File this under "Wondering how these people manage to find their offices in the morning." Freshman Republican and Tea Partier Ann Buerkle--who beat Dan Maffei last year by 567 votes out of 208,181 cast--seems to still be having trouble with the whole "government" idea.
While doing her first town hall meeting, she kept getting questions about her Congressional healthcare benefits. She then insisted to the audience that she didn't understand why people were interested, because taxpayers didn't pay anything for her government healthcare.
It wasn't until one of her staffers was able to pass her a note later on in the event that she corrected herself, and admitted that yes, the taxpayers do pick up the tab, although she dismissed it as being equivalent to any other employer-sponsored healthcare.
But despite the fact that she makes triple the average American household's income, and could easily afford to purchase her own healthcare in the free market, the irony is apparently lost on her that she's accepting taxpayer dollars to subsidize her healthcare, while insisting that a family of four which makes a quarter of her personal income can't do the same.
It looks like Congressman Arcuri is more afraid of a few teabaggers than he is of his own base...
A key House Dem has begun informing party leaders he plans to vote against health care legislation both on the House floor and in the rules committee, on which he sits.
Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY), a sophomore Dem who had a tougher-than-expected re-election bid in '08, has told the Dem caucus he will vote against the bill. source
Working Families, 1199, and other groups on the left have been heavily lobbying Arcuri and other centrist/conservative Dems in the state on this vote. If it turns out that this is true and Arcuri votes against the final bill, it would be a blow to both the bill and Michael Arcuri himself. Good luck getting elected without the support of the Working Families Party or the entire activist base, Mike.
Well, I guess Roatti won't likely be donating to Mike Arcuri (in addition to Eric Massa) this cycle either:
U.S. Rep. Michael Arcuri, D-Utica, said Tuesday he would vote against the Senate version of the health care bill that could soon go before the House of Representatives for approval.
Why? Arcuri doesn't like the "mega bill" approach, the prospect of reconciliation, and some differences in the Senate bill.
As his spokesman put it, "The congressman is very careful about evaluating each bill based on its own merits."
Outside of Tompkins County, that may possibly help his re-election bid this fall. Inside of Tompkins County, well, it won't.
We're focused (or at least were yesterday) on "bipartisanship" at this phase (were we ever not???). I think that Democrats have bent over backwards to meet the Republican requests but it is worth asking what they want now. Here is the list of requests from the RNC website:
We ask that President Obama and Congressional Democrats join with Republican leaders to start over on health insurance reform.
We ask that they help craft sensible reforms designed to lower costs and expand access without violating individual rights or the integrity of the market.
We ask that they enact medical liability reform and put an end to frivolous lawsuits that drive up the cost of medicine.
We ask that they allow individuals and small businesses to pool together to purchase high-quality affordable health care coverage.
We ask that they allow Americans to shop for health care coverage from coast to coast and purchase insurance policies across state lines.
We ask that they create new incentives to save for current and future health care needs by allowing people to use their health savings accounts funds to pay premiums for high deductible health plans.
We ask that they guarantee individuals with pre-existing conditions or past illnesses access to affordable coverage through the expansion of state-based, high-risk pools, and reinsurance programs.
We reject any attempt by the federal government to force any American to purchase an unwanted insurance plan.
We reject any attempt to implement a government-run insurance program.
We reject individual mandates, rationing, and special deals for any state.
We reject a separate set of rules for government and private sector health insurance purchases.
We oppose any plan that betrays our senior citizens by cutting Medicare coverage, or that allocates taxpayer funds to pay for abortion.
We reject any proposal that authorizes a government takeover of any portion of our health care system.
We ask that Congress and the President above all pledge to ensure the constitutionality of any health insurance reform legislation considered by the federal government.
We implore the President and his allies to listen to the will of the American people and start over on health insurance reform.
It is time for us to follow the Republicans requests in order to get healthcare done.
I think, sir, that it is "lay the cards on the table time". To be blunt: we're now at the endgame of this thing and I think it's safe to say that the future of your Presidency depends on it.
Why is the right-wing upset about the current healthcare bill?
What else do they want?
I know why I and my friends on the left are upset-- we feel that the final bill gutted almost everything we thought would be valuable from healtchare reform.
We also feel like the right-wing won every battle on what would or would not be in the healthcare bill.
I think it's fair to say that not many people here are well thrilled by the passage of the Stupak amendment on the House healthcare reform bill, and even fewer are happy with the prospect of that same amendment reemerging in the Senate at the behest of Ben Nelson (D-Sorta).
One of the people not at all happy about the Stupak amendment is Senator Gillibrand. She used her time on the floor earlier today to make the case against the inclusion of the Stupak amendment or anything similar into the Senate bill or the final product. From the transcript:
Passing this bill in the House of Representatives was a monumental step towards the goal of achieving meaningful reform this year and is the farthest we have come in the decades-long fight for health care reform in this country.
However, there is one aspect of the house bill about which I'd like to voice my strong disagreement. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment.
While proponents of the measure say this is a continuation of current federal law, this amendment will, in fact, bring about significant change and dramatically limit reproductive health care in this country. This is government invading the personal lives of many Americans, establishing for the first time restrictions on people who pay for their own private health insurance.
The complete speech, plus video and analysis, can be found after the fold.
Late-breaking update that I just got from Louise Slaughter's press secretary: since Congresswoman slaughter is going to be presiding as Chairwoman over the House Rules Committee hearing today on the healthcare reform bill--the last stop for the bill before it hits the House floor--the Congresswoman's office has decided to offer a live stream of the proceedings, as well as offering one of the (very few) slots for reporters to the guy behind the watchdog site CongressMatters.com.
Not even four short weeks ago, I was asked to meet in the living room of one of my neighbors in Rockland County. There were several friends and acquaintances there, and what got us together so early in the morning was our disbelief of all the misinformation and hate mongering associated with health care reform. One person in the room thought that the eight of us and a few friends and family should hold a small rally at a tiny village square in Nyack. But then, we started to dream...what if we had some entertainment...
I'm sure that most people reading this saw the big healthcare speech, so I'll save the heavy analysis, other than to say that I'm pretty happy, not least because it called the opposition out to the woodshed without ever even seeming particularly impolite.
So that leaves what many people may not have seen, to wit: the aftermath of the speech and what's going on today. First, the Republican "response," as delivered by Congressman (and doctor) Charles Boustany of Louisiana. (Apparently, they've forgotten what happened the last time that they tried to respond to Obama with someone from Louisiana.)
Just as evidently, Dr. Boustany forgot to mention a few things about the medical career that apparently makes him an expert on why preventing malpractice lawsuits is the best way to make healthcare cheaper: such as the fact that he was sued for malpractice 8 times, and lost 3 of those times... the worst example being a man who went in for heart bypass surgery and woke up missing his left leg.
Also, on a more comical note, he once attempted to buy a British lordship. Apparently he didn't realize that the only people willing to sell those are con artists.
If you saw the speech, you also saw the moment when Obama was interrupted by a heckler--a member of Congress, no less--who shouted that Obama was lying about healthcare reform not covering illegal aliens.
This man turned out to be Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC02), who in his outrage didn't seem to know or care that to shout at the President like that is both against the House rules on decorum, and his oath as a US military reserve officer. As somebody said around the beginning of the Civil War: South Carolina. Too small to be a republic, too large to be an insane asylum.
Apparently this isn't the first time Mr. Wilson has had trouble keeping his mouth shut when it would have been better for him to do so. Way back in 2003 when Essie Mae Washington-Williams publicly revealed that she was the illegitimate daughter of Strom Thurmond, Wilson commented that among other things he didn't believe the woman's claim; he found the idea "unseemly"; and that he felt even if she was telling the truth, she shouldn't have revealed it because "It's a smear on the image that [Thurmond] has as a person of high integrity who has been so loyal to the people of South Carolina."
Riiight.
Wilson never backed down from the position that she should have stayed silent, even after the Thurmond family publicly acknowledged that the woman's claim was completely accurate.
The last gem of the say is from none other than Sarah Palin, apparently still living on Bizzaro World, who complained (via Facebook) about the President referring to the "death panels" nonsense she started as "a lie."
In his speech the President directly responded to concerns I've raised about unelected bureaucrats being given power to make decisions affecting life or death health care matters. He called these concerns "bogus," "irresponsible," and "a lie" -- so much for civility.
There you have it: On Palin World it's apparently okay to call a major party presidential candidate a terrorist, say that he wants to kill disabled children and old people, make things up out of thin air, and if you get called on it, well then it's the other guy who's not being civil.
The good news? In the time since Rep. Wilson's shout heard round the world, his Democratic opponent for next year has gotten a bit of a boost, to the tune of almost half a million dollars worth of new fundraising, and growing by the hour. Pity Chris Lee didn't feel a little more boisterous last night.
About a dozen conservatives, including Republican Orangetown Supervisor candidate Paul Whalen, attended yesterday's Organizing for America (formerly Obama for America) meeting at the Pearl River Library in Rockland County last night. Many of these right-wingers went on to heckle the Obama group's organizer and disrupt the meeting.
The hecklers interrupted the meeting by shouting down those that support health-care reform, with taunts, and with generally disrespectful behavior. One of the hecklers stood before the crowd with a menacing look and a sign that said, "Obama's healthcare and other policies will take care of us like Teddy took care of Mary Jo."
I wrote to you a month or so ago, expressing my concern that a true "public option" needs to be part of any healthcare reform.
I'll admit, I'd prefer a "single payer" bill-- HR 676 or its equivalent-- but if we must compromise, then we need what amounts to an optional single payer choice.
I've outlined what I think the simplest, most straightforward, easiest to pass single payer is here.
I received a response from you this afternoon. I think you think you assuaged me. But, sir, you definitely did not. While most of what you wrote seems ok, there is one line that got the hairs up on the back of my neck. I'll explain below the fold.
I'm referring, of course, to the amount of time it took freshman Republican Chris Lee to shed that "moderate" label and go to bat for the Republican base. It's sad when we have to define Republican "moderates" as ones who don't cater to the lunacy of the birthers, in between lying about healthcare and national security.
In the last month Lee has been on the attack over energy, cap and trade, and healthcare, just to name a few. The good news is, he's getting called on some of it.
Today there's an interesting article in the Buffalo News which mentions him and his recent $22,500 taxpayer-funded scare-tactic flyer. From the article:
Speaking of extreme stuff, residents of New York's 26th congressional district got some in their mailbox the week of July 27.
Paid for by taxpayers at a cost of $22,500, the "Special Report from Congressman Chris Lee" includes several dire claims about the Democratic health proposals.
Most notably, the newsletter said Lee, R-Clarence, is working to stop "a government takeover" of health care that would "create a government-run, taxpayer-funded health care plan that independent analysts say would result in as many as 120 million Americans losing their current coverage."
Lee's office attributed that figure to a study conducted by the Lewin Group, which said that if a new government-run health care plan were widely available, 131.2 million would join it ... including 119.1 million people who would switch over from a private health plan.
On in simpler terms, that 120 million Americans would be getting better health coverage, at cheaper prices. But that's only scary if you're an insurance conglomerate executive... or one of their paid lapdogs in Congress... so they have to lie about it.
In truth, one would expect that any congressman really representing our area would recognize the value of a public option. What's being discussed is very much akin to Medicare, and virtually everyone out here knows the value of Medicare.
Not that Chris Lee's in any danger of finding that out, of course: besides being a millionaire with government-paid health insurance already, he's taken the congressional recess as an opportunity to flee the country rather than listen to his consituents. He's on a special-interest funded junket in Israel, where his group is undermining the foreign policy of the last two administrations.
I've heckled before, at a campaign event for George H. W. Bush in 1988. I have my doubts that it was a good idea, though I was certainly fed up with the closed staged rallies that passed for a campaign that year, one of which we got tickets to. I've also certainly asked sharp questions of my elected representatives in public, and consider that a critical part of democracy.
This feels to me like something different. It's happening in variousplaces, but it definitely feels choreographed.
Is it astroturfing? I'm not sure - these seem to be people who were waiting to be given a purpose, not hired hands flown from place to place. It's disturbing, though, as watching the events drives home that it's less about letting voices into the conversation and more about making sure that no one else can speak at all.
(And yes, I know that's a common accusation made against anyone who dares be impolite at a public event, but this seems to go further than most of what I've seen recently.)
I'm not sure how to respond to this without doing more damage to our political institutions than these folks are already inflicting, but we definitely need to find ways to make sure that loudness isn't the only factor determining who gets heard.
The problem: health care costs are out of control. It is hard for anyone outside of large employers to find, afford, and keep healthcare. Coverage mandate is needed to make sure that the insurance load is spread evenly.
Individuals who like their healthcare do not wish to see changes. Extending coverage to the uncovered will be expensive.
Current plans under consideration are too complex, make people concerned that they will loose coverage they like, and are expensive.
The solution: below the fold. Hint: Medicare for all who wish it.
I wrote this up in response to Rep. Chris Lee's (R-NY26) absurdly inaccurate letter to the editor in the Batavia Daily News. So if it seems a little bit more polite than I normally am, that's why.
I'm writing in response to Congressman Chris Lee's recent letter on healthcare, which I found riddled with political double-speak. The healthcare reform debate is hardly a "rush" as Mr. Lee suggests. We've been discussing universal healthcare for almost 100 years, and other countries have long since gone ahead with it. The facts are the facts; the only question is, what are we going to do about it?
There is no reason to continue dragging our feet in favor of the status quo. The American public is currently paying $2.5 trillion dollars a year for healthcare that only costs $900 billion to provide. That's what I call a swindle, and the vast majority of that money is being used to line the pockets of insurance company executives and the bureaucrats who are charged with making sure you get as little healthcare as possible. Contrary to what insurance lobbyists will tell you, Americans are less healthy than people in other countries that have universal healthcare, and we pay more for what we do get. We need to demand fair value for our money.
Mr. Lee, instead of being accurate about the various reform proposals, has decided to try and scare people with claims of increased costs and "government" control of healthcare decisions. This is simply false. Under a public health insurance option, treatment decisions would be made by doctors instead of the big insurance conglomerates that make them right now. The system is similar to Medicare, which has proven to be one of the most efficient and inexpensive healthcare systems in the world. The idea that we can trust the government to take care of our parents and seniors--as well as to control an arsenal of 6,000 nuclear weapons--but we can't trust them to administer an insurance plan for the rest of us is so absurd it's almost laughable.
Congressman Lee's preferred solution, on the other hand, seems to me like re-decorating the living room while the house is burning down. He suggests computerized medical records and billing transparency, while leaving in charge of the system the same wealthy executives who have made an art out of billion dollar profits at the expense of gouging the sick and injured. That's not reform. I encourage everyone to learn about the healthcare reform proposals themselves, and not let scare tactics result in the insurance industry continuing to steal us blind.
Health care is a critical issue in this year's elections, and campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries directly affect the prospects for health care reform in New York State. Citizen Action of New York is releasing a new report making the linkages and calling for action!
Please join Citizen Action of New York City and Make the Road for a press conference on Wednesday, Sept. 10 at noon, corner of Corner of Myrtle Ave. and 71st Street, Glendale, Queens.
I worry that I may be a werewolf. Or something similar. There's no fur, there aren't any extra fangs or even howling, but listening to state legislators argue that New York State government - or at least their house of it - runs just perfectly well punches my adrenaline to new highs and makes it hard not to sputter. I may be a pacifist, but that doesn't mean I'm always nice.
So, okay, here are the highlights of Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton's presentation this afternoon at the Cortlandville Fire Hall:
The new budget offers both more funding for schools and more accountability for education results, including accountability for state agencies.
Well, this is a first: Eliot is running commercials to counteract 1199's ad blast in opposition to his healthcare reform proposals. Here, via Capitol Confidential, is the ad (actual title is 'Crying', not 'Crybabies'):
About a dozen conservatives, including Republican Orangetown Supervisor candidate Paul Whalen, attended yesterday's Organizing for America (formerly Obama for America) meeting at the Pearl River Library in Rockland County last night. Many of these right-wingers went on to heckle the Obama group's organizer and disrupt the meeting.
