HA!

The Heart Sutra    Body is nothing more than emptiness,    emptiness is nothing more than body.    The body is exactly empty,    and emptiness is exactly body.    The other four aspects of human[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Docudharma/~3/QW7wAQ16D7Y/ha-by-Nightprowlkitty

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

On the eve of House vote, McCaughey spews
falsehoods about health reform

In a November 7 Wall Street Journal op-ed, serial health care misinformer Betsy McCaughey purported to provide "details you need to know" about the current version of health care reform legislation slated for a vote that same day in the House of Representatives. As with her previous descriptions of reform legislation, many of her claims are falsehoods or distortions, such as McCaughey's claim that illegal immigrants are exempted from a fine imposed by the bill.

McCaugheymakes false, misleading claims about health care bill

McCAUGHEY'S CLAIM: Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months afterthe bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decidewhat a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legallyrequired to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreementnow, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.

On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the planswill likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases hisown insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 inout-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of hispre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to paya $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total,or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than theseamounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer. [Wall Street Journal,11/7/09]

REALITY: Secretary has 18 months from bill passage to define"qualified plan," but people are not required to have such plans until at least2013. McCaughey does notexplain how Section 224 is "like a banker telling you to sign the loanagreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 monthslater." Section224 does 11/7/09]

REALITY: House bill provides for plans offering "additional benefits." McCaughey's claim thatSec. 303 "makes it clear" that the bill provides only a "one size fits all"package is false. McCaughey claims that the bill "claims to offer choice" and liststhree levels of plans, "basic, enhanced and premium levels." But McCaugheyignores that the bill also includes a fourth choice: "premium-plus plans," which offer "additionalbenefits, such as adult oral health and vision care." From Sec. 303 of theHouse bill:

(b) LIMITATION ON HEALTHBENEFITS PLANS OFFERED BY OFFERING ENTITIES.-

[...]

(c) SPECIFICATION OF BENEFIT LEVELSPLANS.-

(1) IN GENERAL.-The Commissioner shall establishthe following standards consistent with subsection and titleII:

(A) BASIC, ENHANCED, AND PREMIUMPLANS.-Standards for levels of Exchange participating health benefits plans:basic, enhanced, and premium (in this division referred to as a ''basic plan'',''enhanced plan'', ''premium plan'', respectively).

(B) PREMIUM-PLUS PLAN BENEFITS.-Standards foradditional benefits that may offered, consistent with this subsection andsubtitle C of title II, under a premium plan a plan with additional benefitsreferred this division as a ''premium-plus plan'').

 [...]     

(5) PREMIUM-PLUS PLAN.-A premium-plus plan isa premium plan that also provides additional benefits, such as adult oralhealth and vision care, approved by the Commissioner. The portion of thepremium that is attributable to such additional benefits shall be separatelyspecified.

McCAUGHEY'S CLAIM: Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when youfile your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. Ifnot, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt fromthis requirement. [Wall Street Journal, 11/7/09]

REALITY: Bill exempts "nonresident aliens," not "illegalimmigrants," and those terms are not equivalent. There is no Section 59bof the bill. Section 501 of the bill 11/7/09]

REALITY: McCaughey doesn't back up her claim that the bill"permit[s] the government to dictate treatment decisions." Under a sectionentitled "Eviscerating Medicare," McCaughey purports to expose various sectionsof the House health reform bill that would, in part, "permit the government todictate treatment decisions." However, McCaughey never substantiates her claim.As Media Matters for America has documented, McCaughey has previously falselyclaimed that health care provisions in the economic recovery legislation would permit thegovernment to control or interfere with doctors' treatment decisions.

McCAUGHEY'S CLAIM: Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare froma fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to seeand doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a"medical home."

The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions oncare. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists anddiagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients mayhave to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as theprimary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but theHHS secretary is authorized to "disseminate this approach rapidly on anational basis." [Wall Street Journal, 11/7/09]

REALITY: The "medical home" section expands a pilot programcreated by Republicans and can only be further expanded if the program improves quality. According to a 11/7/09]

REALITY: The CBO report did not say that medical homes were likely toresemble an unpopular plan. Indeed, CBO 11/7/09]

REALITY: Sec. 1114 adds physician assistants to currentlyrecognized eligible hospice providers, including physicians and nursepractitioners. Contrary to McCaughey's suggestion that physicians are the onlycategory of providers currently qualified to "oversee care for hospicepatients," for purposes of hospice care, the section of the Social Security Actthat Section 1114 is amending currently bill:

SEC. 1114. PERMITTINGPHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS TO ORDER POST-HOSPITAL EXTENDED CARE SERVICES ANDTO PROVIDE FOR RECOGNITION OF ATTENDING PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS AS AT TENDINGPHYSICIANS TO SERVE HOSPICE PATIENTS.

[...]

(b) RECOGNITION OF ATTENDINGPHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS AS ATTENDING PHYSICIANS TO SERVE HOSPICEPATIENTS.-

(1) IN GENERAL.-Section 1861(dd)(3)(B) of suchAct (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(3)(B)) is amended-

(A) by striking ''or nurse''and inserting '', the nurse''; and

(B) by inserting ''or the physician assistant(as defined in such subsection),'' after ''subsection(aa)(5)),''.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.-Section1814(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(a)(7)(A)(i)(I)) is amended byinserting ''or a physician assistant'' after ''a nursepractitioner''.

McCAUGHEY'S CLAIM: Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiatesprograms to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowestcost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and byimplication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areassuch as New York and Florida. [Wall Street Journal, 11/7/09]

REALITY: Bill does not "initiate programs" that require a reduction of payments "to what it costs in the lowest cost regions ofthe country." Secs. 1158-1160 do not, as McCaughey claimed, "initiate programsto reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regionsof the country." In fact, Sec. 1158 does just the opposite of what McCaugheyclaims, providing "any needed increases in payment rates and to 'hold harmless'providers that would otherwise have their payments reduced." [Tri-committeestaff summary, 11/02/09]

Similarly,Secs. 1159 and 1160 do not necessarily mandate changes that lead to paymentreductions concurrent with the "lowest cost regions of the country." Sec. 1159requires the Institute of Medicine to conduct a study of "geographic variationin health care spending among all payers," including recommendations regarding"changes to Medicare payment systems to address such geographic variation andto improve the value of health spending in the program," and Sec. 160 requiresthe Health and Human Services Secretary to "develop an implementation plan forchanging Medicare payment system" based on those recommendations [Tri-committeestaff summary, 11/02/09]. According to the bill, those payment recommendations account fornumerous factors, not simply cost-reduction, and do not necessarily require lowering payments acrossthe country to match those in the "lowest cost regions":

(b) RECOMMENDATIONS.-Takinginto account the findings under subsection (a) and the changes to the paymentsystems made by this Act, the Institute shall recommend changes to payment foritems and services under parts A and B of title XVIII of the Social SecurityAct, for addressing variation in Medicare per capita spending for items andservices (not including add-ons for graduate medical education,disproportionate share payments, and health information technology, asspecified in sections 1886(d)(5)(F), 1886(d)(5)(B), 1886(h), 1848(o), and1886(n), respectively, of such Act) by promoting high- value care (as definedin subsection (f)), with particular attention to high-volume, high-costconditions. In making such recommendations, the Institute shall consider eachof the following:

(1) Measurement and reporting on quality andpopulation health.

(2) Reducing fragmented and duplicative care.

(3) Promoting the practice of evidence-basedmedicine.

(4) Empowering patients to make value-based caredecisions.

(5) Leveraging the use of health informationtechnology.

(6) The role of financial and other incentivesaffecting provision of care.

(7) Variation in input costs.

(8) The characteristics of the patientpopulation, including socio-economic factors (including race, ethnicity,gender, age, income and educational status), and whether the beneficiaries aredually eligible for the Medicare program under title XVIII of the SocialSecurity Act and Medicaid under title XIX of such Act.

(9) Other topics the Institute deemsappropriate.

McCAUGHEY'S CLAIM: Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results ofcomparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will bedelivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical itemsand services." [Wall Street Journal, 11/7/09]

REALITY: Bill explicitly denies federal officials the authority to usecomparative effectiveness research to dictate care. There is no Section1402 of the bill. McCaughey is presumably referring to Section 1401, whichappears on pages 733-761. Section 1401 11/7/09]

REALITY: The bill requires the government to establish qualityguidelines. There is no Section 399V of the bill. McCaughey is presumablyreferring to Section 2530 of the bill, which begins on page 1422 and addsSection 399V to Title 42 of the U.S. Code. Section 2530 specifically requires the Secretary to"establish guidelines for assuring the quality of the training and supervisionof community health workers under the programs funded under this section andfor assuring the cost-effectiveness of such programs," and it requires the Secretary to monitor the programsto make sure they are in compliance with those guidelines.

McCAUGHEY'S CLAIM: While the bill will slash Medicarefunding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city socialwork and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability. [...] Sec.222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguisticallyappropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to informMedicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at alltimes and with no co-pays for language services. [Wall Street Journal,11/7/09]

REALITY: Language service demonstration project requires Secretary review, IOMreport.Section 222 of the bill defines the benefits that must be included in anessential benefits program. It does not discuss interpreter services and doesnot appear on page 617. McCaughey is presumably referring to Section 1222, which begins on page617. McCaughey's suggestion that the demonstration project established in Sec.1222 is subject to "vague standards of accountability" is false. In fact, Sec.1222 "[r]equires the Secretary to evaluate the demonstration program," and Sec.1223 "[r]equires the Secretary to contract with the Institute of Medicine toconduct a study that examines the impact on the quality of care, access tocare, the reduction in medical errors and costs or savings associated with theprovision of language access services to limited English proficientpopulations" [Tri-committee staff summary 11/2/09]. From Secs. 1222 and 1223 of the House bill:

SEC. 1222. DEMONSTRATION TOPROMOTE ACCESS FOR MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES WITH LIMITED ENGLISHPROFICIENCY BY PROVIDING REIMBURSEMENT FOR CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLYAPPROPRIATE SERVICES.

[...]

(g) EVALUATION AND REPORT.-The Secretary shallconduct an evaluation of the demonstration program under this section and shallsubmit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report not later than 1 yearafter the completion of the program.

[...]

SEC. 1223. IOM REPORT ON IMPACT OF LANGUAGEACCESS SERVICES.

(a) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary of Health andHuman Services shall enter into an arrangement with the Institute of Medicineunder which the Institute will prepare and publish, not later than 3 yearsafter the date of the enactment of this Act, a report on the impact of languageaccess services on the health and health care of limited English proficientpopulations.

McCAUGHEY'S CLAIM: Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437)establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for trainingnurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example,grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs thatprovide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changesin the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-schoolgrants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantagedbackgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities." [Wall Street Journal,11/7/09]

REALITY: House bill establishes numerous metrics by which it basesgrant-awarding preference concerning nurse, health science education.Contrary to McCaughey's suggestion that Secs. 2521 and 2533 establish only"racial and ethnic preferences" for providing grants, both Sec. 2521, whichpertains to nursing education, and Sec. 2533, which pertains to "secondaryschool health science training programs," outline a number of factors thatimpact how grants would be provided. From the bill:

2521. COMPREHENSIVEPROGRAMS TO PROVIDE EDUCATION TO NURSES AND CREATE A PIPELINE TO NURSING.

[...]

(g) PREFERENCE.-In awardinggrants under this section the Secretary shall give preference to programs that-

(1)provide for improving nurse retention;

(2) provide for improving the diversity of thenew nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patientpopulation;

(3) provide for improving the quality of nursingeducation to improve patient care and safety;

(4) have demonstrated success in upgrading incumbenthealth care workers to become nurses or which have established effectiveprograms or pilots to increase nurse faculty; or

(5) are modeled after or affiliated with suchprograms described in paragraph (4).

[...]

SEC. 2533. SECONDARY SCHOOL HEALTH SCIENCESTRAINING PROGRAM.

[...]

(d) PREFERENCE.-In awardinggrants and contracts under subsection (b), the Secretary shall give preferenceto entities that have a demonstrated record of at least one of the following:

(1) Graduating a high orsignificantly improved percentage of students who have exhibited mastery insecondary school State science standards.

(2) Graduating students from disadvantagedbackgrounds, including racial and ethnic minorities who are underrepresentedin-

(A) associate's or bachelor'sdegree programs in health professions or bachelor's degree programs in healthprofessions-related majors;

or

(B) health professions.

McCAUGHEY'S CLAIM: Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automaticMedicaid enrollment of newborns who do not otherwise have insurance. [Wall Street Journal,11/7/09]

REALITY: McCaughey does not explain what's wrong with newbornenrollment provision. McCaughey includes her bullet about Medicaid enrollment ofnewborns as an example of a "questionable priorit[y]" but she does not explainwhat is problematic about this section, which serial misinformer who has perpetuated numerousfalsehoods about health care reform. McCaughey has falselyclaimedthat a prior version of the House health care reform bill would"absolutely require" end-of-life counseling for seniors on Medicare"that will tell them how to end their life sooner" -- a claim thatmany in the media repeated. McCaughey repeatedlyfalselyclaimedthat the Senate HELP committee's bill "basically" "pusheseveryone into an HMO-style plan." Additionally, McCaughey concoctedthe false claim,which was nonetheless widely repeated in the media, that a health IT provisionin the economic recovery act enabled government bureaucrats to "monitortreatments" or restrict what "your doctor is doing" with regardto patient care. On multiple occasions, after being challenged on her falseclaims about health care legislation, McCaughey reportedlyinsisted that she was right about the ultimate effect of abill despite misrepresenting what it actually said.

Media have repeatedly hosted McCaughey to discuss health reform. The Atlantic's Fallows has pointedto McCaughey as an example of someone for whom there "seems tobe almost no extremity of being proven wrong which disqualifies" her frombeing given a platform in the media. Indeed, despite her numerous falsehoodsand past conflicts of interest, throughout the health care reform debate in2009, McCaughey has been an ever-present part of the media discussion. She hasbeen hosted on CNN at least twiceand on Fox News Channel repeatedly toweigh in on health care reform.Additionally, according to a search of the Nexis database, The Wall StreetJournal and the New York Post have each published multiple op-eds byMcCaughey about health reform; Bloomberg News also published a commentary by McCaughey on health care reformprovisions in the recovery act.

McCaughey'swork on health care reform has been marked by conflicts of interest concerns

McCaughey resigned from medical company board over "conflictof interest" concerns. McCaughey resignedfrom the board of directors of Cantel Medical Corp., a medical productscompany, in August to "avoid any appearance of a conflict ofinterest," as reported by The Washington Independent and confirmed in aCantel press release.

McCaughey reported to be Big Tobacco shillduring 1994 health care debate. RollingStone reportedthat in 1994, tobacco giant Philip Morris implemented a "strategy toderail Hillarycare," which included an "effort to 'work on thedevelopment of favorable pieces' with 'friendly contacts in the media' "-- specifically mentioning the company's collaboration with McCaughey on her1994 New Republic hit piece onthe Clintons' health care reform bill. Responding to the Rolling Stone article,McCaughey described as "outrageous and fictional" thecharge that she "worked for a tobacco company in writing my critiqueof the dangers of the Clinton Plan. I did not."

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.mediamatters.org/~r/mediamatters/latest/~3/pp4DCZ2po_U/200911070006

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

UK proposes new tax on banks, Geithner rejects

The "Tobin Tax" has been kicked around a lot lately as one possible option. France and Germany were recently promoting the idea and now, the UK has come on board. It's easy to understand that not everyone will always agree on policies such as this though it's becoming hard to see when Geithner and Obama will ever ask the financial businesses to contribute their fair share. If not this, what? When? Under what circumstance? The never-ending free ride for Wall Street becomes less and less acceptable as time moves on. The administration continues to be either too timid to fight or they actually believe the Wall Street centric view of the world.

Gordon Brown suffered a rebuff from Washington yesterday after he signalled Britain's backing for plans for an international transactions tax on banks to help the world recover from the financial crisis.

At the G20 summit in St Andrews, Fife, the Prime Minister dropped Britain's longstanding opposition to the scheme, which could raise billions a year for poor nations.

But within hours of the significant shift in UK policy on the so-called "Tobin tax", the US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner dismissed the move, saying Washington was "not prepared" to support it.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Americablog/~3/r1ggkYd-xCU/uk-proposes-new-tax-on-
banks-geithner.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Stupak Amendment Passes; 64 Dems Ask for Primary
Opponents

We've been betrayed: the Stupak Amendment passed 240 to 194 and with 64 Democrats voting Yea.[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://firedoglake.com/2009/11/07/stupak-amendment-passes-64-dems-ask-for-primary
-opponents/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

House Vote on Health Care Bill Coming Up

While some fool is going on about malicious trial lawyers on the House Floor, we are waiting for the vote on the full health care reform bill, which should take place in the next hour. It's the Affordable Health Care for America Now Act.

More sour grapes from Republicans on a motion to recommit the Republican bill. Making more sense, Rep. Lloyd Duggett:

"Now at this time for a historic choice—as the Republicans again side with insurance monopolies, we choose to strengthen Medicare, we choose to stand up for the millions of struggling families, who have been denied health access for far too long. Our Democratic plan is a lifesaver for 12 times as many Americans and a dollar saver—responsibly reducing the national debt by $36 billion more than this Republican false choice."

Love how the Republicans talk about choice, freedom and living in a free country but have no problem denying women the right to choose an abortion. Are they just stupid about how inconsistent that is?

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TalkleftThePoliticsOfCrime/~3/PwQGhroq0xw/427

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Dems Pass Health Care Bill, 220 to 215

Update: 9:08 pm MT: The Health Care bill passes. With 6 minutes remaining to vote, there are 218 votes in favor. Final vote: 220 yes, 215 no. 39 Dems voted no, 1 Republican voted yes. House adjourns at 9:33 pm.

Now that it's a done deal, people will want to know what's in it, and what it means for them. A good starting place, with lots of links, factsheets and more:

Question: Did the Stupak Amendment save the health care bill? 64 Dems voted for the Stupak amendment. 39 Dems voted against the health care bill. Does that mean the Stupak amendment resulted in 25 yeas for the HCR bill? The HCR bill passed with only 2 votes to spare. Next question: Was the trade-off "wire coat hanger amendment" worth it?

****

While some fool is going on about malicious trial lawyers on the House Floor, we are waiting for the vote on the full health care reform bill, which should take place in the next hour. It's the Affordable Health Care for America Now Act. The Dems need 218 votes. The Dems think they have them. [More...]

More sour grapes from Republicans on a motion to recommit the Republican bill. Making more sense, Rep. Lloyd Duggett:

"Now at this time for a historic choice—as the Republicans again side with insurance monopolies, we choose to strengthen Medicare, we choose to stand up for the millions of struggling families, who have been denied health access for far too long. Our Democratic plan is a lifesaver for 12 times as many Americans and a dollar saver—responsibly reducing the national debt by $36 billion more than this Republican false choice."

Love how the Republicans talk about choice, freedom and living in a free country but have no problem denying women the right to choose an abortion. Are they just stupid about how inconsistent that is?

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TalkleftThePoliticsOfCrime/~3/PwQGhroq0xw/427

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Repugs Hate Veterans

Don't you ever dare say one fucking word to me about repug patriotism and love for veterans.

Thirteen major military and veterans groups have joined forces to try to force one senator - Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma - to release a hold that he has placed on a major veterans benefits bill.

Coburn has been identified by Senate aides as the lawmaker preventing consideration of S 1963, the Veterans' Caregiver and Omnibus Health Benefits Act of 2009, by using an informal but legal practice of putting a hold on a bill.

Coburn's staff did not respond to questions, but Senate aides said the first-term senator has expressed concern about creating new and unfunded benefits and wants the opportunity to amend the measure.

SNIP

Earlier this fall, Coburn placed holds on S 252, the Veterans Health Care Authorization Act of 2009, and S 728, the Veterans' Insurance and Benefits Enhancement Act of 2009, which led to the introduction of S 1963, which combines key provisions of the two earlier bills in an effort to get around Coburn's opposition.

In a letter sent Monday night to the Senate majority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the 13 military and veterans groups ask the Senate to get on with it.

"It is essential that Congress act on this comprehensive measure without further delay," the letter reads. "Thousands of disabled veterans with serious medical conditions and the family members who care for them are counting on this additional support."

The letter says passing the bill by Veterans Day would be a "fitting way" to honor veterans.

Those signing the letter include the nation's major veterans groups - The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, AmVets, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Blinded Veterans Association, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Vietnam Veterans of America, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and Jewish War Veterans, plus the Military Officers Association of America, National Military Family Association and Wounded Warrior Project.

Steve Robertson, legislative director for The American Legion, said delaying the bill hurts families caring for severely wounded combat veterans who would benefit from the stipends, health care, counseling and respite care that would be provided to caregivers in the bill.

"For a lot of family caregivers, delay is costing them their jobs and their savings. It's having a big impact," he said.

Robertson said he has spoken to Coburn's staff about the earlier holds on S 252 and S. 728, but the conversation was fairly one-sided, with Coburn's aides trying to get Robertson to dissuade veterans from flooding the senator's office with calls.

"They made it clear that Sen. Coburn sees this as using his rights as a senator to place a hold on a bill, and that he was not doing anything illegal or wrong," Robertson said. "I agree with that, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to hold up a bill that would do a lot of good things for veterans that has cleared a committee and is ready for a vote."

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., the Senate assistant majority leader, mentioned Coburn's hold in a Tuesday floor speech without citing Coburn by name, saying that the bill was being held up by one senator over cost.

"How much is a veteran's life worth?" Durbin asked, adding that he hopes the hold is lifted.

This is nothing new.  Since Ronald Reagan, who was never a soldier but played one in the movies and never understood the difference, repugs have time after time after time fucked over the military and veterans to cut taxes for the rich and hand trillions in national treasure to contractors like KBR who murder U.S. military members with impunity.

And yet repugs get away with portraying themselves as the patriotic, pro-military party. This is yet another example of Democratic failure to call the motherfucking liars out for lying about fucking their mothers.


Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheyGaveUsARepublic-FrontPage/~3/fRGOami5Lcs/repug
s-hate-veterans

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Presented By:

[...]

Read The Full Article:

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

GOP Bill Goes Down to Defeat

GOP alternative amendment (i.e., the House GOP's bill) goes down to defeat 258-176. Late Update: Rep. Tim Johnson (R-IL) was the sole Republican to vote against the Boehner bill. No one seem really clear as to what his reasoning was. As I noted below,[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/TRs-MCwSMmY/gop_bill_goes_d
own_to_defeat.php

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Henry Brown lets S.C. down again with health care
bill vote

From DCCC Chairman and Rep. Chris Van Hollen:

Hours ago, the House of Representatives passed the Affordable Health Care for America Act, which includes a strong public option, and will finally end the broken status quo of health insurance for the American people.

And what about our SC-1 Congressman Henry Brown? He's nay all the way, people. So, South Carolina? How do you like having your tax-payed money wasted on expensive mailers, but not on health care that will benefit you?

Let's look at one provision that should get everybody's attention...

Insurance companies are prohibited from denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition. There are caps on deductibles and annual out of pocket spending is capped at $5000.

That's a good one. To Brown? Who cares, I am not voting for it.

How about this?

Provides tax subsidies for individuals between 150 and 400 percent (sliding scale) of the Federal Poverty Level. There are also tax subsidies for small businesses.

Small businesses. Brown says they are sooooo important to the economy. Well, his vote doesn't.

Finally...

The bill includes mandates for individuals to purchase and businesses to provide health insurance or pay a fine. Individual penalty is 2.5 percent of gross income unless they get a waiver. Businesses that don't offer insurance pay a fine equal to 8 percent of their payroll. Businesses with a payroll of less than $500,000 are exempt from the mandate.

Look at the last sentence. Protection for small businesses. Brown could care less.

His vote tells me a lot.






Read The Full Article:
http://thepoliticsofjamiesanderson.blogspot.com/2009/11/henry-brown-lets-sc-down-
again-with.html

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!