My Congressman, Paul Broun, Jr, in a floor speech of the House, references "the great war of Yankee agression" while making an attempt to call "free Obamacare cards" worthless.
Rep. Broun invokes The Civil War
Paul Broun once again proves that his purpose is not for helping out residents of GA-10, but rather serving as arch-demagogue of the right-wing in the House. Let us not forget where he says the public option will cause a lot of people to die, calls Obama a Marxist and compares Obama to Hitler, and tells someone with depression that he can go to the ER for treatment. The hits just keep on coming for you Broun, eh?
(I do have a question for question, like the people at Media Matters: where's my card?)
-rl
Showing posts with label health care reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care reform. Show all posts
March 19, 2010
March 18, 2010
What everyone else is talking about
Yesterday the Congressional Budget Office released its scoring on the Health Care Reform legislation presented to the House of Representatives. The House committee on Rules has a section-by-section summary explaining the details of the bill. I consider it impressive, given the length of the bill itself, that it was able to be condensed into easy-to-understand terms in a relatively short document.
I'm still working through the relatively short scoring document... maybe I'll post my thoughts later.
-rl
I'm still working through the relatively short scoring document... maybe I'll post my thoughts later.
-rl
March 17, 2010
Being a post wherein Dennis Kucinich says no before yes.
I would rather not write this post about Dennis Kucinich, but rather someone like Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin, being in favor of something before being opposed to it. But such are the times and such is the nature of Dennis Kucinich.
Dennis Kucinich - man of many faces - has turned face again, going against his previous pledge to vote against the current health care reform package on the grounds that it wasn't progressive enough. Kucinich's about-face should come as no surprise to Cleveland-area residents, given that Kucinich's arm was likely twisted six ways from Sunday on the plane ride from Washington to C-Hop and given Kucinich's pledge(s) to not run for Pres in 2008 during his 2006 primary campaign against Barbara Farris (sp?) that he almost immediately reneged upon after re-election.
This is not to say that I oppose Kucinich's decision itself, to support HCR, but rather I oppose Kucinich's previous unwillingness to compromise on the matter. I would personally prefer a single payer method, like Kucinich, or something akin to the Swiss model where insurance companies run not-for-profit, like a co-operative financial institution/credit union. (Heck, I'd love it if all institutions were run as not-for-profit organizations, but that's another entry.) However, unlike Kucinich, I am willing to make incremental advances to test the system, to see how well our progress works, and to retool as necessary.
I would not necessarily consider OH-10 to be a safe seat for Dems, firstly because I've become of the mindset that no party should take a constituency for granted and secondly because of the potential effects redistricting may have come 2012. Kucinich simply isn't the right fit for the area anymore, given the suburban nature of the district. If this were the 1970s and 1980s, before industrial flight kicked into high gear, I might be singing a different tune. Cleveland is in need of a strong representative in Congress, a strong leader, and what they have is a demagogue whose greatest personal legislative accomplishment may be the renaming of a post office. Personally, regardless of the outcome of HCR, I am interested to see what challenge - if any - he will face in the 2010 general election from either an independent candidate or Republican.
Oh, and hi.
Dennis Kucinich - man of many faces - has turned face again, going against his previous pledge to vote against the current health care reform package on the grounds that it wasn't progressive enough. Kucinich's about-face should come as no surprise to Cleveland-area residents, given that Kucinich's arm was likely twisted six ways from Sunday on the plane ride from Washington to C-Hop and given Kucinich's pledge(s) to not run for Pres in 2008 during his 2006 primary campaign against Barbara Farris (sp?) that he almost immediately reneged upon after re-election.
This is not to say that I oppose Kucinich's decision itself, to support HCR, but rather I oppose Kucinich's previous unwillingness to compromise on the matter. I would personally prefer a single payer method, like Kucinich, or something akin to the Swiss model where insurance companies run not-for-profit, like a co-operative financial institution/credit union. (Heck, I'd love it if all institutions were run as not-for-profit organizations, but that's another entry.) However, unlike Kucinich, I am willing to make incremental advances to test the system, to see how well our progress works, and to retool as necessary.
I would not necessarily consider OH-10 to be a safe seat for Dems, firstly because I've become of the mindset that no party should take a constituency for granted and secondly because of the potential effects redistricting may have come 2012. Kucinich simply isn't the right fit for the area anymore, given the suburban nature of the district. If this were the 1970s and 1980s, before industrial flight kicked into high gear, I might be singing a different tune. Cleveland is in need of a strong representative in Congress, a strong leader, and what they have is a demagogue whose greatest personal legislative accomplishment may be the renaming of a post office. Personally, regardless of the outcome of HCR, I am interested to see what challenge - if any - he will face in the 2010 general election from either an independent candidate or Republican.
Oh, and hi.
September 10, 2009
You lie! and other media notes.
While the media and talking heads are continuing to gnash about the outburst of Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), they are failing to meet a critical end of journalism: telling the truth. While Rep. Wilson's outburst gets played over and over, no member of the networks, broadcast or cable, is seeming to step up to the plate and call Wilson's outburst what it is: a lie itself.
Through emails and other newer versions of gossip, the lie that the President's and Democratic proposal will cover illegal immigrants continues to fester, in spite of the work of enterprising journalists and people just generally interested in the facts. So while the truth is that illegal immigrants would not be given cover under the bill as proposed, the mainstream media has no quarter for truth in their continued pursuit of "gotcha" moments and personality-driven infotainment.
This all brings me to a second point.
Earlier this week, reporters and former Presidents came together to honor the man who was at the vanguard of journalism for two decades, Walter Cronkite. The man who was, in President Obama's words, "a voice of certainty in a world that was growing more and more uncertain." This voice of certainty in uncertain times is something that is missing, because rather than give us solid answers free of bias, these so-called newsmen that we have today feed the fires of uncertainty and weigh us over with bias while claiming to be fair, balanced, and unbiased.
Between financial issues in the print media and the generally sad and sordid state of affairs in broadcast journalism, I find it to be little wonder that Americans as a whole are cynical regarding the state of affairs in this country.
Journalism needs to be rebuilt from the ground level. Frequently it is people whose only business in journalism is business that are making the decisions as to what can and should be reported and what can't and shouldn't be. Why not devolve the power of editorial to journalists and their cohorts instead of a corporate board of directors whose interest may be self-serving instead of serving the public interest?
I can't provide any answers... but maybe one day we can have a solution.
-rl
Through emails and other newer versions of gossip, the lie that the President's and Democratic proposal will cover illegal immigrants continues to fester, in spite of the work of enterprising journalists and people just generally interested in the facts. So while the truth is that illegal immigrants would not be given cover under the bill as proposed, the mainstream media has no quarter for truth in their continued pursuit of "gotcha" moments and personality-driven infotainment.
This all brings me to a second point.
Earlier this week, reporters and former Presidents came together to honor the man who was at the vanguard of journalism for two decades, Walter Cronkite. The man who was, in President Obama's words, "a voice of certainty in a world that was growing more and more uncertain." This voice of certainty in uncertain times is something that is missing, because rather than give us solid answers free of bias, these so-called newsmen that we have today feed the fires of uncertainty and weigh us over with bias while claiming to be fair, balanced, and unbiased.
Between financial issues in the print media and the generally sad and sordid state of affairs in broadcast journalism, I find it to be little wonder that Americans as a whole are cynical regarding the state of affairs in this country.
Journalism needs to be rebuilt from the ground level. Frequently it is people whose only business in journalism is business that are making the decisions as to what can and should be reported and what can't and shouldn't be. Why not devolve the power of editorial to journalists and their cohorts instead of a corporate board of directors whose interest may be self-serving instead of serving the public interest?
I can't provide any answers... but maybe one day we can have a solution.
-rl
August 31, 2009
The 26 lies about health care reform that might be in your inbox.
FactCheck, as usual, does a brilliant job at digging through a widely-circulated email about the proposed health care reform in HR 3200.
Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200
Health care reform opponents frequently cite this email and the misinformation it contains as the basis of their opposition to what they call the socialization/communization of the country. Of course, if you feel compelled to read the bill yourself, you'll find very little in that email is valid.
Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200
Health care reform opponents frequently cite this email and the misinformation it contains as the basis of their opposition to what they call the socialization/communization of the country. Of course, if you feel compelled to read the bill yourself, you'll find very little in that email is valid.
August 11, 2009
Sanity from a Republican: Johnny Isakson on the "Death Panel" Lies
Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican from Georgia, talks common sense with Ezra Klein about the progress of health care reform in the Senate and debunks co-partisan Palin's outright lie about "death panels".
I'm going to copy and paste the interview in here for people on Facebook. Posting of this interview on this blog does not constitute a claim of ownership or authorship.
Is the Government Going to Euthanize your Grandmother? An Interview With Sen. Johnny Isakson.
Sarah Palin's belief that the House health-care reform bill would create "death panels" might be particularly extreme, but she's hardly the only person to wildly misunderstand the section of the bill ordering Medicare to cover voluntary end-of-life counseling sessions between doctors and their patients.
One of the foremost advocates of expanding Medicare end-of-life planning coverage is Johnny Isakson, a Republican Senator from Georgia. He co-sponsored 2007's Medicare End-of-Life Planning Act and proposed an amendment similar to the House bill's Section 1233 during the Senate HELP Committee's mark-up of its health care bill. I reached Sen. Isakson at his office this afternoon. He was befuddled that this had become a question of euthanasia, termed Palin's interpretation "nuts," and emphasized that all 50 states currently have some legislation allowing end-of-life directives. A transcript of our conversation follows.
Is this bill going to euthanize my grandmother? What are we talking about here?
In the health-care debate mark-up, one of the things I talked about was that the most money spent on anyone is spent usually in the last 60 days of life and that's because an individual is not in a capacity to make decisions for themselves. So rather than getting into a situation where the government makes those decisions, if everyone had an end-of-life directive or what we call in Georgia "durable power of attorney," you could instruct at a time of sound mind and body what you want to happen in an event where you were in difficult circumstances where you're unable to make those decisions.
This has been an issue for 35 years. All 50 states now have either durable powers of attorney or end-of-life directives and it's to protect children or a spouse from being put into a situation where they have to make a terrible decision as well as physicians from being put into a position where they have to practice defensive medicine because of the trial lawyers. It's just better for an individual to be able to clearly delineate what they want done in various sets of circumstances at the end of their life.
How did this become a question of euthanasia?
I have no idea. I understand -- and you have to check this out -- I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin's web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don't know how that got so mixed up.
You're saying that this is not a question of government. It's for individuals.
It empowers you to be able to make decisions at a difficult time rather than having the government making them for you.
The policy here as I understand it is that Medicare would cover a counseling session with your doctor on end-of-life options.
Correct. And it's a voluntary deal.
It seems to me we're having trouble conducting an adult conversation about death. We pay a lot of money not to face these questions. We prefer to experience the health-care system as something that just saves you, and if it doesn't, something has gone wrong.
Over the last three-and-a-half decades, this legislation has been passed state-by-state, in part because of the tort issue and in part because of many other things. It's important for an individual to make those determinations while they're of sound mind and body rather than no one making those decisions at all. But this discussion has been going on for three decades.
And the only change we'd see is that individuals would have a counseling session with their doctor?
Uh-huh. When they become eligible for Medicare.
Are there other costs? Parts of it I'm missing?
No. The problem you got is that there's so much swirling around about health care and people are taking bits and pieces out of this. This was thoroughly debated in the Senate committee. It's voluntary. Every state in America has an end of life directive or durable power of attorney provision. For the peace of mind of your children and your spouse as well as the comfort of knowing the government won't make these decisions, it's a very popular thing. Just not everybody's aware of it.
What got you interested in this subject?
I've seen the pain and suffering in families with a loved one with a traumatic brain injury or a crippling degenerative disease become incapacitated and be kept alive under very difficult circumstances when if they'd have had the chance to make the decision themself they'd have given another directive and I've seen the damage financially that's been done to families and if there's a way to prevent that by you giving advance directives it's both for the sanity of the family and what savings the family has it's the right decision, certainly more than turning it to the government or a trial lawyer.
I'm going to copy and paste the interview in here for people on Facebook. Posting of this interview on this blog does not constitute a claim of ownership or authorship.
Is the Government Going to Euthanize your Grandmother? An Interview With Sen. Johnny Isakson.
Sarah Palin's belief that the House health-care reform bill would create "death panels" might be particularly extreme, but she's hardly the only person to wildly misunderstand the section of the bill ordering Medicare to cover voluntary end-of-life counseling sessions between doctors and their patients.
One of the foremost advocates of expanding Medicare end-of-life planning coverage is Johnny Isakson, a Republican Senator from Georgia. He co-sponsored 2007's Medicare End-of-Life Planning Act and proposed an amendment similar to the House bill's Section 1233 during the Senate HELP Committee's mark-up of its health care bill. I reached Sen. Isakson at his office this afternoon. He was befuddled that this had become a question of euthanasia, termed Palin's interpretation "nuts," and emphasized that all 50 states currently have some legislation allowing end-of-life directives. A transcript of our conversation follows.
Is this bill going to euthanize my grandmother? What are we talking about here?
In the health-care debate mark-up, one of the things I talked about was that the most money spent on anyone is spent usually in the last 60 days of life and that's because an individual is not in a capacity to make decisions for themselves. So rather than getting into a situation where the government makes those decisions, if everyone had an end-of-life directive or what we call in Georgia "durable power of attorney," you could instruct at a time of sound mind and body what you want to happen in an event where you were in difficult circumstances where you're unable to make those decisions.
This has been an issue for 35 years. All 50 states now have either durable powers of attorney or end-of-life directives and it's to protect children or a spouse from being put into a situation where they have to make a terrible decision as well as physicians from being put into a position where they have to practice defensive medicine because of the trial lawyers. It's just better for an individual to be able to clearly delineate what they want done in various sets of circumstances at the end of their life.
How did this become a question of euthanasia?
I have no idea. I understand -- and you have to check this out -- I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin's web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don't know how that got so mixed up.
You're saying that this is not a question of government. It's for individuals.
It empowers you to be able to make decisions at a difficult time rather than having the government making them for you.
The policy here as I understand it is that Medicare would cover a counseling session with your doctor on end-of-life options.
Correct. And it's a voluntary deal.
It seems to me we're having trouble conducting an adult conversation about death. We pay a lot of money not to face these questions. We prefer to experience the health-care system as something that just saves you, and if it doesn't, something has gone wrong.
Over the last three-and-a-half decades, this legislation has been passed state-by-state, in part because of the tort issue and in part because of many other things. It's important for an individual to make those determinations while they're of sound mind and body rather than no one making those decisions at all. But this discussion has been going on for three decades.
And the only change we'd see is that individuals would have a counseling session with their doctor?
Uh-huh. When they become eligible for Medicare.
Are there other costs? Parts of it I'm missing?
No. The problem you got is that there's so much swirling around about health care and people are taking bits and pieces out of this. This was thoroughly debated in the Senate committee. It's voluntary. Every state in America has an end of life directive or durable power of attorney provision. For the peace of mind of your children and your spouse as well as the comfort of knowing the government won't make these decisions, it's a very popular thing. Just not everybody's aware of it.
What got you interested in this subject?
I've seen the pain and suffering in families with a loved one with a traumatic brain injury or a crippling degenerative disease become incapacitated and be kept alive under very difficult circumstances when if they'd have had the chance to make the decision themself they'd have given another directive and I've seen the damage financially that's been done to families and if there's a way to prevent that by you giving advance directives it's both for the sanity of the family and what savings the family has it's the right decision, certainly more than turning it to the government or a trial lawyer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)