 |
 Latest |
 Greatest |
 Lobby |
 Journals |
 Search |
 Options |
 Help |
 Login |
 Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs! |
berni_mccoy's Journal
The French had a similar beginning to what we are seeing:
The founders of the French social security system were largely inspired by the Beveridge report in the United Kingdom, and aimed to create a single system guaranteeing uniform rights for all. However, there was much opposition from certain socio-professional groups who already benefited from the previous insurance coverage that had more favourable terms. These people were allowed to keep their own systems. Today, 95% of the population are covered by 3 main schemes. One for commerce and industry workers and their families, another for agricultural workers and lastly the national insurance fund for self-employed non-agricultural workers. I find it funny that many of the attacks on the House bill could be applied to the French system: - It has a mandate (how dare they) - It doesn't cover 100% of the population (they only cover 95% while the House PO will cover 96%) - The French still have for-profit insurance (those corporate whores) - A forced premium is deducted from your pay - People are allowed to keep their private insurance (yes, they do have private insurance, about 4% of the population chooses it for medical, and as high as 36% choose it for dental, vision and medical hardware). Worse yet, the French system still applies cots sharing and they don't have preset rates for private providers. And yet, they have the highest ranked system in the World. Could it be that the Public Option isn't going to be nearly as bad as some make it out to be? For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_i... The best health care systems in the world are not Single Payer. Only one of the top 30 are Single Payer. The French System uses a Public Health Insurance Option. As does the UK. In fact there are at least 29 countries above Canada. Canada is one of two countries with a Universal Single Payer system, the other being Taiwan, which ranks lower than the US in terms of health care. So I ask, is a Single Payer system really better than a Public Option?
Rankings from the WHO here: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthrank... I've debated telling this story for some time, but it is clear to me I need to do so now. The current HCR bill will make a huge positive difference to families like mine. But the reasons are personal.
For those who don't know, I have two sons with type-1 diabetes, a chronic disease that is life impacting and with no cure. Type-1 is not a 'lifestyle' disease. It's an autoimmune disorder. Their immune system destroyed their insulin producing cells in their pancreas and they will be forever dependent upon insulin injections, counting carbs and a shorter life-span with devastating consequences. You can watch the video in my sig line to get an idea of what their life is like. We were fortunate enough to be insured by my employer when my oldest son was diagnosed. He nearly died because we did not know the symptoms and he was sick with the flu when his diagnosis became critical. He was in a coma for a week and we needed emergency transport from our local hospital to Boston Children's Hospital. There were two doctors on board that special ambulance ride and as we would soon find out, that ride cost more than 25 thousand dollars. My wife and I also spent that week in the hospital learning how our families life will change and what we need to do to provide the best chances for our son to live a healthy life. It was a week of learning, praying and crying, but we got through it and now we are on the other side acting as advocates for a cure for diabetes and for health care reform. About 2 weeks after we got home, the bill came from the hospital for that ambulance ride saying the insurance didn't cover it. After I spent 40 hours on the phone between the hospital and the insurance company, both pointing fingers at the other, I learned that the ambulance ride was not an "emergency" and that our insurance did not cover rides in the ambulance that weren't emergencies. We had United Health at the time and after I hounded them as to why it was not an emergency and that we never asked for the ride, the hospital simply did it, they told us that the hospital did not file it that way. By this time I started logging every conversation with anyone at the hospital or the insurance company I talked to. 20 more hours on the phone and I learned from the Hospital's billing office that they did check the proper paper work to file it as an emergency. I took this information back to United and they again said they were looking at the form and it was not checked. Back to the Hospital, this time, I wised up. I asked the woman at the billing office if she could fax me the form and show me the codes that had to be specified for an emergency. She did and over the phone we reviewed it. She said, "See check box 19 as emergent need?" I said, "Yep." She said. "It's checked, do you see that?" I said, "Yes I do. Thank you very much." I then called United and asked them to look up the filing for the ambulance ride. At first they hesitated but I said, "You've told me you are not allowed to contact the hospital on this issue, so if you show me what needs to be done, I will do it." They had mentioned earlier that they were not suppose to contact the hospital regarding how to file a claim. I didn't believe that then and after this phone call, I never believed a word any insurance person ever said again. So the woman at United brought up the form and I said, "Is there some code or check that needs to be made on the form for you to cover this." She said, "Yes, there is an emergent need requirement." I said, "What part of the form? Is there an item number?" She said, "Yes, section 19". I should mention at this point that this phone call was being recorded by them. I said, "Well that's very interesting, because I have the form in front of me that the hospital sent you, and it clearly shows that the check box #19, emergent need, is clearly marked." Several seconds of silence... She said, "Ah, so you are correct. We'll see that the hospital gets paid. *click*" And I never got another bill on this issue. But that took 80 hours of phone calls over a period of 2 months, meanwhile the bill was on the verge of being referred to a collection agency. But from that point on we have lived with fear. Fear of the next bill that won't be covered. Fear that the insurance companies will wear us down on these types of billing issues. Fear now because both of my sons are now type-1. Fear that if there is ever a gap in our coverage, we will be uninsurable. I'm self employed now and I pay a very large price for our insurance, more than double what I'd pay if the House Bill was made into law. I could hire someone for what I pay the insurance company. What happens when my sons become adults and are no longer covered by my insurance but their employer doesn't offer coverage? They'll have pre-existing conditions that make them uninsurable. And let's not even mention the fact that because they have a chronic condition that requires a steady supply of drugs and equipment that would easily consume a young person's income, they would have to cut corners on their health in order to just survive. Nearly every time they get the flu, there's a good chance they may need to go to the hospital. How will they afford that without coverage? I know the current HCR bill could be better. But for my family the bill means no longer living in fear of missing a payment, no longer living in fear of the next uncovered expense, no longer living in fear for the health of my children. If you see me get upset at posts that call the current HCR bill crap, this is why. It would radically improve our lives if it were to become law. More than 14,000 children a year are diagnosed with type-1. More than one in 500 children have it. I am fortunate enough to be able to afford a very expensive plan to minimize our costs and provide for my sons. There are many who can not. The need for reform is now. Please forgive me if I'm willing to settle for the House's Public Option. There are millions more like me who are anxious for it and willing to support it. Everyone is going to take away what they want to believe about last night's election.
The Palin/Beck/Teabaggery are saying, "SEE! We need to go much farther to the right. If such a week conservative hadn't run from the start, we would have totally won. Did you see how we surged in NY-23 right up to the end" And the far left is saying, "SEE! Because we didn't go strong on HCR, we lost VA and NJ Governors. We need to push the party farther to the left." And the center is saying, "SEE! Both sides lost because people are tired of the extremes." But here is what last night was really about: Local Issues. Deeds was a terrible Democratic candidate and ran a terrible campaign. He could not rally the base and no matter how much Obama would have campaigned for him, he was going to lose based on his policies not being what the people of Virginia wanted. Deeds couldn't have won even if we had passed a HCR bill in June and it was great. Corzine was in trouble for a very long time and despite that, it was still a close race. He went very negative in the campaign and lost a close race. NY-23 was totally about economics. The people have been hit hard and have been betrayed by GOP economics. It was time for change. A Republican tried to run on change and support the people. But apparently doing that is against the GOP. If anything that is the silver lining from last night: the GOP has been fully exposed as a party who is definitely not for the people. All the Big Names of the GOP couldn't do a damn thing about it because when they look in the mirror, there simply is no reflection to stare back and show them what they are. That is the reality folks. Everyone's going to take away what they need to hear. The Pundits and the Media are going to make up whatever bullshit story they want. But last night was not about ideology. It's about the local issues important to the people. This is why Dean's 50-state strategy made sense. It's why we need to represent the people, wherever they are, whoever they may be. That's what the Democratic party has been all about. If the party follows the mantra of being for the people, it will succeed. Just a note that the Stimulus package has just gotten started. And after just 13% has been spent, it's stopped the hemorrhaging and already had an impact on manufacturing, the housing market and employment.
Only 58% of the funds have been allocated (not spent). Given that only 13% of the funds have actually had a chance to impact the economy, I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say this is probably going to go very well once more of the money is spent. This isn't a jobless recovery. The money is going where it is needed to create jobs: to Main Street. You can find out more here: http://www.recovery.gov Here is state-by-state breakdown of how the money is being allocated and how much has been spent: http://www.recovery.gov/pages/textview.asp... And you can see an cool interactive map here on where the money is going and how it is being spent: http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/Pages... House Health Reform Bill Expands Coverage and Lowers Health Cost Growth, While Reducing Deficits
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&... The comprehensive health reform legislation that House Democratic leaders unveiled on October 29 would make significant progress in three critical areas: expanding health coverage and ensuring that such coverage is affordable, slowing the growth in health care costs, and instituting essential reforms in the health insurance market. Moreover, the bill’s cost is more than fully offset; that is, the legislation would reduce budget deficits by $104 billion over ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The bill’s revenues and spending reductions would grow faster than the cost of the coverage provisions, according to CBO, which estimates that the bill would modestly reduce deficits in years after 2019 as well. Policymakers could further improve the legislation by incorporating, at some stage of the legislative process, a provision to limit the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance such as a modified version of the excise tax on high-cost plans in the Senate Finance Committee’s health reform bill. This would further reduce health care cost growth. ...snip... - Expanding coverage. Under the House bill, 96 percent of non-elderly legal residents in the United States would have health insurance by 2019. Relative to current law, the bill would reduce the number of uninsured by 36 million, or two-thirds, by 2019, according to CBO’s preliminary estimates. The bill would cover 7 million more of the uninsured by 2019 than the bill that the Senate Finance Committee approved earlier this month. - Slowing health care cost growth. The bill would take a number of steps, particularly within Medicare, to institute efficiencies to lower costs and change how health care is delivered to improve the quality of care. CBO estimates that the bill would substantially slow Medicare’s growth rate. CBO Director Elmendorf has noted that changing Medicare’s payment rules is one of “two powerful policy levers” that the federal government has available to encourage changes in medical practice and thereby slow the increase in health care costs. The other lever that Elmendorf identified, a limit on the open-ended tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance, is part of the Senate Finance Committee bill. - Reforming the health insurance market. The bill includes essential reforms that would greatly improve access to affordable and comprehensive health insurance coverage for people (and employers) at all income levels. It would bar insurance companies from denying coverage or charging higher premiums to enrollees that have health problems and would limit insurers’ ability to charge higher premiums to individuals simply because they are older. It also would set minimum standards regarding what insurers could offer, including an annual cap on out-of-pocket costs and a ban on annual or lifetime benefit limits. These reforms would apply to all policies purchased in the individual market and, over time, all employer-sponsored plans as well. More at link, including sources and references. It's disturbing that there are people here who would attack the administration using this language. The fact is, the economy was hemorrhaging jobs prior to the stimulus. If the stimulus hadn't been put in place, the unemployment figures would easily be double if not triple what they are now, and those numbers would still be increasing. The stimulus package has indeed created jobs and saved us from imminent disaster. This is by no means a jobless recovery. It's a recovery that has created jobs while at the same time turning around many difficult-to-manage economic factors. Nearly every economist agrees on this. It's understandable for those who are still unemployed to be angry. But to rail on the Obama administration for it is simply cutting your nose off. But keep on railing on Obama. He's a miracle worker and should have gotten everyone their job back.
I knew Hamsher's claim was unfounded. She is attacking not only Eshoo, but work co-authored by Sen. Ted Kennedy. FDL has been losing credibility lately trying to sensationalize the HCR issue. I appreciate rallying the troops, but Hamsher went too far. Those who bought into Hamsher's unfounded accusation need to read this entire article. It puts facts out there instead of fear mongering. The fact is, the House Bill will ensure biologics are covered and ensure that research is supported for further development of biologics.
From Rep. Eshoo at HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-anna-esh... Like millions of Americans, I was thrilled by today's unveiling by Speaker Pelosi of the House health care reform bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act. I was proud to stand with the Speaker and my Democratic colleagues in support of this historic legislation. Since coming to Congress more than 16 years ago, nothing has been more important to me than achieving comprehensive health care reform and as a member of one of the primary committees responsible for drafting the bill, few members worked harder than I did in bringing it to the House Floor. Ms. Jane Hamsher related some heartbreaking stories on HuffPost about breast cancer survivors and their struggles to overcome this devastating disease. I've heard dozens of similar stories and each one has moved me to do everything I possibly could throughout my public service to help breast cancer victims, and I have been a leader in the House of Representatives in promoting women's breast health. The National Breast Cancer Coalition, a group representing hundreds of organizations and millions of women who dedicate their lives to curing breast cancer has honored me with their prestigious 'Perfect Voting Record' honor. I've fought tirelessly to make it a federal crime for insurance companies to kick women out of their hospital beds right after they've had a mastectomy (the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act). I fought for increased access to breast cancer screening so millions of women can catch the cancer before its too late (MRI and Mammogram Availability Act). In 1997, I successfully authored and saw into law the Reconstructive Breast Surgery Benefits Act, which banned the practice of private insurers treating breast reconstructive surgery following a mastectomy as cosmetic surgery. In 2000, I was a leading sponsor of the Breast Cancer and Cervical Treatment Act, which allows states to use Medicaid dollars to provide health treatment coverage for low-income women diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer. I also serve as Chair of the Cancer Care Working Group, a coalition of members in the House who are dedicated to improving the care and treatment of cancer patients. I'm exceedingly proud to have legislation I authored many years ago which prohibits lifetime health insurance caps included in the House health care reform bill. This cap affects many breast cancer victims, such as the woman mentioned in Jane Hamsher's HuffPost column, "House Health Care Bill: A Death Sentence for My Fellow Breast Cancer Survivors," effectively cutting off their insurance when they need it most. My legislation outlaws this practice. Having put so much into these critical issues, I'm quite frankly outraged by the falsehoods and misrepresentations in Ms. Hamsher's column. My amendment to create a new pathway for approval of 'follow-on' versions of innovative biotechnology products, or 'biosimilars,' will not deny patients access to these miraculous treatments. In fact, my legislation, sponsored by the late Senator Edward Kennedy, will create for the first time in our country's history an FDA approval process for biosimilars to compete with innovative biologics. Today, no expedited pathway for approval of a follow-on version of a biologic product exists. There are only generic versions of traditional, small-molecule drugs. For biologics, any prospective competitor to a brand-name product would have to go through the same lengthy and expensive approval process and clinical trials as the original manufacturer. As a result, there is very little economic incentive to develop a competitive version of a successful biologic. Under the legislation that Senator Kennedy and I championed, prospective biosimilar manufacturers would be permitted to use an accelerated approval process and utilize the clinical trials and laboratory data of the innovative product to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of their product. Biotechnology products are highly complex and, unlike traditional chemical drugs, they cannot be precisely duplicated by a second manufacturer. Our amendment would allow these follow-on manufacturers to say, in essence, "my product is close enough to the original product, and the FDA can rely on the innovator's safety and efficacy data to approve my product." Biotechnology products cost billions of dollars to develop, test and bring to market, and in order to ensure that competitors aren't immediately allowed to free-ride on the costly safety and efficacy data produced by innovators, some period of 'data exclusivity' is necessary to allow some period of time to recoup the investment in developing the drug. Without such a 'data exclusivity' period, there would be no reason to invest in new biologics. We would see the flow of research funds going to traditional pharmaceuticals, medical devices, semiconductors, green technology or other more promising innovations. The House and Senate health care bills include a data exclusivity period of 12 years, which is the same amount of time that all drugs enjoy on the market under patent protection, which prevents any competition. I believe the 12-year data exclusivity period preserves the existing incentives for investment in these life-saving products. It's important to note that today there is absolutely no restriction on data exclusivity -- it's effectively infinite. Competitors are never permitted to use the data produced by a brand-name biologic manufacturer. The Kennedy-Eshoo legislation brings this exclusivity down from forever to 12 years, in essence laying the groundwork for the creation of the biosimilar industry, new competition for the biotechnology industry, and reduced prices for patients. Let me individually address the patently false statements in Ms. Hamsher's post. "...thanks to Representatives Anna Eshoo and Joe Barton, there will be no generic versions of these drugs. At least not for 12 years..." The 12-year data exclusivity period in the Kennedy-Eshoo legislation begins from the time of FDA approval. Since the vast majority of the most popular biologics treatments were approved at least 12 years ago, this means that they would have virtually no data exclusivity protection. The important cancer and anemia treatments that millions of patients rely on will be subject to biosimilar competition as quickly as the FDA can process the follow-on manufacturers' applications. (For example, under my amendment Herceptin's data exclusivity period will expire in September 2010.) "And because of an 'evergreening' clause that grants drug companies a continued monopoly if they make slight changes to the drug (like creating a once-a-day dose where the original product was three times per day), they will never become generics." There is no 'evergreening' clause in my legislation. There is in fact an 'anti-evergreening' clause which explicitly provides no new exclusivity period would be granted for "a change (not including a modification to the structure of the biological product) that results in a new indication, route of administration, dosing schedule, dosage form, delivery system, delivery device, or strength." My amendment prohibits by its plain language exactly what Ms. Hamsher alleges it would encourage. Finally, Ms. Hamsher seems to be describing an alternative outcome which is pure fiction. She rightly complains about the high cost of many biologic treatments which can run into the tens of thousands of dollars per year, but she seems to indicate that these products would be readily affordable for patients, if only we would subscribe to the proposals of generic drug manufacturers and the insurance companies. The cornerstone of the Kennedy-Eshoo legislation is to bring down the costs of today's biologics by bringing them into an era of biosimilars, just as Congress moved pharmaceutical drugs to generic drugs. The House health care reform legislation thankfully and finally allows the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to directly negotiate the costs of drugs and biologics for Medicare recipients. I want to highlight a point on which Ms. Hamsher and I are in complete agreement: "If an AIDS vaccine is found, it too will be a biologic." She's absolutely correct -- if we develop an AIDS vaccine, a cure for cancer or diabetes, or an effective treatment for Alzheimer's, ALS, Parkinson's or countless other of our most horrific diseases, it will come through biotechnology. Each of these research pathways is difficult and costly, and will require billions of dollars in investment. If we undercut the incentives for this research, who exactly will invest in these life-saving biologics? Will we see companies shifting their resources to developing the next great erectile disfunction drug or cure for baldness? I'm proud that the legislation that Senator Kennedy and I have worked on for over three years is included in the healthcare reform bills inn both legislative bodies. I'm proud to have this legislation endorsed by: The AIDS Institute, ALS Association, Alliance for Aging Research, American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association, Association of American Universities, Candlelighters Childhood Cancer Foundation, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, M.D., Immune Deficiency Foundation, the National Alliance on Mental Illness and many other patient advocacy groups. Our amendment passed by large bipartisan majorities in the House Energy & Commerce Committee (47 to 11) and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee (16 to 7). It is supported by ten governors who have written to the bipartisan congressional leadership supporting the amendment. Ms. Hamsher attributes nefarious motives to this effort and the legislation. I fiercely disagree. It was carefully shaped and guided by Senator Kennedy and myself with the highest purposes of bringing life-saving biologics to include biosimilars, to save lives and to bring down the costs to every human being in our country who needs them. Bwahahahahahahahahah  Reports that they are saying Obama is putting the heat on for all Senate Dems to support the Public Option. Says they are considering supporting it and at least siding on the procedural (cloture) vote.
Big Ed Credits Nancy Pelosi and YOU. The People. The activists who have been pressuring Congress and the President for a Public Option. Specter is on now declaring his support and says they will have the votes needed for cloture even if all Dems won't vote for the final bill, but there will be enough to pass. http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_45/news/...
Leaders Confident on Health Bill Vote House Democratic leaders sounded bullish Wednesday after launching an all-hands-on-deck effort to win support for a “robust” public insurance option in their health care bill. “We think we have the votes now,” Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (Conn.) told reporters. “We have the votes to pass a robust public option.” Larson cautioned that the details were still being worked out, and Democratic aides said Members were still being whipped at press time and did not release a tally. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has asked her Members to line up behind the Medicare-based plan, rather than one that negotiates rates with providers, because it saves the most money, according to the Congressional Budget Office. “The Members understand the choices that we have to make,” Pelosi said. “If you have one option that saves $110 billion and another that saves $25 billion, how do you make up the sum of that difference?” All I have to say is    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/...
I've dug up some dirt from Rep. Alan Grayson's past by Seneca Doane Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 10:42:41 PM PDT I know that a lot of people here love them some Alan Grayson, but we cannot let that blind us to the truth, wherever it may lead us. In my case, it just took a little digging to come up with information about Rep. Grayson that I'm sure that some of you will find absolutely shocking. But if Rep. Grayson is going to come here and take up valuable real estate on the Rec List, making about 75 comments in an hour -- well, he has to expect some people here to take action. I can tell you exactly how my investigation started -- it's when I discovered that Alan Grayson's UID was 85382. By now, with us past UID 225000, that's pretty old in DKos time. So what I did was to look into his past. And what I found ... well, it's below the jump. Seneca Doane's diary :: :: What I found was Alan Grayson's first-ever comment here on Daily Kos, dated April 21, 2006. (He didn't show up again until Sept. 30 of this year, then for only two comments. That was it until someone let him loose for an hour today.) You want to know what the guy had to say? I'll tell you want the guy had to say! Thank You from Alan Grayson (6+ / 0-) My work against the war profiteers in Iraq is the subject of SusanG's post, and all I can say is that I'm 'shocked and awed'. I look at dailykos, well, pretty much daily, and I never dreamed that I would see my name in it. What animates my work is the same thing that seems to animate this site -- Margaret Mead's words: 'A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.' Thank you all, from my heart, for the encouragement. Well, what do you think of that! In 2006, he wrote "I look at dailykos ... pretty much daily"! A man like that will never amount to anything! (Or so I've been told. Pointedly.) This struck me hard enough to make me read what had prompted his thanks! Rather than make you click the link, I'm going to repost SusanG's story in its entirety. Meet Alan Grayson, my new exemplar of passion, as he wages what the Wall Street Journal deems "a one-man war against contractor fraud in Iraq." Mr. Grayson has filed dozens of lawsuits against Iraq contractors on behalf of corporate whistle-blowers. He won a huge victory last month when a federal jury in Virginia ordered a security firm called Custer Battles LLC to return $10 million in ill-gotten funds to the government. The ruling marked the first time an American firm was held responsible for financial improprieties in Iraq. ... The False Claims Act that Mr. Grayson used in the Custer Battles case is a Civil War-era statute allowing whistle-blowers to sue contractors suspected of defrauding the government and then keep a chunk of any recovered money. The article (which is excellent and should be read in full) details the stonewalling and setbacks the Bush administration's Justice Department has thrown in his way through technicalities that allow sealing of records. It also describes Grayson's refusal to give up as he continues quietly to work away at an issue that has caught his attention. Monetary awards perhaps will follow, and his personal pockets are deep. But in many ways, his attention to detail and his indefatigable pursuit of justice remind me of much of the work that goes on here at Daily Kos, day in and day out, with very little notice. I think of it as quiet passion, as opposed to the quite thoroughly discussed and media attention-grabbing abilities to give voice to outrage - a talent that has its place no doubt, but that can overshadow toilers in the background, like ilona with her PTSD series, Street Kid's Medicare diaries, RubDMC's incredible and heart-breaking Iraq War Grief Daily Witness pieces. These too are works of passion - as defined as "boundless enthusiasm" - to pain-staking and time-consuming topics that span months of research. Just because they don't shout doesn't mean they're not important. And just because these writers are doing their thing in relative obscurity doesn't mean they're ineffective. These are, in many ways, dark times; dark times call on the best in each of us to respond. We need to find our niches, the places where our interests, expertise and creativity combine to create long-lasting and sustainable passion. We need to honor those of who have found their feet in this shifting political landscape and who bring specialized information and activism back to the progressive community. Innovation, humor, artistic abilities, detailed analysis, dedicated investigation, techie expertise, snark, rants ... all of it makes us what we are and can be used to leverage change, however hopeless and infinitesimal that change can feel at times. The danger of splintering along special interest lines is always there, of course, as we seek out our interests. Markos and Jerome have critiqued how this can work against the progressive movement as a whole, and they recount many a cautionary tale in Crashing the Gate. So I'd like to suggest that each of us, as we coalesce around our own passion, keep an eye on at least one other issue that fellow progressives are pursuing. If you're obsessed with paper-trail voting, take a few minutes a day and get up to speed on global warming. If you're tracking veterans benefits, do some homework on abortion rights as well. Cross-over pollination on issues can help us build a truly interlocking network of coordinated progressivism that will build the kind of future we want to live in. There is no better place in the world to learn in detail about just about any political issue than Daily Kos, and perusing and honoring the work of the quiet and passionate here holds the promise of taking our informal, citizen think tank ideas out into the real world for a test drive. Read. Participate. Then activate, out in the political world, where we can make a difference. (Oh, pre-Murdoch WSJ, as we click that top link, how we miss you.) You should read the comments too. (I've left out some of SusanG's links because I don't think they're especially current, but you can click her diary to find them.) It so happens that I remember reading this diary at work in my then-law firm, when I couldn't log in to comment, and it piqued my interest in whistleblower law. It took me a while, but it's now a small -- though I hope it will be a growing -- part of my own practice, though neither I nor many others will ever be in Grayson's league. So let me join with many others in saying: Damn you, Alan Grayson! A lot of people here value their hardened cynicism about politics, and you are making it impossible to maintain. You stinking lurker, you. Turns out Grayson is as real as they get and a true, diehard progressive! He's what I like to call the Real McCoy. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/... /
CNN Poll: Americans split on Obama proposals Posted: October 21st, 2009 12:30 PM ET Americans are split right down the middle over President Barack Obama's health care reform proposals. WASHINGTON (CNN) - Americans are split right down the middle over President Barack Obama's health care reform proposals, according to a new national poll. But the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey indicates that a majority say it would be better to pass some sort of reform legislation than to leave the current health care system unchanged. And the poll, released Wednesday, is the second national survey this week to suggest growing support for the public option. Forty-nine percent of people questioned in the poll say they favor the president's health care reform proposals, with an equal amount in opposition. According to the survey, 61 percent favor a public health insurance option that would compete with private plans. That's a six-point increase in support since August. The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll joins an ABC/Washington Post survey released Tuesday in indicating an increase in support for a government option. Notice how they title the article though? Nothing like rw spin from the "librul media". This is an indicator that we may be getting a Public Option after all, though it may be at the cost of an Opt-Out compromise.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10... For weeks now, Greg Sargent has been making the point that, though polling shows the public wants health care reform to be bipartisan, what it really shows is that people think bipartisanship is nice, they'd happily scotch it if that's what it takes to secure a public option. That doesn't exactly square with the pronouncements of some conservative Democrats--particularly Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)--who say bipartisanship is a crucial part of health care reform's legitimacy with the public. I caught up with Nelson earlier today and asked him to speak to the poll's findings. "Well, there are different kinds of public options.... What was interesting in the poll numbers that I saw, that while there's support for public option generally, generically, when you start talking about it specifically as it relates to states being able to opt out or opt in, have their own, the support overwhelmingly goes up to 76 percent." ... If even Ben Nelson admits the PO has overwhelming support (at 57%) that's a pretty big admission from someone who has been against the PO. The fact that he is talking this way is a good indicator for the final bill, though I do not like the opt-out compromise. From Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/... CBO Scoring Rep Weiner's Single Payer: Update by Regina in a Sears Kit House Tue Oct 20, 2009 at 11:48:31 AM PDT Hello everyone. I just couldn't stand it anymore, so I called Rep. Anthony Weiner's NY-09 office then at their request the DC office. Me: Is Rep. Weiner's Single Payer amendment going to be scored by the Congressional Budget Office? Nice person: Let me check. Nice person: Yes, it's being scored right now. The rumor that the amendment will not come to the floor is not true. Any floor item must be scored. Me: May I post this on DKos? Nice person: You bet. NY-09 Nice person: We sure have noticed a lot of comments about Rep. Weiner on the site. Me: We like his outspoken support and straight talk about insurance companies and Single Payer. I told them that it wouldn't surprise me if the cost was the best of all the bills on HCR. They both said they sure hope so. This is a portion of an email letter I sent this August when we though all was lost...below the fold. I suspect, as many do, that this Amendment will be the least expensive of all the HCR options to implement. That being said, I don't believe that it will be in the final bill, but it will smash any resistance to a Single Payer or PO solution based on cost. |
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted
on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the
last 24 hours.  "Wal-Mart is Your God Now"-WM Goes Crazy on (Innocent) Couple Accused of Shoplifting 95 recs : By XanaDUer Obit of an amazing friend of mine (died Monday hiking in Georgia) 72 recs : By DemoTex For the millionth time, THERE IS NO PUBLIC OPTION 55 recs : By debbierlus Our Sarah Palin Coloring Book made the Washington Post! 50 recs : By demobabe POW Shoshana Johnson pounds the shit out of a wingnut who asks her if she's been to Iraq. 46 recs : By trumad Broader Measure of Unemployment Stands at 17.5% 39 recs : By Truth2Tell I do not support this bill 36 recs : By AllentownJake Official FUCK YOU HOUSE REPUBLICANS thread. 33 recs : By tridim ****** DU November 2009 Bumper Sticker Slogan Contest: And The Winners Are... ****** 33 recs : By EarlG A nostalgic look at the Old Democratic Party. 32 recs : By bvar22 Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Random Journal
 Discussion Forums
Big Forums
More Forums
Today's Featured Forums
|
