Health Care

Dramatic Rise in Pesticide Use on GM Crops Due to the new Resistant Weeds

Philip Palij — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:26:39 -0800

Geneticaly modified nightmare on its way.

Based upon data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), report author Dr. Charles Benbrook presents compelling evidence linking the increase in pesticide use on GE, “herbicide-tolerant” (HT) crops to the emergence and spread of herbicide-resistant weeds.

Greenwald: WaPo thinks wars are more important than health care.

Michael Kwiatkowski — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:58:42 -0700

Glenn Greenwald reveals the depraved "logic" behind the beltway media establishment in his latest entry. According to the Washington Post, it's perfectly acceptable to be trillions of dollars in debt to finance the crumbling empire's wars abroad, but wholly unacceptable to invest in genuine health care reform because it would create massive debt.

Deficit reduction: DOs and DON’Ts

Eric Lotke — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:02:51 -0700

The forum on American debt and deficit had it right. First, don’t panic. Don’t stop the stimulus spending or raise taxes with the economy still near the bottom.

The Center for American Progress and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities convened the forum. Guests included Paul Krugman (NYT), Robert Reischauer (Urban Institute, OMB), Senator Mark Warner (D-VA), and some all star academics.

I won’t attempt a blow-by-blow but some main themes emerged. First, a strong consensus on what NOT to do:

-- DON’T panic at the size of the deficit or worship at the feet of debt reduction.

-- DON’T stop the stimulus spending or raise taxes in the short term. We’re still in the depths of recession. Consumers aren’t spending and neither is business. The government needs to drive demand in the short run. If we quit now, we’ll likely tip back over the wrong side of the precipice.

These charts aren’t from the forum, but can help reduce the panic. America’s debt is high, but well within historical and international norms.

Source: OMB history, 1930-2008; CBO projections, 2009-11

Source: CIA

Those are DON’Ts from the forum. There were DOs as well:

-- DO worry about debt in the long term. Our progressive goals – education, health care, high speed rail, help for the needy – cost money. Negative budget numbers make it hard to reach our goals.

-- DO talk about more than just cuts.

Conservatives discuss the budget in terms of spending, and demand cuts. But there are other ways to shrink the deficit. Most obvious is to grow the economy, even if it takes stimulus or infrastructure spending to get there. That’s a different way to shrink the deficit as a percent of GDP.

-- DO go ahead and talk about raising revenues. “Raising revenues” is better language than “tax hikes,” and it opens more doors. Closing loopholes and corporate exemptions are also ways to raise revenue. We might give those Bush tax cuts some extra years during the recession, but ultimately we need to raise revenue. Don’t fall for the conservative framework of a one-side ledger, with spending-cuts as the only path to balance. The ledger has a revenue side as well; we can also level up.

-- DO link what we get with what it costs and where the money comes from. Nobody likes taxes. But people realize that schools and roads cost money. Package them all together.

Behind all of this lurk some political cautions. The ghost of Peter Orszag was often heard, reminding us that the budget problem is a health care problem. We need to fix health care (Medicare and Medicaid, not Social Security) to fix the budget.

Senator Warner recommended that Democrats find some spending cuts or new efficiencies to show good faith effort to control costs. They need to earn the taxpayers’ trust with their money.

Charlie Cook (Cook Political Report) warned that Democrats are likely to lose seats in the 2010 midterm elections, and will have more Senate seats than Republicans open or at risk in 2012. The American people are always suspicious of government, and nowadays they’re angry. They don’t trust government with their money.

Maybe the frustration comes from Republican failures after Hurricane Katrina, Bush bungling in Iraq or the current recession … but it’s the Democrats’ government now, and distrust is the Democrats’ problem. The current distrust jeopardizes long term progressive goals.

The conclusion: DON’T quit the stimulus yet; it’s too soon. But DO attend to the debt in the long run. It’s important both politically and financially to the progressive mission.

Electoral Support For The Public Option

Natasha Chart — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:09:31 -0700

Several recent polls have focused on national support for a public option, usually showing that support to be at levels that would translate to hefty electoral margins even greater than those the Democrats secured in 2008. However, we don't have a direct, but a representative democracy.

While the House has passed multiple health reform bills supporting national health care sentiment, the Senate has been especially resistant to including a public opinion in the final bill. In large part, this is likely the result of low-cost media markets in small states allowing corporations to disproportionately effect the outcome of their elections and often countermand even the will of the state's voters, whose contributions and lobbying efforts can be more easily, and cheaply, overwhelmed.

But to the extent that public opinion matters, and I would hope it does, it's harder to argue with its measure as expressed by actual vote totals than it is to argue with polls.

According to the 2008 census estimates, there are 304,059,724 people living in the United States and 131,257,328 voted in the 2008 election. This is the latest Senate whip count for the public option, a total of 50 Senators are now on the record as favoring the inclusion of a public option in the health care bill. So presuming that Vice President Biden will still vote for a health finance reform bill as per his campaign stance, and that none of the Senate Democrats will filibuster a bill that includes a public option (which none of them are known to be planning), there are now enough votes to pass health reform with a public option.

How does their support line up with their voting constituents and the general public? Inspired by Jed Lewison's breakdown of electoral support for the public option within the Finance Committee, I looked at 2008 census estimates and the US election atlas' 2008 results to put these numbers together:

Senator	State	Population	Senate Split	Total Pres Vote	% Obama	# Obama Votes	Last Senate (Re-)Election*
Boxer, Barbara	CA	-	-	-	-	-	6,955,728
Feinstein, Dianne	CA	36,756,666	N	13,577,265	60.94	8,274,473	5,076,289
Bennet, Michael	CO	-	-	-	-	-	(1,081,188)
Udall, Mark	CO	4,939,456	N	2,401,462	53.66	1,288,633	1,166,207
Dodd, Chris	CT	-	Y	1,646,793	60.59	997,773	945,347
Carper, Tom	DE	-	-	-	-	-	170,567
Kaufman, Ted	DE	873,092	N	412,616	61.91	255,459	(257,484)
Nelson, Bill	FL	-	Y	8,411,861	48.10	4,282,074	2,890,548
Akaka, Daniel	HI	-	-	-	-	-	210,330
Inouye, Daniel	HI	1,288,198	N	453,568	71.85	325,871	313,629
Harkin, Tom	IA	-	Y	1,537,123	53.93	828,940	941,665
Burris, Roland	IL	-	-	-	-	-	(3,598,277)
Durbin, Richard	IL	12,901,563	N	5,527,602	61.86	3,419,348	3,516,846
Kerry, John	MA	-	-	-	-	-	1,959,843
Kirk, Paul	MA	6,497,967	N	3,081,069	61.80	1,904,098	(1,500,738)
Cardin, Ben	MD	-	-	-	-	-	965,567
Mikulski, Barbara	MD	5,633,597	N	2,631,596	61.92	1,629,467	1,504,691
Levin, Carl	MI	-	-	-	-	-	3,033,550
Stabenow, Debbie	MI	10,003,422	N	5,010,194	57.33	2,872,579	2,151,278
Franken, Al	MN	-	-	-	-	-	1,212,629
Klobuchar, Amy	MN	5,220,393	N	2,910,369	54.06	1,573,354	1,278,849
McCaskill, Claire	MO	-	Y	2,928,450	49.24	1,441,911	1,055,255
Hagan, Kay	NC	-	Y	4,310,789	49.70	2,142,651	2,249,311
Dorgan, Byron	ND	-	Y	317,722	44.47	141,278	179,347
Shaheen, Jeanne	NH	-	Y	710,970	54.13	384,826	358,947
Lautenberg, Frank	NJ	-	-	-	-	-	1,951,218
Menendez, Robert	NJ	8,682,661	N	3,877,407	57.14	2,215,422	1,200,843
Bingaman, Jeff	NM	-	-	-	-	-	394,079
Udall, Tom	NM	1,984,356	N	830,158	56.91	472,422	505,128
Reid, Harry	NV	-	Y	967,848	55.15	533,736	490,232
Gillibrand, Kirsten	NY	-	-	-	-	-	(3,008,428)
Schumer, Chuck	NY	19,490,297	N	7,640,948	62.88	4,804,945	4,769,824
Brown, Sherrod	OH	-	Y	5,721,815	51.38	2,940,044	201,004
Merkley, Jeff	OR	-	-	-	-	-	864,392
Wyden, Ron	OR	3,790,060	N	1,827,864	56.75	1,037,291	1,128,728
Casey, Bob	PA	-	-	-	-	-	2,392,984
Specter, Arlen	PA	12,448,279	N	6,014,947	54.47	3,276,363	2,925,080
Reed, Jack	RI	-	-	-	-	-	320,644
Whitehouse, Sheldon	RI	1,050,788	N	471,766	62.86	296,571	205,274
Johnson, Tim	SD	-	Y	381,975	44.75	170,924	237,866
Warner, Mark	VA	-	-	-	-	-	2,187,613
Webb, Jim	VA	7,769,089	N	3,723,260	52.63	1,959,532	1,175,606
Leahy, Patrick	VT	-	-	-	-	-	212,850
Sanders, Bernie	VT	621,270	N	325,046	67.46	219,262	171,638
Cantwell, Maria	WA	-	-	-	-	-	1,184,659
Murray, Patty	WA	6,549,224	N	3,053,216	57.34	1,750,848	1,549,708
Feingold, Russ	WI	-	-	-	-	-	1,632,697
Kohl, Herb	WI	5,627,967	N	2,983,417	56.22	1,677,211	1,439,214
Byrd, Robert	WV	-	-	-	-	-	296,276
Rockefeller, Jay	WV	1,814,468	N	714,868	42.51	303,857	447,985
Totals	-	153,942,813	-	94,403,984	-	53,421,163	-

As you can see, of the 30 states these 50 Senators represent, 20 of them are represented by two Senators supporting the public option. Those 20 consensus states and their 40 Senators represent 153 million people, slightly over half the total US population.

Around 57 percent of voters in these 30 states voted for President Obama, who campaigned on a platform that included a public, not-for-profit, health coverage option. Of President Obama's 69,456,897 votes nationwide, voters in these 30 states accounted for 76 percent of his haul.

People voted for change in this election, and the party they chose has been campaigning nationally, and loudly, on a universal health coverage platform for several years. The Senate should give us what we voted for. It's the popular thing, and the right one.

* Election results in parentheses are listed for the immediate predecessor where the Senator is an appointee, all listed appointees replaced other members of the Democratic party.

Blocking Health Care Reform is Not a Winner for Grassley

Ella Humphry — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:14:36 -0700

Across the right wing blogosphere, conservatives are rubbing their hands with glee. They think the Republican strategy of blocking real health care reform is beginning to pay off. To quote Senator Jim DeMint, "If we are able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him." For conservatives, failure is victory.

Their celebration is just a touch premature.

For one thing, they should be careful not to lose sight of their own. Senator Grassley, who at one time commanded strong bipartisan support in his home state of Iowa, is losing ground.

Amidst his high-profile role in the national debate over health care, his approval rating has declined to 57 percent according to the latest Selzer / Des Moines Register poll. On the face of it, this does not look too bad. However, it represents an 18-point decline since the start of the year.

More importantly, as the table below clearly illustrates, it seems he is really losing ground with Democrats. Independents' approval ratings have also dropped 11 points since April. The once-Republican state has changed markedly since Senator Grassley was first elected in 1980, it is split almost exactly evenly between Democrats (34%), Republicans (33%) and Independents (33%). The upshot is that Senator Grassley can’t afford to lose the support of his Democratic and Independent constituents.

Source: Nate Silver

It is little wonder then, according to New York Times, “Mr. Grassley, who often has been at the center of creating major legislation, instead mostly kept his head down on Tuesday, reading news clippings and his Kindle as the Senate Finance Committee began work on legislation to overhaul the health care system.”

Senator Grassley is rattled and so he should be.

Conservative Health Care Response Ignores Facts

Brian Dockstader — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:17:54 -0700

The reviews of President Obama's health care speech before a joint session of Congress have been fairly glowing. Most agree that the President made a strong case for health insurance reform and did a good job of explaining why the public option is important, even if he stopped short of refusing to sign a bill without it. Early opinion polls even show that Americans who tuned in to listen were moved by the speech, and support for meaningful health insurance reform jumped.

One group that apparently didn't spend too much time listening to the speech was conservatives, as evidenced by Rep. Charles Boustany's (R-LA) official rebuttal to the President's speech. Now I can't say whether Boustany was otherwise engaged during the speech--perhaps yelling at the President or sending text messages--but from his speech it seems clear he wasn't paying very close attention.

Below is the transcript of his speech, which I have conveniently color coded to make it easier to read. You'll note that I have highlighted lies in orange, hypocrisy in green and bad ideas in blue.

Good evening. I’m Dr. Charles Boustany, and I’m proud to serve the people of Louisiana’s Seventh Congressional District. I’m also a heart surgeon with more than 20 years of experience, during which I saw first-hand the need for lowering health care costs.

Republicans are pleased that President Obama came to the Capitol tonight. We agree much needs to be done to lower the cost of health care for all Americans. On that goal, Republicans are ready – and we’ve been ready – to work with the President for common-sense reforms that our nation can afford¹.

Afford is an important word. Our country is facing many challenges. The cost of health care is rising. Federal spending is soaring. We’re piling huge debt on our children². And families and small businesses are struggling through a jobless recovery³, with more than 2.4 million private-sector jobs lost since February.

It’s clear the American people want health care reform, but they want their elected leaders to get it right. Most Americans wanted to hear the President tell Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and the rest of Congress that it’s time to start over on a common-sense, bipartisan plan focused on lowering the cost of health care while improving quality⁴. That’s what I heard over the past several months in talking to thousands of my constituents.

Replacing your family’s current health care with government-run health care⁵ is not the answer. In fact, it’ll make health care much more expensive. That’s not just my personal diagnosis as a doctor or a Republican; it’s the conclusion of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office⁶ – the neutral scorekeeper that determines the cost of major bills.

I read the bill Democrats passed through committee in July. It creates 53 new government bureaucracies⁷, adds hundreds of billions to our national debt⁸, and raises taxes on job-creators by $600 billion⁹. And, it cuts Medicare by $500 billion, while doing virtually nothing to make the program better for our seniors¹⁰.

The President had a chance tonight to take government-run health care⁵ off the table. Unfortunately, he didn’t do it.

We can do better, with a targeted approach that tackles the biggest problems. Here are four important areas where we can agree, right now:

One, all individuals should have access to coverage, regardless of preexisting conditions¹¹.

Two, individuals, small businesses and other groups should be able to join together to get health insurance at lower prices, the same way large businesses and labor unions do¹².

Three, we can provide assistance to those who still cannot access a doctor¹³.

And, four, insurers should be able to offer incentives for wellness care and prevention¹⁴ – something particularly important to me. I operated on too many people who could have avoided surgery if they’d simply made healthier choices earlier in life.

We do have ideas the President hasn’t agreed with. We’re grateful the President mentioned medical liability reform, and we hope he’s serious. We need to establish tough liability reform standards, encourage speedy resolution of claims, and deter junk lawsuits that drive up the cost of care¹⁵. Real reform must do this.

Let’s also talk about letting families and businesses buy insurance across state lines¹⁶. I and many other Republicans believe that that will provide real choice and competition to lower the cost of health insurance¹⁷. Unfortunately, the President disagrees.

You can read more about all these reforms at healthcare.gop.gov. These are common-sense reforms we can achieve right away – without destroying jobs, exploding the deficit, rationing care, or taking away the freedom American families cherish¹⁸.

This Congress can pass meaningful reform soon to reduce some of the fear and anxiety families are feeling in these very difficult times¹⁹. Working together in a bipartisan way, we can truly lower the cost of health care while improving quality for the American people²⁰. I’m Dr. Charles Boustany. Thanks for listening.

1 - Lie - Rep. Boustany starts off by claiming that Republicans are ready, and have been ready, to "work with the President for common-sense reforms"...which is a lie. With the exception of one or two moderate Republicans, like Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, the Republican Party has refused to come to the table with serious ideas for achieving the President's goals of increasing affordability, reigning in the explosive price of health care, and providing universal coverage to all Americans.

In fact, conservatives have been spending inordinate energy in smearing actual common-sense reforms, like a public health insurance option and end-of-life counseling. And despite all of the concessions Democrats have already given to conservatives, they have signaled that few, if any, Republicans will vote for the legislation. It is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act all over again--water it down with bad conservative ideas, then then oppose it anyway. [ up ]

2 - Hypocrisy - For me, one of the most telling parts of last night was the disparate reactions of the two sides of the aisle. Of particular interest was when President Obama explained that not only would the bill not add a single penny to the deficit, but it would actually return a modest surplus according to estimates, conservatives sat on their hands. Despite all of their grandstanding about "fiscal responsibility" they wouldn't applaud a deficit neutral (or even a deficit positive) health insurance reform bill.

Understandably, they were also not ecstatic when the President noted the hypocrisy of their opposition to a deficit neutral health insurance reform bill on the false grounds that it will add to our debt, while these same people steadfastly supported the costly war in Iraq and Bush's tax giveaways to the rich, which each cost far more than universal health care would under Obama's plan. And what did we get for the war and tax cuts for the rich? More dead Americans than the terrorists managed to kill on 9/11, and inequality we haven't seen since the Gilded Age of the Robber Barons.

So for Rep. Boustany, or any conservative, to decry the federal debt, and use it as a weapon to attack vitally necessary programs like health insurance reform, is the height of hypocrisy and disingenuousness. Rep. Boustany apparently thinks Americans don't remember anything prior to January 20th, 2009. [ up ]

3 - Lie - The recovery has not been jobless. Is unemployment still rising? Yes. But does this mean we wouldn't be doing far worse than we are now without the recovery? Definitely not. The Recovery Act has been creating jobs all around the country, and protecting existing jobs from layoffs. Even cynical conservatives, who repeatedly attack the stimulus as failed and wasteful spending, have gone back to their home districts to brag about the jobs it has created, and tried to take credit for these jobs. Yeah, they seem to think no one is watching their doublespeak. [ up ]

4 - Lie - It is funny that Rep. Boustany should mention what the public wants. He seems to think they want to start all over from the beginning, because of course nearly a century of trying to achieve universal health care in this country is just too quick! And of course it couldn't be a cynical ploy to stretch out the reform battle until the public is so tired of hearing about it that war fatigue sets in and they are able to kill reform altogether! Nooo...that couldn't be why they want us to go back to the very beginning. [ up ]

He also seems to think that Americans oppose the reforms that Obama supports, especially the public option. This of course is, and has always been, a lie. A public insurance option has always enjoyed the support of a majority of Americans, and the crazy season of August hasn't changed a thing. In fact a recent poll showed that 8 in 10 Americans support a public health insurance option, including a sizable majority of Republicans.

5 - Lie - Ahh, the good ol' standby favorite lie of conservatives, the "government takeover" boogeyman. This is what leads me to believe that Rep. Boustany was otherwise engaged during the President's speech, because like the other favorite right-wing lies about health insurance reform, Obama did an excellent job of setting the record straight. This made it all the more amusing when Rep. Boustany, unfazed by the preemptive myth-busting, predictably repeated the same tired old lies. [ up ]

6 - Lie - Another lie. The CBO has absolutely not found that the inclusion of a public health insurance option would raise health care costs. In fact, as the President explained in his speech, the exact opposite is true. In fact, it was at this point in Obama's speech that I was impressed with how he articulated, in an easy to understand manner, how a public insurance option would drive down costs by breaking up harmful insurance industry monopolies and open up health insurance markets to competition. Conservatives want you to believe that somehow increased competition leads to higher prices. Boustany may have been a doctor, but he obviously never sat through a freshman economics course (and he is hoping you haven't either). [ up ]

7 - Lie - Typical conservative lie here. When sometime is complex (you know, because running a country isn't exactly paint by numbers), throw out ridiculous numbers, create ridiculously confusing and inaccurate flow charts, and just yell "ZOMG it is sooo complicated!!" These "53 new government bureaucracies" are made out to sound like each and every one is a huge new agency, but in fact the vast majority of them are single positions or oversight committees. For instance, every position specifically created by the bill isn't described as a new job by conservatives; no, it is described as a "whole new bureaucracy", like "Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange" (yes, any position charged with making sure things work correctly is evil, just take their word for it, you don't have to think!).

Other horrible "bureaucracies" include the "Public Health Investment Fund", which sounds more like a fund than a giant bureaucratic octopus strangling the country, and the "Public health workforce loan forgiveness program", which is obviously evil as well, because forgiving loans for people who dedicate their lives to improving public health is horrible! In fact, quite a few of these "new bureaucracies" are nothing more than funds for various improvements, oversight positions to make sure things are working efficiently, and a couple committees. Look for yourself, the list is ridiculous, and just another example of conservatives thinking (hoping) you are stupid. [ up ]

8 - Lie - As I noted in #2, and as the President made crystal clear in his speech before Congress, health insurance reform will not add a single penny to the debt. In fact, that was one of the few lines in the sand the President actually drew during his speech--he vowed in no uncertain terms to veto any health insurance reform legislation that would increase the national debt. Not only are conservatives lying to you here, they apparently think you are deaf. [ up ]

9 - Lie - According to the nonpartisan Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, 96% of small businesses would see absolutely no tax increase under the health insurance reform plan. Small business would actually benefit from increases purchasing power through the new health insurance exchange. And for small business that cannot afford this health insurance, the government would provide tax credits to make coverage affordable. Horrible, isn't it? Conservatives are not worried about small businesses here, they are worried about protecting profits for large corporations, their biggest sponsors. [ up ]

10 - Lie - Health insurance reform would not cut Medicare. The legislation identifies $500 billion in savings in Medicare, mostly by eliminating overpayments, but also by adding efficiencies to the system, but this most certainly does not equal any kind of cuts in benefits or quality.

And I need to add a little shout out to their shameless hypocrisy on this one as well, because these Medicare related attacks are especially ironic coming from the same people who opposed this highly popular, government-run health care system for decades (including calling it "socialized" medicine that would destroy everything when it was being debated in the 60s), and who have tried at every turn to weaken or destroy it. [ up ]

11 - Hypocrisy - You gotta love how conservatives are now pretending to be in favor of such common-sense reforms like banning insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions. And what about all of those years that we've been trying to do this while conservatives have been steadfast in their opposition to additional regulations on the insurance industry (and every industry)? If conservatives have been on board with these reforms, as liberals obviously have been, why couldn't this pass Congress in the past? Why didn't conservatives introduce this legislation when they controlled Congress and occupied the White House? Who have been blocking these reforms all this time...? Hmmm...

Sorry, we weren't born yesterday. You can't oppose these things for decades, defend the current system, and then pretend right before the clock runs out and you know you've lost that you are a consumer champion. That isn't how this works. [ up ]

12 - Hypocrisy - Wow, first a conservative talking about how they favor stronger government regulations on the insurance industry and now a conservative saying we should be more like labor unions?? This is just getting silly. [ up ]

13 - Hypocrisy - See, they want to provide assistance to those who cannot afford it, yet have consistently opposed programs that would do just that. Interesting. So what exactly is your plan to achieve this? Oh, there is no plan, no details, no solutions, no anything (well, except the word "NO!" of course)! Well, if they actually had a plan, you could safely assume that it would include no funding, no oversight, and no new positions (see #7). I can't wait to see how that is supposed to work! [ up ]

14 - Bad Idea - This doesn't sound like a bad idea at first glance, since encouraging people to be healthier is important (and something that Obama has repeatedly emphasized), but that of course isn't what Boustany is talking about. Offering "incentives" is code for what we have now, which basically translates to "if you do anything that could possibly put you at increased risk of anything, you'll have to pay more than everyone else."

If we take away the ability of the insurance industry to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions, they'll do the exact same thing with "incentives", and if you don't receive enough "incentives" you'll find yourself with much much more expensive premiums than most people. Maybe your premiums will be so expensive that you just won't be able to afford to be covered anymore... I'm sure that would break some insurance company CEO's heart. [ up ]

15 - Lie - This is more a gross exaggeration than an actual lie. There is nothing stopping us from looking at tort reform, and perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea, but tort reform isn't the panacea conservatives have been pretending it is for decades. It isn't junk lawsuits that are driving up the cost of care, it is the near-monopoly within the health insurance market, which any economist can tell you is a sign of an inefficient market that is broken.

What inevitably happens in these monopolistic environments is that "producers" (i.e. the dominate insurance company in the market), having no competition forcing them to lower prices or increase quality, are free to charge whatever they can get away with (which in the case of health insurance is often whatever they can change without sending their customers into bankruptcy, which they frequently do).

Consumers, basically at the mercy of the insurance provider, are left with the choice between one or two expensive private options, or nothing at all. THAT is what is actually driving up premiums, not lawsuits. You can read more about the tort-reform boogeyman here. [ up ]

16 - Bad Idea - "Letting families and businesses buy insurance across state lines" is another decent sounding idea at face value, that isn't so benign when you actually trace the obvious repercussions. The goal here is to start a race to the bottom among states to see who can deregulate the most. This would spell disaster for the health care in this country, and it would be a huge windfall for insurance company profits. [ up ]

17 - Lie - Again, this won't provide consumers with any choice or competition. All health insurance companies would move to set up shop in whichever state deregulated the most (read: gave them the most flexibility to do whatever they want with you) and soon customers would face a whole new array of equally horrible options for health insurance. An insurance company dream. Ask yourself this: Do you really want health insurance run like the credit card industry? Have you checked your fine print lately? How are those interest rates doing? How about now? [ up ]

18 - Lie - Lie, lie, lie and lie. This was basically just a rapid fire reiteration of all of the lies above. The fact is that health insurance reform would not destroy jobs, would not explode (or even increase) the deficit, would not ration care, and would not take any freedom away from American families (in fact it would only give them greater freedom than they have now, which isn't much given that the market is run by a handful of corporate sharks). [ up ]

19 - Hypocrisy - I absolutely love that conservatives are now worried about reducing the "fear and anxiety families are feeling". This coming from the same people who brought you the "death panel", the "death book", the "pull the plug on grandma", the "march of socialism", the "brainwashing your children", the "Obama is building death camps", and a never-ending litany of insane right-wing smears created for the sole purpose of scaring people into fearing reform. These people are fear merchants! And in the very same speech--nay, the very next sentence after suggesting that health care reform will destroy jobs, explode the deficit, ration care, and take freedom away from American families--they say they want to reduce fear and anxiety! How Orwellian can you get?

Here is a tip, in the immortal words of Sarah Palin, if you want to reduce fear and anxiety, how about you "quit making things up?" [ up ]

20 - Lie - No, I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as a reform that would pick up conservative support AND actually work to achieve the goals of lower costs and improved quality (in addition to universal coverage, which Boustany left out). In fact, conservatives haven't been able to produce any ideas for reform on their own (which is of course why you never heard George W. Bush talking about his health insurance reform plan, and why the issue went nowhere since the last time liberals had power in Washington and were stopped by the same anti-reform crowd). In their mind "bipartisan" means not adding their own ideas, but cutting out as many parts of reform as possible. In essence, their idea is the status quo--what we are suffering with right now--and their idea of "compromise" is getting as close as possible to no change at all. [ up ]

**Note: Since Rep. Boustany's only reason given for why you should trust him at all on the issue of health insurance reform is that he was once a doctor, I would be remiss to not supply a little context to his resume. You can read more about him on this fact sheet, but here are the highlights:

Boustany Has Taken More Than $537,000 In Campaign Contributions From Health Care PACs In His Roughly Four And Half Years In Congress. ($1.25 million total)
Boustany Served As A Director On Health Insurer Blue Cross Blue Shield Of Louisiana’s Physician Advisory Board
Boustany Has Quite A History of Spreading Lies About Health Insurance Reform (many of which he repeated last night).
Boustany Is A "Birther"
Boustany Was Sued For Malpractice, Three Times.

By the way, if you haven't had a chance to see the President's speech yet, here it is:

Update: I should credit Rep. Boustany for one thing, which is acting like an adult (yes kids, adults lie too). Unlike some of his peers, Boustany had the courtesy to wait until his turn to give his rebuttal, instead of interrupting the President of the United States in the middle of an national address before a joint session of Congress. So I want to give him credit for that. And yes, it is sad that we apparently can't take that sort of basic respect for the Commander-in-Chief for granted anymore. But perhaps we should count our blessings that Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) or any of his conservative colleagues didn't hang anyone in effigy or bring guns to the ~~town hall protest~~ Congressional address.

I cannot completely fact check the conservative response without including Rep. Joe Wilson's contribution, which went something like this:

President Obama: There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false - the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.

Rep. Joe Wilson: You Lie!

Actually no Mr. Wilson, in fact YOU LIE!

Two words, big lie, shocking disrespect, epic irony.

Michele Bachmann Thinks You Are Crazy Too

Brian Dockstader — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:38:22 -0700

A few weeks ago I wrote a blog post entitled "Sarah Palin Thinks You Are Stupid" in which I explored her "death panel" fearmongering and what it showed about how she viewed the American people (hint: she thinks you are stupid). At one point I referenced the fact that she cited Michele Bachmann as a source, whom I identified at the time as crazy, with only a short explanation: "Do you really have to check why I labeled Michele Bachmann crazy?"

If you did need to ask why I think Michele Bachmann is a raving lunatic, let this blog serve as your case in point (one of many).

It was only about a week ago that she told a group of supporters that she asked her supporters to pray and fast for the failure of health insurance reform. She also repeated Sarah Palin's death panel lies, and doubled down, "Thank God that Sarah Palin said that. These are true."

That was mild Bachmann though, or as I like to think of it, Bachmann on her meds. This is Bachmann off her meds [For your reading convenience, I've colored coded Bachmann's statements, with orange for lies and purple for crazy]:

(via Think Progress)

During what was originally billed as a “personal legislative briefing,” Bachmann “got downright biblical” when describing her unwavering opposition to health care reform:

“This [health care reform] cannot pass…What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists¹, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn’t pass…Right now, we are looking at reaching down the throat and ripping the guts out of freedom². And we may never be able to restore it if we don’t man up and take this one on.³”

According to the Colorado Independent, Bachmann also claimed that many Americans pay more than half their income in taxes⁴, adding “it’s nothing more than slavery.⁵”

1 - Crazy - What more explanation do you need? The woman is talking about slitting your wrists and rubbing your bloody wounds on other people's bloody wounds. At a political rally! Even if this was completely metaphorical, it is also completely nutty. Worse yet, her supporters have a proven track record of not being able to differentiate between fantasy and reality, so would it really surprise anyone if some of the most ignorant among them actually try this out?

And since we are "discussing" health care, I would also like to point out how irresponsible swapping blood like that is. You never know what STDs someone is carrying, let alone swine flu, tuberculosis, or maybe rabies... And that is my public service announcement for the day. [ up ]

2 - Crazy - Again with the unnecessary and incredibly graphic and violent imagery. Reaching down the throat and ripping the guts out? Crraaazzzyyyy. See the next point on how this is also all a lie: [ up ]

3 - Lie - Bachmann seems to be trying to the make point that health insurance reform somehow equals a loss of freedom. Since health insurance reform will actually give you more choices of health insurance (i.e. more freedom), and protect you from many of the more horrible and unjust practices of the for-profit insurance industry (e.g. denials based on pre-existing conditions), it is hard to understand how she arrives at this baseless claim. Maybe it is those make-believe death panels? Who knows. Suffice to say, health insurance reform will not take away any "freedoms", it will only give you and your loved ones more freedom. If you, unlike Michele Bachmann, are actually interested in the facts, please check out this great resource for health insurance reform facts.

Oh, and "man up"? Could you be more sexist? (Yes, I'm sure she could). [ up ]

4 - Lie - Here Michele Bachmann runs with the all too familiar "poor rich people" argument that conservatives just love. She makes the interesting claim that under our current system there are some poor rich people who have to pay half of their income in taxes. This is quite an interesting claim given that the income tax rate for the highest tax bracket hasn't been 50% since Reagan. In fact, right now it is actually at one of its lowest points in history, 35% (for some context, during some of the most prosperous years in American history, the post-war era of the 40's, 50's and 60's, the tax rate for the highest income bracket was between 70-90% or so).

For a little more context, let's look at Warren Buffett, the world's second richest person after Bill Gates. How much does this insanely wealthy man pay in taxes? Well let's ask him:

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.

If that isn't slavery, I don't know what is. Poor Warren Buffett has to pay 17.7% in taxes, and he doesn't even need to seek out loopholes to do it (if he actually tried he could undoubtedly pay even less in taxes, or maybe if he was lucky he could pay zero income taxes like 2/3 of American corporations). Of course Buffett is a rarity--he is one of the few rich people who are able to put considerations of the greater good above self-interest and greed. Buffett has famously rallied against our current tax system because it makes him pay too little!:

"The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent."

It should be no surprise to you to find that Michele Bachmann is lying to you, yet again. [ up ]

5 - Crazy - Lastly you have this insane and horribly offensive conflation of rich people being taxed at ~~50%~~ ~~35%~~ 17.7%, with slavery. Yes, human bondage. Being the property of someone else, having absolutely no rights whatsoever. Able to be murdered, raped or tortured at any time with almost complete impunity. That is what life is like for the rich people in this country. Didn't you know? Did you ever watch MTV Cribs? Yes, those palaces were just like slaves' quarters. Their country clubs, cotton fields. Their masseuse, their foreman with a bullwhip.

I can't begin to even put to words how utterly offensive and reprehensible it is for Michele Bachmann to belittle and exploit the horrors of slavery in this country and around the world (still in effect in all too many places) for her political agenda. Rich people are slaves in this country???

Despicable.

And I won't even get into a discussion of the racial politics involved in suggesting that the country's first black president is now enslaving white people, but I guarantee that this implication isn't lost on many in her base. (For other examples of conservatives attacking Obama's beneficial policies as "slavery", please see Terrance Heath's blog post, "Everything is NOT Slavery." [ up ]

Insurance Industry Plays The Victim, Admits To Rationing Care For Profit

Brian Dockstader — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:08:42 -0700

♫No one knows what it's like
      To be the bad man
      To be the sad man
      Behind blue eyes

      No one knows what it's like
      To be hated
      To be fated
      To telling only lies

The New York Times ran an article this morning that has been sparking some commentary in the blogosphere. In a piece that was essentially The Who's "Behind Blue Eyes" put to paper, we were presented with a sad tale of how we should feel sorry for the insurance industry, who are, in fact, the real victims of the health care debate.

I, for one, was wondering when someone would have the courage to stand up for the little guy, the Stephen Hemsley's of the world.

Most reactions to this piece focused less on the overall theme of playing the victim and more on the admission contained therein (emphasis mine):

"I believe we're getting the pushback because we are standing up for what we believe in," said Cheryl Tidwell, 45, Humana's director of commercial sales training. "We believe there's a better way to control costs by controlling utilization and getting people involved in their health care."

Now we know they aren't talking about controlling costs to the customer, since health insurance premiums have skyrocketed far above the pace of inflation, the vast majority of personal bankruptcies in this country now come as a result of medical costs, and since it isn't unheard of for an insurance company CEO to pull in $819,363 every single day of the year, or to be sitting on over $744 million in stock options, or to retire with a $73 million golden parachute. The insurance industry also spares no expense in throwing hundreds of millions of dollars into their lobbying blitzkrieg against health insurance reform. Suffice to say, these "savings" aren't being passed on to consumers.

So they are controlling their costs, to maximize their profit. And how do they admit to controlling costs? By "controlling utilization". What does that mean exactly? Well we know what "control" means. It means they, the insurance company, makes decisions. It means the insurance company has the power, all the control.

So what about "utilization"? The utilization of what exactly? Well there are two types of "utilization" that the insurance industry likes to control, because controlling them just so happens to keep their costs down, and their profits plump:

Insurance Utilization: This is the type of "utilization barrier" that effects nearly 50 million Americans. The premise is that if you can't afford to give the insurance industry their pound of flesh, or if you are sick enough that the insurance industry doesn't make a big enough profit in treating you, you don't get insurance, period. This keeps their costs down. Your costs? Who cares? All that matters is that insurance companies don't have to let you "utilize" their product--health insurance.

Treatment Utilization: You can't go to this hospital, you have to go to this one in your "network". You can't get this treatment because it isn't listed on the approved list from your insurance company. Woah, you are really sick, are you sure you never had headaches before? Ever? Do any of those sound familiar? This is where the insurance industry controls which treatments you get to utilize, if any at all, based on their cost-benefit analysis. If it doesn't benefit their bottom line, they don't sign on the dotted line. And then you don't get your treatment. By controlling the "utilization" of treatment, they are making all the decisions. And they are right, it does keep costs down: their costs. (Oh, did I mention that the CEO of insurance industry giant CIGNA "earned" over $120 million in compensation in the last five years alone?)

So that, in a nutshell, is what the euphemism "controlling utilization" actually means. And they control utilization constantly. Millions of Americans are denied coverage for specific illnesses or treatments every year, and millions more are denied any coverage at all.

The funny part is that when these very same people make up horror stories about what will supposedly happen if we even get the option of choosing public health insurance, they call this exact same thing RATIONING.

Get it? When the private insurance industry refuses to cover you, or makes decisions about what treatments they will and will not allow you to receive, that is called "controlling utilization" (and that happens in the real world, every day). Yet when the government will supposedly pull the plug on grandma, even though she is already on (and would continue to be on) Medicare, and is most certainly not being forced into death now nor would she ever be, that is called rationing care (and socialism, Nazi eugenics, death panels, and I'm sure about every other thing liars can dream up to spoon-feed gullible people--oh, and this rationing is only happening in fantasy land).

So that was the little gem buried in the NYT puff piece about what a hard knock life it is for the insurance industry--they admitted that they ration care, right now, and have been for as long as they've been doing business.

But perhaps my favorite part of the column is where they really get out the violins for employees of these insurance companies, to get us to see that they aren't monsters, or in their words, "We are human beings, too." It is really fit to be in the Merchant of Venice (daydream sequence begin):

Hath not a[n insurance industry employee] eyes? Hath not a[n insurance industry employee] hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer as a [human] is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.

*Tear* Beautiful. I hope they do a remake of Evita next.

But of course this is all a straw man, because this anger at insurance industry greed isn't directed at the employees of these mega corporations, who are by all accounts just trying to make a living by doing what they are told. They are, after all, just doing their jobs. It isn't their fault that their job is to decline people coverage to save the company money. That is the one and only goal of a corporation, is it not? They are accountable to their investors, their shareholders, and no one else.

That is the bottom line--The corporation is a beast designed for a single purpose: to make profit and make people (investors) rich. And these employees, the ones being humanized so beautifully in this NYT column, are just cogs in the wheel, and if they refused to do it some other person (faceless bureaucrat, to use the hypocritical language of the conservatives) would fill their spot in an instant. And to their credit, many former employees of the insurance industry, haunted by the things there were made to do in the name of profit, have come forward and spoken out against insurance industry practices, like Dr. Linda Peeno in this ad from American's United for Change:

So no, it isn't about the little people, it is about the entire beast. Has anyone suggested that these people, the employees themselves, are evil? Do reformists think that these people, or even the executives in charge, get up in the morning with the goal of killing people and ruining lives? Of course not. They do what they do best: maximize profit, at all costs. The human lives destroyed are just collateral damage. Some of them, mostly those at the very top, are very much okay with this, and defend it vigorously. Others are haunted and find that they can't bring themselves to keep doing it.

This isn't about them, it is about an industry that is indeed evil, if not in intention, undeniably in effect. Just because a corporation is made up of people, are we not allowed to blame the whole?

That is the funny thing about the concept of "corporate personhood"-- corporations have long fought to enjoy all the rights and benefits of being treated as a living, breathing person, but without any of the costs, like mortality, and now, apparently, blame.

Progressives: Dumb It Down!

Brian Dockstader — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:18:23 -0700

I just came across this great video while sailing the intertubes (h/t tunesmith @ Daily Kos) and I think it needs to be seen by as many people as possible. It does a wonderful job of really simplifying the health care debate down to its most basic and important parts.

The odd part about the health care "debate" is that the most basic and common sense things we should be talking about are what are almost completely absent. This is why it has been so frustrating that we have had to struggle for decades against misinformation, fearmongering, and spurious claims of "socialism" and evil "government takeover", which have largely prevented us from making any progress on the issue (aside from Medicare and a few other important programs that have been implemented--and look, the country is better off for it, and we still aren't communists!), when we have the facts (and common sense) on our side.

Part of the problem is that smears are, by their very nature, simple things. They aren't complex, they don't have the burden of being based on any truth, logic or any other rational substantiation. And they are shocking. The more outrageous (and false) a smear is, the more it catches your attention. And many Americans seem to have lost the part of their brains which triggers being skeptical of things that sound too outrageous to be true ("Obama is trying to kill my grandma?? That sounds reasonable, go on...").

Progressives have thus far been impotent against these smears because the truth is, by its very nature, nuanced. This world is not simple, data can be hard to conceptualize, complex relationships can take a lot of knowledge to fully understand. It takes more words to tell the truth than to lie, and it takes even more words to set the record straight after a lie has already been told.

(Think of trying to explain how a car moves to a Pilgrim. A horse ~~industry lobbyist~~ dealer might warn customers that the car is moved by witches under the direction of Lucifer himself. A knowledgeable engineer from the future would try to explain how an internal combustion engine works. Who do you think would win? Simplicity trumps truth every time.)

And since all too many Americans have the attention spans of gerbils and don't seek out (or perhaps actively avoid) accurate information and a real understanding of these complex issues, all of our rational, intelligent, fact-based arguments in favor of health insurance reform (or any course of action) and against the lies are simply lost in the muddle. Conservatives know this, and that is why they know they can make up any ridiculous claim and have it eaten up by a large number of gullible people. It works, it really does.

So what progressives need to do is to essentially dumb it down. We need to bring it down to their level of simplicity, while not sacrificing any of the truth. And I think that is what this video does. It does a great job of explaining a complex issue, with cartoons and a lot of common sense. This is the level almost all Americans can understand, at least if they are at all open to understanding. Before anyone jumps into the health care debate, I think they need to start with this as a primer.

Please watch, learn, enjoy, and for the love of god share it with everyone you know and maybe, just maybe, we can get back to a rational discussion of the challenge in front of us, without suffering ridiculous stories of "death panels" and "death books" and socialism taking over the country. Let's be adults, but let's first learn like children.

Beware the Book of the Dead

Brian Dockstader — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:40:30 -0700

Actual cover of "Your Life, Your Choices" offered by the Dept. of Veterans Affairs

Did you hear the latest ridiculous lie the right-wing is promoting against health insurance reform?

You see, there is a book, an evil book, and if you read it, you get a phone call, and it tells you that in exactly seven days you are going to die. And then exactly seven days later...

Nothing happens. Because they are lying to you, again.

The latest smear is, I kid you not, the "death book" which is supposedly a plan by the Obama administration to kill our veterans.

Only it was a document promoted by the Bush administration, and of course it in no way advocates ending the lives of veterans, or anyone.

These insane talking points represent just the latest instance of conservatives attacking common sense end-of-life planning--planning promoted by Republicans--in a disingenuous attack against the current administration and health insurance reform.

Only in the right-wing fringe could a harmless book that was designed to inform and empower patients to make their own decisions about their end-of-life care, so that when the time inevitably comes their wishes will be followed rather than the wishes of someone else, be translated into some macabre "death book" advocating that veterans "hurry up and die."

And isn't it curious that the same group of people who are constantly saying we should keep the government out of medical decisions, and that these decisions should be made by us and our doctors, are the same people who are attacking something as benign as living wills, which seek to do nothing other than make sure our decisions about our own bodies are followed?

So let me get this straight--We should have total control over our own bodies (unless of course we are pregnant, then we should be heavily regulated by the government, as an appendage of the Church), and these decisions should be between us and our doctors, yet reimbursing patients for the cost of meeting with their doctors to discuss these issues is equivalent to "death panels", and encouraging (not forcing) people to actually put their wishes on paper so they aren't ignored if the worst were to happen equals trying to put people to death. Riiiggghhhttt...

Oh, but it makes sense in a way. You see, if you have a living will, then these same conservatives won't be able to step in and interfere with your life at the very end like they did in the case of Terri Schiavo. Because in that case it was perfectly appropriate for the Death Congress and the President of the United States, sitting in his Oval Death Office, to use the government to tell people whether or not they could die with dignity if they so choose. If we promoted living wills, conservatives couldn't do that anymore!

Do you see a pattern here?

Pro-living will provision inserted into health care legislation by a Republican, conservatives attack liberals with accusations that they are trying to march grandma in front of a death panel to kill her.

Pro-end-of-life planning materials promoted by the Bush administration, conservatives attack Obama for trying to kill veterans with his evil "death book".

Conservatives try to use the government to intervene in the personal medical decisions of citizens, whether it be abortions or end-of-life care, and then those same conservatives attack liberals for wanting to keep these decisions in the hands of the individual.

These people are fighting themselves! All of these things they are attacking were their ideas in the first place! These people wrote the book on government interference in your personal life and your medical decisions. And now they are using this fearmongering about a "government takeover" and "death panels" and "death books" to attack legislation that would actually empower patients to have more choices and greater ability to make their own decisions about their own lives!

This isn't health insurance reform, this is the Medical Choices Act of 2009! That is what this entire bill is about! Choices! Personal empowerment!

In the status quo (that means NOW people) you have the private insurance industry with a harmful monopoly on coverage that has resulted in fewer choices and skyrocketing premiums (and the conservative "plan" is to do nothing about this). Through health insurance reform you would get MORE choices, not less! You would also have increased opportunity to meet with your doctor to discuss important things like having the security of a living will! How is this bad??

You know, I keep waiting for anti-reform conservatives to jump the shark. You would have thought after sitting on their hands for eight years while health insurance premiums skyrocketed they would have lost any legitimacy on the issue of health care. You would have thought that after denouncing health care reform, no matter how modest, as "socialism", every single time it has come up over the last century (including when we passed Medicare) they would have lost any legitimacy on the issue. You would have thought they would have officially jumped the shark with the "death panels" nonsense, which has been repeatedly and unambiguously debunked by even the mainstream media, which is notorious for letting these smears go unchallenged. Yet people still take them seriously! You would have thought that this corporate-sponsored, ignorance-driven vitriol and lunacy at town hall meetings would have forced the country to roll their eyes and hand off governing to the adults. You would have thought that blatant lies like this "death book" nonsense would finally push them over the shark. But no, despite all of that, the media still takes them seriously, far too many Americans keep taking them seriously, and hell, even President Obama keeps taking them seriously and believing he can reach some kind of compromise with them, no matter how many times they themselves say that they will agree to no reform, no matter the compromises.

What the hell do these people have to do to jump the damn shark???

Next week it will be that health insurance reform actually has a provision which will force people to donate DNA to create man-beast hybrids (it is on page 734, check for yourself, have you read the bill??!?!?!11!). And sadly, people will probably believe that garbage, and still keep taking the conservatives who promote these lies seriously.

Is there anything these people can say that won't be eaten up hook, line and sinker by at least a good 30-40% of Americans?

If you want to know more about the actual substance of the "death book" smear, watch the following video, and visit the invaluable Media Matters myth-busting page on the smear.

Also see this debunking by Jed Lewison yesterday over at Daily Kos.

**UPDATE**

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele gives his endorsement of the "death book" lies saying:

I mean, this is crazy coming from the government, and this is exactly what concerns people and puts them in fear of what the government control of health care will look like.

Mmhmm. And in case you were wondering when it was going to happen, don't worry, conservatives are already trying to use "Your Life, Your Choices" to connect Obama to, you guessed it, Nazi eugenics. Imagine that.