Jack & Jill Politics

That meme is growing more frequent on various progressive blogs. Where the argument gets weak to me, is the idea that if he really wanted it, he would publicly push for it. A public push is for the public, every poll shows a strong majority of people support it. The people the President has to convince are his former colleagues in the Senate, and if the months of the President talking it up as well as the many polls of public opinion showing strong support haven't moved them to come on board yet, him doing more public appeal is not going to move them. They know where he stands.

I know progressives want him to say that he won't sign a bill unless it contains a strong public option. However, I don't see how taking such a stance helps him secure the 60 votes for at least cloture in the Senate. As a democratic strategist was explaining to Ed today, they can't pass the entire bill through reconciliation, and as Chris Matthews brought up to Anthony Weiner today, there are 6 Senators who are on record not supporting a PO. How do you get them to stay united with the democrats for cloture? You dial back on the importance of the public option, and focus on the other aspects that appeal to them.

I have seen suggestions that they threaten to take away chairmanships or campaign funds. The problem with those ideas is that the people you crush on healthcare, you might need for energy or immigration or DADT. The President can't be short-sighted, apply some pressure but not too much.

CMS: Public Option Much Cheaper Than Private Insurance, and Would Make Private Plans Cheaper, Too
By: Jon Walker Wednesday October 21, 2009 3:10 pm


The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) just released a study of the version of the health care reform bill, H.R. 3200, reported out by the Ways and Means Committee.* The study had some positive news for the robust public option tied to Medicare rates. The public option would on average have premiums 11 percent cheaper than private insurance and the public option would end up also making private insurance cheaper.

Premiums for the public health insurance option are estimated to be 11 percent lower than those for private plans on the Exchange. This result is based on an estimate that (i) the cost of the public insurance option for a standard enrollment group would be 18 percent lower than the average for private health plans, but (ii) public plan enrollees would have costs that were 7 percent greater than average (beyond what can be accounted for through risk adjustment) as a result of antiselection. The estimated 18-percent cost differential between the public option and private plans reflects the combination of 17 percent lower prices, 10 percent lower administrative and margin costs, and 9 percent higher costs due to less strict and/or effective care coordination. The finding of 17-percent lower prices for the public plan is a function of the specification that the public plan payment rates would be Medicare rates plus 5 percent. The assumed higher average cost for public plan enrollees is based on an expectation that individuals with above-average costs would tend to prefer plans with less-restrictive utilization management practices.

What this means is that the premiums charged by the public option would be roughly 11 percent lower than private insurance, but, in reality, it would cost 18 percent less for the public option to provide health insurance. Since the public option is cheaper it would end up attracting a less healthy costumer base. Having people with more medical needs sign up for the public option would end up somewhat increasing the premiums the public option would need to charge. Conversely, because the public option would end up attracting many of the least healthy individuals, it would also drive down premiums for private insurance plans.

If Congress implemented a proper risk equalizer for the new exchange, the public option would have premiums on average 18 percent cheaper. The important point is that a robust public health insurance plan could provide health insurance with a large provider network at 18% less cost than private insurance.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/10/21/cms...

Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Southern GOP Senator David Vitter refuses to comment on justice of the peace who won't marry inter-racial couples
by John Aravosis (DC) on 10/21/2009 01:47:00 PM

This is simply a stunning new video.

Republican Senator David Vitter (R-La) visibly squirms when asked to comment on the recent case of a justice of the peace in his state of Louisiana who refuses to marry blacks to whites. We criticize Republicans a lot, but this is simply stunning. He's refusing to comment on obvious, blatant, outrageous racism. And the only reason one could imagine is that he doesn't want to upset his own racist supporters in his state. Is Louisiana really still that racist that a Republican Senator can't speak out in favor of blacks marring whites, and against those who would suggest that such marriages are wrong? What other possible reason could a Republican senator from the south have for squirming, and going silent, when asked his opinion about an official in his own state who refuses to conduct interracial marriages. Is Louisiana really that racist and that backward? Is Vitter?

Perhaps we need a phone in to various Republican offices to find out where they stand on inter-racial marriage. Feel free to call Vitter's office and ask what the Senator's position is on inter-racial marriage: (202) 224-4623

http://www.americablog.com/2009/10/southern-gop...

be reminded - domestic physical abuse is used as a PRE-EXISTING CONDITION
with some insurance companies

-------------------------------------

Rape Victim's Choice: Risk AIDS or Health Insurance?


Huffington Post Investigative Fund | Danielle Ivory
First Posted: 10-21-09 12:50 PM | Updated: 10-21-09 06:00 PM

Christina Turner feared that she might have been sexually assaulted after two men slipped her a knockout drug. She thought she was taking proper precautions when her doctor prescribed a month's worth of anti-AIDS medicine.

Only later did she learn that she had made herself all but uninsurable.

Turner had let the men buy her drinks at a bar in Fort Lauderdale. The next thing she knew, she said, she was lying on a roadside with cuts and bruises that indicated she had been raped. She never developed an HIV infection. But months later, when she lost her health insurance and sought new coverage, she ran into a problem.

Turner, 45, who used to be a health insurance underwriter herself, said the insurance companies examined her health records. Even after she explained the assault, the insurers would not sell her a policy because the HIV medication raised too many health questions. They told her they might reconsider in three or more years if she could prove that she was still AIDS-free.

Stories of how victims of sexual assault can get tangled in the health insurance system have been one result of the Huffington Post Investigative Fund's citizen journalism project, which is calling on readers to provide information and anecdotes about the inner workings of the insurance industry. The project aims to uncover details and data that can inform the larger debate over how to fix the nation's health care system. As the Investigative Fund reported in September, health insurance companies are not required to make public their records on how often claims are denied and for what reasons.

Some women have contacted the Investigative Fund to say they were deemed ineligible for health insurance because they had a pre-existing condition as a result of a rape, such as post traumatic stress disorder or a sexually transmitted disease. Other patients and therapists wrote in with allegations that insurers are routinely denying long-term mental health care to women who have been sexually assaulted.

Susan Pisano, spokeswoman for the health insurance industry's largest trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans, said insurers do not discriminate against victims of sexual assault and ordinarily would not even know if a patient had been raped.

"These issues you are bringing up, they deserve to be brought up," said Pisano. "People who have experienced rape and sexual assault are victims and we want them to be in a system where everyone is covered."

Turner's story about HIV drugs is not unusual, said Cindy Holtzman, an insurance agent and expert in medical billing at Medical Refund Service, Inc. of Marietta, Ga. Insurers generally categorize HIV-positive people as having a pre-existing condition and deny them coverage. Holtzman said that health insurance companies also consistently decline coverage for anyone who has taken anti-HIV drugs, even if they test negative for the virus. "It's basically an automatic no," she said.

Pisano, of the insurance trade group, said: "If you put down on a form that you are or were taking anti-HIV drugs at any time, they [the insurance companies] are going to understand that you are or were in treatment for HIV, period," she said. "That could be a factor in determining whether you get coverage."

Some doctors and nurses said that the industry's policy is not medically sound. "The chance of a rape victim actually contracting AIDS is very low. It doesn't make any sense to use that as a calculus for determining who get health insurance," said Dr. Alex Schafir, faculty instructor at Providence St. Vincent Hospital in Portland, Ore.

Nurses who deal with sexual assault cases say the industry's policy creates a significant problem for those treating women who have been assaulted. "It's difficult enough to make sure that rape victims take the drugs," said Diana Faugno, a forensic nurse in California and board director of End Violence Against Women International. "What are we supposed to tell women now? Well, I guess you have a choice - you can risk your health insurance or you can risk AIDS. Go ahead and choose."

Turner, now a life and casualty insurance agent, said she went without health coverage for three years after the attack. She second-guesses her decision to take the HIV drugs. "I'm going to be penalized my whole life because of this," she said.

Several women told the Investigative Fund that after being sexually assaulted they had been denied care or ruled ineligible for health insurance because of what were deemed pre-existing conditions stemming from their assaults -- particularly post traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD.

A 38-year-old woman in Ithaca, N.Y., said she was raped last year and then penalized by insurers because in giving her medical history she mentioned an assault she suffered in college 17 years earlier. The woman, Kimberly Fallon, told a nurse about the previous attack and months later, her doctor's office sent her a bill for treatment. She said she was informed by a nurse and, later, the hospital's billing department that her health insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield, not only had declined payment for the rape exam, but also would not pay for therapy or medication for trauma because she "had been raped before."

Fallon says she now has trouble getting coverage for gynecological exams. To avoid the hassle of fighting with her insurance company, she goes to Planned Parenthood instead and pays out of pocket.

A New Mexico woman told the Investigative Fund she was denied coverage at several health insurance companies because she had suffered from PTSD after being attacked and raped in 2003. She did not want to disclose her name because she feared that she would lose her group health insurance if she went on the record as a rape victim. "I remember just feeling infuriated," she said.

"I think it's important to point out that health plans are not denying coverage based on the fact that someone was raped," said Pisano of the insurance trade group. "But PTSD could be a factor in denied coverage."

"That might not be a discriminatory action, but it certainly would seem to have a discriminatory impact," said Sandra Park, staff attorney at the Women's Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. "Insurance discrimination against rape victims will only further discourage them from coming forward to law enforcement and seeking medical help."

Even when patients have coverage, there are fundamental disagreements between insurance companies and doctors about what mental health treatment is medically necessary. The Investigative Fund spoke with doctors, psychologists, and licensed clinical social workers around the country who work regularly with victims of sexual assault. They said that their patients have been experiencing an increase in delays and denials, particularly for talk therapy.

"There's a lot of anger about this in the medical community," said Dr. George Shapiro-Weiss, a psychiatrist in Middletown, Conn. "You don't realize what an Alice in Wonderland web this has become."

"A lot of my patients are being told that their treatment isn't medically necessary," said Keri Nola, an Orlando, Fla., psychologist, who said about 75 percent of her patients are victims of sexual violence.

Several therapists cited problems with managed care companies that specialize in mental health. Such firms generally work under contract with health insurers to hold down costs while still authorizing appropriate care.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/insura...

Cynthia Tucker
Obama: effete or “street-brawler”?

2:00 pm October 21, 2009, by ctucker

Since the Democratic presidential primaries, Barack Obama has been accused by friends and enemies alike of being too weak, too passive, too effete. His Democratic supporters wanted him to attack Hillary Clinton and, later, to bash John McCain. More recently, Washington pundits have started opining about whether he’s tough enough for the job and whether he incites enough fear in his opponents.

With all that chatter about Obama’s alleged weakness, it was a little weird to hear of a Republican taking to the floor of the Senate to accuse the president of the opposite: “streetbrawling” with his foes and keeping an enemies list.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) accused the White House on Wednesday of “street-brawling” with opponents, and said the West Wing’s strategy of freezing out opponents amounts to a latter-day “enemies list,” a reference to an infamous practice of President Richard Nixon.

“An ‘enemies list’ only denigrates the Presidency and the Republic itself,” Alexander said on the Senate floor. “These are unusually difficult times, with plenty of forces encouraging us to disagree. Let’s not start calling people out and compiling an enemies list. Let’s push the street-brawling out of the White House and work together on the truly presidential issues: creating jobs, reducing health care costs, reducing the debt, creating clean energy.”

The confusion over Obama’s essential personality suggests that he doesn’t play the game like most Washington politicians, so Washington insiders are having troubling fitting him into their usual stereotypes.
But if Obama has a Republican Senator up denouncing him for “streetbrawling,” he should keep right on brawling. Republicans have no intention on working with the White House on anything. So if the GOP is upset, the president’s tactics are working.

http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2009/10/21/...

Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The president is back to lecturing us about health care reform
by John Aravosis (DC) on 10/21/2009 10:00:00 AM

From ABC's Jake Tapper:

As he did earlier in the night at a separate DNC fundraiser, the president pointed a finger to Democrats and Republicans for their role in health care reform. He called on Democrats to be united as they “keep their eye on the prize” in health care reform, and that when they get a bill they have to do "everything they can” to support it.

“Sometimes Democrats can be their own worst enemies. Democrats are an opinionated bunch. You know the other side, they just kind of do what they’re told. Democrats, ya’ll thinkin’ for yourselves. I like that in you, but it’s time for us to make sure that we finish the job here, we are this close and we’ve got to be unified.”

There's something funny going on here. We've got the polls on our side, we've finally got momentum on our side after the Teabagger mess in August, and the president himself supported the public option during the campaign, and claims to still support it as the best solution to our health care mess. Then why isn't the White House pushing for a public option?

We're missing something here. A political friend at dinner last night suggested that maybe the White House promised to kill the public option as part of its secret deal with Big Pharma last spring. I have no idea if that's true, but something is wrong here, some piece of the puzzle is missing. It's becoming increasingly clear that the President has no intention of including a real public option for everyone in the final bill. If he did, he would publicly push for it. He's refused. His staff has refused. In politics, as in life, if you tell your opponent that you're not terribly wedded to your proposal, then your proposal is toast.

There's something the President is not telling us. And it's rather annoying for him to be lecturing us about coming together when, frankly, we are together. Unified around a campaign promise he is so blithely blowing off. We have the best chance at reform in a generation, and this White House is trying awfully hard to get the bare minimum with the least possible effort. We deserve to know why.

http://www.americablog.com/2009/10/president-is...

for those in the CHICAGO AREA that have missed SMOOTH JAZZ [95.5]

it's back......at 87.7FM

AC360 is back on the Willingham case tonight.

Megan Williams recanted her story about the rape and torture. Things sound fishy.
The accusers admitted to the crime and are doing big time in the pen. If they were innocent, why admit to raping and torturing her? They are white and she is black and this happened in W. Virginia. Why would white people in W. Virginia admit to a brutal crime against a black woman if they were not guilty? No disrespect to W. Virginia, but this allegedly happened in WEST VIRGINA!
Links below:
http://wvgazette.com/News/200910210531#

http://www.wowktv.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&...

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2009/10/wom...

smells fishy to me too

People have said that she is a little slow and it sounds like she is being manipulated or threatened big time.

They confessed. What more should have to be said? Sharpton is foolish for asking for an investigation. He simply drew attention to himself, and gave them an excuse to excoriate him over Tawana Brawley still again.

Today's Conversation I'm In A New Wave State of Mind http://bit.ly/6iJhV

Wednesday, October 21, 2009


Medicare Part E

by digby

One can only wonder how it all might have gone if they'd done this in the first place:

Say hello to “Medicare Part E” — as in, “Medicare for Everyone.”

House Democrats are looking at re-branding the public health insurance option as Medicare, an established government healthcare program that is better known than the public option.
The strategy could benefit Democrats struggling to bridge the gap between liberals in their party, who want the public option, and centrists, who are worried it would drive private insurers out of business.

While much of the public is foggy on what a public option actually is, people understand Medicare. It also would place the new public option within the rubric of a familiar system rather than something new and unknown.

The idea has bubbled up among House Democrats and leaders in the past week, most prominently in a caucus meeting last Thursday.

Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) spoke out last week in favor of re-branding the public option as Medicare, startling many because he has loudly proclaimed his opposition to a public option.


When this first came up a week ago, I said let's take yes for an answer. Of course, I assumed that Ross meant what he said, which was that people should just be able to "buy in" to Medicare, which seems eminently reasonable to me. As I said at the time, I would buy into that program in a minute.

This has come up from time to time since the beginning of the reform debate but it never seemed to go anywhere. I don't know how serious this is, but if it is, it's far better rhetorically and substantively than what we've been doing so far. I'm a little bit surprised that Mr Blue Dog is pushing it, but maybe he's seen the light ...

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/medicare...

personally, I think we need to do a better job at picking our representatives. We pick people who look good on TV but aren't exactly the brightest bulb in the box. Medical reform is complex.

I've been talking about Medicare for all for more than six months. This makes it much harder for conservatives to distort. Also, the "public option" is what exactly? From a linguistic standpoint the term sucks. Healthcare for all eliminates having to explain what the public option is.

As a surgeon, I would like for my patients to worry more about their health and less about their health care. Whatever proposal comes out of Washington it should meet this litmus test -- portability, affordability, cost-effective and covers everyone. Anything else is not a serious proposal.

http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/cate...

Wednesday, October 21, 2009


American Dreaming

by digby

I missed this post by Susie Madrak last week. Unbelievable:

I just got off a conference call with Arlen Specter where I asked him why the Democrats don’t talk about the wave of entrepreneurship that would be unleashed if people knew they could leave their jobs, start a business and still get affordable health coverage for themselves and their families.

He was surprised, said it hadn’t occurred to him and wants me to give him names of people who would start their own businesses if they knew they could get affordable insurance.



It just occurred to him? Really? This is one of the primary reasons you need a safety net. How are people supposed to take entrepreneurial risks and create this dynamic economy we all supposedly want if the risks are so huge that they aren't worth taking? Fergawdsake, aside from the "entrepreneurs" who would love to start a business there are also millions of people are trapped in jobs they hate because of health insurance. When even those who are insured are petrified to get sick because they could lose everything, your "dynamic" society grinds to a halt and everyone starts getting more and more reluctant to take any risks at all.

And our leaders need to keep in mind that one of the consequences of the Great Depression was that a whole generation became tremendously risk averse and it took a long time to get Americans back to their usual entrepreneurial selves. And while it would be really nice if some of the Masters of the Universe were so affected, it's not a great thing for average people to be so traumatized that they lose their sense that they can improve their lot and that of their children.

I know that it's taken as a given that the American Dream is some nostalgic suburban fantasy of a nice house and a car and all that material wealth. And maybe it is for some people. But I think the real American Dream is the idea that you can always reinvent yourself and your life in this country --- that it's possible to change your circumstances, and not just in a material way, but spiritually as well. The "pursuit of happiness" made real by opportunity and social mobility. If this remains a country where you can't make a move without worrying that your family will lose everything if your kid gets sick or you lose your job, that dream is dead.

It's not anti-capitalist in the least to advocate for social welfare and a strong safety net. Unless you want to live in a Hobbesian jungle, it's a requirement.


http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/american...

Words Fail.
Pelosi is the closest I've seen to admitting that when she talked about job creation w/ the Money Honey(video in afternoon thread).

do you think he was just playing with them...are they that disconnected that they don't know folks won't leave jobs they HATE because of healthcare benefits?

do they not realize WHY the PUBLIC OPTION IS SO POPULAR?

Yes they are that disconnected! They view there postion as one obtained by virtue of their educational and middle to uppermiddle class status. They call it the American Dream but what they have become is the nomenklature; A system of bureaucrats dedicated to enforcing the party line. The Party line here being what can I do to maintain the power of large corporations(morphus yestereday posted a good piece on Lord Ha Ha of GS-the reference is the members of the upper class of England whom supported Hitler. Ha Ha had a radio propaganda show). Being totally dependent on the system they have no intent of ever moving against it.
They have no intention of reining in healthcare inequalities. As Conrad and Bensen have shown to come from a small interior state damn near homgeneous with no real money to support your reelection you must find outside benefactors. In this case they are prostitutes for the health insurance companies. To receieve votes they recieve call centers for insurance companies.
the nomenklature is why there is no movement on financial reform, why the bills have all been watered down. They have no intention of reining the financial institutions in even though they present a danger to the nation. Banking taking deposits and loaning money is a low margin business but it is essential to facilitate economic acitivty. In order to insure banks are able to take deposits we the taxpayers provide insurance to them. Mortgage companies, trading operations for profit, floating bonds and securities are capital business' where the risk should be that of the company's resources. the nomenklature realized there was an opportunity to expand their membership and w/ the blessing of President Clinton(repeal of Glass Steagall) and Fed Chr Greenspan(bailout of Long term Capita)l and permitted the risk to be transfered to the taxpayer for functions the average taxpayer never uses.
Expansion of income and education by the majority of the population is not at all what they want.

got the video links - RobM