I haven’t had the stomach to write much about what is going on with Health Care Reform as I don’t see this bill moving us in the direction that we need to go.  Somebody, somewhere, thinks this this is a groovy bill.  I do not.  I’m sure we can find a little addendum in a hidden corner that is going to allow a few extra people to afford health care in 2014, but really, I mean, seriously, reform?  Government subsidies for private insurance?  Forcing people to purchase from private companies?  Seriously?

Dennis Kucinich got it, though.  He knew this was a bad move for the American people.  He supported single payer all along.  He and Eric Massa were our stalwart proponents for universal, single payer health care.

But, today, somebody got to him.  Today, Dennis has said he will vote for this bill.

In a big get for House Dems, Dennis Kucinich just made it official: He’s voting for the Senate bill, making him the first member to go on record fliping his vote from No to Yes.

“In the past week it’s become clear that the vote on the final bill will be very close,” Kucinich, who voted No last time because of the lack of the public option, said at a presser moments ago. He acknowleged that he’d be voting “not on the bill as I would like to see it, but as it is.”

“However, after careful discussions with President Obama, Speaker Pelosi” and others, Kucinich said, “I’ve decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation.”

Kucinich’s stance was being closely watched by both sides, partly as a test of President Obama’s ability to corral the support of reluctant Dems. Obama wooed him directly with a lift on Air Force One and gave a big health care speech in his district earlier this week.

I wonder if there’s a  shower on Air Force One.

Rahm must have a very big stick.

Louise Slaughter, chairman of the House Rules Committee is trying to use a legislative tactic which sends the health care reform bill back to the president without a direct vote.  The Republicans are not happy:

Republicans are bashing the tactic as the “Slaughter solution.”

Under Slaughter’s proposal, the Senate bill would be “deemed passed” if the House approves a rule for floor debate of a second bill. That second bill would contain changes that House Democrats want to make to the Senate bill.

“The only debate would be the customary 30 minutes per side on the rule itself,” said Rep. David Dreier of California, the ranking Republican on the Rules Committee.

Slaughter responded Monday that the procedure has been used by the House as far back as a March 16, 1933, vote on maintaining the creditworthiness of the federal government. “Republicans have used it; Democrats have used this for major legislation,” she said.

It’s a great idea, if it’s a good bill.  We’ll have to see what the House comes up with.  In order for my approval it has to have a public option which includes a medicare buy-in for those under 65 years old and it has to be available on day one.

Update:  I received this communication from Seth Samuel, Rep Slaughter’s online communications coordinator, and wanted to share it:

I saw your post on the Slaughter Solution and just wanted to clarify a
bit about the rule. It’s important to note that there hasn’t been a
final decision about the exact process. Right now, the two leading
options are to have the Senate bill passed when the Rule passes, or to
have it passed when the reconciliation bill passes.

Regardless of the procedural nitty-gritty, the overriding goal of the
Slaughter Solution is to ensure an up or down vote on the final health
care package, which includes both the Senate bill and the fixes
contained in the reconciliation bill. There will certainly be
appropriate time for debate before this up or down vote.

Governor Dean, as per his usual, puts it all out on the table…

The President called a dozen lawmakers to the White House hoping to win over members of his own party who so far have not supported his plan.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she’s confident she will find enough votes. But former Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean says passing the bill as is could end up hurting Democrats in November because it doesn’t have a so-called “public option” and because the current bill doesn’t kick in until after the 2012 elections.

“Then there’s going to be a problem, because people are not going to have anything they can point to to go to the voters with, and Republicans will make outlandish claims about it and it will be a he said she said. So I think the smart thing politically to do as well as from an operational point of view is to include a public option,” says Dean.

Now, I have no hope that anyone in the government would have the foresight or the wisdom to actually take what the doctor says under advisement, but to the Democrats in congress I say: Ignore at your own peril.

For years, when arguing politics to my less engaged friends and acquaintances, I have consistently heard the argument, “They’re all the same.  There’s no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.  They’re all a bunch of crooks.”

Being the “pie in the sky” optimist that I am, I would talk up the values of the Democrats truly believing that this was the party of the people.  Then came Barack Obama and the Health Care Reform debate, the Climate Change debate, the War in the Middle East debate, the Financial debate and the Civil Liberties debate.

Chris Hedges wrote yesterday:

Obama lies as cravenly, if not as crudely, as George W. Bush. He promised us that the transfer of $12.8 trillion in taxpayer money to Wall Street would open up credit and lending to the average consumer. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), however, admitted last week that banks have reduced lending at the sharpest pace since 1942. As a senator, Obama promised he would filibuster amendments to the FISA Reform Act that retroactively made legal the wiretapping and monitoring of millions of American citizens without warrant; instead he supported passage of the loathsome legislation. He told us he would withdraw American troops from Iraq, close the detention facility at Guantánamo, end torture, restore civil liberties such as habeas corpus and create new jobs. None of this has happened.

He is shoving a health care bill down our throats that would give hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to the private health insurance industry in the form of subsidies, and force millions of uninsured Americans to buy insurers’ defective products. These policies would come with ever-rising co-pays, deductibles and premiums and see most of the seriously ill left bankrupt and unable to afford medical care. Obama did nothing to halt the collapse of the Copenhagen climate conference, after promising meaningful environmental reform, and has left us at the mercy of corporations such as ExxonMobil. He empowers Israel’s brutal apartheid state. He has expanded the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where hundreds of civilians, including entire families, have been slaughtered by sophisticated weapons systems such as the Hellfire missile, which sucks the air out of victims’ lungs. And he is delivering war and death to Yemen, Somalia and perhaps Iran.

Time after time after time I have applied “hope” to my expectation of presidential, senate or house leadership.  It’s incredible the number of times that my heart has been broken since this Democratic majority has come into power. (I wear my heart on my sleeve, by the way.  Due to the number of breaks, it is no longer identifiable as such.  Looks more like particulate matter, the result of an especially productive sneeze which I forgot to wipe off)

So, the Democratic Party has become unrecognizable to us.  Where do we go from here?  Hedges suggests a different party altogether-

“Here in the United States, at the beginning of the twentieth century, before there was a Soviet Union to spoil it, you see, socialism had a good name,” the late historian and activist Howard Zinn said in a lecture a year ago at Binghamton University. “Millions of people in the United States read socialist newspapers. They elected socialist members of Congress and socialist members of state legislatures. You know, there were like fourteen socialist chapters in Oklahoma. Really. I mean, you know, socialism—who stood for socialism? Eugene Debs, Helen Keller, Emma Goldman, Clarence Darrow, Jack London, Upton Sinclair. Yeah, socialism had a good name. It needs to be restored.”

[snip]

The hypocrisy and ineptitude of the Democrats become, in the eyes of
the wider public, the hypocrisy and ineptitude of the liberal class. We
can continue to tie our own hands and bind our own feet or we can break
free, endure the inevitable opprobrium, and fight back. This means
refusing to support the Democrats. It means undertaking the laborious
work of building a viable socialist movement. It is the only
alternative left to save our embattled open society. We can begin by
sending a message to the Green Party, McKinney and Nader. Let them know
they are no longer alone.

How about that Green Party?

The 10 Key Values of the Green Party

* Grassroots Democracy
* Social and Economic Justice
* Ecological Wisdom
* Nonviolence
* Decentralization
* Community-Based Economics
* Feminism
* Respect for Diversity
* Personal and Global Responsibility
* Future Focus and Sustainability

That’s sounding more like it. You coming, Howard?

The President has put forth a health care proposal today which incorporates Republican ideas and has no public option plan.

DFA has an online petition to sign.

This reeks of Rahm.

The Public Option Lives.  If we can get this through reconciliation, then maybe, just maybe this health care reform could really make a difference.  Gillibrand and Schumer are supporting this.  Here is my most recent email regarding Schumer’s stand:

Dear Friend,

As you know, I’ve been committed to a strong public option throughout the entire health care reform process.

First it was in the Senate bill, then it was out. But now, thanks to the tenacity of a group of four Democratic Senators — Michael Bennet (CO), Sherrod Brown (OH), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), and Jeff Merkley (OR) — there is a renewed push to create a public option as part of health care reform.

I just added my name to their effort to pass a public option through the reconciliation process, and I wanted you to be the first to know.

This is far from a done deal, but it’s an opportunity to break through the obstructionism Republicans have pushed for the past year.

Let’s keep fighting,

Chuck Schumer

They all work for us.  Keep those calls coming in.

(contacts for our senators and congresscritters can be found at their websites- links on right side of this page.)

Do you want Coke, or Pepsi?

Reich has a way of explaining things so even a Tea-bagger could understand it.  Tuesday he wrote about Anthem, his insurance carrier, who feels (apparently this corporation feels?) that it needs to raise it’s rates by 39%.  It used to be Blue Cross, now it has merged to become Anthem Blue Cross. The supposed reason for the increase being that the pool of insured has decreased while it’s needs have increased.  Hmmm, interesting.

This argument sounds logical until you look more closely. First, Anthem and its corporate parent, WellPoint, are enormously profitable. WellPoint’s profits rose to $2.7 billion last quarter. Even if you subtract one-time-only financial maneuvers, WellPoint is still fat and happy, which makes Anthem fat and happy. Everyone is fat and happy except Anthem’s policy holders, who are being skewered.

Anthem’s argument is even more questionable when you consider that Anthem has been among the most aggressive opponents of the health-care bills passed by the House and Senate. If Anthem were sincere about why it’s raising its rates, it would be embracing the legislation. The Senate and House bills would add tens of millions of Americans to insurance pools – thereby spreading the costs over more people and avoiding the very problem Anthem says is now forcing it to raise its rates so much.

Ah, big insurance corporations, can’t live with ‘em, can’t live without ‘em.

So, maybe it’s time for that Kumbaya, group hug moment with the Republicans to move health care reform forward, because, regardless of our political affiliation, what is best for the people is our goal, *right?  No one is heartless enough to put politics over people, *right?

Obama says he’s open to any new ideas from Republicans for how to control health care costs and expand coverage. The problem is Republicans don’t want to play this game. They don’t care about controlling costs or expanding coverage. They care only about taking back the House and/or the Senate next November. And they believe a means toward attaining this goal is to prevent Obama from achieving a victory on health care. The sooner the President accepts that undeniable fact — and gets the House to pass the Senate’s bill, and then uses the reconciliation process (that requires only 51 votes in the Senate) to deal with any remaining irreconcilable differences between the House and Senate — the better.

*Wrong

Oh, that’s right, we don’t call it Swine Flu anymore.  Now it has the ominous, Soylent Green sounding name of H1N1, or the more sophomoric title, the “Heinie Virus”

As health care workers in New York State, we were instructed to be immunized for both the seasonal flu and the H1N1.

Pandemic?  Mmmm, maybe not.  From truthout.org, Januaray 27, 2009:

On Tuesday, the Council of Europe launched an investigation into whether the World Health Organization (WHO) “faked” the swine flu pandemic to boost profits for vaccine manufacturers. The inquiry, held in Strasbourg, France, vindicates a worldwide movement of insiders, experts and elected officials who accuse the United Nations organization of misleading the world into buying millions of unnecessary vaccines.

“I have never heard such a worldwide echo to a health political action,” said Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, an epidemiologist who formerly led the health committee for the Council of Europe, at Tuesday’s hearing.

Also present was Dr. Ulrich Keil, director of the WHO’s Collaborating Centre for Epidemiology. Keil hammered his own organization and WHO flu chief, Dr. Keiji Fukuda, for “producing angst campaigns.”

Because, following the money, we find that the major contributor to WHO is BIG PHARMA.  Again, who knew?  Recall this question from a previous post:

So, is this really about protecting workers and patients, or is this about more money for drug companies who supply vaccine coupled with a scorched earth policy from the NYSDOH?

Maybe we are beginning to find the answers,

While the WHO was initially set up to rely on funding from UN member countries, in recent years, this source has been rapidly overtaken by “voluntary contributions,” which are provided by the private sector, national governments and NGOs. According to the WHO’s 2008-2009 budget, $958 million was supplied by the UN, while three times as much - $3.2 billion - came from voluntary donations.

The WHO reports that only around 1 percent of these voluntary contributions come from the private sector, but the real total of private influence may be obscured. For example, companies can donate to foundations or NGOs which support their interests, thereby concealing the source of their contributions. According to internal WHO emails received by the British Medical Journal and described in a February 17, 2007, article, Benedetto Saraceno, the director of the WHO’s department of mental health and substance abuse, advised a patient group to accept money from GlaxoSmithKline and then pass it on to the WHO in order to mask the money’s origins.

Dr. Wodarg told the Council of Europe Tuesday that there has been dissent ever since the shift toward public-private partnership began in earnest in 2001.

“Already then there were very critical voices against the influence. [WHO's] administration is made of people not well paid who can’t fight against the pay of people in and from the industry - they are simply swept aside … [private] influence is rampant and that is why we can’t understand why the WHO we used to love … has become unrecognizable to us.”

So, if private corporations can donate unimaginable sums to health organizations and these are the results, try to imagine the impact of last week’s SCROTUS ruling.  Hey, free speech, right?

Dr Flowers has been arrested again.  You remember the first time-when she showed up at Max Baucus’ meeting and demanded that single payer advocates be allowed a seat at the table?

This time she was arrested for responding to the presidents request for better ideas.

Yesterday, Dr. Margaret Flowers went to the White House to deliver her letter in response to President Obama’s challenge in his State of the Union address that others come up with a better approach to health care reform than his own. She wanted to let him know about the grassroots movement for improved Medicare for All which would solve the health care crisis, save lives, and save money. She was told the White House doesn’t accept hand-delivered letters.

Today, Dr. Flowers joined colleague Dr. Carol Paris to try again to get their message to President Obama, but this time by going to the Renaissance Baltimore Harborplace Hotel, where the president was meeting with House Republicans, with a large banner reading, “Letting you know: Medicare for all.”

What?  She took him at his word? She believed him when he said “I’m eager to hear from you.”?

Because they wouldn’t leave the hotel sidewalk and refused to have their message marginalized again, they were both arrested. The two physicians were briefly taken into custody by law enforcement officials, issued a citation and then released.

(Better take the blue pill)

I was able to catch the president’s SOTU address in bits and pieces, streaming it live while I was at work.  Fortunately, I was watching when the president invited anyone with a better health care plan to let him know.

As temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we’ve proposed. There’s a reason why many doctors, nurses and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo.

But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.

Let me know. Let me know.

I’m eager to see it.

I was watching, and listening and I thought to myself, “Universal Single Payer, HR676.”  Fortunately, the PNHP was listening too and John Nichols, from The Nation has written about it here.

Dr. Margaret Flowers, a pediatrician and congressional fellow for PNHP, went to the White House today to deliver an open letter to the president calling on him to meet with her and other Medicare-for-All advocates.

Here’s the letter:

January 28, 2010President Barack Obama 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear President Obama,

I was overjoyed to hear you say in your State of the Union address last night:

“But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.”

My colleagues, fellow health advocates and I have been trying to meet with you for over a year now because we have an approach which will meet all of your goals and more.

More is explained in this letter to the president, and I hope you will link to it and read the article in it’s entirety.

We all want health care reform, Mr President, but we want real reform that works.

Here’s the solution.

Two House members have stood up to gather signatures,in order to make reconciliation with a public option a possibility, Jared Polis and Chellie Pingree.  DFA has given us a tool to reach out to our Representatives, and Nancy Pelosi,  asking them to sign on.

So, while you’re waiting to hear the State of the Union Address,today, make a couple of calls.

In the wake of the Democratic defeat this past Tuesday, the viability of the current health care reform bill is in serious question, and, well it should be.  MoveOn polled Massachusetts voters , of those Obama voters who voted for Scott Brown, or just stayed home, the majority believes that the current health care reform does not go far enough.

At FDL, letsgetitdone writes that reconciliation can work,

… I also want to propose that progressives not support sidecar reconciliation, at all, but, instead go back further, and use the strategy I outlined in this earlier post, and push for passing HR 676, enhanced Medicare for All, under reconciliation. This will be met by extreme opposition, of course, and will be impossible to pass. Nevertheless, it is better to negotiate a compromise downgrading HR 676, as outlined in my earlier post, than it is to negotiate an upgrade to the Senate’s current terrible bill.

As long as reconciliation will be used anyway, Progressives, and even Harry Reid, keeping the coming electoral blood bath in mind, need to get tough and fight for legislation that the public will definitely like, and the health insurance and Pharma industries will hate. That is the way to begin to persuade people that real Democrats are back, and that Wall Street no longer controls them.

And, at OpEdNews, Steven Leser says,

Democrats and Independents who voted for Obama and turned to Brown or stayed home didn’t like the current Health Care Reform bill because it didn’t go far enough. Speaking of not going far enough, the consensus of this group is that they are not getting enough change from President Obama.

One of the suggestions I wrote about yesterday is that we ditch the current Health Care bill and go with Medicare for all through reconciliation. One of my friends was concerned about that because we are beginning an election year and there is a very small window for completing any work on Health Care Reform before election season begins. Here is the solution, H.R. 676.

This bill is ready to go, it is only 20 pages long and everyone knows and understands what Medicare is. Representative Weiner offered Republicans in congress the chance to privatize Medicare via a bill a few months ago and they declined. Congressional Republicans must like Medicare. The idea of government run Health Care Reform isn’t THAT upsetting to them. That is an argument that is easy to make. The whole bill is an argument that is easy to make. The bill should be sent to the CBO for immediate scoring and then rushed through the reconciliation process. Game, set, and 51 Democratic senators later (no need for Republicans, Lieberman, Nelson or any other blue dogs. If they want to vote for it, they are of course welcome to do so) match.

What an opportunity!  If only the executive and legislative branches are listening.  The pulse of the people is for MORE change, not less.  Listen to your people, Mr President.  The people who voted you in want affordable health care and affordable medication.  Show us that you are listening. You’re in charge, the house and the senate will follow your lead.  Take that bold step and become the president who you promised to be.

I believe HOPE was the word.

I am embarrassed to admit, but I am not usually proactive when it comes to special elections, especially in other states. The senate seat in Massachusetts, however, is a different story entirely.

It seems that the life or death of health care reform lies within the results of this election. If Coakley wins, Democrats will hold on to their 60-vote. If Brown comes out on top (as predicted 3:1) Dems loose that leverage and it will be up to Pelosi to convince the senate of what’s right. Might be a difficult task.  Remember, it will be at least 10 to 15 days until MA certifies its vote and only after that will the Senate seat the winner.

The other option is to hustle the health care bill through before Brown gets seated if he does indeed win the election (again the House and Senate have 10-15 days regardless of the winner).  I know that this has been a battle we have been waiting out for months now, but I don’t know if rushing it to the finish is the answer, either.

So tune in later to find out the results. It seems to be a pretty close race, and voter turn out will be crucial. Here’s hoping that the majority will come out and exercise their right to vote.

How does Health Care come down to a single vote in a special election?  What do you think?

At FDL, yesterday, Jon Walker took a look at what it would be like, trying to sell this kind of health care reform to the voters.  His point, we’re not going to see much results from this, highly flawed, bill till the middle of the next presidential term:

The easiest way to sell people on something is to have them feel and see it working. Selling even a great bill with its benefits delayed for years would be a huge uphill battle, selling this deeply flawed bill without support from the base seems like an impossibility.

Democrats only hope for salvaging some popular support for the bill rests in their ability to rally the base by making improvements and, most importantly, front-loading as much relief as possible. For example, starting the exchange early only for small businesses, and stronger, better-subsidized, longer-lasting COBRA coverage (to bridge the gap until 2014) seem like two relatively cheap but important relief measures. If Democrats can’t put more immediate relief in this bill, they should be working diligently to quietly slip as much immediate health care relief as possible in every single bill between now and the 2010 election. If Democrats are going to try to run on passing a big bill labeled “health care reform,” voters damn well need to see a lot of people’s health insurance getting better.

Now, according to Sam Stein, at HuffPo, the White House is ready to roll out a 5 part video series to sell the American People.  I’m curious as to who it will be directed to, specifically.  Those on the right are adamantly opposed to anything the president proposes.  That’s not gonna change.So, we then turn to the left: on the extreme left, we have those who have followed this issue right along and know that this bill is a piece of crap, they realize that if this bill changes how they receive health care, it is not necessarily a change for the better.  That leaves those in the middle.

Stlo7 tells me that 95% of the American people are not following this debate.  They are not engaged politically.  They may not have the time, or the inclination to follow this bill.  Will they be the ones who are targeted?  Will they be moved by these videos, which I would assume will run continuously for the next four years during the nightly news broadcasts, and really, will FOX even run them?  (They do have the largest viewership.)