PEEK

Buzz, perspectives, insight and news from AlterNet

Krugman Says Don't Kill Senate Health Bill ... Is He Right?
Posted by Jill C., Brilliant at Breakfast on December 18, 2009 at 10:03 AM.

What a cynical exercise this entire health care reform debate has been.

Now we have a situation in which Joe Lieberman, who rakes in cash from the insurance industry and whose wife is a lobbyist, and others stuffing their pockets with insurance company cash, are holding hostage real reform on the backs of those who can't afford insurance.

Today Paul Krugman joins the "Pass it, it's better than nothing" side:

At its core, the bill would do two things. First, it would prohibit discrimination by insurance companies on the basis of medical condition or history: Americans could no longer be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition, or have their insurance canceled when they get sick. Second, the bill would provide substantial financial aid to those who don’t get insurance through their employers, as well as tax breaks for small employers that do provide insurance.

All of this would be paid for in large part with the first serious effort ever to rein in rising health care costs.

The result would be a huge increase in the availability and affordability of health insurance, with more than 30 million Americans gaining coverage, and premiums for lower-income and lower-middle-income Americans falling dramatically. That’s an immense change from where we were just a few years ago: remember, not long ago the Bush administration and its allies in Congress successfully blocked even a modest expansion of health care for children.

Bear in mind also the lessons of history: social insurance programs tend to start out highly imperfect and incomplete, but get better and more comprehensive as the years go by. Thus Social Security originally had huge gaps in coverage — and a majority of African-Americans, in particular, fell through those gaps. But it was improved over time, and it’s now the bedrock of retirement stability for the vast majority of Americans.

Look, I understand the anger here: supporting this weakened bill feels like giving in to blackmail — because it is. Or to use an even more accurate metaphor suggested by Ezra Klein of The Washington Post, we’re paying a ransom to hostage-takers. Some of us, including a majority of senators, really, really want to cover the uninsured; but to make that happen we need the votes of a handful of senators who see failure of reform as an acceptable outcome, and demand a steep price for their support.

The question, then, is whether to pay the ransom by giving in to the demands of those senators, accepting a flawed bill, or hang tough and let the hostage — that is, health reform — die.

Again, history suggests the answer. Whereas flawed social insurance programs have tended to get better over time, the story of health reform suggests that rejecting an imperfect deal in the hope of eventually getting something better is a recipe for getting nothing at all. Not to put too fine a point on it, America would be in much better shape today if Democrats had cut a deal on health care with Richard Nixon, or if Bill Clinton had cut a deal with moderate Republicans back when they still existed.

I respect Paul Krugman, and I do understand his points. But I am cynical enough that the idea of "cutting a deal" holds no weight when you have a bunch of miscreants like today's Republicans, for whom "cutting a deal" means "doing it their way or not at all."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Climate Talks on Verge of Collapse in Final Hours
Posted by Nick Berning, Open Left on December 18, 2009 at 9:15 AM.

There's a somber mood in Copenhagen on the last day of climate negotiations, with prospects for a strong and fair agreement feeling further and further out of reach.

A leaked UN document shows current proposals would add up to an alarming 3 degree C temperature rise and the U.S. is still refusing to budge.

Indeed, it now seems increasingly possible that rich countries' leaders may not even be able to piece together the weak, fig leaf of a "political" rather than "binding" agreement that most observers had been anticipating.

There's been some important news here over the last 24 hours.

LEAKED UN DOCUMENT EXPOSES HOW CURRENT PROPOSALS ADD UP TO CATASTROPHIC WARMING

First, a secret UN analysis of countries' current emission reduction proposals was leaked to the media. That analysis concluded that, when put together, the proposals now on the table would likely result in a global temperature rise to 3ºC above pre-industrial levels -- a catastrophic rise that would put small island states under water and cause suffering and death for millions of people.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Year in Review: 2009 Right-Wing Lie Machine Amped Up the Obama Madness (VIDEO)
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on December 18, 2009 at 8:51 AM.

Remember how this was supposed to be the dawn of a new era, with those hopey-changey feelings settling over a reunited America?

Yeah, well, as the year-end compilation from Media Matters in the video window to your right suggests, the conservative noise machine didn't adapt to a changing political climate -- it just turned its amp up to 11 (FYI: most only go up to 10).

'Female Tiger Woods' Once Prowled Premiere Christian Right Bible College
Posted by Thers, Whiskey Fire on December 18, 2009 at 8:21 AM.

There was talk last week about why there aren't Big Sex Scandals involving Reverse-Tigers, that is, women cheating bigtime on their spouses Tiger Woodsily. At the time, I sort of half-remembered that there indeed was such a scandal and that it had a religio-hypocritical twist to it, but I couldn't recall the details. Anyway it bugged me. Happily, though, Oral Roberts just croaked, and now I remember!

Twenty years ago, televangelist Oral Roberts said he was reading a spy novel when God appeared to him and told him to raise $8 million for Roberts' university, or else he would be "called home."

Now, his son, President Richard Roberts, says God is speaking again, telling him to deny lurid allegations in a lawsuit that threatens to engulf this 44-year-old Bible Belt college in scandal.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

GOP Senators Appear On TV With anti-Gay Christian Martyrdom Advocate
Posted by Bruce Wilson, AlterNet on December 18, 2009 at 8:14 AM.

Last night's segment of the Rachel Maddow show provided footage, which first appeared at Talk To Action, of a Christian evangelist who is quite influential but also little known to secular Americans: Lou Engle, founder of TheCall. The Maddow segment highlighted an event noted a few days ago by RightWingWatch, an anti-health care reform "Prayercast," held by the Family Research Council, led by emergent, highly militant leaders of the Christian right such as Lou Engle and also by Republican senators Brownback and DeMint, and GOP Representatives Bachmann and Forbes.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

We Could Have Had a Public Option: Then Some Senators Lied to Us
Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left on December 18, 2009 at 6:00 AM.

I've seen a few post-mortems of the public option campaign kicking around the Internets.  Invariably, as more are written, some will blame the people leading the campaign for not adopting different tactics which, the authors of the post-mortems will claim, could have led to victory.

Before this line of writing becomes too widespread, we all need to remember that the only reason we didn't win the public option campaign was because a few Senators lied to us.  Unless someone can think of ways to have prevented them from lying, then these post-mortems will be useless.

Back on May 21st, there were only 28 Senators in support of a triggerless public option.  Through your tireless participation in a whip count effort, by October 8th we raised that number to 51 when Jon Tester came out in support.  By October 30th, when Evan Bayh said he wouldn't filibuster, we were up to 56 Democrats for cloture on health care reform with a public option.

From that point, the only four Senators we still needed all lied to us in one form or another.  Both Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln signed a document stating that they supported a public option, only to reverse their positions.  Blanche Lincoln's website still comically claimed she supported a public option even as she was declaring her opposition to one on the Senate floor.

Still, Landrieu, Lincoln and Ben Nelson were all part of the group of ten Senators who forged a deal on the public option that included a Medicare buy-in.  Further, immediately after that deal was reached, Harry Reid contacted Joe Lieberman to see if he liked the deal.  Lieberman told Harry Reid that he was liking what he was seeing, and just wanted to wait for the CBO report.  Further, Lieberman had supported an even stronger Medicare buy-in (for Americans aged 50-64) as recently as September 2009.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Shocker: Women Don't Like Rush Limbaugh, Here's One Obvious Reason Why
Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress on December 18, 2009 at 5:00 AM.

In Feb. 23, Public Policy Polling released a survey showing that only 37 percent of womenheld a favorable opinion of hate radio host Rush Limbaugh, compared to 56 percent of men. Limbaugh was baffled by these results and decided to hold a “female summit” to find out why women hate him. Maybe, Limbaugh should just listen to his own show. Today, for example, Limbaugh griped that health insurance premiums will be going up if reform legislation is passed, in large part because private insurers will have to provide “women’s issues coverage”:

LIMBAUGH: About the premiums going up, and my brilliant dissertation on why prices will go up in the private sector, even if the public option is not there, and even if the Medicare buy-in is not there. It’s not just preconditions that are mandated to be covered in the health care bills in either the House or the Senate.

There was a recent amendment that was mandating private insurers to provide mammogram and other women’s issues coverage, including spousal abuse! Insurance for spousal abuse! And mammograms! Even though the mammogram age has been raised to the age of 50. You think of all the mandates that will be added onto private insurance, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Listen here:

Right now, many insurers treat domestic violence as a pre-existing condition and deny women health insurance coverage if they have been a victim. Women are also denied coverage — or face significantly higher premiums — if they are pregnant or have had a C-Section pregnancy in the past; the health care reform legislation would ban this discrimination. Additionally, an amendment by Sen. Barbara Milkulski’s (D-MD) amendment would make sure that insurers often women free mammograms and other preventive services.

Clinton Urges Passage of Health Care Bill... Maybe He Should Have a Talk With Ben Nelson
Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on December 17, 2009 at 5:00 PM.

'TAKE IT FROM SOMEONE WHO KNOWS'.... Former President Bill Clinton releases a statement this afternoon:

"America stands at a historic crossroads. At last, we are close to making real health insurance reform a reality. We face one critical, final choice, between action and inaction. We know where the path of inaction leads to: more uninsured Americans, more families struggling to keep up with skyrocketing premiums, higher federal budget deficits, and health costs so much higher than any other country's they will cripple us economically.

"Our only responsible choice is the path of action. Does this bill read exactly how I would write it? No. Does it contain everything everyone wants? Of course not. But America can't afford to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

"And this is a good bill: it increases the security of those who already have insurance and gives every American access to affordable coverage; and contains comprehensive efforts to control costs and improve quality, with more information on best practices, and comparative costs and results. The bill will shift the power away from the insurance companies and into the hands of consumers.

"Take it from someone who knows: these chances don't come around every day. Allowing this effort to fall short now would be a colossal blunder -- both politically for our party and, far more important, for the physical, fiscal, and economic health of our country."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

San Francisco Launches Pioneering GlobalTap 'Refilling Stations' That Are Strangely Similar to, um, Water Fountains
Posted by Tara Lohan, AlterNet on December 17, 2009 at 4:13 PM.

Just to be clear, I'm totally in support of San Francisco's efforts to end the use of bottled water. And have heartily applauded the city's decision to cancel its bottled water contracts and the efforts of many local restaurants to promote tap.

But, this press release is just too funny to not mention. Here's a snippet:

San Francisco Department of the Environment (SFE) and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) officials today announced new tap water partnerships as part of the City's efforts to promote "on the go" access to San Francisco's great tasting Hetch Hetchy tap water while reducing waste from use of plastic bottled water. In 2007, Mayor Gavin Newsom barred the use of City tax dollars for the purchase of bottled water. The demand for bottled water puts a strain on our environment and resources and bottled water can cost as much as 1,000 times more than tap water.

In Yerba Buena Gardens, SFE Director Jared Blumenfeld and others unveiled the pilot water refilling station from GlobalTap, an international provider of new and innovative clean drinking water refilling stations. Following the pilot installation, SFPUC and SFE officials hope to install additional stations throughout San Francisco in 2010.

"San Francisco has been a leader in educating people about the negative impacts of bottled water," said Blumenfeld. "Today we are honored to be the first U.S. city to host a GlobalTap filling station. Now San Franciscans can 'BYOB' ('Bring Your Own Bottle') every day."

Wow, 'refilling stations.' It sounds so space agey, and yet also strangely reminiscent of time when we used to have just that, only we called them something else. What was it ... water fountains?

But, wait, it gets better:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Tea Party More Popular than Dems, Repubs... and Other Utterly Meaningless News
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet on December 17, 2009 at 3:00 PM.

All indications suggest we've become a nation of hyper-polarized bickering lunatics, screaming at each other over issue after issue.

But many political reporters maintain the fantasy that there exists some vast, thoughtful ideological middle that punishes the two major parties whenever they veer too far from the center (as defined, of course, by the jackals of the WaPo editorial board).

And while it appears that most Americans would happily see a favored politician brutally disembowel an opponent on the floor of the Congress, that vast middle -- being above all reasonable and non-ideological -- is supposedly bothered first and foremost by "gridlock" in Washington. When Congress doesn't act quickly enough, they lash out at both the Dems and Repubs, and the emergence of a viable third party is always a possibility looming just over the horizon.

This poll everyone's talking about fits neatly into that narrative:

The loosely organized group made of up mostly conservative activists and independent voters that's come to be known as the Tea Party movement currently boasts higher favorability ratings than either the Democratic or Republican Parties, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll coming out later today.

More than four in 10, 41%, of respondents said they had a very or somewhat favorable view of the Tea Party movement, while 24% said they had a somewhat or very negative view of the group. The Tea Party movement gained notoriety over the summer following a series of protests in Washington, D.C. and other cities over government spending and other U.S. economic policies.

I just want to add my own to the chorus of voices calling bullshit on anyone drawing any serious conclusions from this stuff.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

God's Divine Sperm? Lib Church Shakes Up Story of Jesus' Birth
Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet on December 17, 2009 at 1:53 PM.

A progressive New Zealand Church wants you to know that not all Christians are lame. To that end, they've put up a billboard displaying a post-coital Mary gazing longingly at the sky (that's where God lives), while Joseph lays next to her looking dejected. It reads "Poor Joseph. God was a tough act to follow."

The purpose of the billboard, according to St. Matthew's website , is to highlight the absurdity of literal Biblical interpretation. "The Christmas billboard outside St Matthew-in-the-City lampoons literalism and invites people to think again about what a miracle is. Is the miracle a male God sending forth his divine sperm, or is the miracle that God is and always has been among the poor?" writes Vicar Glynn Cardy.

Here's the billboard:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Despite Losing Favor, Obama Still Trusted Over GOP
Posted by Jed Lewison, Daily Kos on December 17, 2009 at 12:30 PM.

The bad news for the White House: the latest ABC/WaPo opinion poll shows President Obama with the lowest approval rating of his term. It's net positive -- 50/46, or +4 -- but on domestic issues like unemployment (-1), the economy (-6), health care (-9), and the deficit (-19), it's net negative.

The bad news for the GOP: Voters still trust President Obama more than Republicans, even on health care. The numbers: Economy, Obama +12; Health care, Obama +7; Afghanistan, Obama +12; Energy, Obama +10.

What's the lesson? Even though Americans disapprove of President Obama's record on many domestic policy issues, they do not see the Republican Party as a viable alternative. At some point, that may change, because the GOP is also the only alternative, but for now, the country is not looking for President Obama to be more like Republicans -- they are looking for him (and the Democratic Congress) to deliver on the change they voted for in 2008. If the White House can deliver, the GOP will be left out in the cold, partying with the teabaggers.

American Apparel Sticks Up for Immigrant Workers Swept Up in ICE Raids
Posted by Marjorie Clifton, America's Voice on December 17, 2009 at 11:39 AM.

As the holidays rapidly approach, our focus shifts to shopping, cooking and decking the halls for the invasion of relatives. But, as we hit the shops, we often forget to take a moment to think about the origins of our chic outfits and abounding feasts (those of us lucky enough to still have these).

Those trendy peacoats and ripe, delicious pears didn’t fall off of a sleigh after all. 

In Los Angeles, California, a building full of laborers--many foreign-born-- work tirelessly to fill the shelves of American Apparel with their not-so-basic t-shirts and colorful sweaters, enough to fulfill the Christmas wishes of millions of American teens in various stages of blossoming hipster-dom.  But, like so many companies, American Apparel has been stuck in the middle of our immigration crisis this year. 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Staffers for Corporate Front Group Organizing Anti-Health Rallies Refuse to Reveal Their Names
Posted by Lee Fang, Think Progress on December 17, 2009 at 10:31 AM.

On Tuesday, right-wing billionaire David Koch’s Americans for Prosperity (AFP) organized yet another anti-health reform rally on Capitol Hill. Part of AFP’s strength is its secrecy. The organization, a front group for corporate interests, has set up multiple other front groups and tea party events to create a veneer of public support for its agenda. ThinkProgress attempted to interview AFP staffers who were coordinating the event, but they refused to even reveal their real names, with one staffer replying with something that sounded like “Pootie Tang”:

TP: What’s your name?

AFP STAFFER: Pootie Tang. … Pootie Tang. [...]

PROTESTER: What’s your name?

TP: My name’s Lee Fang.

PROTESTER: Lee Fang? Are you an American?

TP: Why do you ask?

PROTESTER: I’m just asking a question, just as you are.

Watch it:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Why Obama Should Stop Forcing the Left to Eat Sh*t
Posted by Booman, Booman Tribune on December 17, 2009 at 9:31 AM.

What we are seeing right now is a semi-coordinated, semi-spontaneous revolt on the left to the latest compromises in the Senate health care reform bill. We can talk about the wisdom and possible efficacy of this revolt, but the administration has to deal with the left they have, not the left that they might wish to have (to use some Rumsfeldian logic). What the administration is facing is a consequence of the left having to eat too much shit on a whole host of issues from military commissions, a failure to root out and punish the crimes and practices of the Bush administration, the escalation of the war in Afghanistan, a too-friendly bailout of Wall Street, and now a health care bill that bears little resemblance to what Obama promised us in the campaign.

Obama can't pass anything that doesn't have unanimous support in the Democratic caucus because of the ruthless obstruction and opposition of the Republican Party. This forces him to govern to the center and make all his compromises with centrist Democrats and/or the two still-existing centrist Republicans in the Senate. The Republican obstruction empowers people like Joe Lieberman. It actually gives veto power to every single senator, but the only way to make up for a defecting Democrat is to win over Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins. So, if Bernie Sanders or Roland Burris revolt, he has to move the bill further to the right in response.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »