The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
Mike Elk couldn't have been more right in his thinking about what Martin Luther King, Jr. would have thought of the Teabaggers, Birthers, etc. He would have seen that those faces that at first glance seem twisted in anger are really twisted in pain. He would recognize those faces as well as the source of the fear and anger distorting them.
It's not about adopting their politics, compromising our own, or even tolerating their tactics. It's about reclaiming "We" - The same "We" that Dr. King and civil rights workers sang about, and that I remember singing about myself in church, on the occasions when we sang "We Shall Overcome."
(Full disclosure: The group that organized the protest is one I work with on my job.)
This is something I wish I'd been a part of, and I hope they call me if they need an extra baritone next time. (It's rare that my vocal training and my politics intersect.) Plus, the guy who got "punk'd" was none other than Bill McInturff, the guy who gave us Harry and Louise. (Not to mention killing health care reform and giving us another decade of pre-existing conditions, recissions, etc.)
Republican pollster Bill McInturff was the keynote speaker on the final day of the America's Health Insurance Plans's state issues conference on Friday morning.
But his speech on how the health care reform debate was playing among the public was interrupted before it even began. A group of protesters began aggressively cheering McInturff for the work he has done for AHIP (he's a hired pollster for the private insurance lobby and, most infamously, was the force behind the 'Harry and Louise' ads in 1994)
McInturff, initially thinking that the cheering was legitimate, thanked the "AHIP officials" in the back of the room for giving him mental encouragement for his speech. He was not being paid for his appearance, he noted.
And then, the protesters -- dressed in business attire to fit into the crowd -- began singing. A relatively lengthy and harmonious rendition of "Tomorrow" from the musical Annie ensued, only with the chorus focused on government-run insurance. "The option, the option, we must have, the option... " went the rendition, in reference to the public plan.
The lyrics are available after the jump, if you want to sing along.
I happened to post a link to an article in the News & Observer today, "N.C. to impose 'fat tax'", on my Facebook page and I couldn't believe how many comments were generated there, opening up a somewhat heated dialogue revolving on the "blame the fattie" meme. So I decided to post it as an entry here for discussion. First, the news article:
North Carolina is poised to become only the second state to impose a fat fee on its state employees by placing them in a more expensive health insurance plan if they're obese.
Smokers will feel the drag of higher costs, too, as North Carolina state employees who use tobacco are slated to pay more for health insurance next year.
State workers who don't cut out the Marlboros and Big Macs will end up paying more for health care. Tobacco users get placed in a more expensive insurance plan starting in July and, for those who qualify as obese, in July 2011.
...The policies have generated a backlash among at least a portion of state workers. Some workers are anxious about the idea of tests for smoking.The tests involve examining a saliva sample for cotinine, a derivative of nicotine found in the system of tobacco users. Health plan officials recognize those concerns and are getting ready to take bids from companies that will perform the tests. The state plan has not yet developed a procedure to monitor members for the obesity standard due to take effect in 2011.
That last line says it all. There are serious problems with this policy that you don't need a medical degree to see are going to crop up.
Is all obesity the same? No, but it's treated in this policy as if it's all about "stop shoving Big Macs in your mouth." Obesity is a complex problem; if it were that easy to lose weight and keep it off, everyone would be thin, and we'd already have a pill that is safe, effective and can be taken long term. Speaking of pills, many medications to treat other illnesses (diabetes, depression) are the documented cause of substantial, sudden weight gain that is almost impossible to shed.
For fibromyalgia, for example, I refused to take Lyrica because it was associated with too many cases of weight gain, as in 30-60 lbs(!). On message boards I surfed, there were people so fraught with pain, and who never had a weight problem, suddenly finding themselves obese, but with reduced pain. Will NC employees in similar situations be told to stop those medications? I doubt it, but how does that solve the policy problem? If the state really cares about the health of these people (instead of naked costs), then they would have thought this through.
The no-win situation. The state says in order to stay in the 80/20 plan (the insurance pays 80%, the employee 20%), your BMI must be under 40. So if you kick your butt in the gym, do Nutrisystem or whatever plan of the month is, and gut bust down to 39 BMI you should be good to go, right? Nope. The state moves the goalposts the next year, because they lower the BMI qualification to 35. Sweet.
The onus is solely on the employee. The logical question is, will insurance then cover bariatric surgery for those who want to make the BMI goal? Something tells me I doubt it. Will it cover weight loss programs? What if the employee has two jobs and kids and can't afford any gym membership, let alone the time to go? Is that person then punished with a higher premium?
What about yo-yo effect. It's well-known that calorie-restricted diets simply don't work. The weight does come off, but the vast majority of individuals put the pounds back on over time, and some end up even heavier than they were prior to dieting. The cycle of yo-yo dieting and the strain it places on the heart is well-known as well. Did the state take this into consideration? How about when you yo-yo and go over 40 BMI, drop to 35 and go back up to 40 -- do they keep switching you back and forth between plans?
As I said, on my Facebook page, the discussion escalated quite quickly. See some of it below the fold.
As my husband just remarked, it's the first time he's ever heard of a Congressman taking himself to the woodshed...
WASHINGTON - In an extraordinary breach of congressional decorum, a Republican lawmaker shouted "You lie" at President Barack Obama during his speech to Congress Wednesday.
Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., tried to call Obama to apologize in person, but ended up speaking to White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
The contrite congressman, "expressed his apologies" to Emanuel, not the president at whom he had shouted a few hours earlier, Wilson's office said.
By that time, Wilson's House Web site had crashed and he had taken a brutal beating on his Twitter page for breaching protocol and good manners during a presidential speech to a joint session of Congress.
Understand one thing: with my locally famous temper and penchant towards profanity, Rahm Emanuel is a fucking, freakin' hero to me! ;) FoxNews is of course getting comments to the AP same story that Wilson is a hero.
Yahoo has the clip via the link above, at that moment and the shocked look on Speaker Pelosi's face... plus I think she turned quickly to Vice President Biden and said, "Wilson"- looks that way from reading her lips to me and perhaps others can weigh in.
It was certainly the most extraordinary moment I have witnessed in Congress- and will put the death knell on his career representing the state of South Carolina.
Wilson's outburst came after Obama said that extending health care to all Americans who seek it would not mean insuring illegal immigrants.
"You lie!" Wilson shouted from his seat on the Republican side of the chamber.
Republicans froze, with several looking in Wilson's direction.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi directed a fierce frown at him; first lady Michelle Obama pursed her lips and shook her head from side to side. Vice President Joe Biden looked down and shook his head, too.
Obama, meanwhile, looked toward the outburst and replied, "That's not true," and went on with his speech.
Wilson seems to have quickly figured out that he screwed up royally:
Right away, Wilson seemed to sense that he had fouled up. Wilson appeared to consult his Blackberry for much of the rest of Obama's speech. He shook his head defiantly after several of the president's statements. When Obama finished, Wilson bolted from the chamber.
I'm not sh*tting you. Of course Faux News and Sean Hannity would invite Minnesota's brightest GOP star to discuss health care town halls taking place across the country. From the woman who rides a tattered broom to work each day on the Hill, Michele Bachmann:
Bachmann: It is not within our power as members of Congress, it’s not within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, for us to design and create a national takeover of health care. Nor is it within our ability to be able to delegate that responsibility to the executive.
Had Bachmann bothered to read Article I of the Constitution before going on Fox, she would have learned that Congress has the power to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” and to “provide for….the general welfare of the United States.” Rather than itemizing specific subject matters, such as health care, which Congress is allowed to spend money on, the framers chose instead to give Congress a broad mandate to spend money in ways that promote the “general welfare.”
It’s unclear what the basis is for Bachmann’s claim that the public option is an unconstitutional delegation of power to the Executive. There is a 74 year-old decision — decided by the same right-wing Supreme Court which believed most of the New Deal to be unconstitutional — which holds that Congress could not simply grant President Roosevelt nearly limitless authority to do whatever he wanted in order to prevent “unfair competition.” But no one has proposed giving President Obama similarly unchecked authority over health care. Rather, pages 116-128 of the House bill that Bachmann will vote on provide extremely detailed instructions explaining how the Executive Branch must manage a public health plan.
Someone please tell me what would be the chances that at a Bush protest we'd see a man packing this kind of heat?
A man toting an assault rifle was among a dozen protesters carrying weapons while demonstrating outside President Barack Obama's speech to veterans on Monday, but no laws were broken. It was the second instance in recent days in which unconcealed weapons have appeared near presidential events.
...Arizona law has nothing in the books regulating assault rifles, and only requires permits for carrying concealed weapons. So despite the man's proximity to the president, there were no charges or arrests to be made. Hill said officers explained the law to some people who were upset about the presence of weapons at the protest.
"I come from another state where 'open carry' is legal, but no one does it, so the police don't really know about it and they harass people, arrest people falsely," the man, who wasn't identified, said in an interview aired by CNN affiliate KNVX. "I think that people need to get out and do it more so that they get kind of conditioned to it."
The article goes on to explain that a site becomes federalized by the Secret Service, so, for instance, the inside venue where the President might be would be off-limits to Mr. Assault Rifle. However, that doesn't help very much if the heat-packer is an unbalanced individual who decides to spray a crowd of, say, health care reform supporters. Nice.
News links, blog whoring and chatterboxing appreciated...
Perhaps it is about the state of education in NC, or a reflection of the right-wing's obsession with naughty bits...you decide. Shown on the News & Observer's coverage of a teabagger/birth/health care fearmongerer crowd. From Dem Underground:
As a "moran" bonus in the background: "Where's the birth certificate?" OMG--when angry white people aren't being scary they sure are entertaining.
USAir got us home from Netroots Nation safely and on time yesterday. I am so tired, but I dragged myself into work at 6:30 AM. Have fun!
Is it me or have these people gone over the edge and into a complete eliminationist stance? Peter Daou on protests at Obama's NH stop.
I am deeply concerned that the summer of 2009 has set the stage for bloodshed to come. The kind of rage we're seeing, based on Limbaugh, Coulter and Hannity-style soundbites, is dangerous. It's like a cancer that grows with time and we need to be vigilant in defending against it.
In that regard, check out this video from outside President Obama's NH visit. And listen for these words:
"Send [illegal immigrants] home with a bullet in the head the second time"
"Read what Jefferson said about the Tree of Liberty - it's coming baby."
[Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."]
UPDATE: Here's the interview by Chris Matthews of the man who was packing heat at the Obama rally in NH:
But let's be clear: anyone watching the mounting rage over, of all things, health care - perhaps one of the most boring and complex policy subjects - has to worry that these people are going to try to kill Barack Obama. That's not an extrapolation from unhinged rhetoric, or a partisan reading of the imagined intentions of our political enemies. It's a rational reading of the anticipated behavior of a man who brandishes a gun at the location where the president is expected to imminently arrive while holding a sign that openly advocates his assassination. And the astonishing, breathtaking, maddening fact that he hasn't been violently taken to the ground by large men wearing suits and earpieces is an open encouragement to anyone else so inclined to give it a shot.
There are always people who want to kill the president. Generally speaking, they are politically marginalized, insane, and/or too incompetent to come close to achieving their ends. But in the past six months, people who would be inclined to do violence to our political leaders have been affirmatively embraced by the Republican Party and its messaging operation.
Wingnut radio host and supremely anti-gay and offensive Clown Hall columnist Kevin McCullough inadvertently gives a comical interview to Daddy-D's "news organ" CitizenLink. Perhaps the most revealing moment is a portrayal of actor and fundie Stephen Baldwin's immersion into Christian radio, something McCullough takes credit for:
I think everyone's going to want to know how you got Stephen Baldwin involved in all this!
I had moved to New York in 2003 to do a show there. And Stephen's wife, the lovely Mrs. Baldwin, was listening. She listens to Christian radio all the time. And she had my show on and she's using the butcher knife and she's chopping the vegetables for the dinner that night and she's talking out loud to no one in the kitchen. She's like, "That's right, you tell 'em!" "That's what I'm sayin'!" Stephen comes down and he's like, "Sweetie, who are you talking to?" And she's got this butcher knife in her hands and she wheels around and points the butcher knife at him and says, "You need to be more like that guy!" Stephen started listening and he's always been a junkie of talk radio. And so he called in and funny enough, I didn't know who he was! But he, for no explainable reason, befriended me and out of that friendship grew a real, simultaneous passion to reach the fifteen to thirty-four generation.
The interview also covers McCullough's unsurprising but tired opposition to health care reform by referring to the plan as 'Gestapo-care':
If you historically understand that the Gestapo was the part of the SS who were basically empowered to report on their neighbors, to be the nannies of everyone else around them, that's what the White House asked us to do on its blog when it said, 'if you receive emails, if you are seeing web sites or if you're having casual conversations in which people are spreading "disinformation." And given what this administration seems to already have the penchant to do, and that is interpret things to their advantage at all times, if you just have a different opinion about it or draw a different statistical conclusion that doesn't square with their numbers, I could be considered to be someone spreading disinformation. As I told Cavuto on Fox News, the executive branch of government has no business monitoring my own private discussions about health care. So, on that level alone, I think that it is a Gestapo-like tactic that they were trying to very subtly encourage.
WTF? Isn't it interesting that people like McCullough (and his listeners), always seem to want government out of our private lives but they are the first to scream and protest for federal and state control over whether LGBTs can be fired for being out, or whether same-sex couples can marry.
More below the fold -- how this kind of garbage stokes the know-nothing/birther/health care town hall nutcases.
If the opponents of the President's health care reform want to look like legitimate opposition and not fringe crazies like the birthers, it's probably a good idea to closet up this faction of its "support" (Firedoglake);
Last night we had a rapid response effort after hearing reports that the Malkinites were going to swarm a health care event in Denver where Nancy Pelosi was showing up in support of Jared Polis and Diane DeGette.
Mark S. took videos and uploaded them to us after the event. Notably, he spoke with on 16 year-old who had identified himself to Jeralyn as hailing from Wasilla, Alaska. Mark got a shot of his t-shirt, which had a picture of Obama and the slogan "Hitler gave good speeches, too":
He was chanting "read the bill, read the bill." I'm having a hard time believing that kid read the 1000 page bill.
And the FAIL isn't relegated to teens, look at this kid's probable role model, the untethered-from-reality-for-a-paycheck Glenn Beck, who jokes about poisoning Pelosi.
In an effort to defeat universal health care, conservatives are engaging in a campaign of lies that will ultimately cause more families to suffer needlessly at a most painful time. As someone who worked for years with end-of-life care issues, and spent years working in the HIV/AIDS community, I cannot let it pass.
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC5) is a stain on the reputation of my state. She continues to belch out the most ignorant garbage on the floor of the House.
Yesterday she decided to weigh in on the health care reform debate with this doozy. Keyboard protection on.
Rep. Foxx: The Republican plan would "make sure we bring down the cost of health care for all Americans and that ensures affordable access for all Americans and is pro-life because it will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government."
WTF is she talking about?! Media Matters has to straighten out the mental confusion of Rep. Foxx (since I doubt she's able to navigate the complexities of the subject at hand to actually do anything except regurgitate winger talking points):
The Democratic Legislation Actually Provides Professional Guidance For Seniors' Difficult Decisions - NOT To Encourage Euthanasia Like other Republicans before her, Rep. Foxx is basing her statement on a clause in the House bill guaranteeing seniors free counseling to help them with complex decisions.
"Advance Care Planning Consultation" Would Provide Seniors With Professional Advice On Will Preparation, Power Of Attorney, And Other Complicated Issues. PolitiFact.com reported: "Indeed, Sec. 1233 of the bill, labeled 'Advance Care Planning Consultation' details how the bill would, for the first time, require Medicare to cover the cost of end-of-life counseling sessions. According to the bill, 'such consultation shall include the following: An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to; an explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses; an explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.'" [PolitiFact.com, 7/16/09]
Medicare Will Pay For Increased Counseling If The Senior Citizen Becomes Ill And Would Like Additional Information. According to PolitiFact.com: "Medicare will cover one session every five years, the legislation states. If a patient becomes very ill in the interim, Medicare will cover additional sessions." [PolitiFact.com, 7/16/09]
Counseling Is NOT Mandatory. In regards to the "mandatory" assertion, PolitiFact.com reported: "For his part, Keyserling said he and outside counsel read the language carefully to make sure that was not the case. 'Neither of us can come to the conclusion that it's mandatory.' he said. 'This new consultation is just like all in Medicare: it's voluntary.' 'The only thing mandatory is that Medicare will have to pay for the counseling,' said Dau." [PolitiFact.com, 7/16/09]
***
You might recall that last year Foxx managed to make KO's worst person in the world for calling the hate crime of Matthew Shepard's murder a hoax:
Rep. Foxx: "The bill was named after a very unfortunate incident that happened, where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of robbery. It wasn't because he was gay. The bill was named for him, the hate crimes bill was named for him, but it's, it's really a hoax, that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills."[House Floor Speech, 4/29/09]
Foxx had to go into serious damage control mode. She issued a standard non-apology after the uproar, saying it was "a poor choice of words," and sent a note to Judy Shepard that said "if I said anything that offended her, I certainly apologize for it and know that she's hurting, and I would never do anything to add to that."
When that went over like a lead balloon, the Congresswoman for the 5th district attempted to play the victim -- she said that she was receiving death threats at her office. However, that tactic didn't exactly work out since the Capitol Police reported that no one in Foxx's office had alerted them about any threats and that there was “no ongoing investigation” of the matter.
Please -- the good people of the 5th, I beg you -- bounce her out in 2010.
Prior to taking questions this evening, President Obama pitched his case -- how his health care reform plan will deliver. Obviously, all of this is a dicey proposition -- to overhaul a broken system with a million moving parts and special interests that intend to hold tight to the profits being made at the expense of efficiency and care for all. Here are his remarks.
July 22, 2009
Remarks of President Barack Obama
As Prepared for Delivery
News Conference
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Washington, DC
Good evening. Before I take your questions, I want to talk for a few minutes about the progress we're making on health insurance reform and where it fits into our broader economic strategy.
Six months ago, I took office amid the worst recession in half a century. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month and our financial system was on the verge of collapse.
As a result of the action we took in those first weeks, we have been able to pull our economy back from the brink. We took steps to stabilize our financial institutions and our housing market. And we passed a Recovery Act that has already saved jobs and created new ones; delivered billions in tax relief to families and small businesses; and extended unemployment insurance and health insurance to those who have been laid off.
Of course, we still have a long way to go. And the Recovery Act will continue to save and create more jobs over the next two years - just like it was designed to do. I realize this is little comfort to those Americans who are currently out of work, and I'll be honest with you - new hiring is always one of the last things to bounce back after a recession.
And the fact is, even before this crisis hit, we had an economy that was creating a good deal of wealth for folks at the very top, but not a lot of good-paying jobs for the rest of America. It's an economy that simply wasn't ready to compete in the 21st century - one where we've been slow to invest in the clean energy technologies that have created new jobs and industries in other countries; where we've watched our graduation rates lag behind too much of the world; and where we spend much more on health care than any other nation but aren't any healthier for it.
Womb control advocate Randall Terry was really working hard to rachet up the level of crazy to stratospheric heights at his latest presser, this one regarding health care reform legislation. In fact, he has developed ESP -- if the bill isn't rejected he sees violence ahead. Not just any random violence, mind you, but acts we haven't seen in this country since the Civil War, including violent "reprisals against those deemed guilty".
Christian at Right Wing Watch introduces the video of Terry with this observation:
At a typical Randall Terry press conference one can expect to hear all sorts of overheated rhetoric about abortion – that it’s murder, that abortion clinics are places of "mass genocide," and so forth. But in recent weeks, he has amped up his rhetoric to insane new heights over the healthcare legislation before Congress, which he claims would pay for “child-killing.”
At today’s press conference, however, Terry was quick to point out that he has supposedly been a "non-violent" leader for 25 years, and he ridiculed those who accuse him and other right-wing leaders of "stirring up domestic terrorism”:
Earlier this week Terry called for the rejection of the bill and warned of "violent convulsions" of a level that hasn't been seen since the Civil War if the bill is passed.
We all know that the GOP has no plan other than to criticize the Obama proposal on health care reform. RNC chair-in-name-only Michael Steele made it clear no one's home when he went on MSNBC and was asked about any bright alternative proposals the Republicans are planning to bring forth. Here's what he said when asked how to cut costs. Think Progress:
“I’ll give you three,” Steele boasted. The RNC Chairman then listed them off: 1) “You’ve got portability,” 2) “Let’s create co-ops,” and 3) “Let’s make it so that the people who aren’t employed or have an employer at the time can deduct their health care if they’re not getting it through their employer.” But Steele wasn’t done. “I’ll give you an extra one: let’s do tort reform!”
OK. I read that and I don't have to be an expert on health care to point out that he's full of sh*t. Just to take one, #3, is complete garbage because 1) how is a tax deduction going to give you health care for an immediate need and you haven't the money upfront and 2) what does that do to reduce the cost of the health care itself? Joe Scarborough, who ostensibly would agree with Steele, called him on it.
SCARBOROUGH: Those four issues will not cut costs. STEELE: You’re absolutely wrong! Joe – SCARBOROUGH: Are you here telling me if we do those four things — (crosstalk) Hold on a second. STEELE: Please – SCARBOROUGH: If we do those four steps – STEELE: Spare me. SCARBOROUGH: Spare you? Give me a CBO estimate of that then!
Steele never answered his question. The Obama team needs to use clips like this early and often to oppose the fear-mongering, fact-free propaganda coming from the right. It's clear that the GOP has no interest in providing a plausible alternative, only to tear down the proposal at hand, which from my POV hasn't been sold in a clear manner to the public. None of this will help one damn family in financial distress, fearing the next catastrophic illness will bankrupt them. Think Progree debunks each of Steele's proposal items:
1) Portability is a key feature of Obama’s health care plan. Anyone who enters into the new national health insurance exchange would be able to purchase insurance that stays with them, even if they switch jobs.
2) Steele says he’s for co-ops, by which he presumably means “association health plans.” AHPs wouldn’t help cover the uninsured, but would increase the costs of coverage and would allow selected small businesses to operate outside state regulations.
3) Steele’s tax proposal would mean that young and healthy workers would opt out of employer plans for cheaper coverage, meaning employers could no longer meet participation requirements to purchase insurance. The whole insurance system would slowly unravel, leaving even more people without care.
4) Steele’s proposal of tort reform addresses only 0.46 percent of total health care expenditures.
Talk about health care ironies. I was sick as a dog this AM, due to side effects from my meds, and didn't bother to check one of my email accounts today. I was invited to a blogger conference call featuring President Obama, David Axelrod, Nancy Anne DeParle and the White House online liaison, Jesse Lee. I'd kick myself, except what can you do when the room is spinning and your vision is blurry and can do little more than lie in the bed.
Anyway, instead of crying over a missed opportunity, it's good that fellow invitees did check their email, attend the call and over at Crooks & Liars, John Amato has the full audio of the call. He also has a recap of the Q&A (once there's a transcript, I'll post it); he noted that the President "is pleased that bloggers have been letting Congress know all about the desperation Americans are feeling and that's been critical, and he wants us to keep up the pressure on Congress and the media." and Sam Stein of Huff Post has a good write up. Sam:
In a roughly 25-minute session with a handful of prominent progressive bloggers, the president also asked for help combating disinformation about his health care plan.
"I know the blogs are best at debunking myths that can slip through a lot of the traditional media outlets," he said. "And that is why you are going to play such an important role in our success in the weeks to come."
The call demonstrates just how heated the health care debate has become in recent weeks and how much ammunition the administration is willing to bring to the table. At various points in the call, the president offered a strikingly detailed synopsis of his political strategy and health care policy as a whole.
While he refused to insist that lawmakers stay in Washington during the August recess, he declared definitively that, "the time for talk is through."
"Now is the time for us to go ahead and act," Obama declared. "We are working as hard as we can and I have told Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi that it is critical that we have seen serious forward motion before people leave [in August]."
Moreover, for the first time in recent memory, Obama floated the possibility that if it appears that health care reform lacks the 60 votes needed for passage, he might be open to reconciliation, which would allow for an up-or-down vote on budgetary and tax aspects of the bill.
I'm glad the administration acknowledged the role that bloggers can play in moving the health care debate forward, enough so to actually convene a conference call to discuss policy development.
I think you know what my next question is -- why is it that bloggers who focus on LGBT issues don't merit that level of engagement on those issues? Some of those invited to this health care call also blog LGBT issues, but it's clear that we don't exist in that capacity to the administration. I guess our existence and purpose is limited to the issues they believe in. We are seen as essential -- when they desperately need cheerleaders at the grassroots level on the right issues.
Remember, throughout the brouhahas about the Stonewall event and relentless dodging on DADT, DOMA, etc., no LGBT bloggers were invited to the event. There were no conference calls of the sort that was held on health care today. Clearly I wasn't waiting by my inbox or phone anyway since: 1) I've been critical of the admin on progress re: LGBT issues and questions went unanswered; and 2) I figured since I'm living in Nowhereville, USA, and have no connections to Big Gay Orgs, they don't believe what I (or what you, the readers) think is relevant to any LGBT policy discussions. On this subject it's a closed communication circle that includes org heads and Beltway LGBTs of interest, not bloggers.
However, apparently as a progressive blogger I do matter to this White House when it is an "all hands on deck" moment -- they want the right wing myths, lies and propaganda about the Obama health care reform proposal debunked. And I will -- the fact is that I do have a vested interest in fixing the system (see my post "Health care in the U.S. - stop bickering and fix it"), since I'm a frequent user of the health care services. The White House is right to court the grassroots to mobilize actions to put pressure on the members of Congress who are queasy on reform; we need every vote.
However, I just thought I'd point out that big elephant in the room about the inconsistency in how the White House views bloggers. I haven't seen anyone else mention that irony in the blogging so far about the call today.
***
UPDATE: A couple of other nuggets, here from Joe@Americablog:
Before he left, the President mentioned his criteria for reform: Does it cover all Americans; Will it drive down costs over the long-term; Will it improve quality; Are prevention and wellness included; Does it contain insurance reforms on issues like pre-existing conditions; does it provide relief to small business; and, is there a serious public option. He warned that the different bills coming from the House and Senate may not have all of those provisions, but the conference committee will be critical.
Also, Michael "MC" Steele weighed in, as only he can do as head of the RNC, in a simplistic, weary fashion that doesn't offer anything as an alternative to what's broken in our current system. Read the press release below the fold.
UPDATE: People have pointed me to this DKos diary, where it appears Holmes was not diagnosed with a brain tumor, but a cyst, and she has repeatedly appeared on TV claiming the tumor story. While that's not particularly surprising, that even underscores the bottom line is her story proves we need reform because she had to put a second mortgage on her home, borrow from friends and her husband took a second job to be able to afford the $100k U.S. surgery.
Q of the day: do you have a health care horror story to share? Was it denial of service or meds by your insurance, or hospital bureaucracy, or something even more onerous, like poor quality care?
***
I have to agree with this assertion over at Eschaton -- "The reality is if you get real sick, no matter if you're insured or not, you're probably financially fucked." The partisan bickering over how much it is going to cost is ludicrous -- the cost is just one part of the problem, the fact that we have so many people uninsured and worse, under-insured, is the reality of too many Americans and to get everyone adequate care will likely cost trillions.
Those of us who do have decent insurance, are rightfully concerned that government mucking around in the system and playing politics with something that should be a right -- equal access to GOOD medical care for all -- is going to end up a big mess.
I'm not going to debate the merits of one plan or another here; I'm just looking at health care as a "frequent flyer" consumer with pre-existing conditions who sees doctors and specialists several times a year, and has adequate insurance that still has left me with long waits to see a specialist (3 months is not unheard of), and dealt with substandard care.
In our current system nearly everyone has horror stories about waiting for insurance to approve the most basic common sense things -- like one extra day in the hospital after a c-section, or trying to get a medication not yet in generic form that you and your doctor know works and the insurance company insists on a different generic substitute or you pay outright. The number and type of what I call "drive-by" surgeries, where they kick you to the curb a couple of hours after you've been opened up on the table is astonishing -- they wanted to do that for my gall bladder surgery and I begged to stay overnight because I've had complications after ambulatory surgery before that landed me back in the ER the next day. Thankfully it was approved, because I was right -- I developed a fever and had serious difficulties that I wouldn't have been able to manage at home.
But what if the insurance company had said no. That happens all the time. It happened to me several years ago, I wasn't able to stay overnight and went into the drive-through surgery; I developed a serious staph infection. It required a second surgery a couple of weeks later. Oh, and I had to pay a lot out of pocket for that second surgery even though I wasn't responsible for the need for it, even with insurance. A little time and attention would have saved everyone a lot of grief.
And prescription insurance -- well big pharma makes us all pay for the price controls in other countries. I totaled up medications I take each month to see what they would cost if I didn't have insurance -- over $900/month! That's insane. John's story is no better, and again, he has insurance.
I didn't know what my good plan covered until I got asthma as a result of my allergies. Now I know that my asthma drugs cost a whopping $471 a month. That's $5,652 a year. After Blue Cross' paltry share, that leaves me with $4,152 a year in asthma drugs (not counting any other prescriptions I may have to take for other unrelated problems that may arise). My insurance costs me nearly $420 a month. That's another $5,040 a year. And the premium goes up around 25% a year. Imagine how much it's going to be in ten years when I'm 55. And the joke, Blue Cross will still only give me $1500 in prescription drug coverage ten years from now - that's the way their policy works. I got $1500 when I started 12 years ago with them, and I'll have $1500 in ten years.
The problem here -- and I'm calling out all of the elected officials on the Hill -- is that while they are bickering about numbers (it will be huge no matter what we end up with I want all of them to answer one question: do they believe every person in the country is entitled to the same health care choices and offerings as Congress? If not, why not?
"It's too expensive" is not a legitimate answer.
That answer is loaded with the difficult truth underlying the debate -- a lot of people determining the fate of our health care system believe there should be a tiered level of care -- that some people are deserving of A+ quality care with all the options available, and some are not, and should be satisfied with something less, or fewer options because they poor or underinsured. If this is the case, state it now.
If Congress is satisfied with their current care, why not price out that model to cover everyone, and work the numbers. Obviously Dear Leader didn't put a price tag on his war adventures and we're still running up an endless tab that produced death and destruction that Congress keeps funding.
The high cost of health care is also due to doctors and hospitals covering their butts with extra unnecessary tests to avoid lawsuits, emergency rooms flooded with people who have no insurance and cannot pay, so the cost is passed on to those who can. Big pharma counts on us to boost the profits they cannot extract from countries with price controls; doctors have to carry high liability insurance because we're such a litigious society...the list goes on and on.
Employer group policy deductibles keep rising each year, or services are reduced because the employer cannot afford to underwrite the costs to hold the line on premiums. No one should have their health care plan tied to their employment. It has to be portable and stable. COBRA, intended to provide portability of a policy for those who leave a job, is often too expensive.
And remember, if your plan is tied to your employment and you're have pre-existing conditions, you better find a large company with a big group policy and never leave that job, since small businesses are more likely to have crappier policies or heinously high premiums -- or offer no insurance at all.
The whole system is broken -- except when it's not and works just fine for a good number of people.
Why is it so difficult to put that level of priority setting on health care? Maybe I'm missing something.
So back to the debate -- since any solution -- public/private/co-op will be a huge, expensive endeavor -- what is the baseline of quality services that everyone should receive? Ability to pay should not matter, because we already know we have millions of unemployed people without the ability to pay right now. We have a system where only the well-insured and wealthy are able to get expedited or specialized care.
The real underlying problem here in all of this -- and I think it's tied to the general capitalist, class-based mindset in this country -- that there's a basic assumption that the health of some Americans is worth more than others. And I'm not just talking about the super-wealthy, it goes for the "aspirational set" as well. You know, the Rush listener, the Base, the blue-collar social conservatives who dream of the wealth and upward mobility that the Republicans sell them -- until those titans of industry shut the plants down or move them overseas, and leave Joe Lunchbucket high and dry with an empty wallet, no health insurance and a family to feed. Only then does the reality set in.
Because of that there will always be a feeling out there it's essential for any reform to include a way to "get a leg up" in terms of access and services that preserves the best care for the class-based or luck-based (you have a good job with great health plan benefits) privileged, leaving anyone who doesn't getting cost-restricted, access-restricted services.
Let's take a look at an ad (R) you might be seeing on your TV right now. More below the fold.
How are we supposed to get anything done with health care reform with ridiculous attitudes like this? (Think Progress):
During a townhall in Waukon, IA Tuesday, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) was asked by a constituent of his: "Why is your insurance so much cheaper than my insurance and so better than my insurance?" When Grassley struggled to explain the details of his own health care plan, the elderly man followed up, "Okay, so how come I can't have the same thing you have?" Grassley said, "You can. Just go work for the federal government."
Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake, who has been fighting breast cancer for 16 years (and is in recovery), has mobilized a 48-hour campaign, endorsed by the Blend and BlueNC, to gather 20,000 signatures to take to Senator Kay Hagan's office on Friday to ask her to support a public health care plan. To the right are the faces of women in my community who are breast cancer survivors.
Millions of people want that option considered, and the stories of uninsured and underinsured women who don't receive adequate care and die from breast cancer are striking. Eighteen thousand people die in this country each year because they lack insurance. Jane:
So I started thinking -- why do I care if there are more women in office if they don't care about women's issues? What on earth would be the value of having a woman who saw her primary function in this battle as guarding the profitability of the insurance industry, as opposed to a man like Bernie Sanders whose commitment to a strong public plan has been one of the only firewalls in the Senate against this turning into nothing more than an insurance industry bailout?
...Women in Congress who will stand up and say "enough, there is a line I will not cross" are in short supply -- even among our friends.
So together with BlueNC and Pam's House Blend, we reached out to my fellow breast cancer survivors in North Carolina. Women like Hazel and Connie, Juanita and Gail and Patricia and Yvette. Dorrita, Connie, Linda and Lotie. Mary, Pepper, Waddeah and Felicia. Women who have triumphed, women who have fought breast cancer and won. Women of all ages and races and sexual orientations who are not afraid to tell the truth and speak up on behalf of other women.
Because many of our sisters did not survive. Getting early treatment is critical to recovery, and women often put off getting exams if they don't know how they're going to pay for them.
Young African American women are twice as likely to die of breast cancer as young white women, and are five times as likely to suffer delays in getting treatment.
Kay Hagan has been the sole obstacle keeping a public plan from coming out of the Senate HELP Committee. On Friday, Pam Spaulding and breast cancer survivors of North Carolina will go to Kay Hagan's office carrying their signatures and those of the people who stand with them, asking Hagan to stand with us, too. We want to get 20,000 signatures of support for them to deliver in the next 48 hours.
I happened to post a link to an article in the News & Observer today, "
Someone please tell me what would be the chances that at a Bush protest we'd see a man packing 
Rep. 
You might recall that last year Foxx managed to make 
Prior to taking questions this evening, President Obama pitched his case -- how his health care reform plan will deliver. Obviously, all of this is a dicey proposition -- to overhaul a broken system with a million moving parts and special interests that intend to hold tight to the profits being made at the expense of efficiency and care for all. Here are his remarks.
The real underlying problem here in all of this -- and I think it's tied to the general capitalist, class-based mindset in this country -- that there's a basic assumption that the health of some Americans is worth more than others. And I'm not just talking about the super-wealthy, it goes for the "aspirational set" as well. You know, the Rush listener, the Base, the blue-collar social conservatives who dream of the wealth and upward mobility that the Republicans sell them -- until those titans of industry shut the plants down or move them overseas, and leave Joe Lunchbucket high and dry with an empty wallet, no health insurance and a family to feed. Only then does the reality set in.
Young African American women are twice as likely to die of breast cancer as young white women, and are five times as likely to suffer delays in getting treatment.
