|
|
|
Health Care
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to support the Affordable Care Act's controversial individual mandate to buy health insurance. But the justices also delivered conservative governors more wiggle room to opt out of the law's enormous expansion of healthcare for the poor, declaring it unconstitutional for the federal government to require states to participate in an expanded version of Medicaid as a condition of participating in the entire program.
Some conservative Republicans are vowing to reject that part of the law: Florida Gov. Rick Scott and Texas Gov. Rick Perry quickly announced that their states would not participate. Yet there's a possibility that Republican Gov. Tom Corbett may quietly acquiesce. He's still deciding whether to accept Obamacare's Medicaid expansion, which is set to provide health insurance to a huge chunk of currently ineligible poor people ― estimated at up to 682,880 Pennsylvanians―living under 133 percent of the federal poverty line.
“There is no decision on that, and we are still reviewing the law,” says Department of Public Welfare spokesperson Donna Morgan.
Conservative governors say their states cannot afford the increased cost to the state-federal program, which in Pennsylvania could be a hike of between 1.4 percent and 2.7 percent in state Medicaid spending. The federal government, however, will pick up most of the tab, starting at 100 percent in the first three years of implementation, through 2017, and gradually declining to 90 percent by 2020.
The state House is currently debating state Rep. Matt Baker's highly controversial abortion bill, which women's health advocates have claimed is an anti-abortion "Trojan horse," which might close down every abortion clinic in state because of allegedly unnecessary regulations. It was written in the wake of Kermit Gosnell.
For a good show, watch the state House debate on the bill here.
They are currently discussing amendments to the bill. Sources tell City Paper that one such amendment would change the language in order to make Baker's bill more like one written by Sen. Pat Vance, which women's health advocates have called "way better."
UPDATE: I'll be live-tweeting the debate. Follow along @hollyotterbein!
A judge this morning sentenced Catherine and Herbert Schaible to 10 years probation in the accidental death of their two year old son.
The couple, who are lifelong members of the First Century Gospel Church in northeast Philadelphia, have seven other children. The Schaibles were convicted of involuntary manslaughter and endangering the welfare of a child in December after prosecutors say they failed to take their infant son to a doctor when he showed signs of the flu. Instead they prayed and their son, Kent, soon died of pneumonia.
Several undated sermons on the First Century Gospel Church's website speak directly about the church's opposition to doctors and medicine.
"Our life must be committed to God without compromise, and our will is to be His will in everything," according to one sermon. "That commitment to God means we are to trust God alone for physical healing without the use of medicine, drugs, prescriptions, human remedies, or a doctor."
Senior Common Pleas Judge Carolyn Engel Temin said "it's obvious a prison sentence is not called for" and that "everything I've heard about you is complimentary with the exception of this incident." She stressed, however, that "religious freedom is trumped by the safety and well-being of the child."
The terms of their probation require the couple to schedule regular in-person meetings with probation officers for two years, followed by three years of regular phone meetings and then five years of non-reporting probation. Part of this sentence requires that the Schaibles schedule regular medical appointments for all their children and release their children's medical records to probation officers.
"I need to give a sentence that's long enough to ensure the kids have adequate healthcare until they turn 18," judge Engel Temin said.
[...] Faith-healing couple sentenced to 10 years probation :: The Clog … [...]
[...] use of entheogens, like Ayahuasca, is found in many healing traditions, most readily indigenous cultures that use psychoactives as a tool to promote various [...]
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Blue Wode, scott_hurst, Campbell Fuller, dennis borowski, Dan J and others. Dan J said: Probation. Really? >> Faith-healing couple sentenced to 10 years probation http://bit.ly/hF3XfR [...]
Wow. These people should be in jail for at least a minimum of 20 years. They killed their own child by mumbling nonsense over him instead of getting him to an actual doctor. What's amazing is that in 21st century, 40 years after man walked on the moon, a good chunk of American society still believes that things like prayer and alternative medicine work. One step forward, eight steps back.
[...] Faith-healing couple sentenced tο 10 years probation :: Thе Clog … [...]
[...] ⢠Faith-healing couple sentenced to 10 years probation [...]
Plenty, it seems. As Holly reported yesterday, Tom Corbett, Republican candidate for governor, has announced that he will join fellow crazypants wingnut AGs from Virginia, Florida and other bastions of insanity in suing to block the health-care reform act President Obama just signed, on account of it being unconstitutional. He's even having a press conference today, at 2:15, to decry socialism or mandates or whatever.
Hopefully, some intrepid Harrisburg reporter will ask him how much taxpayer money he's willing to blow on this epic fail. After all, this one's been pretty well argued, and per usual, the teabaggers have no idea what the fuck they're talking about.
Quoth Jeffrey Toobin:
2. Constitutionality. Various states have threatened to go to court to assert that Congress acted outside its authority in passing the health-care reform bill. Even with a conservative Supreme Court, these challenges seem bound to fail. For decades, the Court has upheld the extensive federal role in health care through such programs as Medicare and Medicaid. This new law is a change in degree, not in kind, and courts will likely stay out of the way.
And Mark A. Hall from Georgetown:
The Constitution permits Congress to legislate a health insurance mandate. Congress can use its Commerce Clause powers or its taxing and spending powers to create such a mandate. Congress can impose a tax on those that do not purchase insurance, or provide tax benefits to those that do purchase insurance. If Congress would like the states to implement an insurance mandate, it can avoid conflicts with the anti-commandeering principle by either preempting state insurance laws or by conditioning federal funds on state compliance. A federal employer mandate for state and local government workers may be subject to a challenge; however, such a challenge is unlikely to be successful. Individual rights challenges under the First Amendments Free Exercise Clause or RFRA are unlikely to succeed, although a federal insurance mandate should include a statement that RFRA does not apply or provide for a religious exemption. Fifth Amendment Due Process and Takings Clause challenges are also unlikely to be successful. The legal analysis presented is likely to endure, as the Supreme Courts current position and approach to interpreting relevant constitutional issues appear to be stable.
In other words, ain't gonna happen. And Corbett probably knows that. But hell, he'll probably raise a boatload of money of this thing, so why should he care about chasing this Republican white whale on your dime.
Go, Tom, Go - it will not fail because those of us in the know realize that if we are FORCED to accept government run healthcare, we will leave PA and take our money and jobs with us. So, no money from us to our brothers and sisters who think they have a right to OUR money. Fend for yourselves. Give me Liberty or give me Death!!
Question: How much of your money will Tom Corbett waste on a doomed political stunt? Answer: As much as necessary to get his name out there for his upcoming run as governor. This is nothing more than political grandstanding at taxpayers expense.
I am glad that Tom Corbett is taking a stand to represent the voters of Pensylvania. For too long the urban politicians have dominated and abused the voters of this Commonwealth. Maybe when he is governor things will changes and we can return to solid constitutional values and not the wishes of special interest groups.
Social comments and analytics for this post... This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mitch76256: RT @PhiladelphiaRSS How much of your money will Tom Corbett waste on a doomed political stunt?: Plenty, it seems. http://bit.ly/cTSGJh...
Not that we expect that this will go anywhere, but still, check out this buzzkill of an e-mail we just got from Attorney General Tom Corbett (who, keep in mind, may just become Pennsylvania's next governor):
Tom Corbett today said that he will file a lawsuit to protect the citizens of Pennsylvania whose rights will be violated when the health care reform legislation, passed last night by the U.S. House of Representatives, is signed into law by President Obama. Corbett said that he believes the courts will find the health care reform legislation unconstitutional. Corbett said he is discussing legal strategy with attorneys general from Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, Michigan, Texas, Utah, Washington, North Dakota and South Dakota and Virginia.
I'm glad there are people, like Tom Corbett, who are going to fight against a bill that taxes me just for breathing. I don't need the government telling me what I can afford and where to spend my money. The next step is telling people they can't eat certain foods because they are unhealthy and will cause rates to go up or not letting people do any sports or activities that they deem "high risk" (i.e. rock climbing, skydiving) some of the bill is good but the whole premise is not, it is opening a flood gate of government control
He's a good ole boy, who should run for office in one of the states with whom he has made alliance, like Alabama. Many, many Pennsylvanians have engaged in concerted democratic effort to encourage the passage of health care reform. At least one died due to insurance betrayal before the fight could be won. Some walked all the way from Philly to DC in January. Funny, only the Republican AG's seem to want to undue our assertion that people matter more than insurance companies' profits. Join us in keeping from higher office this opportunist.
[...] reported yesterday, Tom Corbett, Republican candidate for governor, has announced that he will join fellow crazypants wingnut AGs from Virginia, Florida and other bastions of insanity in suing to block the health-care reform act [...]
Someone always has to go and shit in the punchbowl. Thanks for ruining the party Buzz Killington.
Yea, States standing up for their rights as guaranteed by the US constitution is such a stunt. As for people mattering more than insurance companies, if people matter so much why don't you pay their bills? That would be good of you, and not criminal / unconstitutional. 'Good old boy'? You're such a racist.
Take a look at the casually dressed Prez trying to sell the divided public (although not too divided of a crowd here, specifically) on health care reform this morning at Arcadia University.
Or, take a look at editor-in-chief Brian Howard's tweets on the event. (A few highlights: "Obama: GOP sez bring down costs. Obama sez we're bringing down costs duh" and "Ref to 'gov't run health care system' gets big applause.")
Another interesting tidbit: Howard said that neither President Obama nor Gov. Ed Rendell were booed upon entrance to the event, but Mayor Michael Nutter was. I guess a soda tax is more unpopular than pillaging our state's forests?
EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT!!!!!
Keep this in mind if/when you're watching the healthcare summit, and/or the coming budget debates. Conservatives give lip service to cutting costs, lowering taxes, etc.When it comes time to actually choose what to cut, however, the support evaporates (except for "foreign aid," which is an insanely tiny proportion of the federal budget, and "welfare programs").
Conservatives agree that the government spends too much. But ask them what to cut ...
At last weeks Conservative Political Action Conference, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty called on the attendees to imitate the wife of Tiger Woods: "We should take a page out of her playbook and take a nine iron and smash the window out of big government in this country."
But theres a problem for Pawlenty and the activists who cheered him: Rank-and-file conservatives actually like big government.
In 2008, the American National Election Study asked a national sample whether federal spending on 12 different programs should be increased, decreased or kept about the same.
As the graph above illustrates, the respondents who identified themselves as "conservative" or "extremely conservative" had little appetite for specific spending cuts.
Very few conservatives said they favored reducing (or cutting out altogether) spending on any program. The least popular program proved to be childcare -- with a grand total of 20 percent of conservatives saying theyd slash it. The most popular is highways; only 6 percent want to cut spending there. Even bugaboos like welfare and foreign aid fare well, attracting the ire of only 15 percent of conservatives. Amazingly, the survey found that, on average, 54 percent of them actually wanted to increase spending.
 |
| C-Span |
The thing about Rep. Joe Sestak is, he talks fast. Particularly when he gets worked up. And he was, in fact, worked up. And when he calls your office, without warning, and you have no chance to rig up some sort of recording contraption, you have to scribble down as much as you can, then go back and try to interpret your own chickenscratch/shorthand later. But anyway. I spent about 20 minutes this morning talking with the congressman/senate candidate — "call me Joe" — about, well, a bunch of things, but all centered around the idea of the Democrats' relative ineffectiveness to get things done, and what he thinks should be done, both short and long term, about the Senate's structural flaws — namely, the idea that, despite an 18-seat majority in the upper house, and 78-seat majority in the lower house, and control of the White House, Democrats still have to bend over backwards to accommodate the likes of Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and now, Cosmo centerfold Scott Brown to get a universal health care package through is, for lack of a better word, preposterous.
This is probably the best visual representation of the ridiculousness of the current system I've seen:
But before we get to the interview, take a minute and go read this. I'll wait.
For those of you who don't have an hour or so to reading one of those 8,000-word essays The Atlantic is so famous for, here's the part Sestak wanted me to see when he cited the piece, repeatedly, during our conversation (I'm quoting in more length that I usually would for someone else's work, so please clink the link above and give James Fallows the page view; good journalism and writing should be rewarded):
Every system strives toward durability, but as with human aging, longevity has a cost. The late economist Mancur Olson laid out the consequences of institutional aging in his 1982 book, The Rise and Decline of Nations. Year by year, he said, special-interest groups inevitably take bite after tiny bite out of the total national wealth. They do so through tax breaks, special appropriations, what we now call legislative "earmarks,â and other favors that are all easier to initiate than to cut off. No single nibble is that dramatic or burdensome, but over the decades they threaten to convert any stable democracy into a big, inefficient, favor-ridden state. In 1994, Jonathan Rauch updated Olson's analysis and called this enfeebling pattern "demosclerosis,â in a book of that name. He defined the problem as "government's progressive loss of the ability to adapt,â a process "like hardening of the arteries, which builds up stealthily over many years.â
We are now 200-plus years past Jefferson's wish for permanent revolution and nearly 30 past Olson's warning, with that much more buildup of systemic plaque —and of structural distortions, too. When the U.S. Senate was created, the most populous state, Virginia, had 10 times as many people as the least populous, Delaware. Giving them the same two votes in the Senate was part of the intricate compromise over regional, economic, and slave-state/free-state interests that went into the Constitution. Now the most populous state, California, has 69 times as many people as the least populous, Wyoming, yet they have the same two votes in the Senate. A similarly inflexible business organization would still have a major Whale Oil Division; a military unit would be mainly fusiliers and cavalry. No one would propose such a system in a constitution written today, but without a revolution, it's unchangeable. Similarly, since it takes 60 votes in the Senate to break a filibuster on controversial legislation, 41 votes is in effect a blocking minority. States that together hold about 12 percent of the U.S. population can provide that many Senate votes. This converts the Senate from the "saucerâ George Washington called it, in which scalding ideas from the more temperamental House might "cool,â into a deep freeze and a dead weight.
The Senate's then-famous "Gang of Six,â which controlled crucial aspects of last year's proposed health-care legislation, came from states that together held about 3 percent of the total U.S. population; 97 percent of the public lives in states not included in that group. (Just to round this out, more than half of all Americans live in the 10 most populous states —which together account for 20 of the Senate's 100 votes.) "The Senate is full of ârotten boroughs,'â said James Galbraith, of the University of Texas, referring to the underpopulated constituencies in Parliament before the British reforms of 1832. "We'd be better off with a House of Lords.â
The decades-long bipartisan conspiracy to gerrymander both state and federal electoral districts doesn't help. More and more legislative seats are "safeâ for one party or the other; fewer and fewer politicians have any reason to appeal to the center or to the other side. In a National Affairs article, "Who Killed California?,â Troy Senik pointed out that 153 state or federal positions in California were at stake in the 2004 election. Not a single one changed party. This was an early and extreme illustration of a national trend.
On rereading Mancur Olson's book now, I was struck by its relative innocence. Thinking as an economist, Olson regarded the worst outcome as an America that was poorer than it could otherwise be. But since the time of his book, the gospel of "adapt or dieâ has spread from West Point to the corporate world (by chance, Olson's Rise and Decline was published within weeks of the hugely influential business book In Search of Excellence ), with the idea that rigid institutions inevitably fail. "I don't think that America's political system is equal to the tasks before us,â Dick Lamm, a former three-term governor of Colorado, told me in Denver. "It is interesting that in 1900 there were very few democracies and now there are a lot, but they're nearly all parliamentary democracies. I'm not sure we picked the right form. Ours is great for distributing benefits but has become weak at facing problems. I know the power of American rejuvenation, but if I had to bet, it would be 60â40 that we're in a cycle of decline.â
What I have been calling "going to hellâ really means a failure to adapt: increasing difficulty in focusing on issues beyond the immediate news cycle, and an increasing gap between the real challenges and opportunities of the time and our attention, resources, and best efforts. Here are symptoms people have mentioned to me:
⢠In their book on effective government, William Eggers and John O'Leary quote a former deputy mayor of Los Angeles, Michael Keeley, on why the city is out of control. "Think of city government as a big bus,â he told them. "The bus is divided into different sections with different constituencies: labor, the city council, the mayor, interest groups, and contractors. Every seat is equipped with a brake, so lots of people can stop the bus anytime. The problem is that this makes the bus undrivable.â
For that same book, Eggers and O'Leary surveyed members of the National Academy of Public Administration, a counterpart of the National Academy of Sciences for public managers. Sixty-eight percent of those who responded said that the government was "less likely to successfully execute projects than at any time in the past.â
Essentially, the argument here is that the institutions of American polity have grown structurally deficient, as politicians cater to special interests and ignore the public good, a la Olson. You could add to it the increasing polarization and cleavages of the two major parties (one of the best, and newest explanations I've read is here), and the dysfunction and myriad of problems that often come alongside populist movements (this thought-provoking book, by former Chestnut Hill College historian John Lukacs, a self-described reactionary who — although I fundamentally disagree with his take on rights and liberties — lays out a strong case that populist movements are dangerous and short-sighted; it's certainly a view the Founding Fathers shared) and you've got a recipe for a slow, but uncontrollable, burn. Or maybe not. As the Fallows piece notes, predictions of doom and gloom are part and parcel of the American experience, and hey, we're still here.
But, on the other hand, there's the reality that health care reform, so desperately needed and a central plank of Obama's 2008 campaign — you know, the one in which he won some 70 million votes — is about to being watered down because the Democrats only control 59 percent of the Senate, and because of an anachronistic rule that has been used and abused by the Republican minority in an unprecedented manner, they know have to beg for scraps from the likes of Mitch McConnell.
Last night, I put my thoughts into an e-mail to Sestak's press office, asking for his take on health care strategy and cloture rules. This morning, the congressman gave me an (unexpected) call. Below, I'm going to reconstruct this conversation to the best of my ability. Sestak's not quite signing on to junking the old Senate rules, but, he says, he's thinking about it, in part because of the Fallows piece, and in part because of the inordinate power the current system allots to egomaniacal dickbags (my words, not his) like Lieberman.
"I've said for a long time, we don't need to reform America. We need to reform the Senate," he says.
The Massachusetts election, he continues, wasn't a rebuke to Democrats or an embrace of Republicans, but rather, "the same evidence that I saw in my 67-county tour [of Pennsylvania] in July. People don't trust Washington." Particularly, he suggests, it's not so-much about policies themselves so much as the nature of the place, an environment where Ben Nelson can secure goodies for his home state in exchange for his vote, or — of course he brings this up — Arlen Specter's past votes as a Republicans are ignored the second he switches jerseys.
There is, as Sestak sees it, no inherent faith in Congress; consequently, as legislation as necessarily complicated as health care reform becomes bogged down in a morass of giveaways and special favors, this distrust is exacerbated into a sea of populist (and perhaps deserved) anger at the powers that be. And then you get Massachusetts. (It's worth noting, as Sestak does, that the Mass. election was hardly a mandate for Democrats to go slower on health care. In fact, a large majority of Obama voters who pulled the lever for Scott Brown, polling shows, favors the public option.)
In Sestak's words, the problem is, "Washington didn't change." Asked about what he thinks the Dems should do to push HCR now, Sestak offers something of a non-answer: "I would have helped shape the bill at the beginning."
OK, fine. But how should they proceed now? I was talking to Sestak a few minutes after he walked out of the morning Democratic caucus meeting. The consensus? "We have to continue, for the good of working people, to get a health care bill through." That said, he continues in almost the same breath in an echo Obama's comments yesterday, "I don't think we should just jam this thing through."
And what does that mean, exactly? "We should put through a package [that can] get through, we should do that," he says.
To Sestak, that means putting forward the bill's most popular items, and basically daring the Republicans to oppose them: eliminating the insurance companies' anti-trust exemption; prohibiting denial of care based on pre-existing conditions; banning the recision of coverage when insurance companies find out you're sick and don't want to pay; mandating that insurance companies spent 80 percent of premiums on health care; giving small businesses a tax credit. "Principled compromise," he calls it.
But you can't compromise with a brick wall, I reply. They decided long ago to make HCR Obama's "waterloo," thank you Jim DeMint, teabagger emeritus. At this point, I'm not sure what he could propose, short of another round of tax cuts for millionaires, that would garner a single Republican vote. (An anonymous Democratic Senate aide agrees with me: "Imagine we introduce a bill that says health insurance companies can't discriminate based on pre-existing conditions. All that would happen is the insurance industry would pay some firm to do a study that concludes that would cause insurance companies to go out of business, and some GOP senator will go to the floor and say 'See? This is all about forcing single payer.' Throw in some douchebag on TV with a tri-cornered hat and a chalkboard, and you have a unified GOP caucus against any bill that remotely attempts to deal with the health care issue.")
"I would lose my job in a heartbeat to get a health care bill through, in a heartbeat. ⦠If there were just some leaders. A Ted Kennedy could work with a Bush on immigration reform ⦠."
That means the White House, as well as Congress, Sestak says. And in any event, wishing for bygone eras of cooperation and sanity and strong leadership doesn't make it real, and to be frank, it doesn't really get at my underlying question: How do you pass anything as complex as HCR in a body as dysfunctional as the United States Senate, where you basically need 60 votes to take a bathroom break?
One option, of course, is for the House to pass the Senate's version word for word. If the leadership calls for that, Sestak says, "I will look at it and make a determination. ⦠There are some good things in that bill." This doesn't seem too likely. The liberal blogosphere is, as I write, buzzing with news that Speaker Nancy Pelosi will push portions of HCR through via the budget reconciliation process, which means they can't be filibustered. Republicans would raise holy hell, and David Broder would bitch about bipartisanship, but HCR would pass, easily and strongly — and it's not like W. never used reconciliation to pass trillion-dollar tax cuts that exploded the deficit — so tough cookies. And, as Sestak points out, this is too important to fail: "I don't think you come to a full stop," he says, though he doesn't think Democrats need to rush, either. In the Philadelphia area, he says, 66 percent of the uninsured are working. "Premiums have doubled. I believe we have to get something through. I will support what we can get through."
In other words, if the Dems go for the Senate bill, he's probably in. If they go for reconciliation, he's in. If they go for his preferred method, the more incremental steps outlined above that have a slight hope for bipartisan votes, he's in. But then he adds, "I won't sacrifice good policy at the altar of bipartisanship. But I do support bipartisanship."
So which is it, I ask. The Dems have, since the Tuesday vote, basically divided themselves into two camps: The damn-the-torpedoes, full-speed-ahead camp, and the let's-slow-down-and-try-for-Republican-votes camp. To which did he belong?
His answer, as fine a point as I can put on it, is whatever works.
But this brings me to the larger point: Americans are disenchanted with Washington because there's the perception that nothing is being done, and what's being done isn't good, and that special interests have all of us over the barrel, and that they're all corrupt and self-absorbed and out of touch. All valid observations, but the big one is this: Americans wanted to change the way DC works, and instead, they get Ben Nelson's favors and Bart Stupak's antiabortion zealotry and Lieberman's seemingly endless ability to string Dems along and Max Baucus' lobbyist girlfriend and the excise tax and no public option and compromise to the point of near-meaninglessness. How would a Senator Sestak go about fixing that?
Much of the American system, he ruminates, is set up to protect minorities. (This is sort of true; although, according to a fascinating history I'm now reading, it was actually set up to protect southern slave plantations at the expense of everyone else.) "I don't want to change it right now," he says. "I want to get over there, and see about it. We need some leadership."
Here he points me to The Atlantic piece above. "Honest to gosh, I thought of you," he says."Maybe, I'm thinking seriously — you know the Democrats will [one day] be in the minority — I am taken with [Fallow's notion that] the institution of the Senate is the only place that hasn't changed [in 200 years]. I don't think you can just go from 60 to 51. There has to be some balance. Maybe some changes are needed, right? We could be sacrificing good policy for an arcane rule."
The flip side, he says, is that in the House, an abundance of power in vested in the party leaders — the Speaker, Majority and Minority leaders, specifically. "I don't want the Senate to be that way. It's less democratic. What's the right mix? That's what I'm going to try to work out."
And before I could ask him if the constant refrain about needing leadership meant that he would support someone other than Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader — assuming Reid survives his re-election bid, which is by no means a given — he excused himself for a meeting. Next time.
Oh, and just so you don't think we're biased, I asked one of our correspondents who's in with the Specter campaign to put these same questions to his staff. We'll let you know what he comes back with.
Why Joe Sestak defends the filibuster rule is beyond my comprehension. "Maybe, I'm thinking," he says, "you know the Democrats will [one day] be in the minority." If the legislative agenda of President Obama continues to be sacrificed on the altar of Senate tradition, then the Democrats will soon be in the minority. And the Republican majority in the Senate will be under no obligation to keep the filibuster rule just because the Democrats chose to handicap themselves with it. Fifty-one votes at the start of a new Senate session can abolish the filibuster and make it possible to pass legislation with a simple majority. Given the strident rightward direction of the Republicans in recent years, you can bet that when they have 51 votes in the Senate, they'll eliminate the filibuster rule rather make their agenda subject to the veto of the 40th most liberal member of the Senate. Maintaining the filibuster rule doesn't protect Democrats from the misrule of a future Republican majority. It just makes it impossible to implement the agenda President Obama and the Democrats in Congress were elected to enact, putting the success of the Obama presidency in jeopardy, leaving the massive Obama grassroots base disillusioned and making the promises of aspiring Democratic office holders like Joe Sestak sound hollow because they're so unlikely to be fulfilled.
Why not offer up meaningful tort reform. Couldn't that garner 2 GOP votes? Two reasons Coakley lost 1) correct: distrust of Washington and any one party in power 2) Mass already has forced health care, they know it costs billions more than advertized Finally, the assertion that Dems have not abused the power of needing 60 votes in the same manner as the GOP has over this issue is simply absurd. If that were correct, you would have privaitized social security, a permanent repeal of the estate tax, tort reform for medical malpractice, and best of all perhaps Harriet Meiers on the Supreme Court. Thank God for the Dems
Hey Mike! How's Florida? And Kinsley? I miss our little backyard duels. As to your assertions: 1.) Mass has health care. And it's indeed so terrible that no credible politician is seeking its repeal. Kind of like Canada, where single-payer sucks so bad that even the conservatives embrace it, at least as a fundamental concept. 2.) Tort wouldn't have gotten them two votes, particularly if they sought a public option in return. The Rs were lining up against this thing from the get-go, no matter what. Who would have jumped? And if they put tort in there with nothing in return, the House Dems would have defected. Mike, really, you know the game better than that. 3.) The following legislation was passed with fewer than 60 votes during the Bush years: * The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 passed 54-44 * The Energy Policy Act of 2003 passed 57-40 * The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 passed 51-49 * The Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 passed 54-44 * The FY2006 budget resolution and Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 passed 52-47 * The Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act passed 55-45 * The FY2007 budget resolution passed 51-49 Until 2007, the record number of filibusters in a congressional session was 58 (this includes the so-called nuclear option time). In 2007-2008, the first session after the Dems took over — and even when the Rs still had a reliable veto in the White House — they filibustered 112 times. The 60-vote threshold is not sacrosanct, my friend.
Each of the above vills you mention did get 60 votes for cloture Each of those bills you mention also contained sweeteners to entice those 60 votes. While I am not armed with the amount of research you have, you know I am correct. Tax cuts, giving seniors a new benefit, and free trade are all items that some dems will support.
sorry, forgot to mention that the fam is great, Florida is 80 degrees and sunny today, and for your new readers, the screaming matches between your new ultra liberal writer and myself, the huge Libertarian, are the thing of legend.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by seasons gift and Philly News Now, Yancey @YanceyG. Yancey @YanceyG said: Joe Sestak on Mass. election, health care, the filibuster, American democracy and the Democratic Party's loathesom... http://bit.ly/6zubcP [...]
A LINE IN THE SAND - From jacksmith - WorkingClass My Fellow Americans and People Of The World A strong Government-run MEDICARE like Public Option is STILL! CRITICAL! We have had a long hard struggle to find out what would be the BEST! that this congress and the Whitehouse could do to fix our highly dangerous, poor quality, most costly, and MOST! disgraceful healthcare delivery system in the world. It is clear that congress can do much more for the American people than what is proposed so far. It is clear that congress can pass a strong GOVERNMENT-run public option CHOICE. Available to everyone on day one. Expand Medicare and not levy any new taxes on workers healthcare benefits and plans. LET THIS BE YOUR LINE IN THE SAND! Lastly, there can be NO! INDIVIDUAL MANDATES without a strong Government-run MEDICARE like Public Option CHOICE. Or the American people WILL! and SHOULD! revolt with an all out CIVIL WAR against congress and this Government. House and Senate progressives and the tri-caucuses should aggressively push for the inclusion of a strong Public Option, Medicare expansion, and no new taxes on workers healthcare benefits and plans. If the obstructionist kill meaningful healthcare reform, then you should kill this bill. Because it will be far worse than the healthcare disaster we have now. It's failure will be on the obstructionist heads. And they will be punished and replaced. WITHOUT A PUBLIC OPTION CHOICE, THIS BILL WILL KILL FAR MORE AMERICANS THAN IT WILL SAVE. What is proposed in the Senate bill is the worst case scenario for health-care reform. It would shift trillions of taxpayer, public and private dollars into the hands of the private insurance industry (The single most costly, deadly and dangerous product sold in America). And it would compel by law millions of Americans to financially support this oxymoronic criminal enterprise. You cant have a individual MANDATE WITHOUT A STRONG PUBLIC OPTION CHOICE! You will have NO! realistic way of controlling cost and quality. Cost will continue soaring through the roof bleeding the American people dry, and KILLing our economy. And our quality of healthcare will continue to decline below our current ranking of "WORST! quality of healthcare delivery in the developed World". From the very start, the American people have been crystal clear about what they wanted. They wanted a humane single payer system like the rest of the developed world has (HR676). Or at least a humane strong GOVERNMENT-run public option CHOICE!! This is what the American people gave the democrats control of the house, control of the senate, and control of the Whitehouse to do. Those of you that can, should prepare now to remove every member of congress that fails to support YOUR healthcare reform with a strong Public Option, Medicare expansion, and no new taxes on workers healthcare benefits and plans. Run against them in teams if you have to. But take them out. And replace them with a strong single payer or PRO PUBLIC OPTION CHOICE candidate. Now! is the time to bring maximum pressure on your members of congress. Contact your representatives and spread the word. The Public Option http://tinyurl.com/yfftf76 H1N1 IS A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION! I have to tell you now that the H1N1 virus is a man-made WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION! and TERROR! It is a WEAPONIZED version of a flu virus. It has swept the planet infecting millions. And causing a global pandemic that has killed tens of thousands, and injured millions. The H1N1 virus is the product of the DISGRACEFUL, GREED DRIVEN PRIVATE FOR PROFIT MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX! It was released in the U.S. in Texas in early January of last year, but not recognized until around April 2009 in California. The reason I know this is because when it came to America, it came to see me FIRST! How sweet... This was around the time the MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX! assaulted the Whitehouse with all their devils deals to cripple and weaken YOUR! healthcare reform. Especially your right to have a single payer system like HR676 (Medicare For All) which most of you wanted. They don't even want you to have your HUGE!!! compromise position of a strong government-run MEDICARE like Public Option CHOICE. To compete with their DISGRACEFUL, GREED DRIVEN, MURDEROUS, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT PRODUCT (The single most costly, deadly and dangerous product sold in America). They also wanted to take away your rights to have your government meet it's responsibility to use it's full power to regulate, negotiate, and control drug cost, healthcare cost and quality. Something every other civilized country in the developed World has done for it's people. Their Greed! moral degeneracy and lack of patriotism knows no bounds. Many of you will remember that before we knew about H1N1. I posted a open message to the President and Congress warning them to be vigilant about their health, and cautious about any medical advice they received. As I said then "they will not hesitate to try and hurt you". The U.S. and the World have been under a BIOLOGICAL TERROR ATTACK! for over a year now. It is CRITICAL that We The People Of The United States take away control of our healthcare system from the GREED DRIVEN MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX! For our own National security, and the security of the world. A Strong, government-run, MEDICARE like Public Option CHOICE. Available to everyone on day one, with the full unfettered power of the federal government to regulate, negotiate, and control cost and quality. Would be the most workable way to deal with this global crisis at this time. Including patent suspensions as needed for national security or the greater good. As an American I invite the peoples of the World to help us fix our healthcare crisis. And bring pressure on our government to meet it's responsibility to protect global security by controlling, and removing the corrupting influence of GREED and the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT motivations from healthcare in the U.S. and around the World. I call on the governments of the World and the global intelligence community to track down these MASS MURDERERS, and bring them to justice. CONNECT THE DOTS! And be vigilant that they don't slip in another viral strain on you under the cloak of H1N1 sequestration. Further, the proposed patent protection on biologic's must be stripped from the US bill. And greatly shorten/restricted, or abolished completely. This is a grave danger to humanity and global security. I think President Obama is doing the best he can at playing the disastrous deck of cards he inherited from the previous administration. And I think he is doing an excellent job. But the wolves and devils of the medical industrial complex! are trying to exploit, and take advantage of his good heart, and desperate desire to help suffering Americans. But we must be strong and insist that healthcare reform be done right for the American people. Or everyone loose's. This is all I can say in a message post. I'll try to find a way to tell you more later. God Bless You My Fellow Human Beings jacksmith - Working Class p.s. The so-called nominal H1N1 virus is designed in such a way as to make it more lethal to children and young adults. The medical community must be more vigilant of secondary bacterial infections in the young caused by H1N1. And remember, a viral infection is also a transfer of genetic code to you. Think about it, and be vigilant. :-(
Why can't we have a fusion of Democrat & GOP ideals, in something like "Reaganomics For Renewables"? Eliminate the corporate tax at the federal and state level on all renewable energy companies. Eliminate payroll taxes for employees of those companies. Energy independence, global warming & unemployment - SOLVED.
I think things are going to have to get so bad that constitutional amendments are brought about to change the operating system of DC. The most important amendment we should get (immediately) is the line-item veto. The GOP gave the line item veto to Bill Clinton in the 90's but it was taken away by the supreme court - so an amendment is the only way to make it stick. States like Florida have the line-item veto and they balance their budget year after year. The line-item veto would eliminate presidents having to accept or deny entire bills; they could send back the ugly pieces and parts for congress to vote on separately and pass only if they really wanted to. It would certainly stop the practice of larding up bills with bridges to nowhere, cornhusker kickbacks and louisiana purchases. The production of legislation would be a lot more efficient & better for Americans under such a system at the end of the day.
You should be very proud of taking notes from a PR-fueled conversation, retyping them and then linking to another person's article. Notify the Pulitzers.
[...] Specter’s primary challenger, Joe Sestak, who I work for, also doesn’t want to change it right now, but will “see about [...]
[...] the rest of his caucus. Also, Specter’s primary challenger, Joe Sestak, who I work for, also doesn’t want to change it right now, but will “see about [...]
[...] the Senate and its arcane and undemocratic rules, and how a super-minority is essentially able to hold up and stymie any substantive progressive. For instance, health care. Scott Brown wins an election in Massachusetts, and suddenly it takes a [...]
- ActiVman
- adventures
- Arts
- Ask A Man-About-Town
- Award Tour
- Awards
- Bad Idea Factory
- Beer
- Below the Curve
- Bikes
- Booze
- Brian Hickey
- BRT
- Budget
- Budget Fuss
- Business
- Casinos
- City Council
- City Hall
- CouncilMANIC
- CP Abroad
- CP in the Community
- Criminal Justice System
- Day Tripper
- Death and Taxes
- Delaware River
- Design
- DROP
- Drugs
- Dubious Distinction
- Elections
- End of Days
- Environment
- Fashion
- Film Fest
- Financial Meltdown
- FrackTrack
- Free Library
- Gambling
- Gay Stuff
- Get Lit
- Greenstorming
- guns
- Hall Monitor
- Health
- Health Care
- Hello, Kitty
- Holidays
- Ice Cubes
- Iggles
- Immigration
- In Memoriam
- Labor
- Lawsuits
- Letters
- LGBTQ
- Maps
- Marcellus Shale
- Media
- MMA
- Mummers
- Music
- MUST READ
- Mysterious Mysteries
- Nation
- News
- Non Sequitur
- Opinion
- PA politics 2010
- Parking Wars
- Parks and Recreation
- People Send Us This Stuff
- Philadelphia Police
- Philadelphia Union
- Philaphemera
- Philly From Scratch
- philly madness
- Photos
- Poverty
- PPA
- President Obama
- Print Edition
- Prisons
- Protest
- Readers Write
- Real Estate
- Rock Bottom
- Schools
- Science
- Screwing Philly
- SEPTA
- snow
- So Lush
- Soccer
- Sporting Life
- Sports Complex
- State Politicians
- State Politics
- Street Art
- Strike
- Stuff We Like
- Taxes
- Taxi Drivers
- Tech Fetish
- television
- The Budget Crisis
- The City Paper
- The CLOG
- The Human Condition
- The Mayor
- The Phightin Phils
- The World
- Things that make you go hm
- Tinfoil Hats Off
- Under the Table
- Under the Tables
- Urban Development
- Urban Planning
- urban wildlife
- Video Poker
- We Call Shenanigans
- Weather
- Web Junk
- Weekend Omnibus
- White House
- What We've Found
- Women's Issues
- Flyered Up!
- How 'Bout That Weather?
- it's always sunny in philadelphia
- Stu!
- Shopping
- get out
- 10-track mind
- ArtsFlash
- Bloggity
- Bruce Being Bruce
- Colleges
- Comedy
- Gigantic Surprises
- Hello Canary
- Hello Puppy
- errata
- get lost
- Inside The Fishbowl
- Library Closings
- Local Support
- Movies
- Murder
- Night Moves
- Recycling
- radio
- Scientology
- Sex
- Sixers
- Skeeze Police
- State Politicians Screwing Philly
- That's a cool stencil!
- Theater
- Things We See
- This Week
- This Week in Oates
- University City
- WIN
- What we don't heart
- trailer!
- what we heart
- Feeling Guilty
- Askadelphia.
- Broke in Philly
- Contest
- Dance
- Dear Paper Doll
- Do A Good Thing
- Education
- Film Fest Schism
- G20-20 Vision
- Goodbye
- Gossip
- Great American Heroes
- PATCO
- Pearl Jam Week
- Puppy
- Stars of the Photostream
- sustainability
- Lower Merion Webcam-Gate
- The Cycle
- Equality Forum
- Bureaucrat of the Week
- Animals
- ElectionEar
- Photostream
