Dec 20 2009
I do remember the Obama who implicitly promised to “turn the page” and fight for Main Street. Well…
Year of the Rahm: Get ‘Em, Then Gut ‘Em
In a blunt remark to the Wall Street Journal, the White House Chief of Staff tipped his hand on how he planned to get 60 votes in the Senate: bring left-wing Democrats on board early to generate enthusiasm, then turn on them in the end game to woo conservatives.
more…
Dec 19 2009
President Obama announced on Friday that negotiations among the the world’s nations had resulted in a “meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough” on climate change.
One administration official, however, acknowledged in remarks to the Associated Press that it was only a first step and not sufficient in itself to head off global warming. Going by other reactions to the deal, that would appear to be an understatement.
The Guardian obtained a leaked draft of the agreement and reported that “it says countries ‘ought’ to limit global warming to 2C, but does not bind them to do so.”
The Toronto Star explains, “It is not binding and it does not set new greenhouse-gas reduction targets. Instead, countries are to set their own emission reduction commitments, which would not be legally binding. Those commitments will be the subject of further negotiation, with the aim of a final deal at next year’s summit in Mexico.”
A Greenpeace representative told The Guardian, “This latest draft is so weak as to be meaningless. It’s more like a G8 communique than the legally binding agreement we need. It doesn’t even include a timeline to give it legal standing or an explicit temperature target. It’s hard to imagine our leaders will try to present this document to the world and keep a straight face.”
A representative of World Development Movement used even stronger language, saying, “This summit has been in complete disarray from start to finish, and now appears to be culminating in a shameful and monumental failure that will condemn millions of people around the world to untold suffering. The leaders of rich countries have refused to lead and instead sought to bribe and bully developing nations to sign up to the equivalent of a death warrant.“
Adele Morris, Fellow, Global Economy and Development and Policy Director for Climate and Energy Economics, Global Economy and Development at The Brookings Institution and Kurt Davies, research director at Greenpeace USA, talk to Paul Jay about the Copenhagen “Climate Sham”:
Dec 19 2009
It’s official. Obama ordered a brand new spanking fresh kill of his very own, in Yemen. In US Presidential jargon, he’s been made.
On orders from President Barack Obama, the U.S. military launched cruise missiles early Thursday against two suspected al-Qaeda sites in Yemen, administration officials told ABC News in a report broadcast on ABC World News with Charles Gibson.
The Yemen attacks by the U.S. military represent a major escalation of the Obama administration’s campaign against al Qaeda.
The main trouble with the “Al Qaeda” cover story is that the attacks are aimed at Shiite rebels.
Among other things, this is a signal to Iran. The more things change…
(update: I removed the word “terrorists” for my cut and paste title from ABC news, for obvious reasons, ie., just because we attack someone does not make them terrorists.)
Dec 18 2009
Cross-posted at Daily Kos
********************************
Jacob Heilbrunn has a new essay up at the Huffington Post titled “Please, Cut Obama Some Slack.” It is Exhibit A in hero mythology of the President, as well as a prime example of chastising anyone — even progressives — who would dare criticize any of Obama’s policies.
A year ago, Barack Obama was a hero for Democrats. Now he’s becoming a villain. Have the Democrats lost their minds?
The tenebrous story is recounted by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post, who notes that some liberals are even starting to join forces with the tea party to decry Obama over the confirmation of Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke. The decriers are also upset about Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, the administration’s readiness to make concessions on health care, its failure to shutter Guantanamo, along with a host of other grievances.
Apparently, because some liberals have chosen not to regard President Obama as a “hero” and have begun to seriously question some of the policies of the Obama Administration, that qualifies Heilbrunn to assert that those same liberals have “lost their minds.” Heilbrunn doesn’t identify in his article who those allegedly insane Democrats are — though for the record, Dana Milbank does, naming liberal voices such as Howard Dean, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, MoveOn.org, John Conyers, and Alan Grayson as the progressives who are supposedly “joining forces with the tea party,” to use Heilbrunn’s language.
Dec 18 2009
Crossposted at Daily Kos
Pre- existing conditions? They are still in there, only now, instead of getting denied they get to jack the price up 3X and you’ll be FORCED to buy something, and without competition who are you gonna choose? THEY WILL ALL CHARGE THE SAME CLIMBING PRICE!
Yearly caps? They are STILL IN THERE!
Death Panels? For Profit death panels, you betcha.
And loopholes, loopholes, loopholes!
I’m sorry, but Obama is NOT FDR. This is NOT the same political climate as when Social Security was passed or when Medicare was passed. Hell, this isn’t even the same century!
So get over the fact that you have been TOTALLY SCREWED at this point and do something about it. This bill, as it stands, is so poisoned it should be killed and began again from the start, no matter how long and painful it might be. This CAN be dealt with in a year or two when the Conservative Wing of the Democratic part loses in droves, because that is coming one way or another.
I am PISSED, and you should be pissed too, cause we’re getting SCREWED on this deal. The ONLY winners are the political class and the special interests. Consumers are getting sold down the river.
Dec 17 2009
Originally posted by Will Urquhart at Sum of Change
There was a moment in Deanna Zandt’s speech at the Organizing 2.0 conference that I wanted to highlight:
Dec 17 2009
In two separate entries, here and here, Chris Bowers discussed what he feels are the likely consequences if the nightmare bill now in the Senate doesn’t pass. He’s assumed the worst-case scenarios in every one of them, it seems, and is using them as an excuse to say we shouldn’t kill the health care reform bill in the Senate.
This to me is an utterly defeatist attitude to take. We shouldn’t fight this because Rahm will run right-wing primary opponents against our people, something he’s already been doing for years and will do no matter what, and that’s why we should give up now? With all due respect to Mr. Bowers, this is neither realistic or helpful. I don’t think the people who are telling us we need to pass this bill realize what the public really thinks about health care reform or the likelihood that we will end up with something that will force us to buy unaffordable junk insurance under penalty of increased taxation we can’t afford to pay — all without doing a thing to bring down costs.
I think we have the Democrats by the gonads here, but how many of us really know it? Every single member of the House is up for reelection next year, as is a third of the Senate. Why can we not call them up and threaten to withdraw all support — money, votes, and campaign volunteers — if they don’t kill this bill and pass something acceptable, and then follow through on it?
We need leaders in the progressive movement, but we don’t seem to have any. Not here, not at Kos, not at any of the other blogs, and certainly not in Congress (with the exception of Dennis Kucinich, but most people — even folk on the nominal left — treat him like a clown). This too is unacceptable. If we don’t fight this monstrosity now, what will we fight for? The realistic scenarios are thus:
1.) Progressives roll over and the bill passes. Rahm Emanuel runs right-wing candidates against progressives in next year’s primaries anyway. We lose more ground because we’re not fighting and playing hardball, and the public doesn’t support politicians who don’t fight on its behalf. Worse, there will be no fixing the law later, because Dems will probably be out of power for a good long time after next year and even if they keep it, the excuse will be that they’ve already done reform, so why bother going through another year of hell trying to pass a fix?
2.) The bill passes, but progressives are seen fighting it with everything they have to the bitter end. The conservative Dems lose their seats, most progressives keep theirs, and therefore have a chance of increasing their numbers going into 2012.
3.) The bill fails, we get to start over from scratch. This is not the nightmare scenario some people seem to think it is. As early as February, polls were showing a majority of Americans in favor of single-payer health insurance (Source). As recently as July, Kaiser polling was showing 58% support (Source), and if you go state by state, you’ll find that support is high (like in Pennsylvania). Finally, pnhp.org has posted a six-part series showing that 2/3 of Americans really do support single payer or a public plan closer to it.* So the chances of voters punishing Democrats for failing to pass a massive bailout of the insurance industry are actually quite low. Chances are, however, quite high for retribution at the ballot box next year if Dems pass the monster as-is. We have nothing to lose by killing the bill, and a lot to gain.
There really is nothing to be gained by giving in on the health care reform battle. This close to an election year in which the public is good and angry, and we’re not going to seize the opportunity to force the conservative wing of the party to blink and do as we say? If we fail to do this, then we really do deserve to be out of power.
So here’s the House Phone Directory and that of the Senate. Call them up and demand that the insurance bailout dies a horrible flaming screaming death, and passage of something good, or else no money or votes next year. Not one penny, not one ballot, goes to any Democrat who votes in favor of passing the bill. We can do this. We just need the will.
*: Here are the links to the series on single payer support.
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/12/0…
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/12/0…
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/12/0…
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/12/1…
Dec 17 2009
h/t gqmartinez @ correntewire.com
The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who…[couldn’t afford it.]
I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds…
I- like any head of state- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend [the profits of the ruling classes].
Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights – it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.
It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.
And that is why helping farmers feed their own people – or nations educate their children and care for the sick – is not mere charity.
Let me make one final point about the use of force…
–Obama’s Nobel speech on vaporizing the poorest innocents at home and abroad
Dec 16 2009
President Obama Tells Bald-Faced Lie About Health Care Reform Cost Control
By: Jon Walker Tuesday December 15, 2009 1:03 pm
After exiting a meeting with the Senate Democratic caucus, President Obama approached the microphone and proceeded to tell a bald-faced lie about health care reform:
You talk to every health care economist out there, they will tell you that what ever ideas exist in terms of bending the cost curve and starting to reduce cost for families, businesses, and government, those elements are in this bill. This statement is 100% false-and Obama knows that. This bill does not contain anywhere near most ideas for controlling health care costs. This bill does not even contain most of the cost-reducing ideas that were part of Obama’s health care plan during last year’s presidential campaign.
…
Mr. President, If you are going to cut secret deals that will force Americans to spend billions more on their prescription drugs, at least have the decency to not publicly lie about how your “health care reform” bill will do everything it can to reduce costs for American families. You know it is a lie, the PhRMA lobbyists you cut the secret deal with know it is a lie, health care reform experts knows it is a lie, and the American people should know it is a lie.
The Senate Bill Is Designed To Make Your Health Insurance Worse
By: Jon Walker Tuesday December 15, 2009 7:46 am
The sole defense of this massive corporate giveaway, formally known as the Senate health care reform bill, is that it would still do some “good,” helping millions of the uninsured. Unfortunately, the bill would dramatically worsen the quality of current insurance coverage for tens of millions Americans, thanks to the new excise tax on insurance plans. It is unlikely that any of the remaining “good” in this bill will outweigh the massive amount of harm.
Most of the “help” this bill will do is dubious at best. Help is being defined as giving insufficient subsides to Americans now forced by the government to buy extremely expensive, poorly regulated, junk insurance. Without banning annual limits and an extremely high out-of-pocket cap (which thanks to a massive loophole is not really capped at all), the insurance regulations are basically meaningless. Having this new, mandated “coverage” will not stop you from being bankrupted by accumulated medical debt should you get seriously ill. Insurance that does not protect you from financial ruin if you get sick makes a mockery of the entire concept health insurance.
The harm this bill will do thanks to the excise tax on employer-provided insurance benefits is enormous. The health care bill is designed with the goal of making millions of middle class Americans’ health insurance coverage much worse. That is not a bug, it is a feature.
Time To Hold Progressives In Congress To Their Promise
By: Jane Hamsher Tuesday December 15, 2009 9:58 am
Instead of a public option, what does the Senate bill contain?
- A removal of the ban on annual limits that Reid slipped in at the last minute, in violation of the President’s promise in his September address to Congress
- An exemption from anti-trust law for insurance companies that will reduce competition
- Taxes that start up in January, but benefits that don’t start until 2014
- No ability to negotiate for Medicare drug prices (you know, that thing the Democrats passed in the “first hundred days” in 2006 when it didn’t matter)
- No cost controls, so health insurance premiums will continue to rise at a rate of $1000 a year
- A tax on middle class insurance plans that is designed to cut back insurance benefits, reduce coverage, and increase co-pays and deductibles.
That reduction in your insurance benefits is a feature, not a bug – it’s how they’re going to “bend the cost curve.”
We Need $120,000 to Run a TV Ad in Nevada against Harry Reid
By: Michael Whitney Tuesday December 15, 2009 11:24 am
Just how bad will the bill be if Lieberman gets his way?
- Mandates every American buy expensive insurance from private companies without the choice of a public option
- Severely taxes middle class health care plans, rather than wealthy individuals
- Insurance premiums will increase in cost $1000 a year
- Increased health care costs
- Insurance companies will be exempt from anti-trust laws, inhibiting competition
- A sweet, sweet deal for PhRMA with no ability to negotiate for Medicare drug prices
- Monopolies granted on new biologic drugs so they will never become generics
- NO public option
- NO medicare expansion
For good measure, Reid slipped in an annual limit on benefits that insurance companies have to pay out, contrary to President Obama’s promise in September. And to top it all off, the IRS fines you if you won’t shell out money to insurance companies!
I don’t know about you, but if I wanted John McCain’s health care plan, I would’ve voted for John McCain. He would have let Lieberman write the health care bill, too.
Without A Public Option, The Individual Mandate Is Unacceptable For Moral, Political, And Policy Reasons
By: Jon Walker Tuesday December 15, 2009 10:38 am
The current Senate bill only creates a sham imitation of these systems. This bill completely fails to uphold the government’s end of this social contract, but would still force Americans to buy expensive, poorly regulated, junk insurance. Insurance policies would only be required to have an actuarial value of 60 percent, a shockingly low number. The insurance companies will not be banned from placing annual caps on benefits and there is a massive loophole to get around an already too high “limit” on out-of-pocket cost. The end result is that having this “insurance” will not prevent Americans from bankruptcy if the get sick, nullifying the entire logic behind universal health insurance. For moral, political, policy, and economic reasons, progressives must oppose any government mandate to buy insurance as long as the government refuses to pass laws ensuring that every American actually has access to decent, affordable health insurance.
The Senate bill does not ensure that Americans get value from the health insurance they would be forced to buy. Insurance companies are not mandated to be non-profits. It lacks a strong minimum medical loss ratio that would force insurance companies to spend the majority of the money they take in through premiums on actual health care. There are no serious price controls of any form put on the insurance companies. The bill lacks a strong third-party review of claims denials. The bill also lacks a central reimbursement negotiator to make sure that insurance companies are not overpaying providers and passing on the cost to their customers.
The health insurance Americans are forced to purchase will not be affordable. Middle class families (making 300%-400% of FPL) will only get subsidies sufficient to make the premiums for the second cheapest insurance at the low quality silver level (70% actuarial) cost 10% of their income. That is only premiums and does not count co-pays, deductibles, non-covered procedures and medications, etc. These plans will have an annual out-of-pocket limit $12,000. If a family actually had a medical emergency, their health care spending could eat up over a third of their income, or go over the annual cap on benefit payments. This is not quality insurance, and will not truly protect people from financial ruin if they get sick. The bill will also allow insurance companies to charge older Americans up to three times as much as younger Americans.
Don’t Forget About Ben Nelson, He Has Demands Too!
By: Jon Walker Tuesday December 15, 2009 3:45 pm
The only small consolation is that without the public option, strong risk adjustment mechanisms, sufficient tax credits, or tougher regulations, the exchanges will end up an awful place to buy insurance. I doubt anyone will use the exchanges unless they have no other choice. The failure of the rest of reform might end having the “benefit” of containing the poison from whatever anti-abortion langauge Nelson ends up getting added.
Kill the Senate Bill
By: Jane Hamsher Tuesday December 15, 2009 2:36 pm
When urging its passage today, President Obama said two things that are manifestly untrue. He says that the bill fulfills all of the promises he made in his September speech before a joint session of Congress, but it doesn’t.
What the President said in September:
They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. But while nobody was looking, Harry Reid slipped in an “arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year”:
…
The President Obama also said that “what ever ideas exist in terms of bending the cost curve and starting to reduce cost for families, businesses, and government, those elements are in this bill.” Not true either.
As we speak, Frank Lautenberg and Kay Hagan are destroying Byron Dorgan’s drug reimportation amendment by making a bunch of bullshit claims about drug safety. The danger of transferring drugs from a CVS warehouse in Canada to a CVS store in the United States? Zip. But they’re pretending that everything is coming from Chinese counterfeiters to keep something that could save the government $19 billion and the public over $100 billion from passing so the White House deal with PhRMA can be upheld. The Dorgan amendment could have been a way of honestly bending the cost curve, something the President campaigned on.
Instead, the “bend” comes from taxing middle class insurance benefits, which makes them worse.
Don’t Blame Joe Lieberman, Blame Harry Reid
By: Jon Walker Tuesday December 15, 2009 12:39 pm
I would call this move of adding a public option pure theater, but it was, in fact, far more malicious. By adding the public option and dragging out debate until late December, Harry Reid made sure there would not be time to use reconciliation.
I understand why much of the progressive base is angry at Joe Lieberman for what he is doing to the Senate health care reform bill, but you should really be angry at the people who gave Lieberman his power. If Reid had gone with reconciliation, Joe Lieberman would not be writing the bill as we speak. This is what happens when the progressive base believes one of Reid’s worthless promises that he can handle things.
Obama To Tell Senate Democrats Being Unprincipled Spineless Wimps Is A Good Thing
By: Jon Walker Tuesday December 15, 2009 9:45 am
Obama might convince the Senate Democratic caucus that giving up all their principles to appease Joe Lieberman is a smart move. I don’t think he will ever convince the American people to vote en masse for a party that looks like it is made up of only unprincipled spineless wimps.
Dec 16 2009
Obama’s effort on the signature issue of healthcare has been truly pathetic. More generally, he seems to have no problem with US citizens paying tithes and bailouts directly to US corporations as government policy, despite what he says publicly.
Populist Rhetoric and Symbolic Actions
Barack Obama is so mad at Wall Street! Here, just look at what he told 60 Minutes last night:
BARACK OBAMA: I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street…Nothing has been more frustrating to me this year than having to salvage a financial system at great expense to taxpayers that was precipitated, that was caused, in part by completely irresponsible actions on Wall Street…the people on Wall Street still don’t get it. They don’t get it…you guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that’s it’s gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem.
But he’s not just all talk. He’s also taking action! He’s so furious he’s going to have an hour-long meeting with Wall Street executives. Dear god in heaven!
Meanwhile, the banksters continue pissing on Barack Obama’s shoes, even after he put on a public show to berate them for their financial malpractice.
… Said one CEO who attended: “I expected to be taken to the woodshed, but the tone was quite the opposite.”Said another senior exec with knowledge of the meeting: “The whole thing was so telegraphed that not much was accomplished, other than giving Obama a PR stunt … He might have sounded mean on ’60 Minutes,’ but during the meeting he was a hell of a lot nicer.”
So far, the dude’s been painfully, strikingly ineffectual, with resulting outcomes always favoring corporations and screwing the public, even though health care and job prospects suggest a fucking blowout for Democrats in 2010. Worst, his actions, as distinct from his “word-itude,” suggest he is a total corporate sell-out willing to alter the Constitutional fabric of our nation. Never mind the ineptitude and ineffectualness of Mr. Constitutional Law. And never mind 2010. What a total fuck-face.
Dec 16 2009
Health Care on the Road to Neo-Feudalism
By: emptywheel Tuesday December 15, 2009 8:53 pm
Consider, first of all, this fact. The bill, if it became law, would legally require a portion of Americans to pay more than 20% of the fruits of their labor to a private corporation in exchange for 70% of their health care costs.
…
It’s one thing to require a citizen to pay taxes-to pay into the commons. It’s another thing to require taxpayers to pay a private corporation, and to have up to 25% of that go to paying for luxuries like private jets and gyms for the company CEOs.
…
They will, at a minimum, be asked to pay 9.8% of their income to the insurance company. And if they have a significant medical event, they’ll pay 22%…
…
But for those who think we can fix it, consider this, too. If the Senate bill passes, in its current form, it will mean that the health care industry was able to dictate-through their Senators Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson-what they wanted the US Congress to do. They will have succeeded in dictating the precise terms of legislation.
…
When this passes, it will become clear that Congress is no longer the sovereign of this nation. Rather, the corporations dictating the laws will be.
I understand the temptation to offer 30 million people health care. What I don’t understand is the nonchalance with which we’re about to fundamentally shift the relationships of governance in doing so.
We’ve seen our Constitution and means of government under attack in the last 8 years. This does so in a different-but every bit as significant way. We don’t mandate tithing corporations in this country-at least not yet. And it troubles me that so many Democrats are rushing to do so, without considering the logical consequences.
Dec 15 2009
A couple of months ago, the British High Court ruled that a document containing information on the torture of Binyam Mohamed should be disclosed in full. The original document supposedly contains seven paragraphs which describe the brutal methods used to interrogate Mohamed, including waterboarding and slicing his genitals with a scalpel.
David Miliband, the British Foreign Secretary who has been resisting the High Court’s efforts to release the document, now describes the decision as irresponsible.
David Miliband accused the two senior judges of irresponsibly “charging in” to a diplomatically sensitive area over what happened to former terror detainee Binyam Mohamed while held by the Americans in Pakistan.
Jonathan Sumption QC, appearing for the Foreign Secretary, told the Court of Appeal the judges’ stance was “both, in many respects, unnecessary and profoundly damaging to the interests of this country.”
Mr Sumption added: “I would go so far as to say their views were irresponsible.”
