The all-too-familiar ritual

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 20:29:18 PM MST

It's no fun to watch this unfold. And yet this is the exactly the sort of drama you should expect for the next few weeks, as the Senate deliberations play out.

The bill Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced last week is not everything it could be--not by a long shot. And progressives will try their best to improve it. But the real battle will be an ongoing rearguard action, to fend off changes from the right--amendments that, in many cases, Republicans will support even though they have no intention of voting for the final bill. Abortion. Immigration. The mandates, for individuals and employers. You name it.

For progressives, victories are more likely to come in the form of ground not conceded than ground gained. Every day that legislation doesn't get worse is a day to cherish.

Health reform by numbers: What it means for Montana

by: John_Firehammer

Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 15:07:45 PM MST

Let's put some numbers to the question. This week the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, via its HealthReform.gov site, provided a new breakdown of benefits of the Senate Bill for the Big Sky State.

Proposed reforms would provide:

   * Premium tax credits to 93,200 residents to help them purchase coverage.
   * Free preventive services to 160,000 seniors.
   * Tax credits to 24,200 small businesses to help make premiums more affordable.
   * Affordable coverage to 159,000 residents who don't have insurance and 79,000 residents who have non-group insurance.

Reform also would

   * Help families save up to $1,200 on premiums.
   * Make coverage accessible to people now shut out due to pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, which affects 6 percent of Montanans, and high blood pressure, which affects 25 percent of Montana adults.
   * Forbid insurance companies from placing lifetime limits on the coverage they provide and from arbitrarily dropping coverage.
   * Cut in half the cost of brand-name drugs included in the Medicare Part D "doughnut hole."
   * Stabilize coverage and provide more affordable premiums for 15,900 early retirees.

The reform debate can get pretty abstract. People can argue forever about the best approach. But let's not lose sight of the fact that there's great potential for real change here--change that can make a huge difference to our friends and neighbors right here in Montana.

John Firehammer
Montana Communications Director
Change That Works

Health reform: Chamber's tactics work against Montana small business

by: John_Firehammer

Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 16:16:11 PM MST

According to the article, the Montana Chamber and the state chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) have sent out messages to their members saying that reform proposals will raise taxes on small business and do nothing to address out-of-control medical costs.

But the opposite is true. Both the recently passed House bill and proposed legislation in the Senate would provide tax credits to businesses that provide coverage to their employees. And a health insurance exchange created by the proposals would make that coverage more affordable to small businesses. Right now, employee health insurance is flat out of reach to many businesses that would like to offer it.

In echoing the anti-reform sentiments of its national parent, the Montana Chamber appears to be placing the interest of large corporations elsewhere ahead of what's in the best interest of small businesses in Montana.

Pretty shameless, but at least people are noticing. Earlier this week the Washington Post exposed the Chamber's plan to solicit a slanted study on health care reform legislation. And today American Rights at Work launched a "Not My Chamber" Twitter protest against the group, decrying the its opposition to health care reform. Around the country, some state Chamber chapters are voicing their objections to the national organization's tactics.

The truth is, providing employees with health insurance is good for small business. It helps employers attract and retain good employees. Many Montana small businesses recognize this and are struggling to keep up with rising premiums unchecked by competition. Other small businesses would like to provide coverage, but can't afford to do so. Reform efforts will help, not hurt, these people.

John Firehammer
Montana Communications Director
Change That Works

Senate health care bill released

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 10:01:24 AM MST

Some of its provisions:

- A public option with a state opt-out clause

- Increase payroll tax on Medicare for high-income people

- A tax on high-cost, "Cadillac" health care plans

- Does not prohibit insurers from covering abortions, like the House bill's Stupak amendment

- The health-insurance exchange opens a year later than it would under the House bill, in 2014
More generous subsidies than under the Baucus bill

- $900B over ten years

Igor Volsky charted a comparison of the bill to both the Baucus bill and the House bill. Here's a short summary (pdf) of the bill. Or read the whole bill (pdf) and report back!

The support for cloture on the bill from Democrats Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, and Ben Nelson is uncertain.

Discuss.

Analysis: Additional Insight on Health Care Reform from MSU-Billings Poll

by: Montana Cowgirl

Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 19:44:56 PM MST

One way to interpret the results would be to conclude that the health care reform plan of a Democratic president is profoundly unpopular to the people of Montana.

A second way to look at the poll results, however, would be to compare the approaches to reform of the two major figures who have been the most outspoken on this issue: Senator Baucus (who has tirelessly worked on this issue and should be commended for his efforts) and Governor Schweitzer (who has been an unabashed proponent of progressive reform, praising the Canadian system in the media and at public events-including at President Obama's town hall meeting in Bozeman.)

Thoughts?

Thanks for nothing, Rehberg

by: John_Firehammer

Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 13:14:44 PM MST

We had decent attendance, lots of sympathetic car honks and some great media coverage. But, as the bill moves on to the Senate, I wanted to highlight just what Rehberg voted against. Here's a rundown, from the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, affects.

In Montana, the Affordable Health Care for America Act approved by the House would:

   * Provide coverage for 126,000 uninsured Montanans.
   * Protect up to 900 Montana families from going bankrupt due to illness or injury.
   * Provide health care coverage to 22,000 Montanans who are now denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions.
   * Improve employer-based health care coverage for 564,000 Montana residents.
   * Allow 36,200 Montana small businesses to obtain affordable health care coverage for their employees.
   * Reduce health insurance costs for about 34,900 Montana small businesses.
   * Improve Medicare for 162,000 beneficiaries.
   * Reduce the national deficit by more than $30 billion over the next decade and provide a budget surplus for the next 20 years.

Sure, not all of us are happy about all aspects of the bill. But this is could good stuff. Here's hoping Max and Jon will work hard for a bill that does as much or more for Montana.

--John Firehammer
Montana communications director
Change That Works

The Need for Reform is No Myth

by: TruthAboutReform

Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 13:56:37 PM MST

If you're confused about health care reform, we don't blame you. With all that's being said on the news and on the internet, it's hard to decipher the real message, the real truth about what reform means to us as a country and as individuals. As we've noted in earlier posts, there are many myths circulating with the intention of dissuading Americans from believing that a change in our current health care system would be a positive one. Whatever the motivation, let's focus on what is happening now.

Snow globes, anyone?

by: molly moody

Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 09:59:44 AM MST

We may be tired, we may be short on funds, but, we need to pull through the long fall and help deliver health reform this year. By, say what, calling, e-mailing, writing letters, holding events, most importantly, keeping our eye on the prize, imagine a snow globe...

Despite the intensity of the matter of the debate before us, I couldn't help but highlight this gem from yesterday, on the snow globe tariff.

I have to give Max a lot of credit for weathering the storm of this health care debate with ease and calm, reminiscent of James Stewart. But I've also been in the field for a long time and I'm wondering if low income hard working families will also see some relief from harmful fees of the insurance industry and relief from a failed system of health reform. Look long and hard in the snow globe, I see a final bill in the globe with a robust public option- Medicare like, indeed.

For the holidays, I wish for a vintage snow globe and health reform, and maybe a copy of Citizen Kane for those cozy, snowy days after the health reform bill finally passes.

[In the film Citizen Kane, Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles) drops a snow globe and gasps "Rosebud" as he dies Citizen Kane]  

The Myth of Health Care Rationing

by: TruthAboutReform

Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 11:38:04 AM MST

While rationing may be a popular topic - particularly among the conservative and right leaning blogosphere, it is, at its core, a health care myth. Unlike the health care debate in 1994, where Harry and Louise were lamenting government rationing on behalf of the insurance companies, rationing has no place in current health care reform bills.

According to the American Medical Association, "The health reform plans being debated in Congress ensure that health care decisions will be made by you and your doctor - no one else."  

Rehberg Caught Pretending to Support Breast Cancer Awareness While Voting to End Mammogram Coverage

by: Montana Cowgirl

Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 00:00:01 AM MST

Congressman Rehberg's hypocrisy reached his Facebook page yesterday when he posted his support for Breast Cancer Awareness month on Facebook.  (Note: You must be a "fan" to see the post.") In reality, Rehberg voted to deprive Montana women of the mammography benefit that makes a patient aware of breast cancer.

If you are looking for someone who epitomizes hypocrisy, look no further than Representative Rehberg.  Montana's lone Congressman voted for H.R. 525 to allow insurance companies not to honor Montana's legal requirement that mammograms be covered, and has recently reiterated his support for allowing insurance companies to purchase insurance across state lines (and therefore ignore Montana laws that assure our benefits).

This is not the first time Congressman Rehberg has tried to take credit for things he voted against.  Most recently, Rehberg made several attempts to claim he understood the need for good-paying jobs in Montana and set up press conferences to take credit for recovery projects in Montana, even though he opposed the jobs and recovery measure. 
 

Thought You All Could Use Some Good News on Health Care Reform

by: Montana Cowgirl

Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 22:13:06 PM MST

Hatch wanted an amendment to eliminate a major compromise that let private insurance companies continue to cover abortion care but not fund coverage for this care under any government or public option. He also proposed an amendment to prohibit all private companies participating in health insurance exchanges from providing coverage for abortion care.

Thanks Max for standing by women is this fight to retain our current benefits and for your help keeping these private decisions in the hands of women, families, and doctors.  

For now, women can continue to make these tough decisions based on our own moral beliefs and medical needs--not Orrin Hatch's.

What's the goal of reform, anyway?

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 07:02:48 AM MST

Let's start with why folks support a public option. Matt Yglesias:

...the main constituency for health reform consists of people who don't think the present system is fundamentally sound. That's a big part of the reason the public plan element of Obama's proposals has become such an emotional touchstone for the left. The public plan is a fairly modest part of a fairly modest package of reforms, but it's the slice of the package that holds out the prospect of eventual transformation of the system into something quite different and less driven by corporate profits.

The spoken corollary in Yglesias' post is that most folks, while not thinking the system insurance is necessarily sound, are more comfortable with the status quo than with the idea of sweeping and comprehensive reform. That is, there's a real and sizable constituency against, say, single-payer health care (and I'm not talking about Tea Baggers, who are a fringe group of quasi-violent obstructionists). Which also explains why younger politicos - who are more sensitive to consensus-building - readily support the public option, not single-payer health care.

The most interesting observation - at least for the purposes of this post - was from Ezra Klein:

The primary constituency for health-care reform has a political attachment to it, and in particular, to the public option portion of it. This is not, however, the most obvious constituency for health-care reform. That honor goes to the uninsured, the underinsured, the unemployed and others lower on the income ladder who are likely to directly benefit from the bill, rather than abstractly benefit from seeing their ideological preferences included in the bill.

They, however, are not in the streets or at the town halls. Broadly speaking, they're politically marginalized: They don't vote or march or yell.

Klein, for me, has been one of the more frustrating voices in this debate. He's always dismissed the more ambitious elements of reform as unimportant. What gives?

I think the answer is there in his opinion of who's the "constituency" of health care reform: the dispossessed, the indigent, and the sick. Essentially for Klein et al, it appears they see reform as a kind of assistance program for those that are shut out of the system. Reform addresses the marginalized, drawing them into the status quo, while seeking to curb the worst excesses of the insurance system. It's not transformational. It' doesn't fundamentally alter how we deliver and pay for health care.

It's easy for us to scoff at Klein's limited view of health care reform. But I don't think any of us should overlook the obvious benefits this limited reform would bring to millions. Sure, real and comprehensive reform would benefit these folks more, but even this limited reform is something. The goals of the "incrementalists," or the "insurance reformers," or the "cowardly un-progressives" - or whatever the slur du jour is - are good. Isolated from cost, politics, efficiency, etc & co, it might even be worth supporting.

That's still a long way from saying that this limited reform is acceptable.

For one, as I've argued before, I can't help but think these reforms are, at best, a temporary brake on the degradation of private insurance coverage, and no brake at all on health care costs. The insurance industry has a motive (profit) and the means ($$$) to sidestep regulation. (So they can't discriminate against preexisting health conditions - but what about denying a policy to someone because of their zip code, say?) The public option would act as a brake on this degradation, and an escape outlet for consumers.

For another, implementing an insurance mandate without the public option would be politically disastrous for Democrats, progressives, and future reform. Read JC's post about his broken ribs. Here's a guy who's been jerked around by private insurers for years: what feelings do you think he's going to experience when he wakes up one morning, suddenly required by law to buy a private insurance policy? There's the rub: most of those who'd benefit from Klein's limited reform will have been dropped from private insurance rolls because of preexisting conditions or age or general health or because they, you know, once used insurance money for a catastrophic event, and I'm guessing pretty much all of whom feel like they've been misled and cheated by their insurers - and you're going to compel these people to buy private insurance again?

That's not even considering the political fallout of an individual mandate (bandied about by the Senate Finance Committee), which would give employers an incentive to drop their benefits programs for employees. Imagine, then, how those voters will feel when they wake up one morning without insurance and compelled by law to purchase an individual policy at a much higher price?

And I don't even bring in all the other arguments - efficiency, cost, the idea of implementing a reform that essentially bribes the private insurance industry to take on the people who are the biggest risks.

Which is the long way of saying that what divides the left on reform isn't knee-jerk and simplistic dichotomies of "true" progressive vs. "false" progressive, or the courageous vs. the faint of heart, or "pure" vs. "corrupt," but in the difference in the way we define the problem to which we're applying a solution.

A kind of competition that kills

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 06:26:48 AM MST

It is no secret that this page is all for competition in the marketplace. If indeed that's the goal, allow us to suggest a path to it that will be a lot easier than erecting the impossible dream of a public option: Let insurance companies sell health-care policies across state lines....

Affordability would improve if consumers could escape states where each policy is loaded with mandates. "If consumers do not want expensive 'Cadillac' health plans that pay for acupuncture, fertility treatments or hairpieces, they could buy from insurers in a state that does not mandate such benefits," Mr. Herrick has written.

A 2008 publication "Consumer Response to a National Marketplace in Individual Insurance," (Parente et al., University of Minnesota) estimated that if individuals in New Jersey could buy health insurance in a national market, 49% more New Jerseyans in the individual and small-group market would have coverage. Competition among states would produce a more rational regulatory environment in all states.

Sounds so innocuous, doesn't it? Yeah, hey! Why can't I buy that cheap other-state plan?

Jesse Taylor:

A "more rational regulatory environment" is a synonym for a much smaller regulatory environment. If I were in charge of a state with a dying city (say, Michigan), the first thing I would do is get rid of every single restriction on health insurance in state law, and then encourage tax abatements or even permanent tax restructuring for health insurance companies who wanted to locate in Detroit. Within ten years, every major insurer in the nation would be located on Woodward Avenue, and Detroit would be the Wilmington, Delaware of the health insurance industry.

I mean, there are some little downsides. Virtually every base-level insurance plan in the country would become a high-deductible plan with high coinsurance rates. So-called "Cadillac" plans (you know, the ones that cover you when your neighbor decides to play "Elvis Watches The Teevee" but misses because of his undiagnosed glaucoma) would invariably become more expensive as the lack of any regulatory structure allowed pool-splitting. If you hate insurance company bureaucracy today, imagine what happens tomorrow when massive call centers are handling policies from all over the country. Guaranteed issue rules would die, meaning that when you bought into the cheapest insurance and got any of the conditions that it didn't cover - for instance, sickness - you would now likely be barred from ever being insured by a private insurer for those conditions....

To wit: Senate Bill 234, which mandates insurance coverage for children with autism. If the WSJ had its way, healthy Montanans could buy insurance policies from other states that didn't mandate coverage of autistic kids - and every other "niche" illness you could name -  and insurance companies operating in the state would either wither and die, or move to a less regulatory "environment." And autistic kids would no longer be able to find coverage.

We know this would happen, because we've already got a model: the credit-card industry's move to Delaware to take advantage of its laws:

These powers include the ability to charge interest rates not subject to any legal ceiling, to raise interest rates retroactively, to charge variable interest rates, to levy unlimited fees for credit card usage and to foreclose on a home in the event of default for credit card debts.

Worked great! Not for the consumer, mind you, but for the credit card industry!

In short, allowing consumers to buy insurance across state lines would likely result in lower insurance rates - for only those that qualify for insurance, of course, a necessarily smaller number than those that do today. But it would also likely result in higher out-of-pocket expenses for those that do have insurance, more declined claims, and no brake on escalating health care costs.

In short, it would only make the status quo worse.

Which reminds me of Paul Krugman's column yesterday on Washington's odd enthrallment to an unworkable economic policy - Reaganomics ("an ideology that says government intervention is always bad, and leaving the private sector to its own devices is always good") - which, in practice, increased wealth for the ueber-wealthy and stagnated - or worse - growth for everyone else. And which brought on the "worst recession since the 1930s."

The debate over the public option has, as I said, been depressing in its inanity. Opponents of the option - not just Republicans, but Democrats like Senator Kent Conrad and Senator Ben Nelson - have offered no coherent arguments against it. Mr. Nelson has warned ominously that if the option were available, Americans would choose it over private insurance - which he treats as a self-evidently bad thing, rather than as what should happen if the government plan was, in fact, better than what private insurers offer.

But it's much the same on other fronts. Efforts to strengthen bank regulation appear to be losing steam, as opponents of reform declare that more regulation would lead to less financial innovation - this just months after the wonders of innovation brought our financial system to the edge of collapse, a collapse that was averted only with huge infusions of taxpayer funds.

So why won't these zombie ideas die?

Krugman blames industry contributions engineered to maintain the status quo and president Obama's reluctance to use his office to challenge financial "government-is-bad fundamentalism." I'd argue, though, that he overlooks the role of the traditional media, which, in its glaring sycophancy, still sucks up to the power elite in DC, and also operates in fear of being out of touch with "ordinary" Americans (explaining its reluctance to challenge Tea Baggerism, for one).

Can't expect change without a change in discourse.

Take my Brown Shirt, please!

by: Jay Stevens

Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 12:39:59 PM MST

Yeah, like, he was so out of line!

Which is why this Marine vet is my hero! He gets up and totally gives it to Baird! Gives him exactly what he deserves! And compares health care reform to both socialism and Nazism! Like, because socialists and fascists are exactly the same thing! (Tho' I'm sure everyone who died in WWII is kicking themselves now about that...) And Nancy Pelosi is totally a Nazi! Just check our her website!

Nothing says you're not a Brown Shirt like riling up a crowd against a democratic process with a bunch of lies, right?

Mandates w/out public option = disaster

by: Jay Stevens

Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 11:57:47 AM MST

It is possible, as President Obama said during last week's visit to Grand Junction, to revise the nation's health care system without having a public insurance option.

But without strong competition for the health insurance giants that dominate the landscape, it just won't be complete reform.

The Obama administration and congressional Democrats need to push forward with their plan to pass a public option as part of a comprehensive health care overhaul when they return to Washington next month. We don't see how it works without one.

Atrios tweets: "mandates w/o public option. nobody could predict what a political disaster that will be..."

Given that it's crucial, and people want it, it's little wonder that Max Baucus is hiding from his constituents...

Time will tell

by: Jay Stevens

Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 20:26:25 PM MST

Which leads me to this delicious description of the anti-reform movement, which is running with this misinformation:

In the interim, however, its reputation for something far beyond loyal oppositionism is taking a vicious hold -- and that could very well be more determinative than any attempted, post-midterm reevaluation. The 2008 election revealed what demographic support the GOP had -- that is, aging and angry white folks -- but its opportunistic collaboration with tea partyers and town hall protesters is defining what the GOP is: a bunch of aging and angry white folks.

Electorally speaking, that 's a rather bad base to have -- it's like a true, oversized death panel, a national but mostly subtropical collection of misinformed and manipulated nincompoops who are dying off daily -- no matter how thrilling the GOP may find their momentary blockading of Obamian progress.

Tick, tock.

Update: Agree with icebergslim, tho, that the White House doesn't get this, that Obama has a progressive mandate (the way that Bush never had) and is dealing from a position of strength:

Barack Obama is listening to a Chief of Staff that is on the 90s, Clinton Adminstration mode. That worked in the 90s, but this is 2009 and not only has this country voted for a black man to be POTUS, but we voted for CHANGE, PROGRESS. The shit that Emanuel is doing in the White House is disastrous. You don't have the President of the United States continue to compliment, praise the very Republicans that are tearing him down in the national press and on television, DAILY. What the fuck kind of shit is this? Again, this is 2009 not 1993. For the Chief of Staff to the President of the United States repeatedly having him go out there and praise the very persons who are determined to undermind him at every turn is looney and I am being nice.

Etc & co. There's also some "kind" words for Jim Messina in the post.

Public option favored by Montanans

by: Jay Stevens

Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 08:42:05 AM MST

While Baucus continues conspiring with Republicans to delay and kill effective health care reform, his antics aren't doing him any favors back home. And despite the onslaught of pure bullshit slung by opponents of effective reform (death panels! government takeover! Canada!), a plurality of all Montana residents (and independents as well) still support a public option.

(Check out the poll results. Another interesting result for those wondering about a possible Rehberg/Tester matchup in '12: Rehberg's sitting at 46/45 fav/unfav and Tester at 48/39. I'm guessing Rehberg passes up a shot at the Senate - which would be a close and expensive race - for the Governorship, an open-seat race. Plus the numbers show some vulnerability for Rehberg in 2010.)

Meanwhile, Baucus continues tootling the bipartisan tune, citing a need for 60 votes to get the public option through the Senate, although that implies at least one Democratic Senator would filibuster health care reform - given the success of fundraising for those that stood up for the public option, it would seem a risky and unpopular maneuver, to say the least.

All we need, right now, is a bill from the Senate Finance Committee, Senator, so we can move the process along...

Rehberg's muddled opposition to health care reform

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 12:05:18 PM MST

Cara Wilder of Bozeman sparred with Rehberg - pressuring him to support the public option - and the crowd, which booed her when she called Rehberg, Republicans and Fox News a bunch of liars. A charge of "socialist" rang out from the crowd.

"Oooh," Wilder retorted. "The town hall mob."

Rehberg defended himself against the liar charge.

"You don't have to agree with me," he told Wilder. "But my motives are pure."

Certainly on health care, the Republicans and Fox News have been lying about health care. What did Rehberg say before Wilder called him a "liar"? Did Rehberg, you know, actually lie about something? Now that would be news, wouldn't it?

Still, I'm going to give Montana's lone Representative the benefit of the doubt. Much to his credit, he hasn't - as far as I know - adopted Tea Bagger rhetoric, never tried to stoke the mob with the fear of a "death panel," never, as far as I can find, referred to Congressional health care reform as a "single-payer" solution or accused Obama of wanting to institute "socialized medicine."

Here's about as detailed a summary of Rehberg's views on health care reform, which comes from the Havre Daily News. In it, he certainly showed that he's on-board with the GOP plan to kill reform - the ol' "let's slow this down" line is a euphemism for killing the bill.

Another, somewhat antiquated line, is his advocacy for allowing consumers to buy insurance over state lines, something McCain espoused in the election, and which would, in effect, allow insurers to set up shop in the states with the least insurance regulation, a trick the credit care industry learned long ago. (Wonder why they're all based in Delaware?) Without national insurance regulation - such as a community standard that forbids insurers to discriminate against the ill - such a law would make insurance even less reliable than it is today.

I'm intrigued by this: "He added that legislation recently was proposed to allow people to join the federal employee pool - he said he carries Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, but is part of a 1.8-million-member pool - but that was shot down in committee on a party-line vote." Never heard of this. Anyone care to elaborate? Sounds fishy...like there's something he's not telling us here.

And, of course, our old friend, tort reform. Tort reform, by the way, has had no discernible effect on the rising cost of malpractice insurance in the states where it was enacted. In short, it caps what insurers pay out, but has no cap for how much insurers charge. Boondoggle for insurers. Punishment for trial lawyers, the deep-pocketed nemeses of Republicans everywhere.

All-in-all, a series of stale, ineffective proposals that would directly benefit big business and hurt consumers. That is, the usual for Rehberg. What is noteworthy, however, is how the Congress crittur avoided discussing any details of the current plan, instead choosing to simply state that it's not a good bill. And that's why I'd like to hear his exact response to Wilder's question on the public option. So far, all I can find is the usual vague references to government bureaucracy, etc....

When the GOP starts resembling LaRouche...

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 15:53:31 PM MST

EJ Dionne:

This is not about the politics of populism. It's about the politics of the jackboot. It's not about an opposition that has every right to free expression. It's about an angry minority engaging in intimidation backed by the threat of violence.

There is a philosophical issue here that gets buried under the fear that so many politicians and media-types have of seeming to be out of touch with the so-called American heartland.

The simple fact is that an armed citizenry is not the basis for our freedoms. Our freedoms rest on a moral consensus, enshrined in law, that in a democratic republic we work out our differences through reasoned, and sometimes raucous, argument. Free elections and open debate are not rooted in violence or the threat of violence. They are precisely the alternative to violence, and guns have no place in them.
On the contrary, violence and the threat of violence have always been used by those who wanted to bypass democratic procedures and the rule of law. Lynching was the act of those who refused to let the legal system do its work. Guns were used on election days in the Deep South during and after Reconstruction to intimidate black voters and take control of state governments.

Yes, I have raised the racial issue, and it is profoundly troubling that firearms should begin to appear with some frequency at a president's public events only now, when the president is black. Race is not the only thing at stake here, and I have no knowledge of the personal motivations of those carrying the weapons. But our country has a tortured history on these questions, and we need to be honest about it. Those with the guns should know what memories they are stirring.

In other, related, news, UnitedHealth apparently encouraged its employees to attend an anti-reform protest organized by religious extremists...

Reward the progressives

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 14:51:27 PM MST

Keep it comin!