If the R's think all Blue Dogs will vote with them..they ARE nuts.

I will be the first to admit I despise most Blue Dogs. I understand how the Dem's 'big tent' theory includes such people, but that said...I personally can't deal with people who vote against their own self-interests or those of their constituents in so blatant a manner. So, when I read this writeup, I felt a little better about how things will shakeout in the 112th Congress. From the Politico link:

Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) attacked the health care bill in March as a massive government overreach, weighted down with new taxes but short on real reforms. 

But repeal it, the way House Republicans would? No way, says Shuler, one of his party’s most conservative members. 

“There are some very good things in this bill that have already become law,” Shuler said this week, citing the ban on pre-existing conditions for children and steps to close the Medicare prescription drug doughnut hole for seniors. “It is not just wrong but immoral to take those things away.” 

Shuler was one of 13 Democrats who opposed their party’s top legislative achievement in 2010 and won reelection. Now they have that rare chance for a do over — another opportunity to stop health reform — but most of them say they won’t do it. 

The reluctance to take the ultimate step and support a full repeal encapsulates the knotty politics of a health care law that passed along strictly partisan lines. The group is being pulled in one direction by Democrats who want a united front to blunt momentum for the repeal effort and in the other by Republicans ready to accuse them of being hypocritical and dog them on the campaign trail if they back the new law now. 

One top Republican, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, predicted a “significant number” of Democrats would back repeal. But so far, at least, few in the group appear willing to side with opponents of the law — even though they are among them. 

Only two Democrats have committed to voting for repeal, Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma and Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas. Four — Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, John Barrow of Georgia, Ben Chandler of Kentucky and Tim Holden of Pennsylvania — remain uncommitted. McIntyre, however, has said in the past that he favors repeal. 

“I voted against it three times, so I don’t know why I would vote not to repeal it,” Ross told POLITICO. “It’s consistent with what I’ve done. It seems pretty simple to me.” 

But to the seven Democrats leaning against repeal, the math is more complex. This group includes Shuler, Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania, Daniel Lipinski of Illinois, Collin Peterson of Minnesota, Larry Kissell of North Carolina and Jim Matheson of Utah. 

The Rethugs 'slash and burn' policy will not appeal to many Dem's, regardless of their ideology. If the R's want to change something, they need to replace what they are shitcanning, its a no friggin brainer. Since the Rethugs are short on brains, it stands to reason that simply killing a bill of this magnitude will not sit well with intelligent folks.

Plus, denying the harm repealing the HCR bill would cause, not only to people, but to the deficit shows how full of shit and hypocrisy the Rethugs are. Boehner's comment that the CBO's numbers were 'their opinion' is so fucking lame it defies logic. From the NTY link:

The budget office did not comment on Mr. Boehner’s remarks. Douglas W. Elmendorf, its director, has frequently said his office applies the longstanding budget rules. He says it uses its own professional expertise, as well as consulting with outside experts, to derive its projections, which represent the “middle of the distribution of likely outcomes.”

Mr. Elmendorf has warned that Congress may find it difficult to follow through with parts of the health care law, particularly the cuts to Medicare. The law’s cost would rise if the cuts were not enacted.

In the report on Thursday, Mr. Elmendorf, a former Clinton administration official appointed in 2008 when Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress, said that a preliminary analysis showed that repealing the law would increase federal budget deficits by a total of $145 billion from 2012 to 2019 and by $230 billion between 2012 and 2021.

Moreover, he said, if the law is repealed, 32 million fewer people will have health insurance in 2019, compared with estimates of coverage under the existing law. As a result, he said, the number of uninsured would be 54 million, rather than 23 million, in 2019.

The Rethugs could give two shits how many people would remain uninsured. They do not even attempt to address that issue. The R's vision going forward appears to be this: If we don't like certain facts, we deny their existence or call them someone else's opinion.

Standard operating procedure for those asshole's wouldn't you say? Karl Rove should be proud.

Repubes file brief supporting attempt to kill HCR act in federal court.

Mitch McConnell and Thirty-two of his fellow Corporate bootlickers filed the amicus brief. From Jurist:

Thirty-three Republican senators filed an amicus curiae brief [PDF] on Thursday supporting state attorneys general in their legal effort to have the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) declared unconstitutional. The brief, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida supports the suit's proposed arguments that the PPACA violates the Commerce Clause [Cornell LII backgrounder] of the US Constitution. In making their argument, the senators attacked the individual mandate, arguing:

    Indeed, in more than 200 years of debate as to the proper scope of the Commerce Power, the Supreme Court has never suggested that the Commerce Power allows Congress to impose affirmative obligations on passive individuals, or to punish individuals for failing to purchase a particular product. To the contrary, every landmark Commerce Clause case has dealt with congressional efforts to regulate different kinds of activity under the Commerce power. In every significant Commerce Clause case the Supreme Court has always had to decide whether Congress may regulate a given form of activity.

The Hill lists the 33 signatories to the brief, all of whom voted against passage [roll call] of the bill.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum filed the lawsuit in March, which is joined by 20 states and the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB). The suit was allowed to proceed in October, despite an attempt to dismiss. On Thursday, McCollum sent a letter asking 13 other state attorneys general to join Florida in the suit. A federal judge in Michigan ruled in October that the law is constitutional under the Commerce Clause as it addresses the economic effects of health care decisions and it does not represent an unconstitutional direct tax. In August, a federal judge allowed a similar lawsuit filed in Virginia to proceed on narrow grounds, addressing only subject matter jurisdiction and the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Several days later, McCollum cited the ruling in his response to the Obama administration's motion to dismiss the Florida challenge, filed in June.

Stayed tuned as this fight will be long and ugly. I personally think the HCR bill was a weak-ass piece of shit, but it's a start I guess and something to be protected from the assholes that support the Corporatocracy.

It's a Sports Sunday Extravaganza at our house, so I gotta go set up all my fantasy football, nascar and basketball teams. Yes....my leftwing ass loves nascar.

Bart Stupak can kiss my brown ass.

I am tired of seeing Bart Stupak's dumb ass on the telly. This sumbitch wants to make health reform all about abortion. Well, Rachel is willing to give this homophobic fuckwit an additional 15 minutes of fame. She is going after him and his connection to the C Street group known as The Family. Slap him around a bit woman...he fucking deserves it. Worthless fuck would take down the entire health reform bill just to make sure he gets his horseshit language regarding abortion into the bill. This isn't about abortion, that federal fuckery was settled long ago.




If Stupak wants to push his anti-choice agenda the sumbitch needs to introduce a bill….so the majority of the Democrats can laugh at him and bury the damn thing. From ThinkProgress, some truth about Stupak and his anti-choice agenda:

While much of the attention on the health care debate in recent days has focused on the Senate, the House will have to vote to pass a reform bill as well, and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) is threatening to torpedo the whole effort if his unreasonable demands on abortion restrictions are not met. To reconcile the differences between the House and Senate bills, Democratic leaders will likely have the House pass the Senate bill, then use the budget reconciliation process to “fix” the Senate bill, before sending it President Obama later this month. But due to two resignations, a death, and a likely vote switch by the only Republican who voted for health care reform the first time around, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has lost at least four votes, bringing the whip count to 216 — a majority of 217 is needed. But Stupak — who led a charge last November to insert a draconian abortion amendment to the House bill — is threatening to sink the effort again. Stupak claims there are “at least 12” House members who voted for the first bill that will switch their votes if the final bill includes the Senate’s abortion language. Stupak, his pro-life allies, and a leading group of Catholic bishops who have been deeply involved in the health care fight, falsely claim that the Senate bill will allow the use of taxpayer dollars for abortion and are demanding that the final bill include Stupak’s provision. Republicans have made similar accusations, but since they are unwilling to even consider voting for health care reform, it is Stupak’s bloc that would be responsible for killing health care reform, should it die in the House. Stupak’s amendment failed in a Senate vote, but the upper house included its own strict prohibition on public funding for abortions. Abortion language cannot be altered through the budget reconciliation process, meaning the final bill will look more like the Senate’s. The Catholic bishops “signaled” yesterday that they are willing to negotiate, saying “that if agreement is reached with House leaders on anti-abortion language, the church would work to get the votes needed to protect the provisions in the Senate,” even if it would require 60 votes. “Whether it would be enough to get to 60 votes, I can’t predict. We would certainly try,” Richard Doerflinger, an associate director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, told Politico. But Stupak is still not satisfied. “In the present form, the Senate health care bill is going nowhere in the House of Representatives,” Stupak threatened yesterday on the Fox Business Channel.

WHAT THE BILL SAYS: It is clear that the final health care bill will not use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. Neither the House nor Senate bills included outright public funding for abortion, but Stupak and other pro-life Democrats feared that taxpayer money would indirectly fund abortions, especially through government subsidies for low-income people to buy health insurance. Stupak’s amendment would have prohibited insurance plans that accept subsidies in the new exchanges from providing abortion services, except under the most extreme circumstances, even if women used only private money to pay for their abortion coverage. The Senate bill includes a deal orchestrated by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-NE) that does allow private health plans in the exchanges to offer abortion coverage, but only if their customers write two checks each month — one for the share of their premium that’s allocated for abortion services and one for all other health care coverage. Both checks would come from the customers’ personal funds, not government coffers. The Nelson provision also included language that encourages states to pass their own version of the Stupak Amendment, prohibiting insurers from offering plans with abortion coverage through the new state exchanges. The White House’s plan for health reform maintains Nelson’s approach in its entirety and is consistent with existing abortion restrictions, creating “a firewall between publicly- and privately-funded premiums and only allow[ing] private money to cover abortion costs.”

MOVING THE GOAL POSTS:  Stupak has consistently invented new demands when his old ones are met. Last year, Stupak first demanded that public funding for abortion be removed. It was. Then he demanded an up-or-down vote on his onerous amendment. It passed the House, but failed in the Senate. Still, Nelson’s provision was crafted with Stupak’s objections in mind, and it won the support of every pro-life Democrat in the Senate. Now, in order to keep up his crusade, ”Stupak has relied on a fundamentally dishonest interpretation of the Senate bill to argue that it would allow for public funding of abortion,” as the Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky noted. Stupak appeared on MSNBC yesterday to argue his case, claiming, “In the Senate bill, it says ‘you must offer insurance policies that will be paid for by the federal government that covers abortion.’” In an interview with ABC’s Good Morning America the next day, Stupak cited pages 2069-2078 of the Senate bill, claiming, “You will find in there that the federal government would directly subsidize abortions.” But those pages do the exact opposite, and clearly prohibit federal funding for abortions. In yesterday’s ABC interview, Stupak also objected to a provision that supposedly mandates that “every enrollee must pay one dollar per month into a fund to help fund abortions.” While it’s true that people who choose to purchase insurance with abortion coverage through the exchanges will pay the nominal fee, one can simply choose to purchase a plan that doesn’t cover abortion, and thus not pay the fee. Moreover, the $1 provision was included to allay the fears of pro-life lawmakers in order to make sure only private money is spent on abortion. The $1 comes from private premiums payments — not public dollars — and is a way of ensuring that carriers have sufficient funds to cover the services they offer. As Slate’s Timothy Noah observes, Stupak’s claims are “empirical, not ideological. And Stupak happens to be wrong.” There are a number of ways Stupak could try to get the results he wants in later legislation, and his stonewalling here shows that he cares more about his agenda than health care reform. But even if Democrats decide to change the Senate’s abortion language through a separate non-reconciliation measure, it’s still unclear that Stupak would vote for reform. On Monday, he told the Wall Street Journal that “abortion isn’t the only issue that will keep him from voting for the Senate bill if Speaker Nancy Pelosi brings it to the House floor.” “It’d be very hard to vote for this bill even if they fixed the abortion language,” he said. Asked whether there was any way he would vote for the current package, he had one word : “Nope.”

MOVING FORWARD: Americans are not interested in getting bogged down in an abortion debate on health care reform. A recent poll found that a large plurality — 47 percent — agreed that “[p]olitical differences on abortion should not prevent us from moving forward on an otherwise good health care reform plan.” Pelosi, Obama, and other leaders want to move forward as well. “Let me say this: This is not about abortion! This is a bill about providing quality, affordable health care for all Americans,” Pelosi said yesterday. “Let me say it clearly…there is no federal funding for abortion. That is the law of the land. It is not changed in this bill.” Indeed, independent observers agree. Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington & Lee University, and an independent “leading expert on health policy and law” recently released the findings of a “a thorough examination” of the Senate abortion language. While he found “significant differences between the House and Senate” bills in general, “the provisions governing abortion (Sec. 1303 of the Senate bill, pp. 2069-2078) are not among them. Both bills prohibit federal funding of abortions.” In other words, the Senate language is as effective as the House language, which Stupak wrote and voted for. Indeed, even the Catholic Hospital Association endorsed the Senate abortion language. The association, which represents hundreds of Catholic hospitals across the country, said in a statement in late December that it was “encouraged” and “increasingly confident” that the abortion compromise in the Senate health care bill “can achieve the objective of no federal funding for abortion.” Despite his unreasonable stand, House Democrats are still trying to court Stupak. After meeting with Stupak yesterday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) told TPMDC that “[s]eparate pieces of legislation could be passed” outside the reconciliation process to appease Stupak. “That’s a possibility,” said Hoyer. “I talked to Mr. Stupak today, and I’m going to be talking to him next week and he indicated he wanted to have some discussions with people. And I will do that.”

Now, sit down and shut the hell up dude.

I watched the whole thing.

The so-called Healthcare Summit has just ended. All the Federal fuckwits are standing around making small talk, slapping each other on the back and laughing too loud.

Nothing got done. There were a few priceless moments when The Big O slapped various rightwingers around verbally. TPM Muckraker has them in video form.

I am trying to decide whether I learned anything from these 8 or so friggin hours...

Ask me later. It's happy hour at my house, as of right now. Whew...what a waste of a day.

Gut wrenching.

It was simply gut wrenching to watch. KO makes tonight’s Special Comment about tomorrows ‘healthcare summit’  very personal. His father is going downhill fast, and I send both of them my love and prayers. He lost his mother last year. ;(



Leave your egos at the door, like KO says, gentlemen. Do NOT bring that political horseshit in w/you either. Healthcare for all Americans is a moral obligation, you sons of bitches.

Read the Senate healthcare bill and the CBO analysis

Here is the Senate bill and here is the CBO analysis of said bill.

Bring your lunch as the bill is over 2000 pages. It's 2,074 pages to be exact.

We have to know wtf we are talking about..so as to address the fuckery the rightwing nutters will be unleashing very soon, if they haven't started on this bill already.

Here is ThinkProgress's analysis of 'the bill' which is sort like the Cliff Notes version.
Enjoy!

Watching history on Cspan:‘‘Affordable Health Care for America Act’’

I have had the telly tuned into the House since 5am this morning. I was anxious for the debate to begin.

Well, it finally has. It's incredible to watch the fuckwits with the (R) after their name, talk shit about HR 3962(pdf). The outright lies they have the audacity to recite. The bullshit they toss out as if it is the truth and nothing but the truth. I took the time to sift through the 1900+ pages of it. How many of the R's actually did that I wonder..

Watching my own representative Kevin McCarthy (R) was an exercise in futility and frustration for me. The "S" word, oh lawd..the "S" word used again and again and again. The dreaded single payer health care, said like it's a dirty word, a horrible illness in and of itself.

But then, I also got to watch my favorite, Henry Waxman. He was eloquent, he was spot-fucking-on. He laid out what the bill will fix, what it will do away with. Facts, just the facts..no fearmongering like the (R)'s.

Does this bill make me happy? Fuck no..far from it. I am a supporter of single-payer. But it's a start in the right direction, and it will curb the carpetbaggers at the insurance corporations who have been fucking us for decades. 

There will be four hours of debate..tune in and watch a little history folks. Read the bill for yourself..or at least tab through it. Watch the debate online at Cspan.org.

Because it's taken almost 100 years to get this close to change. It's worth your time.

Baucus bill is bullS&*t.

First off, you can read the 223 page bill here.

Below is Anthony Weiner on Countdown last night, discussing the horseshit bill coming out of the Senate Finance Committee.



Rep Weiner is a truly wonderful progressive member of the House. I want this man to run for President..seriously.

In this NYT article, three economists grade the Finance committee bill. One is Dean Baker, who I read regularly.

None of the three give Baucus's bill a passing grade.

Heavy sigh my friend..heavy-fucking sigh..

Lawrence ODonnell tells it like it is. And it's f*%ked up.

And what it is, is this:

The majority of Dem's in the Senate don't give a shit what is IN the healthcare bill, they just want to pass A BILL. Nan Pelosi is on the same fucking page in the House of Rep's. And if Rahm speaks for the Pres, Obama doesn't give a rat's ass what is in it either.

Twenty three worthless Blue Dogs will not vote for a bill w/the public option in it. One hundred progressive rep's will not vote for a bill without the public option.

Ten to twenty million people will still not have health care insurance according to Lawrence.

And I fucking believe him. Because when Obama is pressed, he admits not all American's will have health insurance. He won't give a number..but he has admitted it several times in the last few months.

It's getting harder and harder to support Democrats for me. It's even harder to support Obama at this juncture. This issue is very important to millions of American's, including me.

I am tired of friends and loved-ones dying from a lack of health insurance. Or, dying because their health insurance provider won't pay for specific procedures that might save them or at the very least make what's left of their lives comfortable.

Healthcare is rationed now people..fuck Sarah Palin and her buddies. Fuck all those selfish bastards that could give two shits if everyone in America has access to affordable healthcare, as long as they have healthcare.

I will vote for my cat in lieu of Democrats, after supporting the damn public option instead of universal, single-payer healthcare...only to see it fall by the wayside. I shit you not. I will not support another Democratic asshole if we get hosed on this lousy-ass public option.

I leave for Sandy Eggo at six a.m. tomorrow for a week. But..I will have internet..so you aren't rid of me that easily.

Ted Kennedy's words on healthcare for all..from 1980

They ring as true today as they did 29 years ago. From MoJo:

We cannot have a fair prosperity in isolation from a fair society. So I will continue to stand for a national health insurance. We must—we must not surrender—we must not surrender to the relentless medical inflation that can bankrupt almost anyone and that may soon break the budgets of government at every level. Let us insist on real controls over what doctors and hospitals can charge, and let us resolve that the state of a family's health shall never depend on the size of a family's wealth.

The president, the vice-president, the members of Congress have a medical plan that meets their needs in full, and whenever senators and representatives catch a little cold, the Capitol physician will see them immediately, treat them promptly, fill a prescription on the spot. We do not get a bill even if we ask for it, and when do you think was the last time a member of Congress asked for a bill from the federal government? And I say again, as I have before, if health insurance is good enough for the president, the vice-president, the Congress of the United States, then it's good enough for you and every family in America.

It's like he said them yesterday...sadly nothing has changed in the 29 years since he said them to the Democratic National Convention.

Time Magazine will publish a commemorative issue September 7th.

Healthcare reform..left of center economists discuss.

Good video from C&L, it's the ABC news roundtable from Sunday's This Week, with some interesting folks in attendance:


Krugman and Robert Reich are there. Warms the cockles of my little black heart to see both of them at the table with the nimrod George Will. The topic was of course...healthcare reform!

Krugman talks about the hypocrisy of the Rethugs and specifically Johnny McCain.

George Will asks the inane question, are drug prices too high? He actually says he doesn't know..idiot on aisle two!

Reich has an OpEd up at Salon that answers his own question, Why in the blue hell does the Gang of Six get to decide the fate of healthcare reform:

It's not even as if the gang represents America. The three Dems in the gang are from Montana, New Mexico and North Dakota – states that together account for just over 1 percent of Americans. The three Republicans are from Maine, Wyoming and Iowa, which together account for 1.6 percent of the American population.

No shit Mr. Reich..why in the blue hell do these fuckwits get to determine what is done? Tiny states with minimal populations will determine which road we go down, with respect to healthcare reform? Horseshit I say!

Still wading through the Torture Report, a chapter at a time. It's hard to make sense of it when page after page is completely redacted.

Anthony Weiner-Medicare, aka single-payer, for everyone!

I never watch Morning Joe. Never. I hate his dumb ass, and frankly he always refuses to deal with and/or answer legitimate questions posed by intelligent guests that are left of the center.

What forced me to watch the clip below was this great read over at The Nation. Let me start by saying I wish to hell Anthony Weiner was my Congressional critter. He is spot-fucking-on with his logic in this interview with Joey Scar. Just a few of his points, courtesy of The Nation piece:

He even repeated Weiner's points clearly: The goverment would take over only the "paying mechanism" of healthcare, not the doctors or their medical decisions themselves. His ears perked up every time Weiner mentioned that the nonprofit Medicare spends 4 percent on overhead, while private insurers spend 30 percent.

*snip*

Maybe the real turning point came when Weiner asked, "How does Wal-mart offer $4 prescriptions?" Joe and co-host Mika Brzezinski looked as if they'd been thwacked by a hardback copy of Atlas Shrugged, and sat back to let the congressman explain it all to them:

They go to the pharmaceutical companies and say, "Listen, we have a giant buying pool here. You're going to give us a great deal."

Who's bigger than Wal-Mart? We are, the taxpayers. Do we do that? No. Because we have outsourced this to insurance companies who don't have necessarily as much incentive to keep those costs down because, frankly, they are getting a piece of the action.

As for the free-market freaks..Weiner asks Joey Scar and Mika..what exactly does the Health Insurance Industry provide, create, make or manufacture? Health Insurance is NOT a commodity!

What is an insurance company? They don't do a single check-up. They don't do a single exam, they don't perform an operation. Medicare has a 4 percent overhead rate. The real question is why do we have a private plan?

The Insurance companies are nothing more than carpet-bagging middlemen that are subsidized by our tax dollars in many instances. 40 percent of Insured Americans get their healthcare from a single payer, government-run source-VA, Medicaid, Medicare, SCHIP, Dept of Defense, etc.

Remote Area Medical not so remote this week.

Remote Area Medical. These people are saints and angels. They are used to servicing third world countries.

Except this week, they served Los Angeles. You know..SoCal, the land of starlets and movie moguls.

By the time they leave Tuesday, they will have provided roughly $2 million dollars of free treatment to over 10,000 people.

Read that line again. It's sickening to me because so many more thousands will have been turned away. These were by and large the working poor, some even had medical insurance but had outrageous deductions or their insurance didn't cover things like dentists and glasses. From The Independant UK via TruthOut:

In the week that Britain's National Health Service was held aloft by Republicans as an "evil and Orwellian" example of everything that is wrong with free healthcare, these extraordinary scenes in Inglewood, California yesterday provided a sobering reminder of exactly why President Barack Obama is trying to reform the US system.

The LA Forum, the arena that once hosted sell-out Madonna concerts, has been transformed – for eight days only – into a vast field hospital. In America, the offer of free healthcare is so rare, that news of the magical medical kingdom spread rapidly and long lines of prospective patients snaked around the venue for the chance of getting everyday treatments that many British people take for granted.

In the first two days, more than 1,500 men, women and children received free treatments worth $503,000 (£304,000). Thirty dentists pulled 471 teeth; 320 people were given standard issue spectacles; 80 had mammograms; dozens more had acupuncture, or saw kidney specialists.

In one of the richest cities in our nation, 10,000 people will be given basic medical, dental or vision care that they would otherwise do without. As Dana Gould says in the video below..WTF??

The video below starts out with a nasty townhall meeting and outside protesters. Lots of folks with health insurance who don't give a shit about those without insurance. Lots of folks tossing around the words Hitler and Nazi to describe our President that is trying to fix one of the biggest problems to face any administration in the last few decades.

As a native Californian, I am embarrassed and ashamed that R.A.M. had to stop in L.A. It makes me angry that many people on the right can not see the forest for the fucking trees.

It's a good video..part of Bill Maher's show this week. Check it out and then see if you can keep your blood pressure down after seeing the fucking idiots bitching about reforming healthcare...then the folks who are grateful that they got to have a little free healthcare to make their lives more tolerable. Thanks to Crooks and Liars for the video which can be viewed here on my video page.

One of the wingnuts from Specter's townhall on Hardball tonight.

Katy Abrams seems like an intelligent woman. Seems is the operative word, as Lawrence ODonnell takes her argument apart and she goes right along with it. She refuses to say if the Obama tax hike will hit her family. Watch this..it's fucking incredible that this woman thinks Social Security and Medicare should be done away with because..

The founding fathers didn't put it in the Constitution.

Watch the video here on my video page.

She is a stay-at-home mother. Her husband owns a small business. She speaks intelligently, but it makes you wonder what she uses for a brain when she apparently buys into ALL the fuckery being spread by the Rethugs and those that want to keep health insurance an exclusive club. She would want her own parents to forego Medicare..meaning no safety net for them..BECAUSE IT WASN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION!!!!

Simply..utterly..fucking amazing.

The Healthcare Wars

It seems to me that the folks who have insurance are now the ones that do not want health insurance reform.

It's the "I got mine, fuck the rest of you" scenario.

So The Big O hasn't done a very good job of explaining to those folks how healthcare reform will benefit them.

I have come to this conclusion after watching quite a few of the townhall meetings recently. Arlen Specter is holding one live right now on MSNBC. Everyone who is speaking against healthcare reform has insurance.

Now, I am not saying ALL people who have insurance are against healthcare reform..just that that bulk of folks against it already have health insurance.

This pisses me off. A lot.

I did not have health insurance for over 20 years. During that time my spine started falling apart. If I had had basic health insurance, a doctor could of dealt with the problem before it reached the stage it is now..permanently fucked up.

I am sick of the 'I got mine, fuck everyone else' mantra. Selfish bastards need to suck it up and deal.

And The Big O has to do a better job of explaining how reforming the system will help those that already have health insurance.

Freaks and farkwits of the week

These assholes have no idea that their beloved Medicare is socialist medicine at it's best. Watch at 2:59 when the assholes raise their fuckwitted hands to hate on socialist medicine then raise their hands that they have medicare.

DAMN PATHETIC IF YOU ASK MOI.

Is the media killing healthcare reform?

Many of us that pay attention and watch the media circus known as 24/7 cable news think they are. Watch GritTv's Laura Flanders and others talk about how the media affects the conversation on healthcare reform here on my video page.

From The Nation article:

Most agree the issue of healthcare is getting sufficient coverage and exposure in the mainstream media, but is it getting the right kind of coverage? The topic has often been belittled to another means of partisan divide, and most citizens still lack basic knowledge of reform plans in favor of rhetoric from one side or the other.

I really don't know..which side is the media on? Why do they report the lies spewed by the rightwing nutters with regard to what Obama's healthcare package will and won't do?