If anyone has some time and wants to help me in a research project today, shoot me an email.

Hey! Mike Ross! Hope you’re watching the game. Don’t misss the kickoff.
Pig!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyY8oUXaTio

um… super duh! but……

how do i e-mail you?

We need to find a way to tax the super rich and corporations which dosent allow them to pass the tax down the line to us. WE are taxed in many ways already. The rich actually pay very little of the taxes they are assesed.

good one. this really sucks. For a Dem WH to be fucking over AFL-CIO should be unthinkable, no?

and I sure wish they’d find an expression other than “bend the curve”. I’m so sick of that.

how do i e-mail jane?

firedoglake AT gmail DOT com

For a Dem WH to be fucking over AFL-CIO should be unthinkable, no?

Yeah, what’s up with this?
And Trumka came out of the Miner’s union. So wouldn’t he have contacts with Rockefeller (W-VA)?

I’m definitely missing some pieces of this puzzle.
And trying to ignore the very big, flashing one that says R-a-h-m.

Jane, still think this means war and we should take “SP” to the mattresses!!!

wish i knew. BTW very interesting and cool close up of a yo-yo. I HAD ONE JUST THAT COLOR when i was a kid.It was so long ago it was probably made from bakelite. mmmmmmm bug juice green.

See here.

ok. I think that’s the address I used.

Thanks elliot. sorry i missed meetin’ the “new kid” (who’s been here longer than me) this morning.

thanks

These guys have been making too many riffs off Obama’s campaign pitch, Obama included.
They now say: BELIEF WE CAN CHANGE IN

Get your shit together Nancy! You’ve been leading the charge for the public option but, if you allow this, it will and should be painted as a middle class tax. Something Obama campaigned against strongly! Since 94% of Americans support a tax on the wealthy, what’s the problem! If you aiming to give the GOP a substantive argument that Obama went back on his word and can’t be trusted, this is the way to do it.

felt kinda stupid asking

Apart from attacking a large union as if it were made up of DFH’s (always the Dems favorite target: they haven’t left 1968 behind any more than the GOP has), this is nonsense policy.

Attacking full benefits plans is attacking the goal of full medical coverage as a civil right for all Americans. It is attacking the groups that benefit from them. Today, those are largely unions and CEO’s (and their direct reports). But there are far more union members than CEO’s, and they are rather less well off.

This is an attempt to drive down expectations about what constitutes full health coverage. As in “full size” rental cars and “giant” candy bars (both contradictions in terms), this decreases obligations on the seller (insurance companies), while increasing their profits.

It modestly controls the amount of government subsidies to the privates. But without adequate regulation of insurers and the products they sell, this is a needlessly high-cost way to do that. It does insure insurers’ profits. I suppose that’s the only objective that the Dems and Goopers really agree on.

This move reinforces the GOP meme that the Dems will take away existing benefits/coverage, that it will cut more holes in the already depleted social safety net. Among other things, the GOP will use this to reinforce its false claims that the Dems will cut Medicare and/or Social Security. Combined with needlessly expensive and too limited health insurance reforms – even leaving aside the politically self-immolating idea of mandating insurance but making it available only through unreformed privates – it’s hard to imagine a better way to improve GOP prospects for 2010.

Attacking the false target of full coverage plans by taxing them reinforces progressives’ fears that the Dem leadership’s idea of “affordability” is a price tag that makes sense for Georgetown, but not for D.C., SE, or Main Street America. There, 12-13% of income for health insurance is about as affordable as a Bentley. And I thought only John McCain didn’t know how many cars he his wife owned.

in 2008 Pelosi had a challenger who got 16% of the vote, but Accountability Now would not support such a challenge.

too bad, because when someone like Pelosi again says “F*&k You” it feels better to know you at least tried to fight.

know what? at this point I’m almost at the point where I just say “Who gives a shit what Obama campaigned on/against?” Nine months in and half of it don’t mean shit.

Heh. I immediately had the same question.

AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen Hamsher and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

Now is the time to mobilize the resources of progressive forces like Act Blue etc. to get behind the Progressives in the House to stand up to Pelosi and stand behind the AFL-CIO. I have been sayin this for weeks now that the key to the entire agenda of turnin’ this country around hinges on a real public option forced through the House of Representatives and shoved up Pelosi’s ass. Now is the time to put the new “New Deal” coalition together, stand behind the last remainin’ industrial union, break the coproratist Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate and send a message to Obama that he’s gunna be a one term President if he doesn’t kick Rahm to the curb.

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, NOW WE KNOW THAT ALL FASCISTS DOMN’T CALL THEMSELVES REPUBLICANS!!!

does that mean you’re stupid, too or since 2 of us had the same question neither of us can be stupid? I’ll go with the latter.

Don’t know, but glad you asked. Question answered.

So we know that the GOP will be delighted about this, as will Blue Dogs who won’t vote for a surtax on the wealthy

we fall into their trap when we call it a “tax on the wealthy”, we really need to start calling it is, “relcaiming middle class assets bush gave to the wealthy”

We went from pathetic crumbs with Bush to the promise of croutons with Obama, and now those supposed croutons are gonna turn out to be even SMALLER crumbs, picked over further by the corporatists and their toadies.

The corporations and our representatives who treat them, not us, as the real constituents have betrayed us and want to continue betraying us, faux-compromises (a/k/a Trojan Horses) dressed up in government-speak whether we understand the traps or not, most of the ostrich citizenry is not rallying and the bribed reps can see that and the corporate media will tell us how hard they all tried at the end.

Let’s take it to the mattresses! Everybody in and nobody out, that is what we deserve as citizens. Medical industrial complex brought it on themselves. Single Payer Medicare for All means they are out!!!! OUT OUT OUT. We must not enable the enablers of corporations! Corporate pirates have taken over our ship of state. Let’s take our 30+ cents of every health care spent dollar back! We can with S-P M4All to release $400 billion a year from overhead and gratuitous bureaucratic costs and OBSCENE executive compensation.

Mad as Hell Docs deserve our focus, too. And we need to flex now and unite as best we can!

My 2 cents, Jane. Thanks.

I appreciate all you are doing! (I trust you appreciate our calls for SP result in helping strong PO, too.)

Here. This one seems better. For you, Mike Ross,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWMynRGeR88

Chasing useless Republican votes…they’ll vote “Yes” on the amendment…then turn around and vote “NO” on the law.

Don’t Pelosi and Reid EVER LEARN?

Hi Jane!
May I help you with that research? I’ll send you an email, too.

No doubt you saw the CBS piece that I sense is Trumka’s smack-back to the WH ‘winking’ about the trigger:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2…..7716.shtml

-a

Apologies, shoudld’ve mentioned that!

As Jane says, this is political hardball of the worst kind. It is Ms. Nancy getting behind Obama-No-Care, an attempt to convince voters that a McDonald’s single, no cheese, is a steak.

If Nancy is really going to tax all high-cost (ie, full benefits) plans, the tax will hit CEO’s and Congresscritters, too. Both will insulate themselves from any effect. Not so unions.

The prize for Nancy and Rahma & Bahma is that if unions cave in, they, too, will own the non-reform plan. They will be co-opted and less credible voices to oppose it. Yes, they could work for continued, more efficacious reform afterward. But predictably both Obama and the GOP will claim they’ve done all that is doable. They will play even harder ball to prevent further reforms, because they would inevitably attack insurer profits and open them up to true competition (an essential element of capitalist theory, but the first thing capitalists get rid of).

If Mr. O and Nancy want to tell unions and DFH’s to go Cheney themselves, he’s saying he doesn’t need them in November 2010 and 2012. Good luck with that. Several million people voted for something other than the current Dem-GOP coalition that Obama is leading.

Hadn’t seen that, that’s awesome.

I’ll send you an email.

Maybe something like a minimum percentage that health insurance companies can spend on providing healthcare.

You have no idea what Accountability Now would or wouldn’t support.

Guess who controls health care. Our friends, I mean fiends at Goldman Sachs. It is all about the drugs. They tell doctors what medical practices they are allowed and it is mainly patented expensive meds.

http://www.medavante.com/News/…..tures.aspx

MedAvante, Inc., the leader in centralized psychiatric patient evaluation, announced today that it has closed a $20 million financing by Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Trevi Health Ventures. MedAvante has developed an innovative platform to centralize and calibrate the assessment of patients undergoing treatment in clinical trials in order to more reliably and precisely measure their response to therapies. MedAvante currently provides centralized patient evaluation services to many of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies with central nervous system drug candidates, and has administered more than 21,000 remote expert assessments for Phase 2 and Phase 3 large pharma studies including acute schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and psychotic depression.

The Company will use the capital to fund the expansion of its existing patient evaluation platform to meet increasing demand from pharmaceutical companies. The capital will also enable MedAvante to apply its platform into new areas of drug development

This video ilustrates how Pharma prevents and conceals research on say, an anti-cancer drug. Those pesky lab rats had cancers cured. But the biggest rats are the ones who control corporate medical care.

http://voxroxx.com/archives/23…..4×768

Okay, halp! from the quoted article—…The proposed fee, which would likely mirror a similar provision already part of the Senate Finance Committee’s draft, has historically drawn the ire of lawmakers in both parties who fear insurance companies would translate the tax into an increase in subscribers’ premiums…

~~who fear insurance companies would translate the tax into an increase in subscribers’ premiums.~~

For what ever reason, even after many rereads, I remain confused as to what this last part means. And, I read the linky.

Halp? Anyone? It just doesn’t read like plain English to me.

Jane Hamsher says Accountability Now will support 3rd Party and (I) challengers, like Cindy Sheehan!

yay! thats all I was wondering. She got 16% without any help, give her some Netroots muscle in 2010 and you can really brandish the threat of Accountability!

Phew.. Yes. Trumka’s spot-on It is a much-needed shot across the bow. Whatever I can do to help, Jane!

It’s not clear from the post who is paying the tax: the organization (union/employer etc) providing the benefit, the insurer, or whether the health insurance becomes a taxable benefit for the employee.

Off topic

Several weeks ago you wrote about Dems that voted against the cram down legislation. At the time I tried to explain how bad that would have been for Community banks.

Below is a quote from Congressman Barney Frank on that very subject.

Ezra Klein interviews Barney Frank about financial reform:

…..”What killed the primary-residence bankruptcy bill [cramdown] was not the big banks but the community banks and credit unions. They do have a lot of clout. And they have a legitimate grievance: They have not been behind the abuses. If we only had community banks and credit unions, we wouldn’t be in this problem. And it’s important to note that they’re not just powerful because they have money, but because they’re in everybody’s district, and they’re responsible and thoughtful citizens.” ……..

Thanks to Unions for fighting for the Public Option! We know they are being mercilessly blackmailed with this tax on insurance benefits. Progressives and unions need to have each other’s backs.

I am by no means an expert but my understanding is that it is a combination of affects with the employer possibly paying a tax if they offer too generous a plan for employees AND a taxable benefit for the employees themselves if considered too generous.

But as always, I might be an idiot.

Sorry to be a little off-topic, but since Jane is running around and talking about e-mails and what have you, I’d like to know if one of you longer-time FDL-ers (or Mrs. Hamsher herself!) can answer a quick Q for me:

The FDL/Gmail address; Is it appropriate to send a semi-long-winded email to that address looking for an opinion as opposed to simply “tips or comments”?

I am trying to get some feedback on something, and would love to hear from one of the big guns of the Progressive movement.

Thanks!

No.
This has been another edition of ….

In that case, it makes no sense to claim that this measure would result in higher premiums from insurers.

Personally, I don’t have a huge problem making at least part of employer-provided health insurance taxable – at least for high-end plans. Would also level the playing field a bit with individuals who have to purchase their plans individually – I’m assuming they are not getting a tax credit or deduction for purchasing insurance and are purchasing insurance with post-tax income. And if the proceeds of a tax went into supporting a public option? Might be a case to be made.

I’m reading it as the insurance scammers companies would pass the taxes through to customers by increasing premiums.

It’s what other businesses do: increased costs get passed on to customers. But most other businesses aren’t paying 8-figure salaries (before bennies) to their top executives.

I know no good deed goes unpunished. But it is funny, whenever you try something new, there is always some cleverly brilliant person who tells you, give up, and give in. Not me.

Again, I am not an expert but the reality is, the Union folks ARE the ones most likely affected by this proposal as many unions have given up cash increases for better health care plans. So the folks who would be penalized most by “leveling the playing field” are those blue collar workers with the least power.

And as far as the increase in premiums, I have no idea how that process would work but enough folks I respect are presenting it as a potential impact that I have to accept that is part of it. I think the most likely impact though is that if a tax is implemented on high-end plans, there will be whole lot fewer high-end plans being offered by employers. Or it becomes a deal where in order to have a high-end plan, the co-pays and deductibles become onerous.

Thanks – I obviously don’t have all the info – and benefiting as I do from a single-payer health care system, I have trouble getting my head around the American insurance system.

Trumpka is a product of a militant union with a long militant history. I don’t think he is one to cave. What sickens me is CTW, or should I say SEIU, are so willing to give it all up. Good for Hoffa for speaking out against the tax.

If Pelosi follows through on this threat, she does more damage than any union buster. Already industrial workers have to ask what benefits they get from joining a union because of slashed wages, curtailed retiree benefits and reduced medical benefits.

A new industrial policy requires vibrant industrial unions. Pelosi’s actions threaten this.

If we tax employer-provided benefits and use the money for subsidies for people who don’t have employer benefits … pretty quickly NO ONE is going to have benefits.

Obama’s plan places us squarely on this path. Wyden’s plan would blow the system up even faster.

The only question is will there be a Public Option available when we ALL eventually lose our insurance, and is it going to be affordable (that is, does it pay doctors based on Medicare rates?) This is the ONLY basis on which we should judge this health care reform.

What I said is that you have no idea what Accountability Now would support. And, as you frequently do, you twist that to extrapolate something that nobody said.

If we had a prize for most dissembling commenter, you would win, hands down. Both of these comments are exceptionally dishonest, even for you.

I think that’s right. This plan is a way station on the way to dismantling employer-provided plans, the supposed foundation of American medical insurance and, consequently, of access to health care for about the vast majority of Americans who can’t pay cash and aren’t eligible for Medicare or Medicaid. Those are the models of government-sponsored plans, with high efficiency and low overhead that the privates desperately want to avoid using as a model, a goal the Obama administration agrees with.

What happens when employer after employer drops its medical plans, just as they’ve dropped pension plans and other benefits?

We’ll only have the privates to fall back on, quite possibly with a government mandate/penalty should we object to that manufactured sole-solution. If the privates didn’t already have us by the short hairs now, they certainly will then. It would be rather like the government mandating that all our purchases must use a private credit card that charges usurious rates and penalty fees, and penalizes us for not paying them, for paying cash or for using a debit/credit card that charges reasonable fees.

The public option is only one facet of credible reform. It has to be properly chartered, funded and overseen. It should not be burdened with the same cost curve privates now have. Doing that would assume that the privates ought to have no competition, that they need change only at the margins, and that they should not lose their absurd anti-trust exception.

The principal reason Europeans pay half or less for their health insurance and care is that they allocate much lower salaries to CEO’s and lower profits to insurers. After all, those are paid for by refusing to pay for promised health care. On the contrary, insurance is severely restricted, essentially, to processing what amounts to mandatory payments for medically necessary services.

The difference between here and there is that there, individuals have considerably greater rights to health care. That includes greater coverage, simpler reimbursement and approval processes, and practical consequences to insurers who fall foul of permitted practices.

Managers who refused to insure and pay for medically necessary treatments in order to increase profits and pay themselves bigger bonuses would be considered frauds and sent to prison. Managers who refused to cover such obvious social needs as pregnancy and preventive child care would be pilloried. Here, they are lauded as corporate giants. Surely, we can still tell the difference, even if Villagers, banksters and insuresters cannot.

right. and that might help with health insurance companies but its a systemic problem, not limited to the insurance industry. coporations are taxed and they pass it on to customers
(they turn every tax assesed on them into a regressive sales tax) who either pay thier tax+ the tax of the rich – corporate big shots, or dont buy. which is bad for the economy and bad for workers and presumably bad for consumers who are going without. corporations deliberately use this (witness cap’n trade) to fight off taxes. it sucks, its perverse, and it needs to change. some fucking how.

Please, no more Cindy Sheehan.

I live in CA8 and I don’t think it is possible to get close to Pelosi, she is pressure-proof.

Hi PJ- I dunno- what Fern said is relevant. It’s not clear from the linked article who is being taxed. Your response seems to indicate that the insurance companies would be taxed, but that was not my first “guess”- what would they be taxed for? I my first guess is that people who get (have gotten) insurance benefits in lieu of wage increases would be taxed for these benefits… and if so I can’t see how this would “translate” into an increase in subscriber’s premiums.

I’m not differing with the general notion that insurance companies will do their best to stiff those insured, but I’m still not connecting the dots…

Is there some kind of “tax” on insurance companies proposed? That was not my first guess, but….

I can see how giving up wage increases PLUS then being taxed for the benefits would “translate into” OR “essentially amount to” an increase in subscriber’s premiums (add a tax to what you already get by way of benefits and it costs more, duh!) but I still don’t get what insurance companies would have to do with a federally imposed tax on individuals. (Yes, I know that’s not what you said… but still trying to figure out the wording in the linked article.)

My edit time ran out- thus strikeout:

and if so I can’t see how this would “translate” into an increase in subscriber’s premiums.

As I say later in the comment @55, I can see how this would “translate” if the taxes are on the “subscribers”

Jane- since you are weighing in here in the comments section… the idea of a public option as “ok” for an individual mandate with progressives (us) and Unions came out of nowhere.

It did not exist until after the inauguration as a ‘public’ approach.

AFL-CIO was the most outspoken against the individual mandate (Sweeney called it ‘unconscionable’.

Since you get this so much better than me— how is the public option going to keep down costs?
?pay providers less?
?prevent utilization?

or is it simply by spreading the costs of the public plan across all taxpayers (let’s say 20 million optimistically could join, but their premiums are subsidized by general revenues/ borrowing)?

As the progressive leader on this, a few details will really help me and our team convince people who are skeptical after the horrible attacks from the right.

I figure whoever gets taxed, it’s going to be us who pay for it, one way or another.
It sounded like they were planning to tax the high-end covers-everything plans, but if they do that, it’s going to hit the big donors (and Congress) too, and [snark] we can’t do that, now, can we? [/snark]

Real single-payer or real public option, with heavy regulation (hint, hint, like utility companies have) is about the only chance we have.

I do have an idea, and it is simple:

I think Accountability Now will only support (D) primary candidates against (D) incumbents.

I think Accountability Now will not support 3rd Party or (I) challenges, especially if such splitting might result in a win for the (R).

so, despite your invective, neither I or anyone else has any further ‘idea’ as to where Accountability Now stands on non-Democratic Party candidates for elective office.

And, I doubt you will provide clarification on this, because Accountability Now derives some credibility by seeming to be non-partisan or trans-partisan, elevating ‘Accountability’ to a first principle.

but, if the agenda is ‘more and better Democrats’ in new garb, well, many who are alienated from the Democratic Party due to their long and undeniable track record of betrayal will not be such willing funders and supporters.

my post at #18 had 2 sentences – the first one factual, the second opinion.

name something dishonest in #18? cite something that is dissembling?

my post at #36 should have had a ’snark’ tag, I guess that would be the proper custom here. sorry about that.

the point was, to see if we could get some actual clarification on where Accountability Now stands on this important question, though that is unlikely by any means.

I am positive that Nancy Pelosi will insist that every member of congress is likewise taxed the congress surely does not believe itself better than the American people. I have no doubt too that all supporters of inter-state reimbursement parity in healthcare also support pay parity for all public employees in the United States and for everyone paid by the government, meaning to begin with every American soldier will immediately get a raise to equal what congress is paying Blackwater mercenaries, because parity is not just a wedge issue designed to derail the legislation, it’s a matter of basic fairness. I know every single one of these fiscally prudent political leaders will announce this Sunday on all the shows a bill demanding that the big banks and foreign financial interests clearly doing just fine immediately return the money congress and Ben Bernanke gave them. That will “reduce costs” quite a lot. I know all this because it can’t possibly be that these filthy AmericaN-hating Republicans and false flag Democrats are just desperately looking for a way to screw the country.

Rather than taxing insurance companies, and have them pass the cost on to consumers, I’d rather see them have to pay out a minimum percentage for healthcare. Then they can decide how they want to spend what’s left – on salaries and bonuses, expensive offices, or lobbyists.

SomeGuy — you need to read the House Bill that sets minimum MLR (medical loss ratio) for insurance companies… this was a John Edwards concept — at least he put it forth…

The problem is that the way the bill is written is while it appears to set minimum spending, it really simply opens the door for endless ‘cost plus’ contracts for private insurers through an exchange or otherwise.

The private insurers have bought off many on the House side as well (note the big United Healthcare fundraiser for Nancy Pelosi this month) — and the legalese seems favorable on its face… but the closer read means that all UHC or any other insurer has to do is (a) tinker the books (b) convince the administration in power to change the formula for a given year or change the MLR minimum…

By simply tinkering with what is counted against non-claims spending, the insurers and their wall street buddies will have even more power and profits than they do today—and that is in the HOUSE BILL!!

Could this cause the AFL- CIO to change course, or will it crash into the lighthouse its angry members when they get the bill?

how is the public option going to keep down costs? My opinions:

1. Pay providers less. YES. There’s no reason why health care costs have to increase at more than twice the rate of inflation. The government can step in and refuse to increase payments that fast. This what Medicare does right now. By contrast, private insurers–which have a cozy relationship with providers and face little competition–are allowing costs to continue to explode.

2. Preventing utilization? NO. This is not an essential part of the public option. Still it would be foolish not to continue to do cost-effectiveness research.

3. Spreading the costs of the public plan by general revenues/borrowing? NO. The point of the public option is to save money, not allow health care providers to get another hand into the federal government’s pockets. Apart from start-up costs the plan should be self-supporting.

re:

I figure whoever gets taxed, it’s going to be us who pay for it, one way or another.

Hey! I can’t differ from that assessment. ;) I was at first trying to understand exactly what the quote meant, but what the hell, I’ll just go with your simple truth.

I was thinking more along the lines of the Swiss health insurance companies. That’s different than cost plus. I agree that cost plus would not be a solution. That’s not exactly the same topic as the thread, so I will not post more about it in this thread.

SomeGuy- good idea, but I still am not sure who is being taxed, according to the quote from the linked article. I gotta tell you, what drove me nuts from the get go as to “Health care reform” uh “Health insurance reform” was…. ” the devil is in the details”.

Businesses want to pass the cost of taxes or any other expense on to their customers. That is natural. The reason they cannot always do that is competition. Politicians should encourage competition in the health insurance market. What actually happens is the health insurance companies get Politicians to help them by restricting competition, so they can charge whatever they want in their little fiefdoms.

well, we’ve been waitin’ for this – and Jane and all forecasted stormy weather throughout the week end

Stay strong Mr Trumka ! that little blast to the Ins Comm’s was a sweet move and clearly an indication he’s in no hurry to fold. dear god if he holds, especially against this crowd – that means we have a viable political force in Labor again

btw, it just dawned on me – is he allowing them to drag their feet on EFCA so as to get down to the debate closer to campaign contribution season ?

Word! The unions have had to do givebacks in contracts talks.. and now? Stay tuned. Methinks Mr Trumka is just gettin’ warmed up.

Fucking typical. Unions pretty much suck. Won’t stand up for shit, nevermind their members.

EFCA? rrrriiiggghht. DREAM ON.

OK, that was just freaking scary, like the new season of Fringe scary. Do they have a pig as a mascot, or is it just a lot sound and fury signifying pig nothing.

Um…

It’s incredibly stupid. Polls show that people support taxing the very rich, and heaven knows they haven’t been carrying their weight for at least a decade. As premiums and health care costs go up, more insurance policies will fit within the limits of the tax on so-called cadillac plans and it will be seen as both a tax on the middle class AND taking away the insurance that you have to force you into something worse. The insurance companies won’t eat it, so they’ll pass the costs along and employers will dump you into something cheap. By that time, even the “cheap” will be subject to taxes and we’re off to the races with Republican rule and no trust of govt for a generation or two. That’s nice it makes them feel good to play stupid games with the people who don’t bow down to them, but can’t they grow up even when it would benefit them?

Wow, thanks for the link. I lack the sports gene, so I could not get through the entire article, but my question remains.

Do they have a real pig as a mascot, or just a picture of a pig? I heard they have a real bulldog as a mascot in South Carolina.

If they don’t have a real pig, they need one.

Hmm.. sounds like the FreeRep’ers have arrived.. Hey FDL ‘Pups’, did you see/read this?

bit.ly/MFlWH

Hey Newton! it’s bleuz..

You’re late!
Welcome to the party.

bmull–

I still need to understand a bit more…

medicare part B (providers) will see a 25% cut next year if not ‘fixed” — total cost of ‘fix’ over 10 years — nearly $300 billion — no one in Congress (D or R) is going to let the cuts happen.

Medicare part A (hospitals) already goes up at the medical economic index (MEI), established by separate statute — no bill changes this. (House or Senate).

So, the cuts to providers is not happening, the cuts to hospitals are not happening.

And the cuts to the insurers for Medicare Advantage are shrinking daily ($10 billion less in Senate this week than last).

If no general revenue/ borrowing in public plan — premiums may start lower due to financial backing up front (House bill only commits $2 billion — chump change by today’s standards)….

where will my savings be?

The House and Senate are writing bills that are meant to deceive on cost — my friends and family get no benefits until 2013, but taxes go up right away!

Most of the cost is in the last few years in all versions — and are going up at the same rate as national health expenditures today (about 7% per year).

I really think there is a grand scam here where the private insurers win no matter what… the middle class gets screwed no matter what… and we will now be forced to by whatever crappy product some bought-off mid-level pencil pusher thinks we ought to be forced to buy — all while protecting his or her own benefits!

This smells very bad!

Am I wrong?

The entire thing is reprehensible.

It is big money politics as usual. We elected Obama last November, every day I have been checking my email, and I see little of the change I was promised.

We need to modify the debate. The rebublicans are good at coming up with scary catch phrases, can’t the best and the brightest of the democrats counter this?

I get it, most people are ignorant and easily led, “Death Panels” has a nice ring to it.

“Public Option” is about the most boring way possible to explain what we need in health care reform.

We need a new idiom, how can we rephrase “Public Option” into a rallying cry for the great unwashed?

We should have done that a long time ago.

yeas, earl, the Dems are both stupid and gutless. The AFL-CIO would make a very nice support for a Real Democratic Party.

My sentiments exactly

It is hard to come up with a “gotcha” phrase (sorry Palin) for “Public Option”

I guess it is easier to motivate people by scaring them than it is to get them to vote after their best interest.

Fear is a strong trigger, you can’t scare people into letting you help them.

Is there any other trigger we can use, any other emotion we can play to, to show America that they really would be much better off if they could see a doctor if they needed to. That they would not loose the family farm if granny got sick?

And here’s a new account of how much Medicare for All can be expected to save annually.

Nah..Not late! Been here a while, doing some research, wrangling multiple screens/tabs.

Thanks Newton! How’ve you been? And how is NDFG? How’s her eye doing? And I think LaRue was wrangling some med issues..

Hey.. am I allowed to toot my horn here? I had a good week, and some of my work looks like it’s gonna have legs, if you know what I mean? Check out my vids: http://www.youtube.com/user/bleuz00m

If i seem a little distracted — more so than usual that is — it’s cause I’m digging for some data.. back in a bit.

And hello everyone else! No, I haven’t been lurkin’. ;-)

Nice vid! Don’t be surprised if it gets picked up.
NDFG is better. Turns out she and I have some of the same issues, and she seems well on the road back.

Drop in into Late Nite, hello.

so, despite your invective, neither I or anyone else has any further ‘idea’ as to where Accountability Now stands on non-Democratic Party candidates for elective office.

Only if “anybody else” is comprised of people who are pathalogical liars or just too lazy to use teh Google:

Unlike her blog, Hamsher said that Accountability Now does not emphasize liberal politics, but rather its mission is to defeat incumbent congressmen who the PAC believes has sold out to big business.

“Our goal is to get the corporatists out of there,” Hamsher said.

Cooper is the PAC’s first target. Hamsher said the organization is in talks with Libertarian-minded Republicans about possible primary challenges, but nothing has been set in stone.

The same thing is available in just about any Accountability Now article that’s ever been written.

You’re polluting our comments section with outright lies just to be argumentative.

A decade? They haven’t been carrying their weight since Reagan lowered marginal tax rates to 50%.

Thanks for the update about NDFG. I’ve been kinda busy.
Uh-oh.. not you too, Newt? Abt your eyes, I mean. bummer..
Thanks for the nod, too, about the vids. Just trying to shine my light a little brighter, to get some.. yeah, you know.

Can’t wait for tonight’s cartoon, on LateNite. Sure could use the humor! Hey, before I jump back to the task at hand, did you see the ‘Singing Health Care” snark vid up on haarm.org? “And it comes in three colors!”

back later, Newt!

No. If it passes as is we need to come back with a mass movement and het HR 676 passed.

mine was last year. all better.

see you in pages

What about “Tax Cut”?
Rebublicans never complain about tax cuts.

The health bill includes a tax cut for 90% of the population.

Of course, the upper 10% will not be included. Let’s see the repubs fight against a “Tax Cut” bill.

A financial transaction tax — it’s a two-fer, since it also slows speculation, making bubbles harder to inflate. And by “financial transaction” I don’t mean credit card charges, but Wall Street shit.

I actually count from September 2008. When Lehman went under, McCain was doomed. That makes the TARP bankster bailout the first big event of Obama’s new Presidency. Fitting in retrospect, yes?

Mad as Hell Doctors are single payer advocates. If Jason’s boss lets him give single payer advocates any oxygen at all, I’d be very surprised (and glad to be proved wrong).

You forgot cut services for elders. Obama’s all for “entitlement reform,” remember?

You ask:

We need a new idiom, how can we rephrase “Public Option” into a rallying cry for the great unwashed?

How about “Medicare for All”? Or, for geeks, single payer.

You write:

It is hard to come up with a “gotcha” phrase (sorry Palin) for “Public Option”

Let me try:

[a|the] [strong|robust]? public [health insurance]? [option|plan].

Yes? No? Throw it against the wall and see if it sticks!

an attempt to convince voters that a McDonald’s single, no cheese, is a steak.

What do you mean? Oh no. You couldn’t possibly. Oh dear God you don’t …
Noooooooooooooooooo!

/s

I had a teacher in high school who told a story about how there’s a company which supplies all the fast food places. They simply drive a truck in with white powder in the back, pump it into the store where it’s kept in a tank. Then the store just processes teh powder by adding water to make soda drinks or by putting it in a mold to make cups & boxes or by adding a little oil, deep frying it and getting fries. Sounds yummy. /s

OG quoting Rep. Barney Frank:

the community banks and credit unions. They do have a lot of clout. And they have a legitimate grievance: They have not been behind the abuses.

Yes it’s clear they’re not the big problem. OTOH, what’s up with Wells Fargo Bank and their very slow mortgage modification rate?

Maybe if the Dallas terrorist had hit the bank down there they would have something to really complain about, but without that what’s their excuse for letting the other big banks shoulder the burden of fixing this problem?

AFL-CIO was the most outspoken against the individual mandate (Sweeney called it ‘unconscionable’.

It’s ironic that he and Sen. Ensign (R-NV) could agree on this.

The public option is a last resort for individuals (or companies I suppose) who can’t find what they want or get the service & price they want from private insurers. If the private insurers don’t perform well there’s not just another private insurer who may well be setting prices, there’s the public option.

Will the pressure of the risk of losing customers keep private insurers in line? That’s a fundamental element of market capitalism and it should be helpful.

A financial transaction tax — it’s a two-fer, since it also slows speculation, making bubbles harder to inflate.

If it’s significant enough to slow business, then it won’t get through and it would harm the system. If it’s small enough to NOT slow business, then it won’t have the effect you want. But, it could be used to recover money from the financial industry which has been used to rescue the economy.

That’s similar to the idea of taxing the healthcare industry to pay for the reform bill (at least part of it).

At this point I like taxing the healthcare industry a small amount, cutting MedicareAdvantage a small amount, raising taxes on gold-plated healthcare policies and getting rid of the mandates to shrink the reform cost. I’m not sure about a market transaction tax yet. How soon will we know about our return on the TARP monies? Will we need to recover more or will we get back all of it without having to strong arm them? I’d prefer to hold back on a transaction tax until we’re certain it’s necessary to get our money back.

So, the two are similar, but not 100% identical.

Is there anything we can do to show support for Trumka? I would like to appeal to him, for what it’s worth, and thank him for everything he’s done so far. He is the one public figure who has been unshakable and personally, I’ve been inspired by his speeches and his appearances in the media. I actually believe in this guy, and there are few people in positions of power who I believe in at this point.

Losing Trumka would be devastating.

Jane, do you still need help with researching? I have some time today and tomorrow. Don’t know your email address.

It’s firedoglake AT gmail DOT com

so what actions did Accountability Now take on behalf of Pelosi’s opponent in 2008?

I could find no trace of any using the Google.

actions, not PR statements, would best squelch such questions as I have.

and, rather than quoting yourself talking to some journalist, why not put the question to rest, instead of the same sort of wiggling politicians engage in to avoid pledging support to your ‘public option’.

It is of course heartening to see the answer to a question nobody asked, namely will Accountability Now support Libertarian flavored (R) primary challengers, great, go for it.

but, still sitting there, conspicuously unaddressed throughout all this is:

I think Accountability Now will not support 3rd Party or (I) challenges, especially if such splitting might result in a win for the (R).

of course, your belligerent rhetoric provides a clue as to the answer to this one.

It would be rather easy to figure out that AN didn’t play in ANY 2008 races because we were still hiring an executive director, Jeff Hauser, who didn’t start until after the first of the year.

It would also be rather easy find that AN deals in primary challenges and in creating a healthy primary market.

But I do have to thank you and your fellow trolls for being here in our comments section. It’s a constant reminder that it’s dangerous to deal with any movement that trades in complete intellectual “ends justify the means” dishonesty.

I’ve made many decisions I might not have otherwise made just to steer clear of any association, and moving forward I’m taking care to distinguish between honest brokers and anyone who thinks your tactics are acceptable.

It’s a good consistent warning, so thanks for never letting me forget.

all your slurs were completely off point, so this ‘troll’ will stick to the high road and ignore them.

however, I am grateful for #107 because that is as good an answer to my question as I am likely to get.

namely

“It would also be rather easy find that AN deals in primary challenges and in creating a healthy primary market.”

ah- so it seems I did have the right idea all along when I wrote

I think Accountability Now will not support 3rd Party or (I) challenges, especially if such splitting might result in a win for the (R).

(with the 2nd phrase struck for irrelevance.)

we’ll spell it out simple – JH says “AN deals in primary challenges” fair enough.

3rd Party and (I) runs may or may not have primaries, and they certainly don’t have many incumbents to challenge in primaries. Holy Joe doesn’t have to worry about challengers emerging from the left or right of the “Lieberman for Lieberman” Party, and Bernie Sanders is doing just fine.

I guess I got all muddled by rhetoric like this, found on the AN website:

Accountability Now is an organization built around a single guiding principle: challenging the institutional power structures that make it so easy, so consequence-free for Congress to open up the government coffers for looting by corporate America while people across the country are losing their jobs and their basic constitutional rights while unable to afford basic health care.

(my emphases)

But, after a wee bit of an acrimonious exchange with Jane Hamsher, we google-impaired oafs now have a clarification, or rather, an exception to this “em>single guiding principle“, namely that any challenges to the ‘institutional power structures’ can only originate and be played out within the Primary System of the institutional power structures of the (D) and (R) Parties, if they are to merit the support of the group calling itself Accountability Now.

I do still admire the project, and to the extent it rattles the incumbency racket it is great, but the pre-emptive decision to leave 3rd Party and (I) activities “off the table” reminds me a bit of the ‘pragmatists’ choice to leave Single Payer off the table, and instead try to rally the troops around the banner of something called a Public Option.

we’ll how that battle plays out soon enough.

btw, Jane, I’m not part of any nefarious ‘group’ anymore – the Groucho Marxists kicked me out!