Democrats shouldn't expect much cooperation from Republicans the rest of this year, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) warned Monday. [...] "There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during an interview Monday on an Arizona radio affiliate. "They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."
Ohfergawdsake, when was the last time the repubes 'cooperated'!?
@ John McLame (R-Loser), the bill passed the House, the bill overcame a filibuster in the Senate and passed, it passed the House again, and it was signed into law by the President.
WTF part of our democracy don't these bastards understand!?
I think it's just that there's a Smokey in the WH.
"Yes Mr. Peabody. Isn't that the year the American's finally got a watered down version of Universal Health Care that most countries had in full strength for years?"
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio): Health care passing 'over my dead body.' - March 17, 2010 "You know, I've been telling my staff nine months, 'They can't pass this bill.' And finally my staff wrestled me to the ground last fall and said, 'Mr. Boehner, we have to quit saying this because they're gonna pass this bill.' And I looked at my staff and I said, 'Alright, I'll try to throttle it back a little bit. But it'll be over my dead body.'"
Boehner on "Meet the Press" -- September 20, 2009 "So you think the plan is dead?" asked host David Gregory. "I think it is," said Boehner.
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) - March 12, 2008 "I've been being asked that question over the last couple days, and to be honest with you, I don't think they can pass the bill... I don't even think we need to be talking about 'after they pass it' because they don't have the votes right now..."
– Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), Minority Whip, February 24: “Speaker Pelosi doesn’t have the votes in the House. . . . It is futile for for them to continue to try and push something on the American people that frankly won’t result in better health care.”
– Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), March 5: “Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have the votes needed to pass a health-care bill in the House of Representatives.”
– Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), Minority Leader, March 14: “If she had 216 votes, this bill would be long gone. They tried to pass it in September, October, November, December, January, February. Guess what? They don’t have the votes.”
– Cantor, March 19: “[T]here’s no way they can pass this bill.”
"Gee Mr. Peabody, I don't remember that part!"
"No one does Sherman. Once HCR passed everyone in America had access to health care, mental and physical, and they decided that the crazy, lying, crazy & lying folks who made those statements just needed help. But since treatment is voluntary the poor republicans and teabaggers just eventually spent their days wandering around the Capitol, looking for handouts from the K Street whores, ranting and raving about socialism and black people who don't know their place, and President Hayes."
"Gee Mr. Peabody, aren't there any of them left!?"
"Only one Sherman, poor Rep. Boner. His Congressional lifetime health care has paid for all his organ transplants except his brain. It's such a shame, he still thinks he's pimping for the K Street whores and the president refuses to speak to him."
"You mean ...?
"Yes Sherman, the Mack Senate was censored by the Hayes Commission."
If you thought that was bad, just wait till you see this:
So the Health Care Reform bill passed the house tonight, but not without some drama.
You see some crazy screwed-up things in the bloggersphere and Twitterverse, especially from right. And the craziest stuff has been from tea-partier types, with muddled ldeologies ranging Randian Glibertarians to authority-seeking right-wingers.
But tonight, when Twitter was flying a00 mph with both pregressive and conservative Tweets, debating and arguing the impending Health Care legislation vote, we got this:
Solly really should know better, because that kind of crap is seriously verboten. No serious GWBush hater ever wished for his demise, that isn't done in polite society. But the right these days seem driven by hate.
That tag he added? #TCOT? It stands for "top conservatives on Twitter."
According to his Google profile, Forell is the author of a blog titled Barack Obama Was An American Electorate Mistake, which centers around Forell's disappointment in Obama's presidency. This disappointment spills over into Forell's other blogs, including Anybody But Barack Obama 2012, and The Audacity of Hype, which both touch upon Forrell's disgust with the "cult" of Obama, "a man who has done little with his life, but has written about his achievements as ifhe had found the cure for cancer in between winning a marathon and building a nuclear reactor with his teeth."
Forell may think he's protected by the First Amendment when it comes to his tweets, but the law begs to differ, specifically 18 USC Sec. 871:
Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
You'll note however, that there's nothing specified about electronic threats. Perhaps that's why, as of now, Forell's Twitter account does not appear to be suspended; the tweet threatening the President's life was posted roughly six hours ago and has not yet been removed.
Hortense continues:
You'll note however, that there's nothing specified about electronic threats. Perhaps that's why, as of now, Forell's Twitter account does not appear to be suspended; the tweet threatening the President's life was posted roughly six hours ago and has not yet been removed.
Update: While Forell hasn't removed the offensive tweets, he has posted an apologetic P.S.:
Uh, maybe the President would respect your opinion more if you didn't, you know, encourage people to kill him. Just a thought.
Update #2: Forell is now backtracking like crazy, complaining about "whining liberals" and asking that we "all renounce the harsh rhetoric about the POTUS. Several, including myself, hv used inappropriate language. Let's remain civil!" A little too late, I'd say.
Update #3: I just received an email from Twitter, dated 2:55pm PDT, stating the following:
We have removed this profile due to violation of Twitter's Rules, specifically listed under "Content Boundaries and Use of Twitter": *Unlawful Use: You may not use the service for any unlawful purposes or for promotion of illegal activities.
It is against the Twitter Terms of Service to use the service to commit illegal acts. Threatening the life of the president (or president-elect) is a federal offense under Title 18, USC, section 871. All accounts in violation of our Terms of Service are permanently suspended and we report to legal authorities accordingly.
Update #4: Sam Gustin at DailyFinance is reporting that the Secret Service is now investigating Forell's tweets, with Secret Service spokesperson Max Milien stating: "We are aware of the actual posting and are actively investigating."
And though Twitter sent an email earlier declaring that Forell's profile had been removed, it appears that only the assassination-related tweets have been deleted from his account: as of 9:00 pm EST, his account still appears to be active.
You'd think that a conservatarian who favors a small government with scads of "Freedoms™" for personal action and free speech would have a clue that even in a virtual anarchy, someone makes the rules. Even in Thunderdome there was a boss. By actually calling for Presidential assassination, one gets the clearly unwanted attention of authorities, whose job it is to protect the POTUS, whether it's GWBush, Richard Nixon, or Barack Obama.
So Solly, that's really sweet you apologized, sort-of, but you went way over the line. If the Secret Service jams you up, it serves you right. You earned it.
What's up with Fire Dog Lake these days!? First Jane Hamsher joins Grover Norquist and now Marcy Wheeler aligns with large corporations. I expect smear tactics from Faux News, but this is a non-story that's now all over the news. Here are some of the headlines:
Professor Gruber wasn't paid by the Obama Administration, he had a grant from HHS. Just like my work is paid for by a grant from the NIH. Obama can't just call up any Federal agency and get a paper written, all of these grants are peer reviewed at multiple stages.
How do these people think research gets done? Would they rather corporations pay for it? So what if reporters didn't do due diligence, they don't even fact check, and no one has suggested that anything Gruber has said isn't factual. And it's not like he gets all the money, there's overhead for MIT, technical and administrative support services, researchers.
The folks at FDL are doing everything they can to stop health care reform, even dishonest smear tactics like this, trying to make some conspiracy theory out of what is publicly available information. In fact, their 'source' was a website setup by the Obama Admin.
Their stance on HCR aligns them with insurance companies, the US Chamber of Commerce and drug corporations.
I still have hopes we'll get a better bill, but my god if all those folks are against it, then I'll take what I can get.
Update: I stand corrected by a commenter, Prof. Gruber didn't receive a grant, it was a "CONTINUATION OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR EVALUATING OPTIONS FOR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE REFORM"
And the contracts are only 2 of 18 contracts he has received from the Federal gov't since 2002. From everybody from the DOJ, to the DOD, to the HHS, to the State Department.
So health care reform is on its way, passing its first major test in our awful dysfunctional Senate. How's that working out for regular Americans? Ladies & gentlemen, I give you the Rude Pundit:
Jacqueline Kelly died yesterday in Jersey City, New Jersey, of ovarian cancer. She also had emphysema. She was 61 years-old, a woman who was a stay-at-home mom to her six kids and a supportive wife for 44 years to John Kelly. John, 68, worked for fifty years as a truck driver and was old enough to get on Medicare when he retired. His wife could not, since she was 61.
She was told she didn't qualify for Social Security disability benefits because she had never "worked." They didn't qualify for welfare assistance or Medicaid because John's pension checks were too high. So, instead, most of the money went to paying for Jacqueline's medical expenses, as much as they could, until it became a choice of chemotherapy or food. As John put it, "I worked all my life. She's being penalized for staying home and taking care of her kids." Kelly died because of a lack of health insurance, pure and simple, cause and effect.
Kelly was a stay-at-home mother who raised her six children and went on to help raise her grandchildren, while her husband John worked as a truck driver for 50 years.
When John Kelly, 68, retired he was able to go on Medicare, but Kelly was not old enough.
When John Kelly went to Welfare, he was told his pension checks were too high for his wife to get benefits.
The family paid for Kelly’s treatments out-of-pocket until the costs recently became too much to bear.
She was treated at Christ Hospital in Jersey City through charity care and Compassionate Care Hospice treated her at home in recent weeks for free through its foundation.
Back to the Rude Pundit for analysis. I've taken his words almost completely because they need to be heard:
Think about that: John and Jacqueline Kelly were like apple pie, they fit so perfectly into the mold of ideal Americans that conservatives propagate. John was able to support his family doing a job that he stayed dedicated to. Jacqueline chose to stay at home and raise a large family. This is also death by sexism in that we live in a nation where full-time motherhood is not valued as a job and never has been. The myth of the American dream is always, always revealed as the lie it always was, and those who continue to foist it upon us are the ones least willing to make it be true. Where were all the alleged Christians, who are now so ready to kill health reform legislation? Where was the charity that's supposed to take care of such things? There was some, but not enough to get her the medical care that might have saved her.
You know who stepped up to help the Kelly family? Professional wrestlers. Yeah, Total Mayhem Pro Wrestling held a fundraiser for Jacqueline about a week ago, raising $4000 for medical expenses. That money will now be used for a funeral.
Pulls at your heartstrings, no? Really gets that lump in your throat going, this story of love and failure? Jacqueline Kelly was one of millions of Americans who would have qualified for help in just about any of the health care reform measures that actually seek to insure people. She'd have qualified for the public option. She'd have qualified for Medicare buy-in. In almost any other country in the developed world, and even in some in the undeveloped part, her care would not have even been an issue.
We are overwhelmed, yes, by tale upon tale of the sadness and horror brought on by this country's willful neglect of its citizens because we need to please some mad god of capitalism. And because we need to soothe the vanity of politicians, like Joe Lieberman.
We focus our rage on Lieberman out here in Left Blogsylvania not just because he is the kind of man who sucks his own cock in public and then grins, his semen-slicked teeth shining in the klieg lights, to the delight of Aetna and Wellpoint executives just before they shove his ass full of cash and tell him he can have it after he shits it back out. That would be enough. But it's that Lieberman actually takes pleasure in dicking over the Democratic caucus. Motherfucker said he supported the Medicare buy-in and then bailed? What kind of fuckery is that? That's just doing shit for the sake of doing shit. He's Shylock with less motivation. And that just makes us wanna go Berlusconi on his face. (Rhetorically, of course. Of course.)
But, if only to take a little power away from Lieberman, let's spread some blame around here for what is now a fairly worthless bill that is absent any control over insurance companies for jacking up prices in the wake of any new regulations. There's, of course, the Republicans, who never once negotiated in good faith (or bad faith, for that matter). There's Harry Reid, who took reconciliation off the table, thus shaking empty the compromise toolbox that had been dumped out when single payer wasn't even discussed. And there's the President, who demonstrated that if you are unwilling to say specifically what you want, then you will get nothing. Goddamnit, if Barack Obama had said he wouldn't sign a bill without a public option, if members of Congress knew he had their backs, his supporters would have rallied around the cause in a way that would have had the teabaggers grabbing their sacks in fear. He didn't, and you can't have a movement based on a vague hope that something might perhaps get done.
There's a couple of paths left now: revive reconciliation and/or try to salvage a bill that can be spun as a first step in a longer battle. The former is almost a must, because Lieberman has given anti-health care reform forces a boner for the final fucking. It might be a chance to get at least the Medicare buy-in or go back to the public option. The latter is close to surrender and is disgusting to contemplate, but there we are.
Lieberman's gotta be punished, or they gotta get rid of Reid. There's gotta be consequences for Lieberman. He's gotta lose his Homeland Security committee chair, maybe even be ejected from the caucus. He's gotta be publicly defiled. If there was any kind of justice right now, Lieberman should be locked in a glass room with the ghost of Lyndon Johnson. Motherfucker would be on his knees after five minutes, begging to give LBJ a rim job for mercy's sake.
Or, instead, Lieberman should be forced to eat the body of Jacqueline Kelly. He should have to taste her diseased organs and mutated cells. He should have to stare at her dead face as he ingests her faded skin and deteriorated muscle. And if he can't do it on his own, he should have her bones shoved down his throat until he fucking gags. Then maybe he'll understand that we're not talking about abstract numbers of people dying. We're talking about real corpses.
What's really sad, and makes a telling commentary on exactly how screwed up this country is politically, are some of the comments at the newspaper article. Talking about seeing trees rather than forest, or taking an ideology and bending it to fit the situation:
This is so sad that an American woman can't get any type of medical coverage, but an illegal alien can get medicaid with no problem!
if this was a woman from a foregn country she would have been flown here and treated for free so some hospital,doctor and politician would look good in the newspaper.my sympathy to her family.
You are so right, Bayonne is under attack by immigrants and the governing bodies are addicted to serving them their free housing, their free medical, there free education, their free cell clothes, their free school uniforms, their free everything, Just so the local governing bodies and workers and County and State and Fed. employees can justify their existence and have a wonderful Christmas time....more pork please.....the employess need their bennies too.
This wouldn't have happened in virtually any other industrialized country on the planet, yet here, in America, we still kvetch about providing benifits to illegals, with no real interest in making sure we care for actual citizens.
And Bill Nelson, Joe Lieberman, and the rest of he conservadems wank hard about their petty issues.
I try to stay out of the mainstream news cycle and bring something to the table you might have missed. But in the case of health care reform I just can't resist.
I thought in this post I would be bringing my insight, my medical expertise, my observations, my personal experiences into one cogent, devastating argument. As it turns out, I'm not only un-original in my thinking, but others have stated my case better.
My case is: Point 1) Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and all civil rights bills were opposed by a powerful minority and barely passed in weakened form. Then they were expanded upon.
Point 2) The process isn't over. If the Senate passes their bill and then it goes to reconciliation with the House bill. That's where we need to focus our attention. But for this to happen the Senate needs to vote for cloture and then vote for their bill.
Point 3) The rethugs are so against anything happening that they've been employing tactics against it since its mere suggestion, and they are on record as having done so. It really wouldn't matter what President Obama said was his his main agenda, or any agenda this President has, they will do anything, say anything, to do their best to see Obama's administration fail. If it means 45,000 Americans die each year due to lack of healthcare, they don't care. It's how they roll.
And if the history of HCR is any measure, and this bill doesn't happen, then nothing will happen for at least a decade. I can't live with that ... and neither can 450,000 of my fellow citizens.
Regarding the awfulness that is Lieberman, I re-tweeted something from Katrina VanDen Heuvel of The Nation magazine today, and it automatically posted over to my Facebook account: I got an interesting response from an old friend, a great guy, who tends toward the conservative:
The Dems dictating that those who do not wish to pay for health insurance pay for those who can not afford it or are not able to get off their intoxicants or asses long enough to get strait and pay for it themselves is the very definition of dictatorship! I feel for those less fortunate, and I do my share when I can, but why can't the Gov. simply supply health care to those less fortunate, why do we all have to be subject to Federal rules and dictates?
While I understand the point, here's the error in logic:
In a democratic republic, we all have responsibilities about which we sometimes disagree. For example, I was opposed to the Iraq Invasion from the beginning. It clearly had nothing to do with 9/11, yet was pumped into the publics' awareness as the War of Necessity. In a perfect workd, I could withhold the percentage of my taxes that went to the war effort.
And I would have likely been audited by the IRS, and maybe sent to Federal prison.
I would like to withhold my share of taxes that goes toward corn ethanol subsidies, since it's a total waste of time, but again, that's the price I pay for the benefits the government provides that I do use and believe in.
But there's a schizophrenia in my friend's answer. He doesn't want to pay for:
those who can not afford it or are not able to get off their intoxicants or asses long enough to get strait
Yet follows up with:
why can't the Gov. simply supply health care to those less fortunate?
Yes, well, that's exactly what we're trying to do here. The Federal and State governments already do this. It's called Medicaid by the Feds, MediCal here in CA. The beef with helping out the willing underinsured is a straw man, far more people who are employable go without insurance than addicts or willful indigents.
And the final question:
why do we all have to be subject to Federal rules and dictates?
Because we live in a country with a federal government. That does stuff. Like distribute H1N1 vaccine, build interstate highways, provide postal service, and defends us from enemies.
Here's the real issue: The larger the risk pool, the lower the costs. The for-profit insurance blood-suckers understand this, yet against their own interests do not implement any internal reform.
Now they're thrilled by parts of the proposed HCR legislation that would mandate coverage, since that brings in more customers and premiums. To them, that simply means more profits, since they will not expand coverage like the Public Option would.
If you're a fiscal conservative, HCR with a strong public option lowers costs. The CBO proves this.
If you're a bleeding-heart liberal, providing universal health care is a moral imperative.
If you're a free-market capitalist, HCR means more healthy workers doing productive jobs.
If you're a Randian Libertarian, well, you're an idealogue, not willing to entertain something that benefits the common good.
Thankfully there aren't many Randians in positions of power these days.
"What I’m saying to the people of Connecticut, I can do more for you and your families to get something done to make health care affordable, to get universal health insurance," Lieberman said during a July, 2006, debate.
During that campaign, Lieberman advocated "small business health insurance reform, plus something I call MediKids to cover all the children in America on a sliding fee basis up until the age of 25."
Lieberman also pushed for a plan he called "MediChoice," which would "allow anybody in our country to buy into a national insurance pool like the health insurance pool that we federal employees and Members of Congress have."
Lieberman promised his reforms would cover "95 percent of those who are not covered now, and it will reduce the pressure on rising costs for all the millions of others."
As Eric Kleefeld pointed out at TalkingPointsMemo, Lieberman had a similar platform in 2004, when he promised to cover all American children with a Medicare-style plan, and said under his plan "if you lose your job, you will not lose your health insurance."
And that why progressives are so mad at Lieberman. His current statements in re: HCR seem more like a calculated appeal to obstructionist Republicans than an honest yet divergent opinion.
In other words, craven political posturing.
Bastard.
Lastly, where was the conservative outrage when GWBush was waging war in Iraq & Afghanistan with no intention of paying for it, while giving tax breaks to Donald Trump and other multimillionaires, raising the national debt to astronomical heights.
Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Congressman Alan Grayson!
Grayson:Maddam Speaker I have words for both Democrats and Republicans tonight. Let's start with the Democrats. We as a party have spent the last six months-- the greatest minds of our party dwelling on the question, the unbelievably consuming question of how to get Olympia Snowe to vote for health care reform. I want to remind us all... Olympia Snowe was not elected president last year. Olympia Snowe has no veto power in the Senate. Olympia Snowe represents a state with one half of one percent of America's population.
What America wants is health care reform. America doesn't care if it gets fifty one votes in the Senate or sixty votes in the Senate, or eighty three votes in the Senate-- in fact America doesn't even care about that. It doesn't care about that at all.
What America cares about is this. There are over one million Americans who go broke every single year trying to pay their health care bill. America cares a lot about that. America cares about the fact that there are forty four thousand seven hundred eighty Americans who die every single year on account of not having health care. That's a hundred and twenty two every day. America sure cares a lot about that.
America cares about the fact that if you have a pre-existing condition even if you have health insurance, it's not covered. America cares about that a lot. America cares about the fact that you can get all the health care you need as long as you don't need any. America cares about that a lot.
But America does not care about procedures, processes, personalities-- America doesn't care about that at all. So we have to remember that as Democrats. We have to remember that's what's at stake here is life and death, enormous amounts of money and people are counting upon us to move ahead. America understands what's good for America.
America cares about health care. America cares about jobs. America cares about education, about energy independence. America does not care about process or politicians, or personalities or anything like that.
And I have a few words for my Republican friends as well. I guess I do have some Republican friends. Let me say this. Last week I held up this report here and I pointed out that in America there's forty four thousand seven hundred eighty nine Americans who die every year according to this Harvard report-- published in a peer reviewed journal-- because they have no health insurance.
That's an extra forty four thousand seven hundred eighty nine Americans who die, whose lives could be saved-- and their response was to ask me for an apology... to ask me for an apology. That's right... to ask me for an apology. Well, I'm telling you this-- I will not apologize. I will not apologize.
I will not apologize for a simple reason. America doesn't care about your feelings. I violated no rules by calling this report to America's attention. I think a lot of people didn't know about it before hand.
But America does care about health care in America and if you're against it, then get out of the way. Just get out of the way. You can lead. You can follow-- or you can get out of the way. And I'm telling you now to get out of the way.
America understands that there's one party in this country that's in favor of health care reform and one party that's against it and they know why.
They understand if Barack Obama were somehow able to cure hunger in the world, the Republicans would blame him for over-population.
They understand that if Barack obama could somehow bring about world peace, they'd blame him for destroying the defense industry.
In fact they understand that if Barack Obama has a BLT sandwich tomorrow for lunch, they will try to ban bacon.
But that's not what America wants. America wants solutions to its problems and that begins with health care. And that's what I'm speaking for tonight.
Maybe the new stem cell research will enable the rest of the Dems to grow a spine.
We've lost the one sure vote for health care reform in the Senate:
Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, a son of one of the most storied families in American politics, a man who knew triumph and tragedy in near-equal measure and who will be remembered as one of the most effective lawmakers in the history of the Senate, died late Tuesday night. He was 77 .
Teddy wasn't perfect, clearly no one is. Yet he chose to leverage his family's wealth and position into a career of public service. And while he had many flaws and missteps, he had found his stride in recent years, being a champion of health care reform in the truest sense, so that the 46 million or more Americans with no access to health care might join in the American dream.
As usual, the far right Free Republic loves them some Liberal death:
Ted Kennedy is dead ____________________ The bar is open! Drinks on the house! Its PARTAY time
This damn traitor lived far to long.
Mary Jo: “Hey Teddy. See this button? It has only one direction: DOWN! Step right in!”
It appears that as long as a murderer of millions of people is an American, he is “great.” The glowing tribute from George H.W. Bush is stomach-turning.
The death of Ted Kennedy is no more an occasion for mourning and tributes than the death of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao.
There is no indication of repentance for his career of lies, murder, theft, and oppression.
His funeral will almost certainly take place at St. Stephen’s Catholic Church in Boston, from where Rose Kennedy was buried, unless for some reason the family desires a “state” funeral in Washington. In any case, the orgy will be broadcast, hundreds of pro-abortion Catholics will slither forward to receive Communion on camera. Archbishop Sean O’Malley will crouch in a linen closet for a week, until the funeral is over.
You get the idea. this is why bipartisan debate is impossible. As usual, the signal-to-noise ratio for the right-wing drops below intelligible levels.
Bastards.
Addendum by The Sailor:>"the signal-to-noise ratio for the right-wing drops below intelligible levels."
Interesting, but understandable, you would phrase it that way.
My current work is in processing noisy images acquired thru translucent membranes in the retina via slightly fluorescing parts of the retina. Each image is dark. But when I align them, register them, and average them, I can clearly see the pathology. It takes time and many samples.
I've applied the same algorithms to the republican reaction to Ted Kennedy's death.
Each image is dark, but after processing them the hate shines thru. Oddly enough I thought it was just noise too, turns out the signal is loud and clear.
Noise always cancels out over time, the same frequency just amplifies.
BTW, their 'facts' are always wrong, Kennedy's service won't be at St. Stephen’s, it will be at the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help. That's where he went to pray when his daughter, Kara, was undergoing treatment for lung cancer at Dana-Farber Hospital.
Sometimes this (voluntary) job breaks my heart. I know I'm just preaching to the choir, but I'd like to point out a few things, in the form of Republicans v. reality.
Republicans: The health care bill says ...
reality: THERE IS NO FINAL HEALTH CARE BILL!
Sorry for shouting, but there was no debate in the full Senate and what debate there was was being stifled in the Senate committees. It has yet to make it thru the House committees, and the multiple versions being offered change from committee to committee. Those have to be reconciled, then the House and Senate bills will have to be reconciled. And the way it's going the bastards who take the most money from health care corporations are going to kill it.
reality: Getting medical advice when you have a terminal condition, (and life itself is a terminal condition), on how much you want to put up with when it's still your choice is a sign, the ultimate sign, of freedom and freewill. It's only advice, the government doesn't get to make the decision. Unlike in Texas. BTW, many Republicans, including Gov. Palin, have either authored or signed bills for this very choice.
Republicans: You'll be forced into ObamaCare!
reality: Nope. If you like your health care insurance and providers, keep 'em! If you don't or you are uninsured, the gov't plan may turn out to be an option for you. (See above, there isn't a final bill yet.)
Republicans: Obama's gonna cut Medicare!
reality: This is true, but in a way that only Republicans can spin it. Obama's plan cuts bureaucratic waste but benefits won't decrease. Let me repeat that, YOUR BENEFITS WON'T DECREASE. That means more money can go to your health care.
Republicans: Your taxes will increase!
reality: Not unless you make over a quarter of a million dollars per year. Not that your business makes that, but that you make that personally. And even then the higher tax rate only applies to how much you make after you make 1/4 million dollars per year. Even then it's a pittance compared to what you make. If the 'public option' is included and passes it means there is a wider insurance pool that includes younger people. Then everyone's taxes can go down.
Republicans: We already have the best health care system in the world.
reality: I don't even know what that means when they say that. We already have gov't funded health care. If any republicans actually believe that then they should get off our gov't funded health care, our gov't funded health care, our VA, our Medicare, our Medicaid, our CHIPS and try to find a private insurer that will accept you and do it cheaper. e.g.
Republicans: It would be unfair competition between private and public health insurance.
reality: So what? Corporations already decide what health care we deserve. Sure, an emergency room might have to treat you, in some places, but they don't have to provide medicine or aftercare or wheel chairs or crutches or dialysis. A faceless bureaucrat decides whether you 'deserve' that treatment. After paying in thousands of dollars over the years, their paycheck depends on your dying before you can collect.
Republicans: This isn't what the founders of our country envisioned.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It's kind of hard to promote the general welfare, have life and pursue happiness if you're sick and can't afford health care.
AARP, for many, especially, well, retired folks, is a benevolent organization helping senior citizens make their way through the autumn of their lives. The reality is far from that:
According to critics, until the 1980s AARP was controlled by businessman Leonard Davis, who promoted its image as a non-profit advocate of retirees in order to sell insurance to members.[4] In the 1990s, the United States Senate investigated AARP's non-profit status, with Republican Senator Alan Simpson, then chairman of the Finance Committee'sSubcommittee on Social Security and Family Policy, questioning the organization's tax exempt status in congressional hearings. These investigations did not reveal sufficient evidence to change the organization's status.[5]
As an insurance sales organization, AARP shouild be considered immediately suspect. But that doesn't mean they can occasionally get it right.
Here's a commercial they're running, criticising the lying by Health Care Reform opponents:
I can't fault their statement, but I still don't trust them. Still, AARP is beloved by many older folks. My grandmother, who died 10 years ago, had become knee-jerk paranoid conservative in her later years, and railed against Reaganesque welfare cheats and other symbols of "I got mine, screw you" selfish conservatism. But she had AARP insurance, and believed in them faithfully.
I'd like to think that if she were alive today, she'd listen to AARP and not Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Chuck Grassley, Newt Gingrich, and the rest of the lying bastards on the right.
There been much press about the so-called protesters lately, disrupting Democratic politician's townhalls, and holding their own teabagging protests about Health Care Reform. The MSM has done their usual of equivocating, reporting both sides as "he said, she said". Of course this is absurd, but so is this type of MSM reporting. "Some say Earth is round, others say flat" isn't reality based, but they bend over backward to cover their asses, trying not to piss off conservatives who are inflaming these disruptions.
Hearing confused and angry people say "I don't want the government to take over my Medicare" is surreal, because anyone who says that is underinformed, and misinformed by propogandistic intention.
Some on the left speculate that one thing helping drive this anger is white folks who don't like a black President, and from what I've heard anecdotally the last several months, I think that's right.
So those same people won't be impressed by Prof. Melissa Harris-Lacewell of Princeton Univ. as she attemps to explain all the coincident issues driving this current bus. Because she's black too:
I think she's spot on. There was further discussion of Right-wing authoritarianism, and mention of this book:
THE AUTHORITARIAN DYNAMIC
What are the root causes of intolerance? This book addresses that question by developing a universal theory of what determines intolerance of difference in general, which includes racism, political intolerance (e.g., restriction of free speech), moral intolerance (e.g., homophobia, supporting censorship and school prayer), and punitiveness. It demonstrates that all of these seemingly disparate attitudes are principally caused by just two factors: individuals’ innate psychological predispositions to intolerance (“ authoritarianism”) interacting with changing conditions of societal threat.
I'm trying to find the video, will post ASAP.
And in re: authority, well, here's the obvious song:
