In an unusually pointed and spot-on response to a statement released by former Vice President Dick Cheney claiming that the President doesn’t know we’re at war the White House communications director, Dan Pfeiffer, delivered a sticker of a counter punch.  Pfeiffer blogged that the President does not “need to beat his chest” to prove his commitment to bring down al Qaeda and its extremist allies.  Yes Mr. Cheney, action and deeds are how this president demonstrates his promise and pledge to protect this country not by using a script from an old spaghetti western.  A word from the observant:  aggressiveness is best used on the battlefield and not during a photo op.

It is good to see the White House hitting back against this hypocritical bulls#%t.  Did we also mention that eleven of the Guantanamo detainees released by the Bush administration rejoined al Qaeda? One of whom is alleged to have instructed the Christmas attacker.  See the full statement from the White House below.

Written by Dan Pfeiffer, White House Communications Director

There has been a lot of discussion online and in the mainstream media about our response to various critics of the President, specifically former Vice President Cheney, who have been coming out of the woodwork since the incident on Christmas Day.  I think we all agree that there should be honest debate about these issues, but it is telling that Vice President Cheney and others seem to be more focused on criticizing the Administration than condemning the attackers. Unfortunately too many are engaged in the typical Washington game of pointing fingers and making political hay, instead of working together to find solutions to make our country safer.

First, it’s important that the substantive context be clear: for seven years after 9/11, while our national security was overwhelmingly focused on Iraq – a country that had no al Qaeda presence before our invasion – Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda’s leadership was able to set up camp in the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they continued to plot attacks against the United States. Meanwhile, al Qaeda also regenerated in places like Yemen and Somalia, establishing new safe-havens that have grown over a period of years.  It was President Obama who finally implemented a strategy of winding down the war in Iraq, and actually focusing our resources on the war against al Qaeda – more than doubling our troops in Afghanistan, and building partnerships to target al Qaeda’s safe-havens in Yemen and Somalia.  And in less than one year, we have already seen many al Qaeda leaders taken out, our alliances strengthened, and the pressure on al Qaeda increased worldwide.

To put it simply: this President is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action. Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country. And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the President.

Second, the former Vice President makes the clearly untrue claimthat the President – who is this nation’s Commander-in-Chief – needs to realize we are at War. I don’t think anyone realizes this very hard reality more than President Obama. In his inaugural, the President said “our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.” In a recent speech, Assistant to the President for Terrorism and Homeland Security John Brennan said “Instead, as the president has made clear, we are at war with al-Qaida, which attacked us on 9/11 and killed 3,000 people. We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al-Qaida’s murderous agenda. These are the terrorists we will destroy; these are the extremists we will defeat.” At West Point, the President told the nation why it was “in our vital national interest” to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to fight the war in Afghanistan, adding that as Commander in Chief, “I see firsthand the terrible wages of war.” And at Oslo, in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, the President said, “We are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land.”

There are numerous other such public statements that explicitly state we are at war. The difference is this: President Obama doesn’t need to beat his chest to prove it, and – unlike the last Administration – we are not at war with a tactic (“terrorism”), we at war with something that is tangible: al Qaeda and its violent extremist allies. And we will prosecute that war as long as the American people are endangered.

You don’t??  No worries there was none.  The attempted attack aboard the Northwest flight  to Detroit on Christmas day was eerily familiar….like we lived it before about eight years ago.  Remember Richard Reid the shoe bomber who attempted to blow up an American Airlines flight on December 22, 2001?  You don’t?  Well lets refresh your memory and the memories of the GOP members who were out loud and proud this week criticizing President Obama’s handling of the situation.  Their main issue is that the president did not respond appropriately with the seriousness that such an occurrence deserves.  And by respond, we can only assume that the Republican House and Senate members believe that the president should have appeared in a cowboy hat and boots with guns blazing.  But I digress. The thwarted attack happened on December 22,2001.  The person who came to the rescue in 2001 was a fellow passenger similar to the actions of the passenger on Northwest flight 253.  Guess what else?  The shoe bomber was arrested and put in jail just like the failed attacker on the Northwest flight.  President Obama made a statement yesterday regarding the failed attack and has been briefed on the hour about new developments in addition to ordering a full investigation of what went wrong.  The President has also ordered new procedures for all flights entering and departing the United States.  What did President Bush say in his 2001 statement regarding the failed shoe bomber attack you ask?

First 24 hours?

KELLY WALLACE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT:
….
Some additional information to bring to you at this time. We do know that President Bush was notified about this situation earlier today and that he has already had a briefing on the situation. The president, as we have noted, is spending the holiday weekend at the presidential retreat at Camp David.

CNN 12/22/2001

Crickets, crickets

48 hours??

December 23, 2001

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said that President Bush continued to monitor the situation and receive updates at Camp David. Bush has not issued any statements about the incident.

Boston Globe 12/24/2001

crickets, crickets

Five days later…more crickets.

Finally, TEN SIX DAYS later President Bush merely mentions the attack in passing while discussing a different point.

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE PRESIDENT; Bush Says Taliban Leader Will Be Found

President Bush said today that it was ”just a matter of time” before Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban leader, was captured, but he did not say if and when the United States Marines would join in any search. Mullah Omar is believed to be hiding in southern Afghanistan.

”I’m patient, and so is our military,” Mr. Bush said before having a cheeseburger and onion rings for lunch with staff members and friends at the Coffee Station, the only restaurant in this town of about 700. The president is spending the holidays at his 1,600-acre ranch, eight miles northwest of here.

….

Mr. Bush, in his last question-and-answer session with reporters in 2001, also said that the main task of the F.B.I. was now to protect Americans from further attacks.

”The whole culture of the F.B.I. has changed for the better,” Mr. Bush said. He added that the country as a whole was ”on alert” and praised the flight attendant on an American Airlines flight on Dec. 22 who noticed the man whom Mr. Bush called ”the shoe bomber,” Richard C. Reid, trying to light a fuse in his sneaker.

NYT 01/01/2002

By the way, the shoe bomber Richard Reid was indicted on terrorism charges by a grand jury, tried and convicted in a federal court, and is now serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison in Colorado.   And guess what?  Not a peep was spoken by a single Republican about the arrest of the shoe bomber or the fact that this terrorist was tried and convicted in the United States federal court system.  Not even from former Homeland Security Chairman Tom Ridge.

Meanwhile Sen. Jim DeMint is blocking the nominee, Erroll Southers, for the top position at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) because the Republican member does not want baggage screeners to join a union.  So let me get this straight…..currently we have no one heading the airline security in the United States because Sen. DeMint is afraid of collective bargaining?  Can you imagine if this was a Democrat blocking a TSA Chief nominee right after an attempted terrorist attack five days ago?  Exactly…HYPOCRISY!!!

Two more things.  First, didn’t a Republican administration develop the Homeland Security program and had eight years to perfect it?  Second, because the Republicans are labeling this an attack, does this mean that there was another attack on the US during the Bush presidency thereby disproving the claim that Bush prevented subsequent terrorist attacks on the US during his presidency?

Bruce Bartlett, former domestic policy advisor to Ronald Reagan and former treasury official under George H.W. Bush, penned a recent article pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of the GOP’s rabid focus on the allegedly increased deficit that will occur as a result of the passage of the health care reform bill.

The human capacity for self-delusion never ceases to amaze me, so it shouldn’t surprise me that so many Republicans seem to genuinely believe that they are the party of fiscal responsibility. Perhaps at one time they were, but those days are long gone.

Speaking of health care and fiscal responsibility…remember the Medicare drug benefit bill?

This fact became blindingly obvious to me six years ago this month when a Republican president and a Republican Congress enacted the Medicare drug benefit, which former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker has called “the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s.”

As for the cost of the GOP orchestrated Medicare Part D program compared to either the Senate or House version of the Health care reform bill according to Bartlett:

Just to be clear, the Medicare drug benefit was a pure giveaway with a gross cost greater than either the House or Senate health reform bills how being considered. Together the new bills would cost roughly $900 billion over the next 10 years, while Medicare Part D will cost $1 trillion.

And now for the kicker..how did the GOP controlled Congress plan to pay forits Medicare Part D program?

Moreover, there is a critical distinction–the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers; 100% of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit, whereas the health reform measures now being debated will be paid for with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, adding nothing to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. (See here for the Senate bill estimate and here for the House bill.)………..

Recall the situation in 2003. The Bush administration was already projecting the largest deficit in American history–$475 billion in fiscal year 2004, according to the July 2003 mid-session budget review…….

Recall, too, that Medicare was already broke in every meaningful sense of the term. According to the 2003 Medicare trustees report, spending for Medicare was projected to rise much more rapidly than the payroll tax as the baby boomers retired. Consequently, the rational thing for Congress to do would have been to find ways of cutting its costs. Instead, Republicans voted to vastly increase them–and the federal deficit–by [$534] billion between 2004 and 2013.

The Prescription Drug Benefit program added $15.5 trillion in current value to our nation’s deficit!  Some of the Republicans that voted for the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Benefit bill?  Jim Bunning (R-KY),  Mitch McConnell (R-KY), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Orrin Hatch (R- UT), and Jon Kyl (R-AZ).  Yep you guessed it…the ones with the biggest mouths concerning the deficit being passed to their children.

The GOP continue to harp on the alleged lack of bipartisanship overtures by Democrats in the House and Senate.  We now have confirmation from a former member of the Republican caucus that such complaints are disingenuous.  We all know that the GOP game plan for the 2010 and 2012 elections is to obstruct and prevent the President from accomplishing any of his domestic agenda and to do it by any means necessary.  Well Sen. Arnel Specter confirmed on Sunday what every person paying even mildly attention already knew…the GOP has been plotting to bring this President down since January 20. 2009.  Specter revealed the GOP strategy according to private conversations that he was privy to as a member of the Republican caucus before he switched to the Democratic Party in April of this year.  See video below.

President Obama made a statement today to those fighting for human rights in Iran:

Before I leave, let me also briefly address the events that have taken place over the last few days in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States joins with the international community in strongly condemning the violent and unjust suppression of innocent Iranian citizens, which has apparently resulted in detentions, injuries, and even death.

For months, the Iranian people have sought nothing more than to exercise their universal rights. Each time they have done so, they have been met with the iron fist of brutality, even on solemn occasions and holy days. And each time that has happened, the world has watched with deep admiration for the courage and the conviction of the Iranian people who are part of Iran’s great and enduring civilization.

What’s taking place within Iran is not about the United States or any other country. It’s about the Iranian people and their aspirations for justice and a better life for themselves. And the decision of Iran’s leaders to govern through fear and tyranny will not succeed in making those aspirations go away.

As I said in Oslo, it’s telling when governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation.

Along with all free nations, the United States stands with those who seek their universal rights. We call upon the Iranian government to abide by the international obligations that it has to respect the rights of its own people.

We call for the immediate release of all who have been unjustly detained within Iran. We will continue to bear witness to the extraordinary events that are taking place there. And I’m confident that history will be on the side of those who seek justice.

The Senate held the final vote needed to pass the health care bill or H.R. 3590.  The vote was 60 - 39 .  The total cost of the bill is $871 billion.  Democrats with Vice President Biden presiding over the Senate passed the bill along party lines as expected.  All Senators voted from their seats in the Senate.  There were a couple moments of levity when Sen. Reid of Nevada was asked for his vote Reid gave an exasperated gesture that indicated of course and the entire Senate broke into laughter as if there was a chance that the Leader would vote anything other than “Aye” or yes.  Also, Bernie Sanders of Vermont gave a very enthusiastic “AYE” sending the Senate into laughter a second time. 

Now they go to conference and hopefully this bill will be drastically improved.   Right now the bill does not make health insurance affordable and that needs major adjustmances that will hopefully be accomplished during reconciliation.  Three major points of contention: 1) public option 2) removal of the antitrust exemption enjoyed by the insurance industry 3) an immediate implementation date.

The insurance industry is already finding loopholes that it can exploit in the Senate health care reform bill.  First thing up:  Medical Loss Ratios or MLRs.  The MLR is the “loss” incurred by insurance companies that is attributed to providing actual medical care to premium holders.  Imagine that, the insurance industry considers it a “loss” when it actually has to pay for the medical care that the premium holder receives when he/she files a claim.  You know when a policyholder uses the ”insurance” that he/she paid for.  What’s wrong with that picture.  The current MLR currently reported by some insurance companies can be as low as 60 percent which means that it only pays 60 percent of the policy holder’s premium for the medical care he/she receives.  So that equals 40 percent of your premium dollars is going to executive salaries and administrative cost.  Most insurance companies MLRs, at least those that share such info, are between 60 and 80 percent.  The proposed MLR in the Senate bill would raise the number from 80 to 85 percent.  Take a look at what was reported by Smart Money:

The Senate bill would impose a “medical loss ratio” of 80% to 85%, depending on the market segment, meaning insurers would have to spend 80 to 85 cents of each dollar they collect from plan members to provide health care. Carl McDonald, a health care analyst with Oppenheimer & Co., an investment bank, wrote in a note to clients Monday that the number was “workable” for insurers, especially if they can label certain items that count as corporate expenses for accounting purposes as health care for purposes of meeting the spending minimum.

Even though the MLR was put in to address the cost containment issue the insurance industry has already figured a way around it by recategorizing its administration expenses (executive salaries) as “medical care.”  Wendell Potter, former Cigna executive, reported that the insurance industry knows that it can manipulate the numbers simply by defining  administrative costs and categorizing certain expenses as medical care.  This is why Congress must include a provision in the bill that will prevent the insurance industry from using a work around the MLR reform provision.  Transparency by the insurance industry with respect to expenses categorized as “medical care” must be made mandatory.  Teeth by way of an enforcement mechanism is also essential.  Who is the regulatory body that will be in charge of this aspect of the health care reform bill?   An enforcement provision that explicitely defines what is “medical care” is a starting point.  There must also be exclusions as to what is NOT considered “medical care.”

Smart Money also identifies why the insurance industry is so thrilled with this bill:

Insurer shares, in particular, are zooming. There are three reasons. First, stripped from the Senate bill is the so-called public option — a government health plan that threatened to undersell private insurers. Second, a proposed $6.7 billion industry tax is now likely to be phased in only gradually beginning in 2011, which should give health plans enough time to raise prices accordingly. Third, individuals will be required to purchase insurance — a fine deal for insurance sellers — although critics say the penalties for noncompliance are weak, suggesting many individuals will prefer to remain uninsured.

Further how does this prevent the insurance industry from increasing its profits and paying the 6.7 billion industry tax by raising premium rates.  The 6.7 billion tax should be another exclusion listed under what is not “medical care.”  The American people should not be punished for the sins of the insurance industry.  Providing the insurance industry with an incentive by allowing it to arbitrarily raise premium prices because it will receive 15 or 20 percent of a larger premium amount does not effectively address the continued rising cost of  premiums, e.g. health insurance. This needs to be fixed.  We NEED a PUBLIC OPTION!

Congressman John Conyers reminds the Senate how Congress works.

Without material changes, this legislation will be reform in name only.

snip

Lastly, I am troubled that some Senators believe that the House must accept the majority of the concessions embodied in this Senate bill. My message to the these Senators is this: Just as it took compromise to pass your bill last night, so now will it require additional compromise to successfully reconcile your legislation with the House. The Constitution established a bicameral legislature so that neither body would dominate the other.

Conyers complete statement:

“Last night’s vote in the Senate should be applauded for what it was: an affirmative statement by that body that comprehensive health care reform legislation should not be held captive any longer by a select few.” “As this legislation moves towards its constitutionally mandated reconciliation with the House of Representatives, I also want to make it clear that, in my mind, this bill does not adequately address many of the problems that plague our current system.  Without material changes, this legislation will be reform in name only.”

“In order to pass the House of Representatives, a final health care bill must provide universal affordability and competition to the American people.  Additionally, it should be financed by those with the ability to pay and not by working class Americans lucky enough to receive quality health coverage through their employers.”

“I supported the House bill because it included serious provisions aimed at helping individuals who currently cannot afford to purchase health care by providing subsidies and expanding Medicaid to 150 percent of the Federal Poverty Level.  The Senate bill passed last night does not ensure this same level of affordability; there are fewer subsidies and the expansion of Medicaid is not as extensive.”

“Similarly, I supported the House bill because I believe that it is immoral to continue to allow the private health insurance industry to operate without any real checks on its ability to charge unaffordable premiums and deny needed care.  That is why I believe competition, as provided through a national Medicare-like public health insurance option and the repeal of the industry’s antitrust exemption, is a necessary component of true reform.”

“The sole remaining ‘competition’ provision that remains in the Senate’s bill is woefully insufficient.  These multi-state non-profit plans run by the Office of Personnel Management will not be transparent; they will not have a built in network of doctors; they will not allow us to move away from the wasteful fee-for-service system that inflates costs; and they will not attract a risk pool big enough to create real savings and efficiencies for consumers.”

“The American people have already experienced private non-profit health insurance.  It hasn’t worked in the past and there’s no reason to think it’s the answer now.  Relying on private insurers to police other private insurers is like asking the fox to guard the hen house.”

“Additionally, the excise tax levied on certain “Cadillac”employer-based health care plans in the Senate legislation must be altered.  For years, many workers chose to forgo wage increases in exchange for helping their employers offer comprehensive health care plans.  The Senate’s efforts to tax these plans will hurt working families and they contradict the President’s pledge that individuals who like the health coverage they have will be able to keep it.  I strongly support the House’s approach to financing health care: an excise tax on the incomes of extremely wealthy Americans.”

“I look forward to working with the Senate and House Leadership to ensure that the final health care bill address these core principles of affordability, competition, and progressive financing.”

“Lastly, I am troubled that some Senators believe that the House must accept the majority of the concessions embodied in this Senate bill. My message to the these Senators is this: Just as it took compromise to pass your bill last night, so now will it require additional compromise to successfully reconcile your legislation with the House. The Constitution established a bicameral legislature so that neither body would dominate the other.

I cannot turn on the television without seeing Arianna Huffington of Huffington Post fame railing against all the things that President Obama is doing wrong.  Well apparently she cannot take such heat herself because if you criticize her, and by her I mean the Huffington Post, for its lack of staff diversity you are silenced very quickly.  Huffington Post posted a picture of its staff Christmas Party wishing its readers Happy Holidays.  However, readers were not so jolly when they noticed the glaring lack of diversity amongst the Huffington Post staff.  The first ten comments mentioned the fact that an overwhelming majority of the staff are of European descent (Caucasian).  In other words, very few people of color.  When the Huffington Post saw where the negative comments were going it removed every single one of the complaints mentioning their hypocrisy and lack of diversity within twenty minutes and never re-posted them.  Completely scrubbed never to be seen again including my own comment.  Now only comments praising the site for being a great liberal voice remain.  Isn’t HP suppose to be a progressive site that encourages its readers to engage in robust open debate?

A few facts.  The unemployment rate  nationwide for African-Americans is 16 percent as compared to a 9 percent unemployment rate for white Americans.  Further, the unemployment rate for Hispanics nationwide is 13 percent.  In California, where one of the main offices of the Huffington Post is located, the unemployment rate for African-Americans is 14 percent while amongst whites it is 9 percent.  It is really hard for me to believe that the Huffington Post is unable to find more talented people of color to provide more perspective diversity for its site.  Particularly in this economy.  Minorities make up a third the US population but only a tiny percentage of the HP staff.  There are many minorities that read the Huffington Post and would like to see  issues covered through the lens of someone who experience racial and cultural  challenges first hand instead of through the eyes and perspective of the majority.

So my question to the Huffington Post is why so few people of color?  What are you trying to hide?  Given the amount of complaints that your holiday photo generated within minutes of posting I am sure that you are blocking other criticism concerning the lack of black and brown faces.  What is the deal???  I have heard Arianna complain relentlessly about Hannity and Limbaugh’s unwillingness to engage in an open debate where both sides are provided equal time.  This incident shows that what is good for the goose is not so good for the gander and such rules do not apply to her.  So Huffington Post, you have no problem calling out and criticizing others so why can’t you step up to the plate and take the heat. Or at least allow opposing views and constructive criticism to be shown when it is given.  Because Huffington Post will not allow me to voice my dissent regarding its lack of diversity and progressive hypocrisy on its site I am voicing my frustration here.  Hey Arianna, stop censoring your comments and hire more people of color!

Lets listen to Sen. Obama:

OBAMA: Let’s break down what she really means by a mandate. What’s meant by a mandate is that the government is forcing people to buy health insurance and so she’s suggesting a parent is not going to buy health insurance for themselves if they can afford it. Now, my belief is that most parents will choose to get health care for themselves and we make it affordable.

Here’s the concern. If you haven’t made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate. I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. The reason they don’t buy a house is they don’t have the money. And so, our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available. I am confident if people have a chance to buy high-quality health care that is affordable, they will do so. That’s what our plan does and nobody disputes that.

Yes Mr. President that is correct.  Mandating Americans buy insurance as a way to solve the health care crisis does not make sense.  The reason that most folks don’t buy insurance is because they can’t afford it.  So is the reason that the Senate is mandating that Americans buy insurance because it can’t make insurance affordable?  And to your question Mr. President…if you have not made insurance affordable how are you going to enforce a mandate?

Wendell Potter, a former top executive at Cigna, says that the only winners in the Senate Health Care Reform bill are CEO’s and executives of the insurance industry.  So far two people that I trust, Dr. Howard Dean and Wendell Potter, says that the bill is not worth passing.  And attempting to discredit Dean who has been the biggest cheerleader in this fight misses the mark.  Dean and Potter have proven themselves trustworthy in the eyes of most supporters of health care reform and such supporters will not be persuaded to ignore their advice because Capitol Hill and the White House are upset that they are speaking truth to power instead of towing the party line.   The American people are not stupid.  We see for ourselves the ineffectiveness of this bill to reform.

Take a look of what prizes the insurance industry will receive if the bill as written is passed. 

Gets for Insurance company

• Repeal of Antitrust exemption language removed
• Inurance companies can sell insurance across state lines therefore allowing them to gravitate to states with weak consumer protection laws resulting in Americans paying higher premiums for less insurance
• Big Insurance can now charge older people four times the premiums of young people
• Consumers charged a premium rate of fifty percent more if he/she has a “preexisting condition” as defined by Big Insurance ie. high blood pressure, high cholesterol reading
• Annual limits alive and well and millions of Americans still risk bankruptcy if they hit the arbitrary health care limit set by Big Insurance
• A law that forces families, through an income tax hike, to pay 17 percent of their annual income for “noninsurance” that will enrich Big Insurance even more.  The number goes up to 22 percent if someone in the family is chronically ill.
• Big Insurance paid government subsidies to the tune of $450 billion over ten years for Americans who cannot afford the new tax or skyrocketing premium prices set by Big Insurance

Someone really needs to explain to me why this bill is a good idea as currently written.  Mr. President??  Please answer Dr. Dean’s question…is this more about getting votes to pass something than it is about reforming healthcare?  From the look of all the concessions made to Big Insurance it looks a whole lot like the former.

Health-care bill wouldn’t bring real reform  

Thursday, December 17, 2009

If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current health-care bill. Any measure that expands private insurers’ monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these.

Real health-care reform is supposed to eliminate discrimination based on preexisting conditions. But the legislation allows insurance companies to charge older Americans up to three times as much as younger Americans, pricing them out of coverage. The bill was supposed to give Americans choices about what kind of system they wanted to enroll in. Instead, it fines Americans if they do not sign up with an insurance company, which may take up to 30 percent of your premium dollars and spend it on CEO salaries — in the range of $20 million a year — and on return on equity for the company’s shareholders. Few Americans will see any benefit until 2014, by which time premiums are likely to have doubled. In short, the winners in this bill are insurance companies; the American taxpayer is about to be fleeced with a bailout in a situation that dwarfs even what happened at AIG.

From the very beginning of this debate, progressives have argued that a public option or a Medicare buy-in would restore competition and hold the private health insurance industry accountable. Progressives understood that a public plan would give Americans real choices about what kind of system they wanted to be in and how they wanted to spend their money. Yet Washington has decided, once again, that the American people cannot be trusted to choose for themselves. Your money goes to insurers, whether or not you want it to.

To be clear, I’m not giving up on health-care reform. The legislation does have some good points, such as expanding Medicaid and permanently increasing the federal government’s contribution to it. It invests critical dollars in public health, wellness and prevention programs; extends the life of the Medicare trust fund; and allows young Americans to stay on their parents’ health-care plans until they turn 27. Small businesses struggling with rising health-care costs will receive a tax credit, and primary-care physicians will see increases in their Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.

Improvements can still be made in the Senate, and I hope that Senate Democrats will work on this bill as it moves to conference. If lawmakers are interested in ensuring that government affordability credits are spent on health-care benefits rather than insurers’ salaries, they need to require state-based exchanges, which act as prudent purchasers and select only the most efficient insurers. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) offered this amendment during the Finance Committee markup, and Democrats should include it in the final legislation. A stripped-down version of the current bill that included these provisions would be worth passing.

In Washington, when major bills near final passage, an inside-the-Beltway mentality takes hold. Any bill becomes a victory. Clear thinking is thrown out the window for political calculus. In the heat of battle, decisions are being made that set an irreversible course for how future health reform is done. The result is legislation that has been crafted to get votes, not to reform health care.

I have worked for health-care reform all my political life. In my home state of Vermont, we have accomplished universal health care for children younger than 18 and real insurance reform — which not only bans discrimination against preexisting conditions but also prevents insurers from charging outrageous sums for policies as a way of keeping out high-risk people. I know health reform when I see it, and there isn’t much left in the Senate bill. I reluctantly conclude that, as it stands, this bill would do more harm than good to the future of America.

The writer is a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and was governor of Vermont from 1991 to 2002.

Dr. Howard Dean – Doctor, former Governor, former presidential candidate, and former head of the Democratic National Committee:

“This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate. Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill.”

Mr. President a word please.  I have no desire to reward the insurance industry for its reprehensible conduct in using its Senate cronies to block the health care reform bill.  Therefore, requiring every American to buy health insurance from the industry responsible for at least 46,000 Americans dying each year is unacceptable and cannot with a straight face be called health care reform no matter how much lipstick you put on it.  Senators continue to say that there is still good in this bill and they are right.  There is quite a bit of “good” in this bill for Big Insurance.  For example, Senators continue to parade the fact that the bill will prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to consumers with preexisting condition.  What they neglect to mention is that insurance companies can charge Americans with preexisting conditions three times as much for health insurance.  And if the person can’t afford to pay the exhorbitant price the government will then fine him/her for not carrying insurance.  The bill does not have a cost containment mechanism so the price of health care will continue to skyrocket more likely at a faster pace than it does currently.  There is also no choice meaning that the Big Insurance maintains its monopoly and operate the way it sees fit.  The industry will continue to operate at a medical loss ratio of 73 percent which means that 27 percent of the premium paid by every American will go to the millions paid to health insurance CEOs.  This bill is not worth the money and should be scrapped unless the mandate is removed.  This bill is too expensive for what we are getting. Allowing a few Senators to affect this bill in a way that guts it from what it was designed to be is absolutely reprehensible.  Americans taxes will begin to go up beginning Jan 1 and there will not be anything to show for it.  That does not make for a happy electorate who will be willing to turn out in 2010.

Sen. Joe Lieberman has single handidally knee-capped health care reform by refusing to vote for any health care plan that includes a public option or expands Medicare even though he proposed the very idea of expanding Medicare three years ago during his reelection campaign for the Senate.  At least 46,000 people and as much as 147,000 die each year because they do not have health care.  Meanwhile Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, and Blanche Lincoln are more interested self promotion then saving the lives of 46,000 Americans.  This is what happens when politicians feel entitled to their position vow to keep it by any means necessary.  This is why we need term limits for Senators and Congressman because many of them have been in the bubble so long that they have lost touch with reality and real Americans.  Many of these Senators are immuned to struggle and suffering of the average American.  It’s less about we and ALL about me.  Lieberman has pretty much declared war on teh liberal blogosphere and this is his pay back even if it kills Americans in the process.  Nice job Senator.  If health care reform does not pass with either a public option or Medicare expansion Democrats should expect a blood bath in 2010 and we can’t say they deserve any less.

The Senate health care bill covers Americans over the age of 54 and Americans 27 and under in that college students can say on their parents insurance until age 27 but what about those between the age of 28 and 54?  These people will be mandated to buy insurance from Big Insurance through a federal exchange being proposed.  Because no one knows exactly what is in the plan it is being reported that there is some language in the bill that limits what Big Insurance does with premiums collected through the exchange.  Apparently, 90 percent of the premiums collected must go to paying doctors and hospitals for health care delivery to policyholders.  In the early 90′s 95 percent of premiums went to actual health care delivery cost.  Today a mere 81 percent of premiums go to health care delivery by doctors and hospitals.  The remainder is used to pay obscene executive salaries, growing profits, outrageous administrative expenses, and finding ways to increase profits.  The important number for Wall Street when investing in Big Insurance is its Medical Loss Ratio (MLR).  The lower that number (81 percent average) the happier Wall Street.  The higher the MLR (90 percent) the unhappier Wall Street. Lets make Wall Street unhappy shall we?  This also may address the problem of providing affordable, high quality, health insurance for 28-54 year olds.  Of course no one knows if this will actually be included in the health care reform bill.

Sen. Harry Reid confirms that the Senate reached a health care reform deal last night that is rumored to have nixed the public option and includes a buy-in to Medicare for individuals 55 to 65 and not-for-profit private insurance  plans that will be overseen by the Office of Personnel and Management.  The insurance industry is very happy….and it said as much:

With the Senate shifting sharply away from a “pure public option,” an insurance industry insider who has been deeply involved in the health care fight emails to declare victory.

“We WIN,” the insider writes. “Administered by private insurance companies. No government funding. No government insurance competitor.”

Okay, so the Senate has come up with a plan that foists the most expensive health care patients on to the public dole.  I am really surprised that the Big Insurance went along with the very idea of it receiving a mandate from Congress to accept obscene amounts of new premiums due to a taxpayer mandate that requires the healthiest and youngest health care consumers buy its insurance.  Congress is really teaching the insurance industry a lesson. (snark)  This of course translates to even more obscene profits because the younger the insured the healthier the insured typically so such health care consumers will in most instances not need health care to the extent that consumers over 55 will need health care services.  In other words, the insurance industry has succeeded in making the government do exactly what the government complains that the industry does (dropping policy holders who most threaten its profits) but do so legally.  Getting rid of the least profitable policyholders, seniors over 55, is change that Big Insurance can believe in.

Also, where is the competition for insurance companies? Where is the price containment?  What about all of those uninsured people under the age of 55?  Not-for-profit insurance plans like Blue Cross Blue Shield that are part of the problem?  Are those health consumers to be left to the mercy of the insurance companies similar to American consumrs being left to the mercy of the credit card industry?  We are very interested to find out exactly what percentage of the uninsured this bill with covered.  There are unconfirmed reports that expanding Medicare to Americans 55 and older would only cover an additional three million people.  What about the other 42.7 million uninsured who are now mandated to buy high cost health insurance ?

President Obama plans to announce the details of how he plans to spur job growth through infrastructure, home energy efficiency, and tax breaks for small businesses.  “Having finally moved into positive territory when it comes to economic growth, our biggest challenge now is making sure that job growth matches up with economic growth,” Obama told reporters at the White House after his job summit last week.  Today the President will give details to the American people about how he plans to do just that.  We can expect the President’s initiatives to help increase growth within small businesses in an effort to create a need for such businesses to hire new staff, to increase spend to modernize roads, railways, bridges and tunnels, airports and seaports and install a rebates program for consumers who retrofit their homes to become more energy efficient, according to a White House official.

What a touching story about leukemia-stricken Jasmina’s visit with the President of the United States.

It came a week later than planned, but little Jasmina Anema’s wish was finally granted Wednesday.

The leukemia-stricken Manhattan girl met President Obama in the White House – and spent 10 magical minutes with him.

“It was like they were really best buddies,” said Jasmina’s mom, Thea Anema. “It was just how he spoke to her, like a daddy. It was so sweet. He was really relating to her.”

Obama also delighted his little visitor with a couple of gifts – a box of M&Ms emblazoned with his name and the presidential seal and a matching presidential yo-yo.

A still-glowing Jasmina wasn’t in the mood to discuss her surreal encounter last night. But she let her smile do the talking.

“She’s sitting here still beaming,” Anema said. “She feels very special.”

Jasmina was treated like a VIP as soon as Read the rest of this entry »

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy