|
Health Care 
Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 14:50:26 PDT
|
|
Here is the Congressional Budget Office's Score for the Health Care Insurance Bailout, which was just released now, Thursday morning, March 18, 2010. (thank you, HuffPo) It is a pdf. Since it's a government document, I'm going to post it here, sans the charts, and let you all have a look see instead of pointing you to a pundit.
http://big.assets.huffingtonpo...
and so it begins,
Honorable Nancy Pelosi Speaker U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Madam Speaker:
March 18, 2010
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have completed a preliminary estimate of the direct spending and revenue effects of an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4872, the Reconciliation Act of 2010; that amendment (hereafter called "the reconciliation proposal") was made public on March 18, 2010. The estimate is presented in three ways:
full text continues
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 2547 words in story)
|
|
Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 14:40:42 PDT
|
|
cross-posted from Sum of Change
Just hopped off the conference call with Richard Trumka from the AFL-CIO.
This morning, the AFL-CIO leadership voted in overwhelming favor (higher than 90%) of "active support" for the current health care proposals in the face of slight changes to the excise tax agreement.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 232 words in story)
|
|
Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 13:09:19 PDT
|
|
Why did Kucinich decide to vote for this bill? Why is he whipping for it? I'm trying to figure this out myself.
http://www.democracynow.org/20...
(Watch the whole interview there, or read it, or listen to it.)
AMY GOODMAN: Congress member Dennis Kucinich joins us now in Washington, DC.
Well, Congress member Kucinich, you did not get what you were asking for, yet you are now supporting this bill. Explain what happened and why you think this bill merits your support.
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, first of all, I appreciate that you covered that part where I said that I don't retract anything that I said before. I had taken the effort to put a public option into the bill and also to create an opportunity for states to have their right protected to pursue single payer. I took it all the way down to the line with the President, the Speaker of the House, Democratic leaders. And it became clear to me that, despite my best efforts, I wasn't going to be able to get it in the bill and that I was going to inevitably be looking at a bill that-where I was a decisive vote and that I was basically, by virtue of circumstances, being put in a position where I could either kill the bill or let it go forward and-in the hopes that we could build something from the ruins of this bill.
I think that-you know, I mean, I can just tell you, it was a very tough decision. But I believe that now we need to look to support the efforts at the state level for single payer, to really jump over this debate and not have all those who want to see transformative change in healthcare be blamed for this bill going down. I think that really it's a dangerous moment. You know, the Clinton healthcare reforms, which I thought were very weak, it's been sixteen years since we've had a discussion about healthcare reform because of the experience of the political maelstrom that hit Washington. And I saw-I came to the conclusion, Amy, that it was going to-it would be impossible to start a serious healthcare discussion in Washington if this bill goes down, despite the fact that I don't like it at all. And every criticism I made still stands.
I want to see this as a step. It's not the step that I wanted to take, but a step so that after it passes, we can continue the discussion about comprehensive healthcare reform, about what needs to be done at the state level, because that's really where we're going to have to, I think, have a breakthrough in single payer, about diet, nutrition, comprehensive alternative medicine. There's many things that we can do. But if the bill goes down and we get blamed for it, I think there'll be hell to pay, and in the end, it'll just be used as an excuse as to why Washington couldn't get to anything in healthcare in the near future.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Congressman, I'd like to ask you, several other members of Congress who have had discussions with President Obama in recent days, as he sought their support, have said that he has essentially told them that this is-his presidency is riding on this, that to defeat the bill would severely hamper the remaining time in his presidency and also the election in November. Did he make that argument to you, as well? And did that have any impact on your decision?
REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: We talked about that. I mean, I have been thinking for quite awhile about, you know, what this means in terms of the Obama presidency. And frankly, you know, I've had differences with this president, on the economy, on environment, on war. And so, you know, I really hadn't given them many votes at all. But he made-he did make the argument that there was a lot on the line. And frankly, there's been such an effort to delegitimatize his presidency, right from the beginning, that, you know, in looking at the big picture here, we have to see if there's a way to get into this administration with an argument that could possibly influence the President to take some new directions. Standing at the sidelines, I think, is not an option right now, because, you know, we have to try to reshape the Obama presidency. And I hope that, in some small way, through my participation in trying to take healthcare in a new direction, that I can help do that.
And, you know, I-look, I can't give any kind of process a blessing. I don't like much of anything of what's happening here, except to say that I think that down the road we need to jump over this debate and go right to a bigger debate about how do we get healthcare that's significant, how do we supplant the role of private insurers. We're not going to be able to do it on this pass. I have done everything that I possibly can to try to take a position and stake out ground to say I'm not going to change, but there's a point at which you say, you know, it's my way or the highway. And if the highway shows a roadblock and you go over a cliff, I don't know what good that does, when you take a detour and maybe we can still get to the destination, which, for me, remains single payer. Start at the state level, and do the work there. And if there's ERISA implications and lawsuits, we'll have to deal with that, and maybe that can force Congress to finally act on some of those issues.
I'm beginning to understand his decision, I believe. He thinks that if he plays the "Ralph Nader" role (who was actually on the same episode of DN! at the same time as Kucinich) then it will kill the chances of single payer in the future. He sees this bill as a detour - a bad one, but not the worst possible thing in the world.
Please watch the whole interview. Something else to consider is what David Swanson, who worked on Kucinich's presidential campaign, said:
I don't think Kucinich flipped because of money, either direct "contributions" or money through the Democratic Party. I think, on the contrary, he hurt himself financially by letting down his supporters across the country. I don't think he caved into the power of party or presidency directly. I don't think they threatened to back a challenger or strip his subcommittee chair or block his bills, although all of that might have followed. I think the corporate media has instilled in people the idea that presidents should make laws and that the current president is trying to make a law that can reasonably be called "healthcare reform" or at least "health insurance reform."
I'm not entirely satisfied. But I'm beginning to think about this in a more coherent way than yesterday...
|
|
Discuss
:: (12
Comments)
|
|
Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 17:47:53 PDT
|
|
Ruh roh ! Somebody might have to delay their trip Down Under.
The Congressional Budget Office did not release a score today, after all, on the proposed "fixes" to the health insurance bill, which means that the 72 hour countdown clock hasn't started ticking yet.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c...
And this pushes the vote back to Sunday, March 21st, at the earliest.
h/t to BrianBeutler who bothered to stay and see what was going on, none of the other on line news sources, even (shudder) Twitter, have much up about this yet.
Okay, now the Hill has something up.
http://thehill.com/homenews/ho...
No CBO Score Wednesday night, Saturday Healthcare vote unlikely
Rep. Robert Andrews (D, NJ) :
"My understanding is this has been much more technical than substantive," Andrews said. "It's not like what tax has to go or what spending has to go."
"The reason it's taking so long, in part, is that we want to be sure that we have a score that's solid as a rock for procedural purposes and potentially litigation purposes down the road," Andrews said. "We all assume that the same forces that fought this so vociferously in the Congress will fight it in the courts, and we want to be prepared for that."
Richard Trumka the Union leader was called back to the White House this afternoon for an emergency meeting, which would lead one to guess that the Union deal they had made about removing much of the dreadful excise tax on health care benefits worth over a certain amount, might be in peril. If the CBO is taking this long to score the bill, it may be that the reconciliation tweaks to get the House happy with the Senate version, are doing unexpected things to the financial impact.
Or perhaps the WH just needs more time to twist more arms. Having succeeded in getting true single payer advocate Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, who was holding out for the Public Option, for an airplane ride in Air Force One, some more domestic rendition flights may need to be scheduled.
|
|
Discuss
:: (4
Comments)
|
|
Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 17:45:56 PDT
|
|
cross-posted from Sum of Change
Today, I sat in on the Rules Committee hearing. It was a rather arcane meeting today to authorize suspension bills to be brought to the House floor over the next couple days and the weekend. Currently, House rules prohibit suspension bills from being brought to the floor between Thursday and Sunday without the rules committee specifically allowing it. (Why? I am still trying to figure that out.)
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 306 words in story)
|
|
Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 14:30:00 PDT
|
(6 pm. - promoted by ek hornbeck)
The latest whip count from the house from David Dayen at FDL reports New Health Care Whip Count: Still 191 Yes, 206 No (205-209 with leaners). Since Dennis Kucinich has now switched his vote to "yes", Nancy Pelosi still finds that they are short voted to pass this travesty.
I think they are withholding the CBO score because without the Public Option, cutting back on the excise tax (Cadillac tax, yes they did that by giving Unions a reprieve, and not raising taxes on the wealthy, the House bill is more costly than even the Senate version. In order for it to pass via reconciliation the bill must be cost effective and in the case of this particular bell must cost less than the one the Senate has already passed. Ergo, hold back the CBO report until they can hammer out details that add to the cost to tax payers. Confused? That's what they want.
|
|
There's More...
:: (17
Comments, 689 words in story)
|
|
Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:50:49 PDT
|
I am totally shocked by what has happened.
It had appeared that Dennis Kucinich had Obama worried, rather than the other way around.
It appeared with Obama and Kucinich "discussing" Health Care on Air Force 1 no less, that the opportunity existed where Obama might possibly consider making a concession or two, just to secure Kucinich's vote.
Suddenly, and sadly, Kucinich just gave in, and got absolutely nothing back in return.
While DKos, MoveOn.bored, and mainstream Democrats all publically threatened to oppose Kucinich and get their pay back and revenge on him, it is pretty well established that Kucinich is in a district which knows him well, and that re-elects him every two years -- whether or not he faces a Primary challenge. I can't see Kucinich caving just on something like empty "reelection" bluffs, hot air, and threats of this nature. Kucinich has been through all of that many times before and won the War.
Remember Dennis Kucinich is a guy who stared down the Bank Monopoly in Ohio before and won. He even faced an assassination attempt before and won. This is a man not easily shaken. So why would Kucinich suddenly be so easily intimidated now?
What threat did Obama issue? Black Ops? Did his unconstitutional wiretapping program create or fabricate some embarrassing family story or personal smear? Did Obama threaten Elizabeth Kucinich? Did Obama and Pelosi move to take away Kucinich's SubCommittee Chair (something they'd never do to Joe Lieberman)? Was Dennis Kucinich's life directly threatened?
|
|
There's More...
:: (87
Comments, 435 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 12:08:37 PDT
|
(10 am. Co-incident with Dennis' presser. - promoted by ek hornbeck)
Well..well.well. Guess who Barack Obama is finally paying attention to? Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Only not necessarily in a good way.
First, Obama chose the State of Ohio as his staged photo-op site for his last public Health Care Rally (apart from D.C. speeches), and guess who was onboard Air-Force 1? Dennis Kucinich. I'll bet Kucinich hasn't even been invited on Air Force 1 perhaps more than 2 or 3 times in his entire career.
But, then Obama put a plant in the audience to yell out "Vote Yes" right on cue, when Obama called out Congressman Kucinich's name.
The goal was to make it appear that RahmobombaMonopolyCare is just so overwhelmingly popular with the little people that Kucinich would have no choice but to drop his principled objections to the Corporate bailout bill, or otherwise face mutiny by his own district, and by his own supporters.
Well done bit of stage craft by Obama (he's slick), but the fact remains that progressives do not like this shabby excuse for "reform", once they are told what is in it (IRS forced mandates and enslavement to the Insurance Monopoly), and what is not going to be in it (cost control, competition, medicare expansion, public choice).
|
|
There's More...
:: (21
Comments, 515 words in story)
|
|
Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 11:42:41 PDT
|
|
(Dennis Kucinich is demonstrating his leadership again by calling for "The Medicare Public Option", the proposal to allow people under 65 to buy into Medicare, to be passed in reconciliation of the current health care bill.
Though as originally introduced on the House floor, Representative Alan Grayson did not expressly ask that the Medicare You Can Buy Into Act (HR4789) be passed immediately, in reconciliation of the current Senate health care bill, he has since suggested that he is interested in this, and there is already a movement growing to do exactly that.
Dennis Kucinich has a new radio spot on this issue ready to go:
"Hi, this is Dennis Kucinich, on REAL health reform. We all know what really needs to be done, to expand what's REALLY working, which is Medicare, in a way that makes common sense, and is fiscally sound. That's why I'M pushing for an up or down vote on The Medicare Public Option, to give people younger than age 65 the OPTION to buy into Medicare, at a fair price, if they WANT to. I don't KNOW what the rest of Congress is going to do, I just want you to know, that as YOUR representative I'm fighting so that you can have a REAL DEAL. I'm Dennis Kucinich, and I approved this message." - promoted by ek hornbeck)
Jane Hamsher, again, says it quite eloquently when she calls out MoveOn.org for attacking Dennis Kucinich for sticking with his promise to not vote for a HCR bill that did not have a Public Option. Rep. Kucinich is being attack by the so-called "liberal" blogosphere that has now veered fo far right that it is unrecognizable to true progressives like Ms. Hamsher.
Last August, progressive groups including MoveOn, DFA and blogs across the country came together to raise over $430,000 for 65 members of Congress who pledged to vote against any health care bill that doesn't have a public option.
Now every excuse made by the President and Congress for not including a public option has crumbled. MoveOn is against Kucinich for keeping that promise, and far from supporting members of Congress who keep that pledge, the unions are them with primaries.
If George Bush had tried to pass a health care bill that was the worst blow to the right to choose since the passage of the Hyde Amendment 35 years ago, liberal groups would be screaming bloody murder.
|
|
There's More...
:: (25
Comments, 235 words in story)
|
|
Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 23:35:31 PDT
|
|
Lyme. A four letter word for a cluster of tick borne diseases, with the syphilis like borrelia at the heart of the disorder.
One of the more annoying mis-features of having this thing is dysautonomia, and it's got me good this morning.
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 610 words in story)
|
|
Sun Mar 14, 2010 at 14:52:49 PDT
|
( - promoted by buhdydharma )
Seriously. Health care reform is Dennis Kucinich's fucking fault. It has nothing to do with Obama, Durbin, and Pelosi. Don'tcha know.
Barack Obama says he supports a public option but claims there aren't 51 votes in the Senate to pass it in reconciliation. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin says he would aggressively whip the 51 votes for the public option if Nancy Pelosi would send him a House reconciliation bill that includes a public option. Nancy Pelosi says she won't include a public option in House reconciliation bill because there aren't enough votes in the Senate to pass it. It's looking more and more like a game of 3-Card Monty.
Damn you, Dennis!
Meanwhile, Edward Harrison is harshing my "green shoots" buzz:
This past week's posts marked a turn for me on a few levels. It is apparent that most market reform efforts are mere tweaks of the existing system. I am being to conclude that no meaningful financial reform can occur absent an absolute collapse in the global economy and the financial system.
I wish Dennis Kucinich would knock this bullshit off and just reform the financial system.
And while he's at it, Dennis Kucinich should stop making the rest of our ruling elites fail miserably.
In the past decade, nearly every pillar institution in American society - whether it's General Motors, Congress, Wall Street, Major League Baseball, the Catholic Church or the mainstream media - has revealed itself to be corrupt, incompetent or both. And at the root of these failures are the people who run these institutions, the bright and industrious minds who occupy the commanding heights of our meritocratic order. In exchange for their power, status and remuneration, they are supposed to make sure everything operates smoothly. But after a cascade of scandals and catastrophes, that implicit social contract lies in ruins, replaced by mass skepticism, contempt and disillusionment.
In the wake of the implosion of nearly all sources of American authority, this new decade will have to be about reforming our institutions to reconstitute a more reliable and democratic form of authority. Scholarly research shows a firm correlation between strong institutions, accountable élites and highly functional economies; mistrust and corruption, meanwhile, feed each other in a vicious circle. If our current crisis continues, we risk a long, ugly process of de-development: higher levels of corruption and tax evasion and an increasingly fractured public sphere, in which both public consensus and reform become all but impossible.
Oh, and one more thing, Dennis: Could you please, please, please stop Ralph Nader from stealing our elections?
|
|
Discuss
:: (24
Comments)
|
|
Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 17:53:28 PST
|
Many of us have been down this road. One day we all will, just not as publicly.
Theodore C. Olbermann, 1929-2010
My father died, in the city of his birth, New York, at 3:50 EST this afternoon.
Though the financial constraints of his youth made college infeasible, he accomplished the near-impossible, becoming an architect licensed in 40 states. Much of his work was commercial, for a series of shoe store chains and department stores. There was a time in the 1970's when nearly all of the Baskin-Robbins outlets in the country had been built to his design, and under his direction. Through much of my youth and my early adult life, it was almost impossible to be anywhere in this country and not be a short drive to one of "his" stores.
My Dad was predeceased last year by my mother, Marie, his wife of nearly 60 years. He died peacefully after a long fight against the complications that ensued after successful colon surgery last September at the New York Presbyterian-Weill Cornell Medical Center. My sister Jenna and I were at his side, and I was reading him his favorite James Thurber short stories, as he left us.
Blessed Be
May the Goddess guide him on his journey to the Summerlands. May Keith, his family , his friends and all of us find Peace.
|
|
There's More...
:: (13
Comments, 69 words in story)
|
|
Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 14:54:56 PST
|
|
As a young man I read Stephen R. Donaldson's Thomas Convenent series. Convenant, a leprosy victim, experiences brief, periodic meetings with a character he refers to as the harbinger. These events always presage his transition from an ill, socially isolated man in the mundane world into a healthy anti-hero catapulted into The Land, a place of magic and mystery.
I've seen these creatures in my own life; the shapes of men, silent and strange. The harbinger, he's an outsider's outsider, alone on the path, even when in a crowd.
I encountered another one today and the experience has left me a bit shaken.
|
|
There's More...
:: (6
Comments, 988 words in story)
|
|
Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 14:32:41 PST
|
(11 am. - promoted by ek hornbeck)
Since the Democrats intend to actually vote on the health insurance bail out next week, now that Speaker Pelosi has repeated that the Public Option is Off of Our Table, and said,
"I'm quite sad that a public option isn't in there. "
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpoin...
Sad in the Baby Seal Syndrome way, as she also said she was for single payer, herself (eyeroll icon øø),
.... they've sent out a memo with the schedule (try not to laugh too hard at the thought of the them sticking to one) and some talking points for Congresspeople to take back to their districts during the Easter vacation. They also told the members to just shut up on reconciliation:
http://www.politico.com/news/s...
http://www.politico.com/livepu...
"At this point, we have to just rip the band-aid off and have a vote - up or down; yes or no?" the memo said. "Things like reconciliation and what the rules committee does is INSIDE BASEBALL."
"People who try and start arguments about process on this are almost always against the actual policy substance too, often times for purely political reasons."
I take it they are going to do everything in their power to prevent just that - an up or down vote - from occurring with the Senate and the Public Option, so look for Sen. Bernie Sanders' proposed amendment to mysteriously and quietly vanish into the ether.
|
|
There's More...
:: (5
Comments, 794 words in story)
|
|
Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 13:00:00 PST
|
Welcome to this week's Health and Fitness. This is an Open Thread.
Scientists find why "sunshine" vitamin D is crucial
(Reuters) - Vitamin D is vital in activating human defences and low levels suffered by around half the world's population may mean their immune systems' killer T cells are poor at fighting infection, scientists said on Sunday.
The findings by Danish researchers could help the fight against infectious diseases and global epidemics, they said, and could be particularly useful in the search for new vaccines.
Vitamin D Pills May Prevent Fractures in Older Adults
Vitamin D supplements may help prevent fractures in people over 65, provided they take enough of the right kind. A new review of clinical trials appears to show a strong dose-dependent effect for vitamin D in lowering the risk for nonvertebral fractures in the elderly.
Aging: Vitamin D Levels Tied to Dementia Risk
Low blood levels of vitamin D may be associated with an increased risk for dementia, a British study has found.
The Claim: Sunscreen Prevents Vitamin D Production
Dermatologists routinely talk of the need to wear sunscreen. But the body needs sunlight to produce vitamin D, a crucial nutrient.
So is it possible that wearing sunscreen might interfere with the synthesis of vitamin D?
Yes. Studies have found that by blocking ultraviolet rays, sunscreen limits the vitamin D we produce. But the question is to what extent.
Vitamin D is a fat soluble vitamin that is stored in the body's fatty tissue. It aids in the absorption of calcium and regulate the amount of calcium and phosphorus in the blood. The few food sources for Vitamin D are cheese, butter, cream, fortified milk (all milk in the U.S. is fortified with vitamin D), fish, oysters, fortified cereals and margarine. Anyone remember cod liver oil?
Vitamin D is also known as the "sunshine vitamin" because the body manufactures the vitamin after being exposed to sunshine. Ten to 15 minutes of sunshine 3 times weekly is enough to produce the body's requirement of vitamin D. However, many people living in sunny climates still do not make enough vitamin D and need more from their diet or supplementation.
Too much Vitamin D can cause an increase of calcium in the blood that can result in an increase of calcium deposits in soft tissue such as the heart and lungs that reduces their ability to function. It can also cause kidney stones, muscle weakness and vomiting.
Too little Vitamin D can cause osteoporosis in adults and Rickets in children.
The tables for taking Vitamin D supplement can be found here
Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet: Vitamin D. However, before taking a Vitamin D supplement you should consult your doctor and or a nutritionist.
As is now custom, I'll try to include the more interesting and pertinent articles that will help the community awareness of their health and bodies. This essay will not be posted anywhere else due to constraints on my time. Please feel free to make suggestions for improvement and ask questions, I'll answer as best I can.
|
|
There's More...
:: (8
Comments, 5540 words in story)
|
|
Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 12:46:49 PDT
|
(10 am. - promoted by ek hornbeck)
In a lengthy interview on Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman, Congressman Dennis Kucinich explained why he would not vote for the present health care bill and defended his position against attacks from people on the left like Markos Moulitsas. He also spoke about the subjects of Afghanistan, campaign finance, and the passing of activist Granny D.
I mean, I have a responsibility to take a stand here on behalf of those who want a public option. There's about thirty-four members of the Senate, at least, who have signed on to saying they support a public option. If I were to just concede right now and say, "Well, you know, whatever you want. All this pressure's building. Just forget about it," actually weakens every last-minute bit of negotiations that would try to improve the bill. So I think that it's really critical to take this stand, because without it, there's no real control over premiums. Without it, we have nothing in the bill except the privatization of our healthcare system.
|
|
There's More...
:: (17
Comments, 1417 words in story)
|
|
Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 02:03:23 PST
|
(noon. - promoted by ek hornbeck)
With the advent of Gay couples gaining the right to legally marry in the Nation's Capitol, the Catholic Charities found it self with a dilemma. They would have to give health care coverage to the spouses of gay employees. Solution, just don't cover any employee's spouse, gay or straight.
Same-sex marriage leads Catholic Charities to adjust benefits
Employees at Catholic Charities were told Monday that the social services organization is changing its health coverage to avoid offering benefits to same-sex partners of its workers....
Starting Tuesday, Catholic Charities will not offer benefits to spouses of new employees or to spouses of current employees who are not already enrolled in the plan. A letter describing the change in health benefits was e-mailed to employees Monday, two days before same-sex marriage will become legal in the District.
So, just let them get sick and maybe die. What would Jesus say?
h/t Eli @ FDL
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 13:35:53 PDT
|
(11 am. - promoted by ek hornbeck)
We are now entering the final insult phase of Health Care by the Democratic Party.
Dick Durbin went on record to state that he would whip the Senate against any consideration for "public option" related amendments to be brought up in that chamber -- even though over 40+ Senators are already formally on record in favor of supporting having it added during reconcilliation. His excuse? The House would never agree to it. The same House that had already passed it last year. Keep in mind that the original reason why the Senate dropped the public option, was because it did not have 60 votes -- not 50. Simply getting 50 was never (originally) a problem.
Durbin has since said that he will strongly support the public option if (and only if) the House moves to add it back first (before the Senate acts) during the reconcillation process. So Durbin is trying to fool people into thinking that we would have a public option -- but it is just the House that is the obstacle (the same House that had already passed it last year). In fact, Durbin could allow the public option amendment, and whip the Senate in favor of it..and then make the House vote on that.
__
Meanwhile, over in the House, Nancy Pelosi is now saying that she will never take up the public option because the U.S. Senate could not ever pass the bill. But the Senate never had a problem with 50 people (it had been 60 that was the original problem), and already 40+ Senators have come out on their own and publically signed a statement pledging support for a Senate public option. Given Durbin's artifical and phony requirement that the House must act first, Nancy Pelosi could add the public option, if she really wanted to, into the House version -- as we know the House had already passed a bill last year with the public option included.
But now Nancy Pelosi (like Joe Lieberman) only supports a gutted House bill that is completely stripped of the public option. See: Pelosi Blocks Public Option. Of course, Pelosi wants to just blame it all on the Senate, where getting 60 votes had been the
problem -- not getting 50.
"We're talking about something that is not going to be part of the legislation."
--Nancy 'Impeachment is off the table' Pelosi, March 12, 2010
|
|
There's More...
:: (4
Comments, 331 words in story)
|
|
Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 13:13:13 PST
|
|
Cross-posted from Sum of Change
So, there is a video that is getting a lot of attention amongst the right wing nuts:
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 180 words in story)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reform Immigration -
March for America
Sunday, March 21
March on Washington
Saturday, March 20
|
