Just Do It

The time has come. Democrats have gone too far to turn back. Their Congressional leaders must choose from among two options obtain approval from the House for the Senate bill as it is, then return it to the Senate for approval via the reconciliation process. While I would like a reconciliation bill to include a robust public option (and have written both of my senators urging them to support this), long-time public option champion Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) believes that this is simply not realistic at this time. The West Virginia Democrat has been a reliable progressive for years, so his view merits more serious consideration than that of a hack like Ben Nelson ("D"-NE) or Holy Joe Lieberman (I for Idiot-CN).

Republicans will howl about reconciliation as an abuse of process, but that's only because it will foil their own Satanic plans. They'll claim that reconciliation was never intended for something like health care reform, as if they've never applied the rules creatively themselves. And when it comes to abuse, they've abused the filibuster relentlessly, applying it in record numbers to even uncontroversial mid-level appointments. If reconciliation is abuse -- and I don't see how it can be when the bill has already passed the Senate with 60 votes -- well, it's past time to fight fire with fire.

Republicans will also claim that the health care bill is "too big" to not be returned to the Senate, where they will not give it the up or down vote that they held so sacred back when George Bush attempted to change the nature of American jurisprudence by appointing right-wing judges to every court vacancy. If that deserved an up or down vote, than so does health care reform. But since the Republicans will use Senate rules (and, as I said, it's fine and dandy when they abuse the rules) to prevent a majority vote, Democrats have little choice but to turn to reconciliation. Besides, as Paul Krugman points out here, the Bush tax cuts went through reconciliation and they were twice the cost of the health care bill...

This is a terrible, tragic story. Pathetically, it will engender more foolish noisemaking like this, from someone who wants to turn our schools into armed camps:

An article in The Times seems to imply that Sen. Pam Roach made an outrageous statement by saying that there would be fewer school shootings if teachers were allowed to carry concealed weapons [“State Sen. Pam Roach is anything but boring,” page one. Feb. 21].

But Pam is right! She deserves much credit for clear, honest reasoning. Think back to the Columbine teacher who was killed while trying to shield students with his own body. The outcome of that encounter would most likely have been much different had he been armed and therefore able to stop the shooters quickly, before they had a chance to kill so many helpless kids.

We all know — or should know — that criminals don’t care if they break the law and that they will bring firearms into schools any time they want to do so. On the other hand, reputable people obey the law. We therefore leave our children completely unprotected when we ban firearms in schools. They and their teachers are victims-in-waiting — no matter how fast the police arrive. Arm our teachers — those who have the courage and willingness to protect the children in their care.

Sigh.

Just walkin' in the rain, so alone and blue...

OK, the Allman Brothers Band:

Just Wondering...

...why the same people who screech that President Obama wants to take away their freedom are the ones who vociferously supported the Patriot Act.

...why the same people who profess to love their country show contempt for the democratic process by disrupting town meetings about the most pressing domestic issue of our day.

...how a major political party that once stood for law and order came to endorse mob tactics.

...how the same people who opposed Sonia Sotomayor out of a fear of her "empathy" for the downtrodden can sympathize with the shouting down and threatening of elected officials as a legitimate "organic response" feedback to proposals to extend health care to all Americans.

...how the same people who oppose government intervention into health care are happy to receive Medicare...

...how anyone can listen to someone who advocated shooting wolves from helicoptersand who now calls health care reform "downright evil".

...how anyone can listen when the country's leading fascist decries the president's health care logo as "similar" to a Nazi symbol.

For anyone who can't watch the President summarize heath care reform, here's what the anger is supposedly all about:

Right now, we have a system that works well for the insurance industry, but that doesn’t always work well for you. What we need, and what we will have when we pass health insurance reform, are consumer protections to make sure that those who have insurance are treated fairly and that insurance companies are held accountable.

We will require insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms, colonoscopies, or eye and foot exams for diabetics, so we can avoid chronic illnesses that cost too many lives and too much money.

We will stop insurance companies from denying coverage because of a person’s medical history. I will never forget watching my own mother, as she fought cancer in her final days, worrying about whether her insurer would claim her illness was a preexisting condition. I have met so many Americans who worry about the same thing. That’s why, under these reforms, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage because of a previous illness or injury. And insurance companies will no longer be allowed to drop or water down coverage for someone who has become seriously ill. Your health insurance ought to be there for you when it counts – and reform will make sure it is.

With reform, insurance companies will also have to limit how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses. And we will stop insurance companies from placing arbitrary caps on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime because no one in America should go broke because of illness.

There's so little for average person to oppose here that one must wonder, is this what the anger is all about? Or could it stem from the racial fears and prejudices of people who think that being on top depends on other people of a different color being on the bottom? Could it be a savage howl of rage at the thought of no longer being in power (not that they ever were)? Just wondering...

More evidence that the Bush Administration neglected national security: This article explains what many of us have been saying for years -- that climate change has profound national security implications. It's a good think that the right people are in charge:

Although military and intelligence planners have been aware of the challenges posed by climate changes for some years, the Obama administration has made it a central policy focus...

R. I. P., Willy DeVille...

See the clouds of summer...

Radical ideas concerning the nation's culture...

Gillian Welch has them old Elvis Presley Blues...

Health Care Reform Now

"No matter what your views are on abortion, you shouldn't ask people to use their tax dollars if they think that abortion is taking a life. I would hate to see the health care debate go down [sic] over that issue."

-Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), on Fox News

This kind of sanctimonious moralizing chaps my ass. Does Senator Gregg agree with this statement?

"No matter what your views are on the Iraq war, you shouldn't ask people to use their tax dollars if they think that the war means the unjustifiable taking of life."

Logically, you can't subscribe to the first without admitting to the second, but logic rarely intervenes in conservative "thinking."

Abortion is, of course, a right established by the Supreme Court in 1973. It's legality has survived one challenge after another. And unless universal health care includes coverage for abortions, poor women will not be able to exercise their Constitutional rights. That to me is at least as unconscionable as Senator Gregg's hand wringing. And this clown was going to be in Obama's cabinet?...

This song kills cancer...

Here is a useful time line of the broad schedule for health care reform. Even if and when legislation is passed, it will take longer to put into effect than you think. The highlights:

• 2010: The government establishes a Healthcare Advisory Committee led by the surgeon general to recommend basic benefits.
  
• 2011: The committee reports out recommendations for adoptions by the Health and Human Services Department. Taxes on the upper-income earners so dear to the Republican party take effect.
  
• 2013: The government opens a health insurance exchange available to individuals and companies with fewer than ten workers. All plans in the exchange offer at least the basic benefits package and assistance to families at up 400% of the poverty level. "Individuals are required to get coverage — and employers to offer it — or face financial penalties. Businesses with payrolls under $250,000 are exempt from the mandate. Medicaid eligibility is expanded."
• 2014: Exchange expanded to include businesses of up to twenty people and individuals who cannot afford employer co-pays.
• 2015: "The government decides whether to open the health insurance exchange — and the government-sponsored plan — to all employers.
• 2018: Employers who continue to provide coverage outside the exchange must offer at least the same basic benefits available through the government-regulated purchasing pool.

And yet the Republicans caution against moving too quickly. Where was all that caution when Bush rushed into the war in Iraq?

This is not as efficient, all-encompassing, or cost-effective as a single payer plan. There can and will be many a slip betwixt now and 2018. But there is the critical public option, and it's a damn sight better than what we have now. The biggest obstacle between President Obama, the American people, and decent health care access are -- unsurprisingly -- fearful members of the Democratic caucus apprehensive that the plan is too "liberal." If one of these panicky poltroons of the Potomac comes from your state or district, let him or her know that you expect them to grow a backbone...

There is a balm in Gilead...

This is my 500th blog entry. When I was a kid growing up in the 60s, I knew every big league ballplayer who had hit 500 or more home runs (or was about to) because there just weren't that many of them. So here's to Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Frank Robinson, Harmon Killebrew, Mickey Mantle, Jimmy Foxx, Ted Williams, Ernie Banks, Eddie Mathews, and little Mel Ott, all 5'9", 170 pounds of him...

While we're at it, five players I wish I could have seen in their primes:

1. Ruth (The Sultan of Swat)
2. Jackie Robinson
3. Williams (The Splendid Splinter)
4. Walter Johnson (The Big Train)
   
5. Mays (The Say Hey Kid)