Healthcare Hysterics

Okay the world is not ending. The passage of health care reform as it is now generally constituted will be a win for Democrats. It's the begining not the end of reform. So take a deep breath and live with it. Plus it turns out Limbaugh apparently loves socialized medicine after all. This guy is beyond a dumb shit.

Gang Banging Dumb Shit Millionaires

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Lesson One For Rednecks Why You Don't Torture Prisoners

Taliban release video of captured US Soldier missing since June. Stupid shit rednecks like Dick Cheney, who like to think of the war in Afghanistan as just another episode of Jack Bauer in 24 should realize that when the US tortures people they put American soldiers at grave risk of the same thing happening to them should the shoe end up on the other foot.

"The video, which has an English-language narration in parts, also shows images of prisoners in U.S. custody being abused. The speaker says he did not suffer such ill treatment."

But he probably will....

How the hell can America act outraged. "To release this video on Christmas Day is an affront to the deeply concerned family and friends of Bowe Bergdahl, demonstrating contempt for religious traditions and the teachings of Islam." says General so in so. Meanwhile here in Texas us Christians think it's god's will to apply electrical current to your balls if you end up being a freaking Muslim.

These draft dogging malingering assholes like Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld aren't going to be the ones jumping into a foxhole in a some faraway third world country. They'll be eating fancy meals and smoking big cigars and joking about how fucking tough they are when it comes to blowing people up and torturing prisoners who end up in our custody.

There's a special place in hell for these ignorant despots.

Don't Throw the Baby Out With The Bathwater Just Yet

Where we're at today in the Obama era..

A quote from David Cole's Huffington Post mention and New York Review of books

"Thursday morning--Christmas Eve, that is, just after 7 a.m.--the United States Senate did something it's never done and passed a bill that aims for broad reforms of America's private health-insurers (it also delivers them 30 million new customers over the next decade, a bone of contention on the left). Potential snags exist, to be sure, but in all likelihood Barack Obama will become the first president, out of eight who've tried, to pass large-scale health reform. His presidency is either one-quarter or one-eighth over. Let us say, for argument's sake (because the economy is starting to turn around; and because of the advantages of incumbency), that it is the latter. What have we learned in this first year that might tell us something about the next seven?

Three things, I think. The first is that he's not the liberal tiger some people assumed or hoped he would be. Put aside the contingent of Americans who consider him a Communist. The rest of us should by now, I think, see him as the center-left politician he is, a person whose deepest intellectual conviction is to look skeptically upon conviction. He has, by the way, never said otherwise. If you happened to read The Audacity of Hope, this is the person you encountered."

There's a Republican for that..

Thanks John for the heads up...

The Sky Is Falling The Sky Is Falling

Or so said you know who. Has every fucking progressive in the country turned into a freaking drama queen? Okay there’s no public option. Get over it. There’s a ton of good stuff in this bill and it certainly a foundation on which we can build. Look at it as a patient’s bill of rights on steroids if nothing else. The paint isn't even dry on this baby and your having a cow. Here are some of the good things in the health care bills:

• Extend health insurance coverage to 31 million more Americans, including 14 million lower-income, working people through Medicaid.
• Prohibit insurance company discrimination based on gender or pre-existing condition and make sure you can't lose your insurance when you get sick.
• End the upward, unsustainable increases in insurance premium.
• Increase funding for community health centers in 10,000 communities across the country, enhancing primary care for more than 25 million people who have traditionally been uninsured or under insured.
• Close the prescription drug dough nut hole for seniors.
• Require insurance companies to spend at least 85% of their income on patient care, not executive pay or profits.
• Cut the federal deficit by $132 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

After more than 30 years of the corporations taking over the government, a fact that many of you overlooked for decades when you failed to even show up to vote, did you think these bastards would somehow disappear overnight because you actually put down the pot pipe and clicked your heals together when you finally sobered up enough to realize the alarm bells were ringing.

Democrats are generally pussies. Yes you heard me right we're a bunch of sniveling crybabies in never fucking never land half the time. I’m sick of John Avavosis over at America Blog and even the female version of Governator Swartzenager, the Queen Arianna herself at Huffington Post bashing Obama every time he sneezes. Make like Medicare Plan D and please close your donut holes a minute!

You apparently have the attention span of a 2nd year college student after he has been sucking on a bong all day. It has been just a year ago when Obama inherited the piece of shit leftovers of Bush and his band of fucking criminals. W and his cronies spent years robbing the fucking treasury to finance their unlawful wars, while all the time enriching their personal blind trusted companies. They greased the palms of their big business buddies and the asses of the middle class. The ran the country into the fucking ground so that it’s a wonder it still functions at all.

Yes, maybe the fountain of idealism that rode in with our current President was turn on full blast. It was sure to make for a terrible bummer of a hangover when we had to come back to earth. Huffington and especially the nitwits over at America Blog wouldn’t of done much better if they, through some miracle of science and religion, has suddenly been put into Obama’s shinny shoes.

I still believe that Barack Obama is an honorable and intelligent man who has done one hell of a lot of good things to improve the situation is a relatively short period of time. Given the total crapper that the right has attempted to turn this country into for the middle class, and it didn't start with the Bush's either. Saint Ronald Reagan probably was the biggest asshole of all. Problem was he was sort of a likable jerk.

If you believe that Obama hasn’t been an effective and viable President for progressive and liberal ideas your not paying attention again. I could go into a fucking litany here about what is right about the last year. But all you assholes out there are interested in is your little petty fucking agendas or parroting the same bullshit in your echo chamber then to take a minute to look at the big picture. Yes, we should keep the Presidents feet to the fire. But the constant whining is becoming counterproductive. Most importantly you should be blaming the people who are really responsible, the Republicans and a few assholes D's and one asshole I in the Congress named Joe "the weasel" Lieberman. Fitting that his name starts with LIE. It’s not Obama’s fault Lieberman was born for Christ sake.

Problem with the left sometimes is they get all hung up in their limited little fucking worlds. It’s all about their particular area of special interest. You know who you are. If your issue isn’t getting the attention you think it deserves your ready to throw the baby out with the bath water. Be careful you don't windup poisoning the well in the process.

Yes!

A dreamliner comes true.

But Will It Fly

Will the last machinist leaving Seattle please turn off the lights!

Oh the Drama… Progressives Have A Temper Tantrum Over Health Care Compromise

Many knee jerk liberals awoke this morning with a nagging feeling that they have been sold down the river with the apparent demise of the so-called public option. But most likely they are really only suffering from a severe case of tunnel vision when you look at what the overall proposed and significant reforms might turn out to be by the time the bill hits the President’s desk.

Both Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight and Chris Bowers over at Open Left, well respected progressive types, express similar themes, that liberals would be wrong to call the direction and scope of health care reform, as now proposed, anything other than significant should it become law. Now take a deep breath and exhale then repeat.

Is Darcy Burner Fixating On The Public Option

Darcy Burner, the twice beaten Democratic Candidate from WA 8th District and the loopy lefty darling of all neo progressives in ear shot nearly had a cow yesterday when reports emerged from the Senate that it maybe willing to drop or weaken the public option in a scheme allowing 55 to 64 year olds to instead buy into Medicare.

Burner’s rant on Huffington Post yesterday claims that the two big issues of the healthcare reform debate are: “A whole bunch of people don't have insurance, and can't therefore get the range of medical services they need; and we spend way too much, twice as much as most of the rest of the industrialized world, for healthcare that's not as good as what they get.” Sounds to me like something a liberal would parrot at a cocktail party in Bellevue.

Then somehow she claims that the extension of Medicare to the 55 and over crowd in exchange for dumping or the drowning in the bathtub of the public option will likely make cost go up rather then down. Although I’m certainly no expert, I don’t see how she can substantiates that conclusion.

Experts have argued that Medicare administrative costs are lower then for private insurance when it comes to delivering treatment. Given that premise is true, wouldn’t that mean that if millions were allowed to buy in to Medicare, meaning they have to pay something too, and the cost of the government administration is lower then for private insurance companies. Wouldn’t the program lower the overall cost of the actual delivery of treatment to those patients? Plus a government run program has a better chance of controlling cost because it's the fucking government with big government clout, standard setting, uniformity and reach.

Sometimes I think the left is as hysterical as the right when it comes to their pet issues. The public option has become the litmus test for how progressive you are, or aren’t, on health care reform. Many couldn't tell a public option from a hole in the ground, but it’s something to talk about that sounds good when all out at the sushi wine bar, I guess. You’d think they were going to remove your appendix without anesthetics if you even dare mention that perhaps the public option has become so watered down that it’s time to start looking at other proposals. Hell, I was as dingy as Darcy about the public option last summer, but this latest fish we may not want to throw back.

For god sake Doctor Governor Howard Dean is the one who supposedly came up with this idea of Medicare at 55. Burner acts like it was a proposal by the insurance lobby. Dean understands that it has the potential to be a winner with voters immediately. Because it would probably kick in immediately and be a tangible thing that everyone understands as an improvement to the healthcare system. The damn public option under the most favorable Democratic proposal doesn’t start till 2014, and what the fuck will it look like given the sandbagging it's experiencing in the Senate at this very moment. The new Medicare proposal is giving millions of people the option to participate in a government run healthcare plan, and it could add needed political legitimacy for the what's in it for me crowd out there in the hinterlands, and the program is all ready up and freaking running.

There’s a number of other good reasons to seriously look at this proposal that I don’t have room to mention here.

Burner then goes on a tirade about how all this somehow will mean a reduction in preventive care to treat her yet undiagnosed diabetes. Connecting the non existent dots that lowering the age for eligibility to buy in to Medicare will, in Burner mind, make doctors less likely to order early preventative care testing for your hereditarily related diseases. I’d argue that the practice of proper preventative care incentives and allowing 55 year olds to have Medicare are two different aspects of the overall health reform bill. Burner talks about early testing and personal awareness of the need for exercise becoming somehow unavailable if the proposal passes. Isn’t exercise always been a personal lifestyle choice anyway? Do you need a doctor to tell you that you need to exercise to make it happen? Besides I think the bill as it now stands addresses these issues of promoting a healthy lifestyles and cost cutting with the promotion of early testing anyway.

Here my health reform advise for you everyone. Don’t smoke; exercise, and don’t eat so much that you become a fat ass. If you follow these three easy steps you will lower your health care costs and probably live a long a productive life. Otherwise not.

Darcy then makes the argument that the insurance companies will dump patients when they reach 55 years of age and get sick. These people will then become the wards of Medicare and it will be the responsibility of the “taxpayers to cover the cost”. If I remember correctly both current bills in the Congress provide protection against such antics by the health insurance companies. I think Darcy Burner could be dead wrong on this one. For the sake of reason, let’s at least let the proposal see the light of day before we kill it in the crib. If it will get the 60 votes needed to pass the legislation then it’s worth consideration.

This maybe the trade off for the public option we can live with.

Update: Here's more via Crooks and Liars on the details of the proposed changes to the Senate health-care bill. Howard Dean says, ""I think this is still real reform," but hedges his complete approval until he can see the details of the final proposal, especially on just who gets to buy into Medicare. I believe the CBO is in the process of "scoring" the bill to see what the projected costs would be. So stay tuned.

Dump The Public Option In Favor of Being Able To Buy Into Medicare At 55 One Fantastic Idea

And apparently the Blue Dogs actually like it.

Hey if this will fly I say go for it. Not only will it achieve the long desired Democratic Party goal of expanding Medicare to those 55 and older, it will have an favorable immediate impact by providing a tangible easily understandable benefit to people that will help the Democrats at the polls in 2010. For God’s sake this is far better then any public option that been offered so far.

Besides a great number of other direct benefits one can think of with this proposed expansion of the Medicare program the one I, and my daughter, like is that it would allow many older folks to advance their retirements. It seems many American can’t afford to retire because they can’t afford the health insurance cost based on what their potential retirement income would be . With this new early Medicare buy in proposal that may change drastically. Think of the job vacancies created by a wave of retirements, but also by a boom in new jobs created to cater to a vast number of new retirees.

This is a political gold and those on the left who want real health care reform need to be open-mined about dumping the public option if the new Medicare proposal actually becomes viable. It’s not Medicare for all but it’s sure Medicare for a hell of a lot more people. Which maybe the closest thing to Medicare for all on the immediate horizon.

Police Shooting Of Cop Killer The Two Extremes

On one hand we have the right wing New York Post and on the other wing we have the more often then not predisposed Seattle police bashing SLOG. When comparing the two online headlines about the killing of suspected killer Maurice Clemmons I think you see evidence of the two extremes. The Post story paints a picture of good-riddance to bad rubbish and the SLOG story's tone is one of questioning whether the suspect's civil rights were violated.




And the comments I posted on the SLOG story:

Seattle's Moisture Festival Needs Your Votes To Win $25K

Seattle very own Moisture Festival, the annual comedy, variete and burlesque festival, held in venues throughout the city each spring needs your votes on facebook. The festival dates this year are March 11 through April 4, 2010. The Moisture Festival is one of the eligible non-profits in the Chase Community Giving Campaign where people with facebook accounts vote for their favorite charity. One hundred non profits who receive the greatest number of votes will get $25K each. Voting ends December 11th, so vote today. You can vote for up to 20 of your favorite charities at the Chase Community Page. Just use the search box to find your favorite charity or non-profit and cast your votes.



Moisture Festival Photo Book Released...

If you wonder what The Moisture Festival is all about your in luck because The Moisture Festival Photo Book has just been released. The book is available through Fremont Place Books while supplies last. These books are gorgeous and would make a wonderful holiday gift plus help raise money for the festival.

Palin Related Quote Of the Day

drip, drip, drip....

"They're like poisonous snakes in the grass who spew nothing but venom.They just lay in wait and they attack you until you're dead."

Says Mike Wooten The Alaska State Trooper at the center of Sarah Palin's so-called Troopergate Scandal which impeded her run for the vice-presidency and stained her record as Alaska governor has broken his more than year-long silence since his embattled divorce with Palin's sister, Molly, became a cause celebre during last year's presidential campaign.

Giving The Devil The Benefit Of The Law

There has been much whining by the usual suspects on the right about Attorney General Holder's decision to try certain al Oaeda plotters in the Federal Court in New York. What fear driven poppycock. These fear filled Republicans embolden the terrorists with their hysterical outbursts and demonstrations. You'd think that these criminals had the power to walk through walls after listening to these Republicans.

Last night I happened to be watching the 1966 Movie, A Man For All Seasons, and one particular scene in the movie pops up where the magnificent actor Paul Scofield, who plays Sir Thomas More, explains the power of law over the ever changing whims of people to just take the course of least resistance when considering justice. I said that the scene dialogue explains wonderfully why these men must be tried in open court even if they are devils. Yes devils they may be but they have the right to the laws of this land.

Hypocritical Conservatives All In A Twit About Obama Bow

As we all know conservatives love to conjecture about what Jesus would do. One thing he apparently did do is preach and demonstrate humility. As in the story popular in Christian mythology of Jesus washing the feet of his disciples.

So why the hell are conservatives so worked up when our President does the same thing when he shows respect and humility towards the Japanese emperor. The Republicans love to promulgate the popular American myth that our national leaders show weakness by doing such things as bowing to any other head of state. When in fact such a demonstration shows wisdom and, yes, humility. The important thing I would say is what the Japanese think about this demonstration of respect rather then what we think.

John Aravosis As Drama Queen Boycott America Blog Not the DNC

Someone told me once that boycotts don’t work and I think this one won't work either.

I think that John Aravosis over at America Blog and some other leaders of the gay community have gone too far in calling for a donor boycott of the DNC, as they have done today, because of their perceived lack of progress by the Obama administration on the major gay issues of the day. Aravosis lists in manifesto style a number of grievances in his “don’t ask don’t give” call for a boycott.

He then goes on to demand that the Obama administration immediately address the major concerns of the gay community. They want what they want when then want it I guess. The list includes all the major concerns of the gay community, including repeal or reform of DATA, DOMA and ENDA before we should once again begin sending our donations to the DNC. I guess we are suppose to not make contributions up until the 2010 elections if necessary even though common sense would tell you that most of these issues have little real chance of being resolved even if the Obama administration started today with new resolve to address them.

Aravosis has been rather out spoken in his on going attacks on the President’s agenda, gay and otherwise, since the election. But what appears to fuel the attacks on the President is Aravosis somewhat personal agenda and timetable on the lack of progress by the new administration on gay issues. Aravosis may of been pushed over the edge by comments made last week by the treasurer of the DNC who indicated in a leaked email that America Blog continuing attacks on Obama were at the heart of growing "gay problem". America Blog editor and co-boycott creator Joe Sudbay when ballistic in a response and Sudbay and Aravoisis have probably been stewing for payback every since.

Today we got the announcement of the boycott. Making me think that the boycott is more about John Aravosis personally and America Blog then a constructive ways to bring about changes in gay rights. After reading the anti Obama rants of Aravosis for a long time I find him to be rather predictable.

I expect that I will be looked upon as being homophobic or worse for questioning the boycott. Bloggers like Aravosis and Dan Savage are not often questioned from those on the left, but I simply disagree. What I see is high handed and counterproductive grandstanding, personal score settling and actions that can do real harm to the long term agenda of both gays and progressives. I'm reasonably sure most lefties will more then willingly jump on the boycott bandwagon. I would hope you'd think for yourself on the wisdom of this ploy.

I assure you I believe that gay rights are paramount and certainly something that the Obama administration needs to vigorously address. But I also think that this type of action hurts all Democrats and gives the enemies of the party fatter to attack the liberals in general and influence the future of votes by moderates. Much of the responsibility for the problem is also misdirected as the responsibility of the President or his administration when action by the Congress is certainly part of the any equation or action on the gay concerns that Aravosis lists. Obama can not arbitrarily undo most of these policies just because he wish it where so. He must build a consensus and he must work with the members of Congress and citizens.

As I have pointed out before at length the gay community has to realize that there are priority when one governs a nation such as ours at this troubling time in our history. Furthermore, one should have to look no farther then to the results of the recent gay civil rights ballot issues here in Washington and in Maine. In Washington more than 47% of voters oppose the ballot issue. In Maine a gay marriage issue outright failed after it was rejected by just over 50% of the voters. Whether right or wrongly the outcome in Maine, a State known for its independence, and the voting from Washington represents nearly half of the people in both States who we know are not sufficiently convinced that gay rights are important or even needed. This is unfortunate but also revealing in what is says about the political power that will have to be harnessed whenever you bring about change on issues that involve the hot button issue of gay rights. Progressive realize that it’s wrong to oppose gay rights but politically it is also necessary to get a majority of people to agree with you before you can actually implement the needed changes.

The other bit of reality needed here is a question of priorities. Should the need for reform on gay issues supersede and risk progress on the other major issue of the day including such things as health care reform or the war in Afghanistan, Iraq or the economy? Sure peoples rights are important but you must also have the political power to make such significant change. Demanding it or wishing it were so will not work if you don’t have the votes or support of the moderates and blue dog conservative law makers.

• But won’t your pledge hurt Democrats?
• But if you don’t give money to the DNC, won’t that help elect Republicans who are even worse on gay issues, and other issues Democrats care about?
• You have to admit, gay rights is controversial – wouldn’t it be political suicide for Democrats to push gay rights? No matter how disappointed you are, aren’t Democrats still better than Republicans?
• President Obama has only been in office less than a year, why the rush?
• But aren’t there bigger priorities than gay rights for the Democrats to deal with, like health care and the economy?

Aravosis goes on in his post to list (above) and individually address expected objections to his boycott. I think he then rather self-servingly pooh-poohs all these objections. I would argue that the concerns Aravois himself raises are valid and progressives should think seriously for themselves on each before deciding to join this boycott.

Is Brian Baird Becoming Washington’s Liebermann?

What’s up with Southwest Washington Democrat Brian Baird. He voted with the Republicans to reject the health-care reform bill passed by the House of Representative yesterday. Unlike the other 38 Democrats who voted with the Republicans, and who for the most part come from conservative leaning congressional districts that went for McCain in the 2008 general election, Baird is from a mostly liberal district that overwhelmingly voted for Barack Obama. One would have to say that the majority of voters in WA CD 3 probably expected Baird to vote for passage of the bill.

Baird claims that he was concerned about the rules that governed procedure on the bill limiting any amendments and that the premiums for people with existing insurance may actually go up. He claims he is waiting for more information from the bean counters and therefore could not support the bill. "For these reasons, until more information is available on premium estimates and Medicare impacts, I will vote against the legislation in its current form," Baird is quoted as saying.

Well don’t go all mavericky on us Brain. I wonder if Brian would of changed his vote if he realized the bill was going to fail without it. It actually only passed with two votes to spare 220 to 215. Someone should ask him that question. The defeat of the bill would of probably killed health reform for the foreseeable future. And been a major embarrassment to the President and Democratic leaders in the House. So Baird’s game of chicken was a major gamble for him. Let’s say the bill had not of passed. We probably be calling for his head on a political platter this morning.

Or is Baird crazy like a fox? Maybe knowing his vote was not actually needed meant he could vote no and look like he’s more concerned and into the weeds on the micro details of the 2000 page bill then other Democrats while at the same time throwing a bone to the large number of tea party types that live in the the Third District. Time will tell. We certainly need to keep Mr. Baird’s feet to the fire and make sure he’s not getting so independent minded that he thinks he can override the will of those who elected him.

There will be no perfect bill. If Baird is willing to throw the health reform baby out with the bath water just because he personally requires certain guarantees in the final bill, that's not a good thing. America and WA State need major health reform now even if some aspects of this massive reform bill turn out to be flawed. Overall the bill will be a major step in the right direction. Corrections can be made as needed in the future. One hundred years of whipping this horse is long enough.

Are Proselytizing Atheists Becoming Just Like The Religious Bigots They Condemn

I like Frank Shaeffer , the writer who grew up in the midst of the beginnings of the modern Christian evangelical movement who now rejects their fanatical and heavy handed methods. His new book, Patience with God: Faith for People Who Don’t Like Religion (or Atheism) gives us a look at the other side of the religious coin, so to speak. It claims that atheists often are not really that much different in their fanaticism when compared to the actual organized religious fundamentalist types they are vehemently condemning as lacking in reason or as stupid crackpots.

Shaeffer’s point is that no one really knows the truth. Because humans are incapable of knowing beyond any doubt what the truth is when it comes to the existence of god or non-existence of God. He thinks that both sides should start from a place of humility and open-mindedness when they claim that their truth is the only truth. Most often delivered with the added claim that any belief other then their own also renders one ignorant or stupid. Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins come to mind. I enjoy all three of these men’s ideas, but sometimes I think they take on a rather self righteous attitude and smugness when they argue in support of their atheist beliefs.

My personal experience is one of a person raised as a Catholic who fell away from that religion because of trouble with a number of its tenets. Later in life due to a personal crisis I began to look at spirituality in a different light. It lead me to a belief in god, but this time it was a god that was very personal and surprisingly actually worked in such a way as to revolutionize my perception of what it means to be human and alive. I would also argue that you needn't look to far to see the the destructive nature of dogma, and rigidness of any kind.

The important thing here is my experience of spirituality is extremely personal and what works for me may not necessarily work for you. Being an atheist may work for you after all. But it’s not my experience and I have no right really to dictate or claim or condemn you for what works for you. I guess what’s important is, does what you believe actually work to make your life better and happy and above all make you useful as a human being in concert with other human beings and nature.

I liked Shaeffer’s thinking because I’ve often noticed on a personal level the tendency of religious types to claim that there is only one way to salvation. He makes the point in his book that atheists are in fact claiming rather snobbishly the same thing by condemning and belittling those who believe in god. Who really knows? I guess the question is does what you believe or not believe work for you, and it’s really not anybody’s business to dictate to you what you should believe or condemn your beliefs, no matter what they are.

Here a video excerpt from a interview with Shaeffer from GRITtv about his new book.

Republican Anal Poisoned Mostly White Guys Shout Down Lie Exaggerate Mislead Obstruct In Final Attempt To Block Heath Care Reform Vote In House

Rush Limbaugh, in continuing fixation with his ass or getting penetrated from behind, said you can get anal poisoning if you support liberal ideas. If you can stomach the health care debate in the house you can watch the debate on CPAN live. Below is MSNBC Keith Olbermann segment on Republican strategy of doing nothing. from November 5th show.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy