f***er."


"There are millions of people across the country who wish you ill, all of those thoughts that are projected on you will materialize into something that's not very good for you."

A fax with the title "Defecating on Stupak" carried a picture of a gallows with "Bart (SS) Stupak" on it and a noose attached. It was captioned, "All Baby Killers come to unseemly ends Either by the hand of man or by the hand of God."

 

 

 

Sarah Palin, the woman who could have been our current Vice President, used her Facebook page to model life-affirming behavior for her constituents by posting a map dotted with gun crosshairs, asking folks to "unseat" the Democrats from the districts who voted for the Bill.

 

Palin called for her supporters to both "reload" and "take aim".

We heard a lot of sanctimonious speeches from Republicans in Congress on the eve of the House vote, decrying the Bill for not respecting the sanctity of the unborn.  Is there no sanctity for the already-born?  Do we want babies to be born to people like this?

Euphoria Mixed With Foreboding as Health Care Passes---Monday Journal

Passing the Health Care Bill was euphoria mixed with foreboding, as though we were going on an exciting and long-overdue vacation in the car, but were not convinced that we had enough  fuel to get us to our destination, and no guarantees of finding a filling station along the way.  Just hold our breath and get started, wishing for the best. 

(Hmm, an energy metaphor.....it's probably all connected in similar ways, anyhow....)

Several weeks ago, disheartened as I was with the mounting absurdity, and seeming futility, of the process of providing universal, single-payer health care in America, I wrote here that I would say no more on the subject until something significant occurred.

Last night a Bill was narrowly passed by Congress.  Mr. Obama seemed finally convinced that a bipartisan agreement was useless; and so, seeing the approaching dusk (literally and metaphorically), he rolled up his sleeves (literally and metaphorically, again) and did the required hard work of rallying his own team. 

Is's now time for us to do the hard work of educating ourselves in what this all means, and when this all takes place.  Some benefits, like assistance for the uninsured with pre-existing conditions, will be available within a few months, and will continue (if the "filling station" turns up) until the State Health Exchanges are operational in 4 years.

You can read the Bill...it's only 2,407 pages long.  Or, there is a pretty good summary which outlines the Bill from many different angles.  This summary, posted on-line by the Democratic Policy Committee, provides a nice primer to understanding, allows us to guard ourselves against the doubletalk as the sell-job continues, and enter intelligently into the conversation, while others simply drink tea and spew mind-blowing hate.  Please click on this link....and refer to it often:  (For the purists and legalese-lovers, the bill itself is also found here):

http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc-sen_health_care_bill.cfm

It is not universal care, nor a single-payer system. It's not what many of us came in fighting for.  It's unfortunate that there is still such opposition to our adopting a system that is working so well in so may other industrialized countries.  

Even so, it's hard to see why this particular bill has stirred up so much anger.  Then I have to remind myself that it is something bigger than health-care coverage itself, something more insidious, more dangerous, and it will take generations to educate it right out of the fabric of our culture, if that is even possible.  From the NPR News Blog, Frank James, March 21:

It's sad but not surprising that some of those protesting Saturday against health-care overhaul legislation literally spit on at least one congressman and shouted racial and homophobic epithets as well. Some of us have long suspected that at least part of the opposition to the overhaul is part of the free-form hostility some Americans feel towards the political ascendancy of people who don't look like them or who have a different sexual orientation. When anti-overhaul protesters start abusing African American lawmakers with the "n" word or gay lawmakers with the six letter "f" word, then it starts to appear that at least some of the opposition is rooted in something other than philosophical differences over individual mandates

But the Bill is just enough, (and timed just right), to provide a good argument for re-electing Democrats to the next Administration, in order that all of this hard work won't be overturned by a zealous and organized Republican machine. 

It is a start, maybe even a good start, and perhaps, with the wheels on the ground, the movement forward toward a more positive and exciting direction, one in which the Bill can be improved, may be yet to come.  (Do I see a filling station up ahead?)

Margaret Flowers, and My Last Post on Health Care Reform (for now)--Sunday Journal

This is in appreciation of Margaret Flowers, a soft-spoken and practical individual who is true to her dream of providing health-care reform and coverage for all Americans.   She is a pediatrician and Congressional Fellow for Physicians for a National Health Program, and a member of the National Single Payer Alliance. This alliance represents over 20 million people nationwide from doctors to nurses to labor, faith and community groups who are in  favor of a national Medicare-for-All health system.

So much has been written about health care reform from all sides.. A lot of forecful, sensible, impassioned words have passed through the blogosphere.  A lot of people I admire, from Bloggers to The Huffington Post, have said it all and said it well.  I don't think I can add anything of eloquence, or originality, to the fading hope of American health care reform.  So rather than come back regularly to rehash old arguments, I have decided to abandon this subject until a different angle comes into view, and I discover something noteworthy and helpful to contribute and to write. 

By now it's clear that Mr. Obama's plan to reform health care in America is irreparably damaged. Even if some bill manages to pass, it will be nothing close to what stirred my hopes early in the process.  There will be no "universal" care. The interests of insurers, drug manufacturers, and health administrators will be protected.  There will be no government-run plan that would keep check on runaway insurance costs.  By being conciliatory to the obstructionists in both houses, the majorities in those houses allowed an opportunity to slip by, and the minority party successfully intimidated, threatened, lied, and appealed to ignorance to stall the process.

Good old American politics...will be our undoing.

I know a person has a right to change his mind.  I even understand that Mr. Obama is subject to political considerations, and influence.  But I can't deny that I held out some great hope after hearing him speak, as a convincing idealist, the following words to the AFL-CIO in Illinois in 2003:

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program.  I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House."

Of course, I will continue to monitor the "dying patient", as it were, for signs of life, but I fear said "patient" will never walk again, let alone run.  I can only sigh in disappointment, and impotent anger.  I am one voice, one drop of water, in a churning ocean of words, so loud that it is now an unintelligible roar.

Before setting aside this subject for now, I wanted to share a bit from Bill Moyers Journal from last Friday. 

Some of you may already know Margaret Flowers.  She is one of the strongest proponents (still!) for a single-payer plan.  I was introduced to her story on Moyers' show, and I wanted to record it in my journal for future reference and to share it with my readers.  She is, to me, a reasonable voice with a sensible message. 

Her methods could be criticized as misguided; yet without histrionics, without casuing harm to anyone (except her own police record), Flowers demonstrated her passion and dedication to this cause, and kept the message of universal health care alive.

There's a complete summary of Flowers and her story on the web site Single Payer Action. 

In brief, Mr. Obama, in his State of the Union Address last month, challenged listeners:

“If anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Let me know. Let me know. I’m eager to see it.”

....After this entreaty, Ms. Flowers appeared at the White House with a letter to deliver, asking the President and his advisors to re-examine her plan and that of her organization. Instead, she was arrested.  Here's a video of her visit to the White House gate:



You can also find the text of her remarkable letter Here....

I also recommend a look at the Bill Moyers Journal web site.  On the site is a brief  explanation of the Single Payer plan.

Intermission 1: State of the Union

I watched and listened to Barack Obama's State of the Union Address last night, and remembered why I supported him in his Presidential campaign over a year ago.  There was the intelligent, measured cadence of his delivery, the easy rapport with the listener/viewer.  He provided reassurance with his declared support for the issues that his supporters rallied around and voted him in office to address.  Then I felt sick at heart, because I knew I had heard this before, and I stopped trusting in my own naive hope for the future. 

It was certainly a great speech...but essentially I fear it will change nothing.

He said what he had to say, and made his applause-points to all of the issues people are angry about, scared about, the issues writers blog about and that voters destroy political careers over.   Yes, it was an excellent speech. But, I thought he said everything he HAD to say....assuaged fears, gave us vicarious pleasure in lambasting Republicans, the supreme court, filibusters, etc.



Obama declared a new jobs bill, and urged Congress to get one on his desk without delay. I remember hearing a similar urgency once with his Health Reform Bill.

The Health Care Bill was not mentioned until nearly a half-hour into the speech.  He was right to keep the tone light, and place a large measure of responsibility on himself for its being grossly misunderstood by the public.  While he assured listeners that he has not given up, and that he wants to see the bill passed, it's a far cry from the urgency and importance it commanded just months ago, and it is not the bill many rallied behind with enthusiasm.

He cleverly stated that he would work with Congress to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell.  But he could have declared this already, at least by de-funding the current military expulsions. If he works with Congress here as effectively as he did with Health Care, then repeal of DADT is doomed.

Obama made sense when he accused politicians of doing nothing more than campaigning to get re-elected. He himself earlier this week told ABC's Diane Sawyer that he would rather be a "good 1-term President than a mediocre 2-term one."  I hope he has the courage of his convicitons.  He MUST ignore the churlish bunch on his left, who sulk silently at every point.  He MUST decide that he will do what is right and not what is politically expedient for him (since, if he meant what he said, he will not make his elected office a campaign for re-election, as he blames others for doing) and he will concentrate on his supporters, use his powers to persuade and lead, get a job done, and leave office with some modicum of success.

Obama must realize that he can no longer appeal to the Republicans for any help, or applause, or approval.  They are showing themselves to be almost psychotic in their lack of reason.  If they truly are representing the best interests of their constituents by behaving in this manner, then the country may be better off by ignoring them to silence.   Mr. Obama needs to stop pandering to his adversaries, and keep an image of his diverse supporters firmly in mind as he shapes Year Two.


I hope he can "get health care done", pass a jobs bill, get money to Community Colleges, pass a campaign finance reform bill in reaction against the Supreme Court's recent ruling, take away tax breaks to companies that outsource..... I wish he can do that and more.  I have no big hope for pro-gay legislation beyond lip service. Yes, he stirred up the emotions I had during his campaign speeches......It was an excellent, outstanding speech to be sure. But that's about all.

Obama, Republicans, and Passing Health Care...Bob Cesca Said It Well -- Thursday Journal

Last night I posted a short piece on how the Democrats and Mr. Obama have handed victory to the Republicans, who are committed to blocking health care reform, and my thoughts on what went wrong (naive as I may have sounded).  I found a Huffington Post article by Bob Cesca that expressed my views as well as I would have hoped I could. 

I rarely, if ever, use this blog-journal as a way of simply copying the opinions of others: I like to research what others say, but sort of feel I've cheated simply by reproducing their words.  Today, though, I am appreciative of Cesca's thoughtful words,  in a post that so closely expresses my humble views, in letter and spirit.

Thanks Bob!  Here's a small excerpt:

"While I'm fully aware that the Senate requires 60 votes for cloture, especially when the Republicans have opted to filibuster everything, there are other solutions. The Democrats still hold an 18 seat margin in the Senate. They hold a gigantic 78 seat margin in the House. They lost just one seat yesterday to an empty shirt who, for some reason, thought it would be awesome to auction off his daughters on live national television last night. Weird and creepy...... This bill is about providing affordable, life-saving health insurance to 30 million Americans and ending a cycle of abuse at the hands of a corporate cartel.

"Instead, the Democrats plan is to wait until Scott Brown is seated and their 60 vote supermajority is gone, leaving them with one less option. They're waiting up. They're literally sliding an extra ace across the poker table to the sweaty, drunken degenerate on the other side. Here, we thought you might need some help, Biff. I'm sure you'll return the favor.

This, of course, is just plain dumb. If and when the tables are turned, don't count on the Republicans to return the favor....

"...Nothing will ever motivate the Republicans to join with the Democrats in a spirit of bipartisanship. And, beyond Congress and in terms of swing, independent and Obama-Republican voters, they're either going to like or hate the health care reform bill. How it's passed isn't really going to matter at this point, especially after enduring the long, painful legislative push through the sausage casing.

But okay. The president and certain Democratic members of Congress want to wait until Pimpin' Scott Brown is seated. So be it."

Scott Brown and A Year of "Hope": Wednesday Short Take #1

Wow..I really need the comfort and inspiration of those goofy bassett hounds now....


So the Republican, Scott Brown, won Ted Kennedy's venerable Senate seat in Massachusetts.  Early polling suggests (as seen tonight on Keith Olbermann) that it was the Wall Street bailout, not health-care reform, that was the most important reason that many independents, who voted for Obama's presidency, then voted for Brown for the Senate.


Either way, the health bill will never approach anything near to its original dream.  No government option will be open to everyone; no reduced drug benefits; no competition to big hospitals and pharmaceuticals; and to top it off, it has gone from "everyone will have the chance to be insured by a competitive single-payer" to "insurance, based on competitive market prices, is mandatory". Read here for a good summary back in July, on Huffington Post, on the President's stated support for a public option, and the beginnings of the tide turning. 


Mr. Obama needs to work quickly to shake things up.  He has to be more visible; it's more crucial now than ever.  When he had the polls and the affections of the public in his favor, he was everywhere in the media.  He must appear before his constituents now--those that are still supportive of him, and especially those that are beginning to question his direction.  Maybe he needs to send a strong message by firing a few of his inner circle....starting with Mr. Emanuel.


We are seeing the snaky results of Obama's appeals to bipartisanshp. With a (technically) filibuster-proof majority in the senate, and majorities in both houses, it was important for Obama to rally his party and keep his vision before them, as he did in his campaign.  But he placed too much stock in their ability to bring acceptable legislation to his desk.

He had what he needed--the popular support, the congress---and then appealed to "bipartisan solutions" which amounted to his asking the permission of his adversaries to proceed, and opened the door to them...they who made it clear that they were committed to his failure from the start.  That mistake will haunt a generation.  And now we seem headed for a time when America will be directed by the ignorant and the loud...  Those with the smarts and moral authority to see us move in the best direction are not intimidating enough.

Today, one may rightly take exception to the notion of the pen being mightier than the sword...Democrats ought to have tea parties of their own, and out-intimidate the bullies on the playground.  Illiterates can't be persuaded with written words.  And there have been so many words about this.....in blogs, web sites, publications.... Not enough.

Or maybe Corporate America doomed it all from the start.

And now....There is little hope.  A year later, after an inaugural event filled with energy and hope, the real enthusiasm  surronding the change that might just be possible, has slipped away like a dream barely remembered upon awakening. 

Short Takes: Copenhagen, Health Care, and Afghanistan--Friday Journal

In the days ahead, look for more about Holiday Films, Reviews, and the Awards Derbies...Also: Favorite Books of the Year...nostalgic, humorous sketches on old relatives and animals missed this time of year (gone but not forgotten)....and one way Mark and I are reinventing ourselves, at the Wellness Center (a topic, for all of the time it occupies, I have never written about!)

~ ~ ~ ~

First, as I look out on the light and steady snow, COP15, the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, is coming to a close.  To some of us old-movie lovers, "Wonderful Copenhagen" is still a tune sung by Danny Kaye in a Hollywood musical about Hans Christian Andersen, writer of fairy tales.  Unfortunately, many folks still regard the science of climate change as just a fairy tale.  Our media do not cover this issue nearly enough.  I wish the Conference were covered on major networks 24/7; and that there had been an Opening Ceremonies...a Halftime Show...a Red Carpet....in other words, I wish Science were accorded the same hoopla, and attention, as our distractions.

I fear that compromise, and halfhearted "victory", may once again be the order of the day....  But there are lots of meetings to come next year, by scientists and technologists.... this issue is ready to meet progress...

Has this conference begun to produce the desired outcomes?  There have been lofty speeches, given  between tedious discussions about procedures, and drafts of agreements, and just what is being agreed upon.  Disagreements over a "global agreement" or a "political agreement", or whether a document will be produced to further the work begun with the Kyoto Protocol (due to "expire" by 2012) had put the results of the talks in question. 

The latest news appears to be that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton dramatically interrupted a "secret negotiation" by Chinese, Indian, and Brazilian leaders, and that an agreement was eventually reached, but one that was seriously compromised, with no goal for a binding international treaty by 2010 as hoped,  and no real targets for greenhoue gas-emisson controls by industrialized countries.  Developing countries were upset that they were "left out" of the negotiations, and European nations were unhappy because they alone have the world's binding carbon-control policies in place. 

The upside is that the issue has gained an international profile, and "the accord provides a system for monitoring and reporting progress toward those national pollution-reduction goals, a compromise on an issue over which China bargained hard... calls for hundreds of billions of dollars to flow from wealthy nations to ... countries most vulnerable to a changing climate. And it sets a goal of limiting the global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius..." ( or arounf 3 degrees F., a number that African countries believe is still disastrously high)   (NY Times)  

(I wonder how many scientists attended, if any...still researching...)


For a quick glimpse into the conference and its main issues, check out this article in the Arizona Daily Sun.  In it, journalists David A. Fahrenthold and Juliet Eilperin from the Washington Post, offer a readable summary about the purpose of the conference, what the protesters were protesting, what the main  issues were, and the debate over the science of rising temperatures.

An interesting parallel story is that of James Hansen, NASA's leading climate scientist who has studied this for 30-odd years, and who himself has been arested in non-violent protests against environmental issues.  Hansen was positioning himself to become the "Howard Dean" of the Copenhagen talks, by stating:  "....any agreement that may emerge from the talks that are being held in the Danish capital ......is likely to be so "fundamentally wrong" that it would be better if those seeking to address the problem of climate change and/or global warming took a year out to "figure out a better path".  (Dean made a similar threat to stall health-care discussions in favor of a better plan).

NPR recently interviewed writer and scientist Mark Bowen, whose book, "Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global  Warming",  describes Hansen's going public with the Bush Administration's cover-up of global warming sceintific evidence.  Hansen does not believe most of the world leaders, including our own, truly understand the problem. 


~ ~ ~ ~
Health-care reform is still in the haggling stage.  If ever there was an argument for living a healthy life and preventing or reducing illness, the frightening process we've witnessed in the Capitol to extend insurance coverage to all Americans, and ensure coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, might just be it.

A blogging friend, Torq,  is passionate about this issue.  He and I fundamentally agree on the importance of passing a bill, although we disagree on how compromised the bill ought to be....(I think less so than my friend)...and who is to blame if a bill is not passed..(he would blame liberals for stalling the process now, I would implicate those who have fought irrationally for its demise the whole time, and used untruths to stir up fears and appeal to the weak or the ignorant.)


Here's from my comment to a recent post on his journal page...


"If the new bill really does provide the access it says it does, at an affordable cost, then I am for that.

Given the way the bill has evolved, and the compromises I'm hearing now, I don't trust that this will be the case if the bill is passed, not in any significant way.

I am losing confidence in the possible outcomes, because many in Congress are so well supported by the health and pharmaceutical industries, that there would seem to be little incentive to effect real competition to keep premiums down.

As I understand it, people will be mandated to buy insurance (a boon to private insurance providers), or be fined...with few choices for affordable care....I just don't see how it represents meaningful change....

I want to remain optimistic... my instincts tell me to fight a little more...so that we don't allow millions more into a broken system...."

~ ~ ~ ~

Afghanistan---is still on my mind....but not so much in the news these past few days... 
I have thought a lot about last Sunday's "60 Minutes" interview, with Mr. Obama talking to Steve Kroft about, among other things, the soon-to-be-increased  troop levels in Afghanistan.  
(click here for a transcript).
Mr. Obama seemed more confrontive than I had ever seen him, holding Kroft in an unblinking gaze like a double-dare.  Mr. Obama gave indirect answers, speaking instead about benchmarks for success and the best interests of American security, without elaboration.  When Kroft asked him how the goals would be accomplished in a "country" that is a collection of tribes under a corrupt leadership, the response from our President was, chuckling, "This is hard".

Again, I want to support an honest effort.  Yet I have been learning about how we got there in the first place. I found a very interesting article in a blog called RealityZone, and I am questioning my assumptions and attitudes.  I read this article just hours before I heard the 60 Minutes interview, with passages like the one below.    Re-Invention, in my case, means continuing to read critically..to check sources....to open my eyes....

The following was published in Counter Punch, written by By Richard W. Behan, 9/9/09.

"It is a war....undertaken for the geopolitical control of the immense hydrocarbon resources of the Caspian Basin: Afghanistan, lying directly between those resources and the world’s richest markets, uniquely offers pipeline routes of incalculable value.
By 1996 the Bridas Corporation of Argentina had a lock on the routes. With signed pipeline contracts from both General Dostum of the Northern Alliance and the Taliban, Bridas controlled the Caspian play.
To the Unocal Corporation of the U.S. (and subsequently to the Bush Administration) that was intolerable. To contest Bridas’ success, Unocal hired a number of consultants: Henry Kissinger, Hamid Karzai, Richard Armitage, and Zalmay Khalilzad. Armitage would later serve George W. Bush as Deputy Secretary of State, and Khalilzad would become a prominent diplomat. Both were enthusiastic members of the “PNAC,” the Project for a New American Century, a far-right group......" 


..."In the late ‘90’s Unocal hosted Taliban leaders at its headquarters in Texas and in Washington D.C., seeking to have the Bridas contract voided. The Taliban refused. Finally, on February 12, 1998, Mr. John J. Maresca, a Vice President of Unocal, testified to the House Committee on International Relations. He asked to have the Taliban removed from power in Afghanistan, and for a “stable government” to be installed in its place...."



"...The Clinton Administration, having rejected a month earlier the PNAC request to invade Iraq, was not any more interested in overthrowing the Taliban: President Clinton understood and chose to abide by the United Nations Charter. In August of 1998, however, Clinton launched a few cruise missiles into Afghanistan, retaliating for al Qaeda attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. And he signed an Executive Order prohibiting further trade negotiations with the Taliban...."


"...Frantic to avoid the retaliatory bombing, the Taliban offered the surrender of Osama bin Laden.
As the details of the handover were being worked out, however, the stalemated election of 2000 was awarded to George W. Bush. The surrender of Osama bin Laden would be handled by the incoming Administration.


"...But the new Administration demurred. In letter to the Taliban the Bush White House asked to postpone the handover of bin Laden until February; the Administration was still “settling in.” Kabir Mohabbat, however, was retained as a consultant to the National Security Council.


Unocal's fortunes then improved dramatically. In direct repudiation of Clinton’s Executive Order, the Bush Administration itself resumed pipeline negotiations with the Taliban in February of 2001. (At one meeting, a Taliban official presented President Bush with an expensive Afghan carpet.)"


But the Bush Administration meant to prevail, by force if necessary. As early as March 15, 2001, when Jane’s, the British international security journal disclosed the fact, the Administration was engaged in a “concerted front against Afghanistan’s Taliban regime.” Confirming the Administration’s intended violence, George Arney of BBC News wrote a story published September 18, 2001: “U.S. Planned Attack on Taliban.” In mid-July of 2001 a “senior American official” told Mr. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary that “...military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.”
."...Finally, on August 2 of 2001, the last pipeline negotiation with the Taliban ended with a terse statement by Christina Rocca of the State Department: “Accept our offer of a carpet of gold or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.” Shortly afterward, President Bush informed India and Pakistan the U.S. would launch a military mission into Afghanistan “before the end of October.”


This was five weeks before the events of 9/11..."

Health-Care Dream Is Fading--Journal for Tuesday

After all of this squabbling and irrational posturing in Washington in an effort to quickly pass a health care bill, apparently ANY health care bill, it is enough to make an interested observer truly ill...and the treatment for this malady, and coverage for it, might be denied, since the sickening effect of the long-term standoffs between idealogues and "parties" might, rightly, be deemed a pre-existing condition.

I hate to give Joe Lieberman space here, but one can hardly avoid his mention, being the high-profile "Independent" (ha) who seems to hold the future of our entire health reform effort in his well-greased palm.

Huffington Post offered a piece yesterday by Jane Hamsher that shed even more light on the cause of Lieberman's odd capitulations and surprising announcements in opposition to public options and medicare buy-ins.  Lieberman's wife has been a paid lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry for a while now. She is also highly involved in the Susan B. Komen Breast Cancer organization, which has close ties to the Republican party.  Hamsher calls on celebrities and others who support this charity to speak on behalf of the health issues that are crucial to cancer patients, and some of  these important issues may be lost in a watered-down bill. 

Remember, if only a few Republicans showed some reason, then Mr. Lieberman would not matter as much.  We should be calling to question all members who are acting merely to see the legisation fail. 

Mr. Lieberman must be geting very well-rewarded indeed for allowing himself to be the front-person for irrational Republican opposition to the health-care bill, in this lamentable schoolyard squabble. It's not at all about caring for the sick, and coverage for that care, but power, ideology, and preserving the status quo. We need to be storming the gates, and threatening the livelihoods of those who claim to be "representing" us. The Republicans are in lockstep against the bill no matter what it says, and now Democrats are willing to bargain away the very heart of the bill in order to claim "victory" before the year ends. And what will be left? Nothing much different, I fear.... and all of that positive energy, that "audacious hope", wasted..

House Passes Version of Health Reform Bill....

The New York Times published a story today about some of the provisions of the Health Reform Bill passed yesterday by the House of Representatives.  Among these provisions that will have immediate social impact is the change to the tax laws governing domestic partner benefits offered to employees:


"Under the bill, such benefits would be tax-free, just like health benefits provided to the family of an employee married to a person of the opposite sex."


Currently, they are treated as taxable income, preventing many who are qualified for the benefit from signing up.


Thanks to Michael at http://torqopia.blogspot.com/ for bringing it to my attention.

Journal for Wednesday October 28: Public Option with Opt Out?

Phrases like "Public Option", and "Opt-Out", and "Single Payer", and "Government-Run Health-Care", and "Socialized Medicine", produce emotional reactions, yet I'll bet most  people don't really understand them.  Still, many are either fiercely in support or steadfastly opposed.. and vocally so!

One needs to read a LOT of different articles on this topic to create any semblance of a complete picture.

So it goes with the proposed Health Care Bill that includes a Public Option opt-out by state.

On its surface it makes no sense to me that we may allow states to prevent their residents from CHOOSING to participate in the government plan. 

Others report that the criteria for a state to opt out will be so prohibitive, that most states, if any, won't really be able to do so.  Other stories reveal that anyone who is already covered, by an employer for example, won't be able to participate in the government-run program anyway.

Some argue that those who oppose any kind of government plan should agree that police protection, fire protection, or road maintenance should, likewise, not be available to those who cannot afford to pay for them.  The flip side would counter that doctors and insurance companies are private businesses, not government services, which is why we all must pay for health care.

Apparently, insurance premiums will also pay the cost of the Public Option, not tax dollars.....

Those dreaded taxes.....

Is it any wonder there's confusion all around?

Still, I mistrust the motives of anyone backing a plan to allow a state ot "opt out" of a government health care option to allow uninsured residents to get coverage.  How can I support a law that is potentially exclusionary? 

What happened to the courage of one's convictions....  If something is right, how far should it be compromised to win votes and score political points?

Ah well, that's political reality.....don't like it, and fortunately I can still speak out against it.

Living in a state that prohibits me, for example, from chosing to marry my partner, I guess I'm sensitive to exclusionary laws of any kind, especially one as essential as health-care coverage.