Deep Something » Congress

Crazies out in Force Friday

John — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 16:57:27 +0000

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-1st TX) speaking on the floor about the terrorists babies coming to destroy our way of life. He reports a conversation with an un-named “retired” FBI agent who claimed terrorists were gaming our system by sneaking in pregnant women to have their babies here, then taking them back (and they don’t even have to pay anything for the babies) and raising them in the “terrorist way of life,” so they can send them back in 20-30 years to destroy our way of life.

I can only hope (but I doubt) that other Republicans think to themselves, “Oh shit Gohmert is speaking again.”

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

Louie, the only thing stupid we are doing is continuing to elect people like you to public office.

DADT Letter to Rep. Todd Akin (R-MI)

John — Thu, 27 May 2010 21:58:54 +0000

Hon. Todd Akin
United States House of Representatives
117 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Akin:

No sir, I’m not in your district, but I’m done. My mother did not raise me to sit in the back of the bus, and I’m sick and tired of you politicians using me and my life for political gain.

In a floor speech today concerning the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell you stated, “Is this the sort of thing that George Washington or our founders would be proud of…” First off sir, you don’t know…Maybe President Washington would be proud that America was beginning to break down the last of her bigoted policies. Given history as a guide, something you appear clueless about, he might actually think it’s not a bad idea, given that America may very well owe our victory over the British to a gay man.

Major General Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben of the Continental Army, Prussian aristocrat and military officer who served as inspector general and Major general of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War was a gay man. He came to America because his sexual orientation had limited his further advance in the Prussian Army. He is credited with teaching the Continental Army the essentials of military drill and discipline, and helping to guide it to victory. He wrote the Revolutionary War Drill Manual that became the standard United States drill manual until the War of 1812, and served as General George Washington’s chief of staff in the final years of the war.

So sir, President Washington just might think you to be on the wrong side of history. You are certainly on the wrong side of Christian morality and the wrong side of the founding principles of this country……equality for all.

It is time for you and those of you ilk to quit the pandering, to quit using the lives of other good Americans both in and out of the service to your ends, and time to do what is right for the people of this country…all of them.

New Poll at Deep Something-The 60 Vote Requirement

John — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 21:28:50 +0000

As most of you know, the United States Senate has a cloture rule which requires at least 60 votes to end debate to then vote up or down on the bill itself. It is important to note that the Constitution says nothing about the rules of the Senate, and does not require such a super-majority. The Constitution speaks only to a requirement for such super-majority votes in a few very specific processes, such as amending the Constitution. This is merely a procedure adopted by the Senate itself.

Many times during the Cheney/Bush regime, the Republicans, while in the majority, could not always get the needed 60 votes. Often they threatened the “nuclear option” meaning they’d have a vote to do away with the Senate procedure requiring the cloture vote. Now that the Republicans are no longer in the majority, and the Democrats are attempting to pass legislation by circumventing the requirement, Rethuglicans are all up in arms claiming its some sort of attempt to short-circuit democracy (which I thought had “majority rule” as one of its precepts).

Senators are no longer required to stay on the floor of the Senate speaking to hold the floor in a true filibuster (ala “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington”). Given that, should the rule be modified to require a lower threshold for cloture, or eliminated all together? Tell us what you think in our poll.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Would Health Care Reform Help You?

Barbara O'Brien — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:29:14 +0000

Guest Post: I am thrilled and honored to have a guest post today from Barbara O’Brien. Barbara’s blogging at The Mahablog, Crooks and Liars, AlterNet, and elsewhere on the progressive political and health blogophere has earned her the notoriety of being a panelist at the Yearly Kos Convention and a featured guest blogger at the Take Back America Conference in Washington, DC. I read The Mahablog daily, and am always interested in the thoughtful and provocative posts there, so we are very excited here at Deep Something to have our very first guest post, and we couldn’t be more excited that it’s Barbara.

Many obstacles and stumbling blocks remain in the way of health care reform. The House and Senate bills will have to be merged, and then the House and Senate both will vote on the final bill. We don’t yet know what will be in the final bill, or if the final bill will be passed into law. Passage will be especially difficult in the Senate, where it will need 60 votes to pass. It is still possible that after all this angst, just one grandstanding senator could kill the whole thing.

But just for fun, let’s look at what conventional wisdom says will be in the final bill and see if there is anything in it that will be an immediate benefit to people with mesothelioma cancer and other asbestos-related disease.

It is likely that the final bill will provide additional funding for state high-risk insurance pools. Currently more than 30 states run such pools, which are nonprofit, state-sponsored health insurance plans for people who can’t buy insurance because of pre-existing conditions. The biggest problem with such pools is that, often, the insurance they offer is too expensive for many who might need it. Both the Senate and House bills provide $5 billion in subsidies for state high-risk pools to make the insurance more affordable.

Under the Senate bill, beginning in 2014, private companies would no longer be able to deny coverage to adults with pre-existing conditions, nor could they charge higher premiums for people with pre-existing conditions. Until then, the state high-risk pools could provide some help.

Closing the Medicare Part D coverage gap — also called the “doughnut hole” — is another potential provision that could help some patients with asbestos-related disease. The “doughnut hole” is the gap between the coverage for yearly out-of-pocket expenses provided by Medicare Part D and Medicare’s “catastrophic coverage” threshold.

For example, in 2009 Medicare Part D paid at least 75 percent of what patients paid for prescription drugs up to $2,700. After that, patients must pay for all of their prescription medications until what they have paid exceeds $6,154. At that point, the catastrophic coverage takes over, and Medicare pays for all but 5 percent of the patient’s drug bills. The final health care reform bill probably will provide for paying at least 50 percent of out-of-pocket costs in the doughnut hole.

You may have heard the bills include budget cuts to the Medicare program, and this has been a big concern to many people. Proponents of the bill insist that savings can be found to pay for the cuts, and that people who depend on Medicare won’t face reduced services. But this is a complex issue that I want to address in a later post.

The long-term provisions probably will include many other provisions that would benefit patients with asbestos-related disease, including increased funding for medical research. Although there are many complaints about the bill coming from all parts of the political spectrum, on the whole it would be a huge benefit to many people.

The BS on Reconciliation

John — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:45:39 +0000

Below is a youtube of a segment from Meet The Press this past Sunday in which E. J. Dionne calls out Sen. Orrin Hatch for the Republican’s continuing bullshit about the use of reconciliation to pass things based on a simple majority vote in the Senate. We need to be discussing policy and health insurance reform (or elimination), but instead, all the Republicans can come up with to try to “win” is to run around like Chicken Little complaining that the sky will fall if some Senate procedure is “out-procedured.”

Misdirection on the Polls.

At one point during the interview Hatch claims the polls show that 58% of Americans don’t like the reform bill, “and only a few like it.” Well, sounds me to as if 42% must like it…that’s not just “a few.” In addition, while there is one poll with that result, others show a majority favoring reform, and when the provisions of the Bill are explained to people, they actually like the provisions in the bill. Funny how that works.

The host puts up portions of a Hatch statement in which he says things like:

“would be unprecedented in scope,” - BS meter high-turns out the Republicans used reconciliation to pass the Bush the tax cuts which added $1.7 trillion to our federal deficit. I realize in Congress they don’t have much of a concept of money, but $1.7 trillion to me is pretty unprecedented in scope.
“the havoc wrought would threaten our system of checks and balances” - BS meter through the roof-the system of checks and balances is based on three equal branches of government, each have a check on the other two. What procedures Congress decides to use in how it how it acts on legislation has nothing to do with “checks and balances.”
“corrode the legislative system” – BS meter headed to low earth orbit-lest we all forget (which the Republicans are counting on) there is NOTHING, nada, zilch, zero, in the Constitution about the Senate requiring a sixty vote majority to pass normal legislation. The Constitution does require certain super-majorities in very special situations, but not for passing every-day legislation. This magical sixty vote thing is purely a creation of the Senate, and for those who argue about majority rule, this “super-majority” requirement would seem to fly in the face of that.
“degrade our system of government” -BS meter now on an inter-planetary trajectory-A sitting member of the most corrupt Senate (and government in general) has the temerity to talk about “degrading our system of government?” This is the system has not created a system of state sponsored torture, taken us into a war of aggression against a country that had done nothing to us, has shredded the Constitution with the so called PATRIOT Act. Senator, “have you no shame?”

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

I just can’t fathom how these people can sit there and lie with a totally straight face. I am convinced they could not and would not tell the truth if that actually favored them.

Broken Wrist a Pre-existing Condition

John — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:10:05 +0000

And I continue to ask the question, how is it people believe that private companies provide better health care insurance. Below is the story of a lady who fell and broke her wrist. She’d been covered by the same insurance company for years. They first denied the claim…and the reason given by the insurance company…because it’s not covered because it was a pre-existing condition.

Not too surprisingly, the story is about the suspicion of many that insurance companies simply deny claims, and are slow to respond to challenges knowing some people won’t challenge the denials, and others will give up. There is NO suspicion in my mind about this. I have the records to prove it.

On every single dental claim I’ve ever filed, the insurance company has initially denied the single most expensive item on the bill. When challenged, they always pay the item, so it’s clear they know they are supposed to pay them, they just hope, as a matter of policy, that if they deny claims, some percentage of people won’t challenge them. That was the case with the lady in story. When challenged, they paid. I don’t believe for a minute they did it just to make her go away, they knew they were contractually obligated to pay it as a covered expense. I wonder why no lawyer has ever sought a class-action lawsuit against insurance companies for breech of contract?

In some cases, the reason for their denial has been that the dentist used the wrong Code for the procedure. Funny thing about that though, when I asked them what would be the correct code, they always answer with, “Well we don’t know that, it’s just that this one is the wrong one.” I finally explained that I watched my dentist run his finger down the list of the ADA codes, so I had to assume they had a different list of codes. At first, they told me they didn’t have different codes, and only used the ADA codes. So I asked them to send me a copy of their codes…to which they responded that they couldn’t because, “that would be giving out confidential company information.”

So let’s be sure I summarize this for the proponents of private insurers. They claim they use standard published ADA codes which I can get from the American Dental Association, but they can’t provide their version of that list because it is confidential corporate information. The Ombudsman for the Virginia Insurance Department says otherwise, and I finally got the list. Once I did, amazingly, they no longer used that as a reason for denying claims.

So what was the next excuse. Well it was a whopper. After having some emergency dental work done in Boston while on a business trip, they denied the claim because the name and address of the provider wasn’t on the claim form. It should be noted, I called them to be sure I was using the correct and current claim form (as they had been purchased by United Healthcare), but there was no place on their claim form that asked for the provider information. I pointed this out, but pointed out that it was on the bill from the Dentist, and they obviously had it, as it was printed on the explanation of benefits (EOB) they had sent.

Denial Code #2, the lady wasn’t sure what it meant, and said that sometimes, if they didn’t have an exact code, they would use just any code…so help me God, that was what she said. She couldn’t explain how we’d ever resolve the situation if the insurance company itself wasn’t sure of the reason for the denial.

Denial Code #3, they were insisting that the I provide them a copy of the Dentist’s license. The Dentist laughed at that, explained he got checks daily from United Health care, and had never provided a “copy” of his license. I checked with two other dentists, and they’d never been asked for such a thing either. In fact, the dentist I go to here in Tampa is not in their network or any other network, and I’ve never been asked to provide his license, but of course I was going to him back when they were still using the “wrong code” dodge.

I explained to the lady that it was silly, since even if his license was revoked or suspended, no State sent out “license police” to collect the licenses, and asked her if she’d ever heard of Photoshop, and explained I could probably create a license for the guy in about 10 minutes. I told her to look on-line for Massachusetts, and find their public listing of licensed professionals. She said they had a team of people that did just that. I never pressed the issue about why, if that were the case, why were they asking me for the information. She called back two days later to tell me that their people couldn’t find such a website or listing for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, so while I had her on the line, I found it. They refused to reimburse me for my time doing their research.

So this story comes as no surprise, but people continue to believe that somehow private companies have your best interests at heart when it comes to taking care of your health. Please…get real.

And now, finally, some on the conservative right come forward, and tell us the real reasons we can’t have government run insurance (not health care, but insurance to pay for health care). First David Brooks writes in an op-ed in the New York Times opposing a public health insurance option. Brooks’ opposition is based on the fact that it wouldn’t bring to the problem any efficiencies (because, you know, private health insurance companies make the healthcare system so efficient), but his article admits:

The authors of these bills have tried to foster efficiencies. The Senate bill would initiate several interesting experiments designed to make the system more effective — giving doctors incentives to collaborate, rewarding hospitals that provide quality care at lower cost. It’s possible that some of these experiments will bloom into potent systemic reforms.

But the real reason, as it comes out in a later paragraph is, “Reform would make us a more decent society…,” and of course we can’t have that.

Havard economics professor Greg Mankiw agrees with Brooks, and offers this explanation as to why we can’t have any reform of the current healthcare insurance system:

Put simply, the health care reform bill would make the United States more like western Europe. That may mean more security about health care, but it also means that future generations of Americans will likely spend more time enjoying leisure.

So let me sum up the position of this Harvard (are your serious?) Professor. In order to get more security about healthcare, the trade-off will mean that our children get to enjoy more leisure time. Please don’t throw me into that briar patch.

Now those are definitely some good reasons to get behind for opposing health care insurance reform…ghess. Really, who could possibly want average Americans to enjoy more leisure time, and we sure as hell can’t go around building a more decent society. What was I thinking!

Need An Insane Congress Person – There’s a Rep For That

John — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:09:44 +0000

A great video from the Waking Up Now blog. As the author says:

I’m sure all politicians careen between saying what they believe and spouting whatever crap will get them elected. But it seems like Republicans have adopted a universal strategy of popular deceit, and if they speak truth it’s only by coincidence. Here’s the pattern I’ve seen:

Toss out a slew of outrageous lies.

Watch for one to capture the public’s imagination.

Turn it into jargon (”death panel”) that sticks in voters’ heads.

Step back from the lie when it’s debunked, and craft a milder (still dishonest) version. But keep the original jargon.

Repeat as necessary. Debunkers eventually move on to tackle some new lie, leaving the last version in place and the jargon established.

Robtish hits the nail on the head with his observations, and this little gem is priceless.

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

Olbermann’s Special Commentary on Healthcare Reform

John — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:32:10 +0000

As usual, Keith Olbermann does a good job of explaining the need for healthcare reform, and explaining the public option. Olbermann cites a comment by Winston Churchill:

Churchill’s argument was this, “I have heard it said that the government had no mandate such a doctrine is wholly inadmissible. The responsibility for the public safety is absolute and requires no mandate!”

And there is the essence of what this is. What, on the eternal list of priorities, precedes health? What more obvious role could government have than the defense of the life, of each citizen? We cannot stop every germ that seeks to harm us any more than we can stop every person who seeks to harm us. But we can try dammit and government’s essential role in that effort facilitate it, reduce its cost, broaden its availability, improve my health and yours, seems, ultimately, self-explanatory.

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

CIGNA CEO Salary in the Spotlight

John — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:09:32 +0000

CIGNA took in $19.1 billion dollars in revenue last year, with a $292 million dollar income. That doesn’t include the salaries given to people like CEO Ed Hanway. He made a cool $12 million last year, and over the past five years he took in $120 million. Hanway has $28 million in unexcercised stock options. The company corporate jets, also not seen in profit statements, cost $68 million. This money is gained, as former communications director Wendell Potter says in this video, through denying claims and dumping the sick, enhancing the value of the company for Wall Street investors. The effect on people’s lives, meanwhile, is tragic. Nataline Sarkysian, featured in the Americans United For Change advertisement, lost her life after CIGNA repeated denied her a liver transplant, despite the family having full coverage.

According to Brave New Films Jo Joshua Godfrey had cancer without knowing for over a year.

“I would go to CIGNA and they would tell me I had bronchitis and give me medicine and send me home. No matter what medicine they gave me I wouldn’t get better. Then the CIGNA Director called me up and she told me that there was nothing wrong with me at all. I called the doctor, and I came with my film and my CAT scan and he just put it in, it took exactly thirty seconds. He told me, ‘You have cancer,’ and he said the reason CIGNA did not want to give you your records is they’ve known right way back for years that you have cancer and they’re not going to treat you.”

Pass it on to everyone you know.

We can’t let the insurance companies decide who gets care and who doesn’t.

Check out: http://www.sickforprofit.com for more details about the campaign.

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

What’s Wrong With Baucus Care

John — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 11:04:55 +0000

CALL YOUR SENATOR. Demand a public option. (202) 224-3121.

There’s no public option in Senator Max Baucus’ Healthcare bill. Instead, we are forced to buy private insurance. This is a major step backwards for the healthcare reform movement! Watch the video and call your senator at (202) 224-3121.

Pass it on to everyone you know.

We can’t let the insurance companies decide who gets care and who doesn’t.

Check out: http://www.sickforprofit.com for more details about the campaign.

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

Deep Something » Congress

Crazies out in Force Friday

Related posts

DADT Letter to Rep. Todd Akin (R-MI)

Related posts

New Poll at Deep Something-The 60 Vote Requirement

Related posts

Would Health Care Reform Help You?

Related posts

The BS on Reconciliation

Related posts

Broken Wrist a Pre-existing Condition

Related posts

Need An Insane Congress Person – There’s a Rep For That

Related posts

Olbermann’s Special Commentary on Healthcare Reform

Related posts

CIGNA CEO Salary in the Spotlight

Related posts

What’s Wrong With Baucus Care

Related posts