Of the 51 Blue Dogs, only 19 represent districts that Obama won in 2008. Most of those 19 are not among the really outright reactionary neo-Confederates and Republican-oriented, anti-family Blue Dogs making all the trouble, your Mike Rosses, Baron Hills and Heath Shulers. Most but not all. Below is a list of all the Blue Dogs, starting with their 4 right-wing leaders, that shows which presidential candidate won each of their districts in 2008:
• Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD)- McCain 53%
• Rep. Baron Hill (IN)- McCain 50%
• Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA)- McCain 61%
• Rep. Heath Shuler (NC)- McCain 52%
• Rep. Jason Altmire (PA)- McCain 55%
• Rep. Mike Arcuri (NY)- Obama 51%
• Rep. Joe Baca (CA)- Obama 68%
• Rep. John Barrow (GA)- Obama 54%
• Rep. Marion Berry (AR)- McCain 59%
• Rep. Sanford Bishop (GA)- Obama 54%
• Rep. Dan Boren (OK)- McCain 66%
• Rep. Leonard Boswell (IA)- Obama 54%
• Rep. Allen Boyd (FL)- McCain 54%
• Rep. Bobby Bright (AL)- McCain 63%
• Rep. Dennis Cardoza (CA)- Obama 59%
• Rep. Chris Carney (PA)- McCain 54%
• Rep. Ben Chandler (KY)- McCain 55%
• Rep. Travis Childers (MS)- McCain 62%
• Rep. Jim Cooper (TN)- Obama 56%
• Rep. Jim Costa (CA)- Obama 60%
• Rep. Henry Cuellar (TX)- Obama 56%
• Rep. Lincoln Davis (TN)- McCain 64%
• Rep. Joe Donnelly (IN)- Obama 54%
• Rep. Brad Ellsworth (IN)- McCain 51%
• Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (AZ)- McCain 52%
• Rep. Bart Gordon (TN)- McCain 62%
• Rep. Parker Griffith (AL)- McCain 61%
• Rep. Jane Harman (CA)- Obama 64%
• Rep. Tim Holden (PA)- McCain 51%
• Rep. Frank Kratovil, Jr. (MD)- McCain 58%
• Rep. Mike McIntyre (NC)- McCain 52%
• Rep. Jim Marshall (GA)- McCain 56%
• Rep. Jim Matheson (UT)- McCain 57%
• Rep. Mike Michaud (ME)- Obama 55%
• Rep. Walt Minnick (ID)- McCain 62%
• Rep. Harry Mitchell (AZ)- McCain 52%
• Rep. Dennis Moore (KS)- Obama 51%
• Rep. Patrick Murphy (PA)- Obama 54%
• Rep. Glenn Nye (VA)- Obama 51%
• Rep. Collin Peterson (MN)- McCain 50%
• Rep. Earl Pomeroy (ND)- McCain 53%
• Rep. Mike Ross (AR)- McCain 58%
• Rep. John Salazar (CO)- McCain 50%
• Rep. Loretta Sanchez (CA)- Obama 60%
• Rep. Adam Schiff (CA)- Obama 68%
• Rep. David Scott (GA)- Obama 71%
• Rep. Zack Space (OH)- McCain 52%
• Rep. John Tanner (TN)- McCain 56%
• Rep. Gene Taylor (MS)- McCain 68%
• Rep. Mike Thompson (CA)- Obama 66%
• Rep. Charles Wilson (OH)- McCain 50%
This is just a piece of the story from downwithtyranny. The story is not that old but that blog is quick to load new posts so you might have to scroll a bit to find the title (same as this post). Really makes you wonder how BlueDogs from districts that voted heavily for Obama would not be on board with a strong public option bill. Hint: Follow the money.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
From the Gavel - Speaker of the House - Fact Check
Health Insurance Reform Daily Mythbuster: Impact on Seniors
July 29th, 2009 by KarinaMyth: “Congress would make it mandatory, absolutely require, that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner.” – Betsy McCaughey, former Republican lieutenant governor of New York
Fact: The provision extends Medicare coverage to cover the cost of patients voluntarily speaking with their doctors about their values and preferences regarding end-of-life care—empowering older Americans on this critical issue. These are deeply personal decisions that take thoughtful consideration, and it is only appropriate that doctors be compensated for their time.
Independent analysis by Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact.com judged the comment a “Pants on Fire” “outright distortion”, writing:
McCaughey incorrectly states that the bill would require Medicare patients to have these counseling sessions and she is suggesting that the government is somehow trying to interfere with a very personal decision. And her claim that the sessions would “tell [seniors] how to end their life sooner” is an outright distortion. Rather, the sessions are an option for elderly patients who want to learn more about living wills, health care proxies and other forms of end-of-life planning. McCaughey isn’t just wrong, she’s spreading a ridiculous falsehood.
More on the provisions:
Advance planning consultations are not mandatory; this benefit is completely voluntary.
The provision merely provides coverage under Medicare to have a conversation once every five years if – and only if – a patient wants to make his or her wishes known to a doctor. If desired, patients may have consultations more frequently if they are chronically ill or if their health status changes.There is no mandate in the bill to complete an advance care directive or living will.
If a patient chooses to complete an advance directive or order for life sustaining treatment, these documents will help articulate a full range of treatment preferences, from full and aggressive treatment to limited, comfort care only. Patients that choose to have these documents and can customize them so that their wishes are appropriately reflected.There are no government-chosen professionals involved.
The legislation simply allows Medicare to pay for a conversation between patient and their doctors.
Doctors trying to Bilk Medicare
Dozens arrested in health care fraud scheme
Doctors among those accused in scam to bilk Medicare through false claims
MIAMI - Federal authorities arrested 32 people, including doctors, in a major health care fraud bust Wednesday in New York, Louisiana, Boston and Houston, targeting scams such as "arthritis kits" — expensive braces that many patients never used.It's the third major sweep since Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced in May they were adding millions of dollars and dozens of agents to combat a problem that costs the U.S. billions each year.
Using about a dozen agents in targeted cities, including Miami, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, has recovered $371 million in false Medicare claims and charged 145 people across the country in just two months. Medicare is the federal health care program for the elderly. More at link.
How long has this been happening and who is the watch dog for this program?
The first task force started in 2007 in Miami, a city authorities say alone is responsible for more than $3 billion a year in Medicare fraud. Clinic owners there would bill Medicare dozens of times for the same wheelchair, while never giving the medical equipment to patients.
Here's an article from 2008. The problem was the same then but nothing was done.
Congress tight with Medicare anti-fraud funds
For years, Medicare has begged Congress to help stop the loss of billions of dollars to healthcare scams from Miami to Los Angeles.
Congress' blunt response: Forgetaboutit.
Since 2006, Medicare administrators have asked Congress for $300 million to fight fraud, but Congress has refused to give them any money.
Why? Distrust of the agency that runs the federal health insurance program for the elderly and disabled. Political indifference to the Medicare fraud crisis itself. Plus, influential lobbyists and campaign donors who dislike government meddling in the huge healthcare industry.
All have undermined any attempts to cure what ails Medicare -- a 43-year-old program threatened by not only runaway costs but also unbridled fraud, as a Miami Herald series documented last week. It exposed rampant corruption in two regional healthcare fields -- medical equipment suppliers and HIV-infusion clinics -- which fuels South Florida's reputation as the nation's capital of Medicare fraud.
The fraud has to be addressed in Health Care Reform. How much of the increases in Medicare are do to fraud? Double and triple billing! And I blame both parties for this. They dropped the ball here!
Paul Krugman ...
"We don’t have a Medicare problem — we have a health care problem."
I'm on Medicare and my rate has gone up each year since I've had it. The next to years my Social Security will remain the same, no cost of living increase but my monthly will be lower because Medicare will go up. Which means Medigap insurance which covers "some" of the 20% that medicare doesn't pay will also go up.
If Health Care is fixed, it will also help Medicare.
Medicare versus insurers
Of course rates go up when expenses increase. The idea is to cut expenses and eliminate the cheats which are the providers who are double billing and charging more for test and proceedures.I notice from comments that a fair number of readers think that Medicare has had runaway costs. What you need to ask is, runaway compared to what?
Here’s the raw fact, from the National Health Expenditure data: since 1970 Medicare costs per beneficiary have risen at an annual rate of 8.8% — but insurance premiums have risen at an annual rate of 9.9%. The rise in Medicare costs is just part of the overall rise in health care spending. And in fact Medicare spending has lagged private spending: if insurance premiums had risen “only” as much as Medicare spending, they’d be 1/3 lower than they are.
I'm on Medicare and my rate has gone up each year since I've had it. The next to years my Social Security will remain the same, no cost of living increase but my monthly will be lower because Medicare will go up. Which means Medigap insurance which covers "some" of the 20% that medicare doesn't pay will also go up.
If Health Care is fixed, it will also help Medicare.
Step it up, Obama!
Senator Durbin asks Obama to get involved while Congress is in recess.
"I say this as a member of Congress who's been an observer: The president is in the driver's seat in August," Durbin told reporters Wednesday. "Congress is gone and scattered to the winds with personal family and constituent service. And the White House is still there, generating a message and activity. So I think the president will have a chance to tell the American people a little bit more about why this process is so important."
Progressive Obama supporters are beginning to worry that a public health care option is doomed. Democratic senators have begun voicing skepticism about the direction the debate is going.
But some liberal Democrats, like Senators John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, expressed reservations about concessions being made by Democrats to keep a few Republicans on board.
Mr. Rockefeller said he was unhappy that the legislation would end the Children's Health Insurance Program and could reduce the scope of benefits for 11 million children in the program.Asked if he would support the bill, Mr. Rockefeller shot back a somber, stony look. "Can't you see the joy on my face?" he asked.
The president had wanted legislation before recess, but negotiations in the Senate have made it unlikely. And in the House, conservative Blue Dogs made a deal with leadership that there will not be a vote until after the break.
From the NY Times:
Mr. Rockefeller said he was unhappy that the legislation would end the Children’s Health Insurance Program and could reduce the scope of benefits for 11 million children in the program.
Asked if he would support the bill, Mr. Rockefeller shot back a somber, stony look. “Can’t you see the joy on my face?” he asked.
snipDemocrats in Congress plan to finance about half the cost of the legislation by squeezing savings from Medicare. The White House says benefits will not be cut and beneficiaries will not be hurt.
“Nobody is talking about cutting Medicare benefits,” Mr. Obama said.
But Representative G. K. Butterfield, Democrat of North Carolina, said he heard many expressions of concern from constituents when he answered telephone calls to his office on Tuesday.
“The longer we wait to vote,” Mr. Butterfield said, “the more opportunity our opponents have to put out false messages. Seniors fear they will lose Medicare. They worry they will have to discuss plans for end-of-life care every five years.”
A provision of the House bill would provide Medicare coverage for the work of doctors who advise patients on life-sustaining treatment and “end-of-life services,” including hospice care.
Conservative groups have seized on this provision as evidence that the bill could encourage the rationing of health care. The Family Research Council, for example, said the bill would “limit end-of-life care.”
The House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, said, “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.”
Representative Robert E. Andrews, Democrat of New Jersey, said, “I have met seniors who think their Medicare will be taken away, which is false.”
So the Republicans, like the Iraq war, are trying to scare people into voting against theor best interest again. Why do people still believe these Republicans after all that has happened in the past 8 years. Everything they put in place or took away, like regulations for our banks and financial, have crashed. And yet these people still believe these idiots!
Blue Dogs were able to Water Down House Health Care Bill
From Jeff Muskus at Huffungton Post:
Conservative Blue Dog Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee are celebrating their success in delaying a full floor vote on health care legislation past the August recess and in weakening two key provisions during their negotiations with committee Chairman Henry Waxman."We have successfully pushed a floor vote to September," Mike Ross (D-Ark.) told reporters Wednesday afternoon. "The American people want us to slow down, and that's what we're doing here."
The Blue Dogs wrestled major concessions out of Waxman (D-Calif.), particularly related to a public health care option and employer mandates. The committee's current version of the public option now more closely resembles that of the health committee in the Senate, Ross proudly announced.
For instance, rather than linking the public option to the rates enjoyed by Medicare, the new language would require a separate agreement with significantly higher charges, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius would also have to sign off on any deal between the public option and service providers, while the plan would lack Medicare's bargaining power.
"The public option must go out and negotiate with providers, just like private health insurance companies do," Ross said. "It's strictly optional. It won't be mandated on anyone. It will not be based on Medicare rates."
Close to 86 percent of small businesses -- those with an annual payroll of $500,000 or less -- will be exempt from the mandate to provide employees with health insurance, according to the terms of the compromise. Those with an annual payroll between $500,000 and $750,000 must provide graduated partial assistance.
"That's as close as you can get to totally removing the mandate without removing it," Ross said. "Quite frankly, once you get up to three-quarter million a year in annual payroll, as a former small business owner myself, most of them are already providing health insurance, and if they're not, they should."
Under the original draft legislation, Ross said, barely one-fifth the number of businesses would have been exempted.
The Blue Dog negotiators -- Ross, Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), Baron Hill (D-Ind.) and Zack Space (D-Ohio) -- account for a majority of the seven swing Blue Dogs on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and their approval marks a big step toward passing the bill out of committee and onto the floor, where it will be reconciled with the two other health reform bills from the Ways and Means and Education and Labor committees.
Ross said he and the other committee Blue Dogs are determined to keep the cost of the final bill under $1 trillion over 10 years. He stumbled a bit, however, on the question of how many Americans he expects a weaker bill to cover.
"As many as when we went into these -- our objective has always been to make health insurance affordable for as many people as we can in this country," he said, but estimated another 10 steps between the current bill and the one that will reach President Obama's desk. "There's going to be a lot of changes between now and then." more at link.
Lets hope there will be alot of changes for the better because we can't afford not to have a good bill with a good Public Option. I am hoping more people will demand that of their Senators and Reps. If not, we are doomed to a bad bill like Medicare part D.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Hope for Health Reform? Push Single-Payer Now
posted by JOHN NICHOLS on 07/26/2009 @ 9:11pm
The Nation
It is unsettling to listen as President Obama and House Speaker Pelosi talk up a health-care reform "plan" that has yet to take shape in any realistic form.
The vagueness on the part of the president and the speaker is, of course, intentional.
Obama and Pelosi are still pushing the notion that they can get some version of their public-private stew cooked up before the year is done -- although not, according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, before the president and the Congress take the extended summer vacations that will kill whatever sense of official urgency might have existed.
Reid has taken some hits for suggesting that it would be a good idea to try and get health-care reform right, rather than just rush through a plan that fails to cover all Americans or control costs.
But that requires details. And neither Obama nor Pelosi is dealing in details right now because that's where the devil resides.
Here is the truth they tend to avoid mentioning: A robust public plan, with the quality and flexibility that is required to make it appealing to all Americans, would wipe out its insurance-industry competitors in short order. Why would anyone opt for more of the profiteering, restrictions and actual denials of needed treatment -- especially for people with pre-existing conditions -- that the insurance industry uses to make money rather than provide Americans with the medical care they require? And why would any employer choose to subsidize the stock value of health-care conglomerates when it is possible to opt for the better care and controlled costs of a public plan?
Unfortunately, the creation of a robust public plan, one that can compete on the basis of quality and affordability, will require a significant federal expenditure in the form of start-up money as well as regulatory protection for the program. That's where the devil comes in.
The powerful insurance and private health-care lobbies, which fear honest competition as the vampire does the stake, are going to do everything in their power to accomplish three things:
...continued here
The Nation
It is unsettling to listen as President Obama and House Speaker Pelosi talk up a health-care reform "plan" that has yet to take shape in any realistic form.
The vagueness on the part of the president and the speaker is, of course, intentional.
Obama and Pelosi are still pushing the notion that they can get some version of their public-private stew cooked up before the year is done -- although not, according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, before the president and the Congress take the extended summer vacations that will kill whatever sense of official urgency might have existed.
Reid has taken some hits for suggesting that it would be a good idea to try and get health-care reform right, rather than just rush through a plan that fails to cover all Americans or control costs.
But that requires details. And neither Obama nor Pelosi is dealing in details right now because that's where the devil resides.
Here is the truth they tend to avoid mentioning: A robust public plan, with the quality and flexibility that is required to make it appealing to all Americans, would wipe out its insurance-industry competitors in short order. Why would anyone opt for more of the profiteering, restrictions and actual denials of needed treatment -- especially for people with pre-existing conditions -- that the insurance industry uses to make money rather than provide Americans with the medical care they require? And why would any employer choose to subsidize the stock value of health-care conglomerates when it is possible to opt for the better care and controlled costs of a public plan?
Unfortunately, the creation of a robust public plan, one that can compete on the basis of quality and affordability, will require a significant federal expenditure in the form of start-up money as well as regulatory protection for the program. That's where the devil comes in.
The powerful insurance and private health-care lobbies, which fear honest competition as the vampire does the stake, are going to do everything in their power to accomplish three things:
...continued here
2 Great Articles on Health Care and Blue Dogs
The first is from one of my favorite economists, Paul Krugman of the NY Times. He titles this article An Incoherent Truth....
And the second article is by Harold Meyerson of the Washngton Post who titles his article
The Can't-Do Blue Dogs:
Read more at the linkRight now the fate of health care reform seems to rest in the hands of relatively conservative Democrats — mainly members of the Blue Dog Coalition, created in 1995. And you might be tempted to say that President Obama needs to give those Democrats what they want.
But he can’t — because the Blue Dogs aren’t making sense.
To grasp the problem, you need to understand the outline of the proposed reform (all of the Democratic plans on the table agree on the essentials.)
Reform, if it happens, will rest on four main pillars: regulation, mandates, subsidies and competition.
And the second article is by Harold Meyerson of the Washngton Post who titles his article
The Can't-Do Blue Dogs:
Watching the centrist Democrats in Congress create more and more reasons why health care can't be fixed, I've been struck by a disquieting thought: Suppose our collective lack of response to Hurricane Katrina wasn't exceptional but, rather, the new normal in America. Suppose we can no longer address the major challenges confronting the nation. Suppose America is now the world's leading can't-do country.
Every other nation with an advanced economy long ago secured universal health care for its citizens -- an achievement that the United States alone finds beyond the capacities of mortal man. It wasn't ever thus. Time was when Democratic Congresses enacted Social Security and Medicare over the opposition of powerful interests and Republican ideologues. In fact, our government used to actually pave roads, build bridges and allow for secure retirements by levying taxes on those who could afford to pay them.
To today's centrist Democrats, this has become a distant memory, a history lesson they cannot grasp. The notion that actual individuals might have to pay to secure the national interest appalls them. In the House, the Blue Dogs doggedly oppose proposals to fund universal coverage by taxing the wealthiest 1 percent of the nation's households. Their deference to wealth -- whether the consequence of our system of funding elections or a byproduct of the Internet generation's experience of free access to information and entertainment -- is not to be trifled with.
Meyerson goes even further in his article to address Manufacturing:
But the big picture here, of which the resistance to reforming health care is just one element, is our growing inability to meet our national challenges. Almost all of the major nations with which we trade, for instance, have quasi-mercantilist policies that lead them to champion their own higher-wage growth industries, often in manufacturing. In America alone are such policies considered anathema. In consequence, as the Alliance for American Manufacturing reports in a new book, we shuttered 40,000 factories from 2001 through 2007 -- the years, ostensibly of prosperity, between the past two downturns. The diminution of manufacturing, which employs just 11 percent of the U.S. workforce, may please Wall Street, which looks with disfavor on decent-wage domestic production, and Wal-Mart, which tripled its purchases from China (from $9 billion to $27 billion annually) during roughly the same years those American factories closed, but it poses a clear threat to the nation's economic, and even military, power.
Meyerson brings up the major problem in the United States that is the crux of our economic problems and that is our loss of manufacturing. Most economists say we have been running our country on borrowed money because of this shrinking manufacturing base since the Reagan years. We are now buying things we used to manufacture from other countries that can produce it for less money than we can and one of the main reasons is that our health care is so expensive.
Salaries have stayed stagnant because employers are having to pay more to provide health insurance and even they have passed alot of the expense on to the employee. The problems are deep and the Blue Dogs seem to want to sit back and collect the lobbyist funds and everyone else be damned.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Watch the New Ad for a Public Option by Act Blue
If you're interested in putting your name--literally--on this ad, please go to WeWantThePublicOption.com and add your name to the list. The people need all the voices we can get on the public option and I applaud BoldProgressives for making this great ad and allowing citizens to get involved.
The Great Preventer
By NOURIEL ROUBINI
Published: July 25, 2009
LAST week Ben Bernanke appeared before Congress, setting off a discussion over whether the president should reappoint him as chairman of the Federal Reserve when his term ends next January. Mr. Bernanke deserves to be reappointed. Both the conventional and unconventional decisions made by this scholar of the Great Depression prevented the Great Recession of 2008-2009 from turning into the Great Depression 2.0.
Mr. Bernanke understands that in the Great Depression, the collapse of the money supply and the lack of monetary stimulus during contractions worsened the country’s economic free fall. This lesson has paid off. Mr. Bernanke’s decision to keep interest rates low and encourage lending has, for now, averted the L-shaped near depression that seemed highly likely after the financial collapse last fall.
To be sure, an endorsement of Mr. Bernanke’s reappointment comes with many caveats. Mr. Bernanke, a Fed governor in the early part of this decade, supported flawed policies when Alan Greenspan pushed the federal funds rate (the policy rate set by the Fed as its main tool of monetary policy) too low for too long and failed to monitor mortgage lending properly, thus creating the housing and credit and mortgage bubbles.
He and the Fed made three major mistakes when the subprime mortgage crisis began. First, he kept arguing that the housing recession would bottom out soon (it has not bottomed out even three years later). Second, he argued that the subprime problem was a contained problem when in reality it was a symptom of the biggest leverage and credit bubble in American history. Third, he argued that the collapse in the housing market would not lead to a recession, even though about one-third of jobs created in the latest economic recovery were directly or indirectly related to housing. Mr. Bernanke’s analysis was mistaken in several other important ways. He argued that monetary policy should not be used to control asset bubbles. He attributed the large United States current account deficits to a savings glut in China and emerging markets, understating the role that excessive fiscal deficits and debt accumulation by American households and the financial system played.
Still, when a liquidity and credit crunch emerged in the summer of 2007, Mr. Bernanke engineered a U-turn in Fed policy that prevented the crisis from turning into a near depression. He did this largely with actions and programs that were not in the traditional toolbox of monetary policy. The federal funds rate was effectively pushed down to zero to reduce borrowing costs and prevent the collapse of consumer demand and capital spending by business. New programs encouraged skittish institutions to resume lending. For the first time since the Great Depression, the Fed’s role as lender of last resort was extended to investment banks.
Mr. Bernanke also introduced a wide range of other programs, like those to maintain the functioning of the commercial paper market (which makes short-term loans to companies so they can cover operating expenses like payrolls). The Fed was involved directly in the rescue of financial institutions like Bear Stearns and American International Group. It lent money to foreign central banks to ease a global shortage of dollars. The Fed even committed to purchasing up to $1.7 trillion of Treasury bonds, mortgage-backed securities and agency debt to reduce market rates. These are all radical actions that had almost never been undertaken before.
Some of these moves have raised important questions: Did the Fed help bail out institutions that should have been allowed to fail? Did it cause moral hazard as reckless lenders and investors were effectively bailed out? How and when will the Fed mop up the excess liquidity that its actions have created? Will these actions eventually cause inflation and a sharp fall of the value of the dollar? Has the Fed lost its independence as it has accommodated the fiscal needs of the government by bailing out banks and printing money to cover large fiscal deficits?
Still, the basic point remains: The Fed’s creative and aggressive actions have significantly reduced the risks of a near depression. For this reason alone Mr. Bernanke deserves to be reappointed so that he can manage the Fed’s exit from its most radical economic intervention since its creation in 1913.
Nouriel Roubini is a professor of economics at the New York University Stern School of Business and the chairman of an economic consulting firm.
Published: July 25, 2009
LAST week Ben Bernanke appeared before Congress, setting off a discussion over whether the president should reappoint him as chairman of the Federal Reserve when his term ends next January. Mr. Bernanke deserves to be reappointed. Both the conventional and unconventional decisions made by this scholar of the Great Depression prevented the Great Recession of 2008-2009 from turning into the Great Depression 2.0.
Mr. Bernanke understands that in the Great Depression, the collapse of the money supply and the lack of monetary stimulus during contractions worsened the country’s economic free fall. This lesson has paid off. Mr. Bernanke’s decision to keep interest rates low and encourage lending has, for now, averted the L-shaped near depression that seemed highly likely after the financial collapse last fall.
To be sure, an endorsement of Mr. Bernanke’s reappointment comes with many caveats. Mr. Bernanke, a Fed governor in the early part of this decade, supported flawed policies when Alan Greenspan pushed the federal funds rate (the policy rate set by the Fed as its main tool of monetary policy) too low for too long and failed to monitor mortgage lending properly, thus creating the housing and credit and mortgage bubbles.
He and the Fed made three major mistakes when the subprime mortgage crisis began. First, he kept arguing that the housing recession would bottom out soon (it has not bottomed out even three years later). Second, he argued that the subprime problem was a contained problem when in reality it was a symptom of the biggest leverage and credit bubble in American history. Third, he argued that the collapse in the housing market would not lead to a recession, even though about one-third of jobs created in the latest economic recovery were directly or indirectly related to housing. Mr. Bernanke’s analysis was mistaken in several other important ways. He argued that monetary policy should not be used to control asset bubbles. He attributed the large United States current account deficits to a savings glut in China and emerging markets, understating the role that excessive fiscal deficits and debt accumulation by American households and the financial system played.
Still, when a liquidity and credit crunch emerged in the summer of 2007, Mr. Bernanke engineered a U-turn in Fed policy that prevented the crisis from turning into a near depression. He did this largely with actions and programs that were not in the traditional toolbox of monetary policy. The federal funds rate was effectively pushed down to zero to reduce borrowing costs and prevent the collapse of consumer demand and capital spending by business. New programs encouraged skittish institutions to resume lending. For the first time since the Great Depression, the Fed’s role as lender of last resort was extended to investment banks.
Mr. Bernanke also introduced a wide range of other programs, like those to maintain the functioning of the commercial paper market (which makes short-term loans to companies so they can cover operating expenses like payrolls). The Fed was involved directly in the rescue of financial institutions like Bear Stearns and American International Group. It lent money to foreign central banks to ease a global shortage of dollars. The Fed even committed to purchasing up to $1.7 trillion of Treasury bonds, mortgage-backed securities and agency debt to reduce market rates. These are all radical actions that had almost never been undertaken before.
Some of these moves have raised important questions: Did the Fed help bail out institutions that should have been allowed to fail? Did it cause moral hazard as reckless lenders and investors were effectively bailed out? How and when will the Fed mop up the excess liquidity that its actions have created? Will these actions eventually cause inflation and a sharp fall of the value of the dollar? Has the Fed lost its independence as it has accommodated the fiscal needs of the government by bailing out banks and printing money to cover large fiscal deficits?
Still, the basic point remains: The Fed’s creative and aggressive actions have significantly reduced the risks of a near depression. For this reason alone Mr. Bernanke deserves to be reappointed so that he can manage the Fed’s exit from its most radical economic intervention since its creation in 1913.
Nouriel Roubini is a professor of economics at the New York University Stern School of Business and the chairman of an economic consulting firm.
Hey Blue Dogs: It's Time For The Rich To Pay Back Those Tax Loans
By: masaccio Sunday July 26, 2009 10:30 am
The whiny rich and their toadies, especially the Blue Dogs, don’t want a tax increase. I say it’s time for them to pay back the enormous loans they have gotten over the last 30 years. Everyone knows that tax cuts in times of deficits are just loans. Eventually they have to be paid back. We can do it with tax hikes, or by running surpluses, or by cutting expenditures, but they have to be paid. Otherwise, we run up our interest expense, and crowd out private borrowers. For years, the US has been running huge deficits (except for a year under Clinton), all the while cutting taxes for the rich.
The rationale for those tax cuts was that rich people would use that money for investment in productive enterprise, directing it as only they with all their personal brilliance and their genius advisors can do. Then there would be all these new jobs in these new industries, ordinary people would have income and there would be capital gains and more taxes paid, so the tax cuts would pay for themselves. This absurd theory had the obvious outcome: staggering increases in the national debt.
...Read the rest at FDL and don't skip the links! Great stuff
The whiny rich and their toadies, especially the Blue Dogs, don’t want a tax increase. I say it’s time for them to pay back the enormous loans they have gotten over the last 30 years. Everyone knows that tax cuts in times of deficits are just loans. Eventually they have to be paid back. We can do it with tax hikes, or by running surpluses, or by cutting expenditures, but they have to be paid. Otherwise, we run up our interest expense, and crowd out private borrowers. For years, the US has been running huge deficits (except for a year under Clinton), all the while cutting taxes for the rich.
The rationale for those tax cuts was that rich people would use that money for investment in productive enterprise, directing it as only they with all their personal brilliance and their genius advisors can do. Then there would be all these new jobs in these new industries, ordinary people would have income and there would be capital gains and more taxes paid, so the tax cuts would pay for themselves. This absurd theory had the obvious outcome: staggering increases in the national debt.
...Read the rest at FDL and don't skip the links! Great stuff
Illinois Political News, Gov. Quinn
Gov. Pat Quinn's office said the widely reported 86 percent funding level for state human services in the new Illinois budget signed by Quinn is purely "speculative."Elizabeth Austin, the communications director at the Governor's Office of Management and Budget, said Friday the 86% figure -- which is currently swirling and bobbing in the media -- is only speculative because in addition to the $2.3 billion the legislature committed to human services, there is $1.2 billion available to the Quinn to spend at his "discretion."
Moreover, Austin noted that agency directors were still preparing budget plans for submission to the governor's office, so the funding level is unknown.
Austin refused to speculate on whether any of the $1.2 billion may be allocated to human services, only to repeat that the governor could spend that dough at his "discretion."
That emphasis on "discretion" is enough of a signal, however, to human service lobbyists: start your engines boys and girls.
Additionally, Austin was unable to clarify whether and what portion the $1.1 billion in budget reserves -- which House Democrat budget documents refer to as "mandated" reserves until new revenue materializes this year (cue the flying pigs) -- are included in the estimated 86% human services funding level, except to reiterate that agency budget plans were in formation.
What Austin could confirm, however, is that the state -- with a $3.9 billion bill backlog from last year -- is now on six-month bill payment cycle. Submit a bill on July 17, 2009; expect payment on January 17, 2010. Ouch.
With those financial institutions formerly known as banks shrinking and shriveling credit lines, that six-month stretch will almost certainly drive many social service agencies into bankruptcy. Poof.
Of the new Illinois budget's plan to push $3 billion in money owed to state service-provider payments into next year, one state human services association estimated that of that amount, $1.5 billion would be money owed to human-services providers. Austin was unable to confirm that number.
Whatever the human services spending percentage may be, Quinn's real -- and thankless -- job is to cut the budget. A lot. More at link.
Ted Kennedy still pushing for Health Care Bill from his Sick bed
Ted Kennedy's passion to pass a bill for health care for everyone is keeping him alive right now. He's working from his home in Cape Cod and directing his Aides by phone. But his influence is sorely missed on the Hill.
From the LA Tiimes:
Life is strange. He has fought all of his political life for a good health care bill and just when it could very well happen, he is having health problems himself. And what he has fought for is the opportunity for everyone to have the good care he is getting. And he believes it is a right for all Americans, not just the privileged.
From the LA Tiimes:
As Congress wrestles with legislation to give Americans access to quality care, which the Democrat worked toward for 46 years, the senator is sidelined with brain cancer, but not out of the game.
Reporting from Washington -- Ted Kennedy wakes up mornings in his house on Cape Cod to a packet of news clippings put together by his wife. If there's a hearing going on in Washington, he watches on his computer.
Five hundred miles away, Congress is wrestling with historic legislation to give every American access to quality healthcare. It is the moment the Massachusetts Democrat has worked toward for 46 years. But instead of marshaling the crowning achievement of his political career, he is sidelined, battling brain cancer."He has lived for this day when America would finally extend this right to every citizen. There's no doubt if he could, he would be here in the thick of this," Kennedy's son Patrick, a Democratic congressman from Rhode Island, said in a recent interview, sitting on a bench on the Capitol grounds with tears in his eyes."I have enjoyed the best medical care money (and a good insurance policy) can buy. . . . Every American should be able to get the same treatment that U.S. senators are entitled to," Kennedy wrote in an unusually personal essay published in this week's Newsweek, adding near the end of the article: "We're almost there."
But history's third-longest-serving senator isn't out of the game yet. Exerting what influence he can from his sickbed, he advises his aides in Washington over the phone. He has made himself the poster child of what he calls "my life's cause," and is using his illness in a final press for universal healthcare.
Kennedy, 77, seems determined not to miss this. He has outlasted medical expectations since doctors diagnosed a malignant tumor last spring, and is not above expending every last bit of his political capital to deliver the bill he will be most remembered for. Democratic leaders plan to bring him back to the Senate floor later this year in a wheelchair, or a bed if necessary, to cast his vote for healthcare reform.
snip
"One of the things Teddy has going for him is the remarkable caliber of staff. Arguably they may be one of the best, if not the best, staff on the Hill. The staff's professionalism and reputation and credibility also go a long way to helping fill the void," said Tom Daschle, former Senate majority leader and an informal White House advisor on healthcare issues.
But Kennedy's aides, who have fiercely defended their boss' bill, have not been in a position to broker compromises and have caused tension at times, trying to carry on in Kennedy's stead while lacking his stature.
Few senators possess the types of friendships that have brought Republicans to the table or the gravitas that holds the party rank and file in line.
"He's the only Democrat who really has the sway with the unions, the trial lawyers, gays and lesbians, environmentalists, feminists," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, a conservative Republican who has teamed with Kennedy on healthcare legislation for three decades. "We've linked arms on a lot of things for the good of the country. And I give him a lot of credit because it hasn't always been easy to link arms with me."
snip
Now an overhaul seems more possible than it has in years, and Kennedy's absence is keenly felt on both sides.
Life is strange. He has fought all of his political life for a good health care bill and just when it could very well happen, he is having health problems himself. And what he has fought for is the opportunity for everyone to have the good care he is getting. And he believes it is a right for all Americans, not just the privileged.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Rahm Emanuel meets with Blue Dogs
Rham Emanuel had a meeting with the House Blue Dogs and Huffington Post is reporting that Rahm said there could be a vote next week.
"I can tell you what I know, which is that the speaker today announced to the caucus that their intention is to go next week, and she is working toward that goal," Emanuel said.Emanuel also said he was pleased by Republicans' vows to obstruct the bill.
Emanuel shrugged off Sen. Jim DeMint's (R-S.C.) comments Wednesday that health care is Obama's "Waterloo" and remarks Thursday by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) that Republicans are plotting the bill's demise on a "week by week" basis.
"At least they're honest about their motivation. Their view about health care is about defeating President Obama," he said. "Politically, I actually appreciate what they said."
I don't know how to take this view by Emanuel. I am hoping he is being facetious. I am still very leary of Emanuel.
Also in the article was a blurb about Waxman that maggiesboy already reported:
Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) announced that he may let the health care bill bypass his Energy and Commerce Committee, saying there is "no alternative" if Blue Dog Democrats don't accept a deal worked out Friday."I won't allow them to hand over control of our committee to Republicans," Waxman told reporters.
Asked about Waxman's suggestion, House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told the Huffington Post that he'd prefer at this point to go through the regular committee process.
I'd like to see the House bill on the floor and voted on before the recess so that the Senate would be forced to keep it as a priority after recess.
UPDATE: From Huffington Post:
Health care reform negotiations between conservative Democrats and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) collapsed Friday afternoon, a leading Blue Dog Democrat said.
"It pretty much fell apart this afternoon," Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) told reporters just off the House floor. Ross has been the lead Blue Dog negotiator in the committee.
Waxman met with Blue Dogs this afternoon and took a hard line, Ross said. The Blue Dogs thought they had agreement on an independent commission to reduce Medicare reimbursement rates and on using Senate HELP Committee language to create a public option that Americans could buy in to.
Waxman, said Ross, came into a meeting with Blue Dogs this afternoon and said both were off the table.
"That leaves the chairman with not enough votes to get the bill out of committee," said Ross.
Earlier Friday, Waxman suggested he was willing to go around the Blue Dogs in his committee if need be.
Ross had little hope of reaching an agreement any time soon. "It's my understanding that will be the last meeting we have. He's talking about a full meeting of the full Democratic caucus of Energy and Commerce," said Ross. "It's a Friday afternoon. We've got about an hour's worth of votes. I have no idea if it's actually going to happen or not."
A reporter asked Ross as he walked on to the House floor: "So there's no possibility of a deal now?"
"No," he said firmly.
--
Doesn't look good. Hope they can pull something off.
UPDATE II: From TPM:
Earlier today, Waxman lashed out at the conservative Democrats for trying to "eviscerate" house health care legislation, and threatened to bypass their concerns completely in order to get a timely floor vote on a healthy bill. That seems to have sent tempers flaring.
"It pretty much fell apart this afternoon," said key Blue Dog Mike Ross (D-AR), who called Waxman's rhetoric "not helpful," according to Congressional Quarterly.
"It's my understanding that will be the last meeting we have," Ross said.
Now the ball is in Waxman's court. Will he try to mark the bill up anyhow? Or will he freeze them out completely. Democratic leaders will host a caucus meeting on Monday to address all members' concerns about the bill--a sign, perhaps, that they aren't going to wait for this intra-panel tiff to be resolved. If that's the case, all eyes will return again to the Blue Dogs to see whether they'll revolt against the bill. Showdown!
Go Waxman!!!
Waxman: Blue Dogs Trying To “Eviscerate” Health Care
By: Jane Hamsher Friday July 24, 2009 9:27 am
Waxman says Blue Dogs are trying to hand over control of Energy & Commerce to the Republicans, and is threatening to let the health care bill bypass the committee:
House Energy and Commerce chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) says his panel's Blue Dogs must relent, or he and leaders will move health care legislation directly to the floor, bypassing the committee altogether.
This morning, he told reporters that Blue Dogs are trying to "eviscerate" the landmark legislation. "I won't allow them to hand over control of our committee to Republicans," Waxman said.
"I dont see what other alternative we have, because we're not going to let them empower Republicans on the committee."
All that claptrap about "fiscal responsibility" is bullshit --
...more (and it gets a lot better!)
Waxman says Blue Dogs are trying to hand over control of Energy & Commerce to the Republicans, and is threatening to let the health care bill bypass the committee:
House Energy and Commerce chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) says his panel's Blue Dogs must relent, or he and leaders will move health care legislation directly to the floor, bypassing the committee altogether.
This morning, he told reporters that Blue Dogs are trying to "eviscerate" the landmark legislation. "I won't allow them to hand over control of our committee to Republicans," Waxman said.
"I dont see what other alternative we have, because we're not going to let them empower Republicans on the committee."
All that claptrap about "fiscal responsibility" is bullshit --
...more (and it gets a lot better!)
Editorial Cartoon on CREW's Suit on WH Visitor Logs
Click title to see cartoon. I can't believe he's not up front on this. I'm all for giving the benefit of the doubt but given recent events, I needs me some sunshine! Below is the CREW story
22 Jul 2009 // Washington, D.C. - Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is filing a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security based on the refusal of the Secret Service to provide CREW with White House visitor records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). CREW is seeking records of visits by top health care executives in an effort to learn the extent to which these industry players may have influenced the administration’s health care policy. Simultaneously, CREW is requesting emergency relief in the form of a preliminary injunction compelling the Secret Service to process the request on an expedited basis, in view of the great public interest and debate on health care policy and the pressure on Congress to pass legislation before the August recess.
In response to CREW’s FOIA request, the Obama administration has taken the same position as the Bush administration that the records are presidential, not agency records, and that they are exempt from release because of the possibility in some instances they could reveal information protected by the presidential communications privilege. Although the White House suggested it was reviewing its policy on the release of visitor logs last month when CREW filed a similar complaint based on its request for records of visits by top coal company executives, it has to date refused to make even a discretionary release of any of the requested records. Every court to rule on the issue so far has concluded the visitor records are agency records that must be disclosed under the FOIA.
Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW, said today, “Right now, the White House and Congress are debating colossal changes to the American health care system and taxpayers have a right to know who is sitting at the table influencing decision-makers. Unfortunately, the administration is refusing to release the names, preferring backroom politicking to transparency.”
Read CREW's complaint and request for a preliminary injuction in the Related Documents section on the right. Click here to read the original FOIA request to the Secret Service.
Link to article
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Blue Dogs raking in the Lobbyists Cash
From Faiz Shakir at Thnik Progress:
The 52-member Blog Dog Coalition has been constantly attempting to weaken President Obama’s efforts to pass progressive health care, clean energy, and economic recovery legislation through Congress. According to a new report by the Center for Public Integrity, many of the industries that are opposing Obama’s agenda are now contributing heavily to the Blue Dogs:So far this year, the political action committee attached to the fiscally conservative House Democratic voting bloc is on track to shatter all its fundraising records, raising more in the first six months of 2009 — more than $1.1 million — than it did in the entire 2003-04 fundraising cycle.
Nearly 54 percent of the Blue Dog PAC’s haul this year comes from the energy, financial services and health care industries, up from 45 percent in 2004, according to analysis of CQ MoneyLine data by the Center for Public Integrity.
And from Politico:
Whether the subject is health care reform, climate change or pay-as-you-go budgeting rules, almost everyone, it seems, suddenly wants to talk with the Blue Dogs.
And they’re willing to pay handsomely for the opportunity.
So far this year, the political action committee attached to the fiscally conservative House Democratic voting bloc is on track to shatter all its fundraising records, raising more in the first six months of 2009 — more than $1.1 million — than it did in the entire 2003-04 fundraising cycle.
Nearly 54 percent of the Blue Dog PAC’s haul this year comes from the energy, financial services and health care industries, up from 45 percent in 2004, according to analysis of CQ MoneyLine data by the Center for Public Integrity.
These contributions poured in as President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress have been making a major push to reform health care, develop a new energy policy and restructure oversight of the banking sector.
Clearly, these Dogs are having their day.
Clearly we have a fight ahead of us to discount these Blue Dogs and show people that they are in it for their money. Remember, House terms, unlike the Senate, are two years. The way to get these Blue Dogs in line is to run against them and get behind the Progressive candidates. And another way is to embarrass them in their own Districts and States.
Tally Ho Progressives! Keep on fighting!
Reid Confirms no Health Care bill til after Recess
The decision was made to give them more time,' says majority leader
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., delivered the official word on what had been expected for weeks, saying, "It's better to have a product based on quality and thoughtfulness rather than try to jam something through."
Well that's that for the Senate! Will the House follow suite? This puts pressure on the President to keep up the momentum for the Public Option.
The process will be difficult since Finance, led by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., is seeking a bipartisan deal while the health committee bill was passed by Democrats on a party-line vote.Reid said the decision to delay a vote was made Wednesday night in the hopes of getting a final bill that can win at least 60 votes in the Senate.
Reid said he had listened to the requests from senior Republicans working with Baucus to allow more time for a compromise to emerge.
"The decision was made to give them more time and I don't think it's unreasonable," he said.
The news of the delay came just hours before the president's appearance at a health care forum in Ohio.
Recess time means the Senators will be in their home districts and States. Lets get to work and confront them in their own States! We, the people, have to keep up the momentum.
GOP pushing to delay Health Care Bill
The AP has an article out this morning saying:
House Republican Whip Eric Cantor charged on Thursday that too much of the burden of bankrolling a new health care system would fall on small businesses at a time when job creation is virtually nonexistent.At the same time, the Virginia Republican said he doubts that a version of the plan in the House can win passage before members of Congress leave for their August recess. "If they're going to get this passed next week, it's going to have to be a changed bill," he said.
Rep. Eric Cantor was on c-span this AM touting his and the GOP stance on this. Will it work? Will the Blue Dogs hold up the bill helping the GOP postpone the bill until after the August Recess?
The article goes on to quote David Axelrod:
Senior White House adviser David Axelrod reiterated President Barack Obama's plea for lawmakers to act now.
"The bottom line here is right now health care premiums have doubled over the last decade. Out-of-pocket costs up by a third," he said. "Health care costs are growing three times the rate of wages."
"It's an unsustainable path," Axelrod added, "and the government is being crunched by it, businesses are being crushed by it. We have to respond."
And the moderates (Blue Dogs) are holding up the works:
In the House, Democratic leaders struggled to win over rebellious moderates and conservative rank-and-file party members who are demanding changes to the bill. The dispute has forced Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to postpone work on the legislation for three straight days while he negotiates.
Waxman's committee is the last of three panels trying to finish the legislation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Wednesday she has the votes to pass a bill in the House, which is scheduled to break for its monthlong recess at the end of next week. However, the Speaker hasn't scheduled a vote.
So what is the solution? We need to get at least one Bill passed before the break. It would be good if it were the House bill.
FireDogLake is circulating a petition. Here's their email about it and a link to sign the petition:
Great news - in just one day, more than 17,000 people signed our petition to tell the House to not go on vacation until it passes health care reform. Thank you for your support!
Can we make it to 25,000 by tomorrow? Forward this email to your friends and ask them to sign our petition
.Tomorrow we'll deliver your signature to the Representatives who'd rather go on vacation than pass health care reform - and we'll show you what happens afterward.
Thanks for your help,
We have to get moving on this or, as Obama said, we will lose the opportunity "The Stars are aligned".
What are your thoughts?
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Obama Engages Deeper
Hard to admit, but not all Blue Dog proposals are bad. This piece from Time has some good reference links like this one on an Independent Medicare Advisory Commission
Is Barack Obama finally channeling LBJ to save his health reform initiative? As we've noted before, the President until now has stayed away from the nitty-gritty of the negotiations on Capitol Hill, largely because he wants to avoid the mistakes that the Clintons made in 1993, when they tried to dictate to Congress precisely how to transform the health system. His role, as he saw it, was to make the case on the outside, with the public, to convince Americans that health reform is needed--and needed now.
Rest of article with reference links here
Health Insurance Lobby Spins Data
Like we didn't know they would try this. The Health Insurance Industry are rubbing their hands together waiting for mandated health care.
From the Washington Post:
From the Washington Post:
The industry that helped scuttle health reform 15 years ago with its "Harry and Louise" ads is back, voicing support for a central element of the Obama administration's plans: making sure everyone is covered.That does not mean the industry is backing the administration. Indeed, the leader of the insurance lobby has sent lawmakers a message: Be careful what you change, because "77 percent of Americans are satisfied with their existing health insurance coverage."
Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), invoked the statistic to argue against the creation of a government-run insurance option. But the polls are not that simple, and her assertion reveals how the industry's effort to defend its turf has led it to cherry-pick the facts.
The poll Ignagni was citing actually undercuts her position: By 72 to 20 percent, Americans favor the creation of a public plan, the June survey by the New York Times and CBS News found. People also said that they thought government would do a better job than private insurers of holding down health-care costs and providing coverage.
In addition, data from a Kaiser Family Foundation poll last year, compiled at the request of The Washington Post, suggest that the people who like their health plans the most are the people who use them the least.
Those who described their health as "excellent" -- people who presumably had relatively little experience pursuing medical care or submitting claims -- were almost twice as likely as those in good, fair or poor health to rate their private health insurance as excellent.
The level of satisfaction expressed with private insurance was essentially the same as that with Medicare, the government program for the elderly and disabled.
snip
"A government-run plan would turn back the clock on efforts to improve the quality and safety of patient care," AHIP has argued. Such a plan "will ultimately limit choices and access," the big insurer WellPoint contends.
But systemic problems have persisted for 15 years, and it is not clear how much private insurers have done, or can do, to solve them.
"Insurers promise choice, they promise innovation, they promise a lot of things, but I think they've delivered very little," said Alan Sager, professor of health policy and management at Boston University. "I think net they give us very bad value for the 10 to 20 percent share of the health dollar they skim off the top."
Instead of choice, they offer "the illusion of choice," he said.
Illusion. That is how any big business sells it's product. Just watch the TV ads.
Health-care costs have continued to rise faster than personal incomes and economic growth. Even the industry agrees that much of the spending is wasted, exposing patients to unnecessary risk.
Insurers argue that a government plan could dominate the market, reducing consumers' options. But in the private market, options are limited by employers who restrict employees' choice of insurers and by insurers who restrict their choice of doctors.
Cigna, one of the nation's largest insurers, took away its own employees' alternatives in 2006 and left them with only high-deductible coverage.
"There were a lot of unhappy people," said Wendell Potter, who until last year was Cigna's head of corporate communications. For many people enrolled in such plans, "the deductibles are so high that they forgo care," he said.
Here is another Illusion. People are canceling appointments with their doctors because they can't afford it. But you don't hear about that. The argument you hear is that doctors liability insurance is too high. You don't hear about the people who can't afford quality care even with insurance. And why is their liability insurance too high? Because insurance companies make lots of money selling liability. How much of that insurance is really used? How often do doctors get sued? I'd like to see those numbers! And if a doctor makes a mistake, they should pay!
AHIP has produced a stack of glossy reports describing health insurers' efforts to improve care. In recent testimony, Ignagni said private health plans serving the elderly have been highly successful in reducing hospital admissions and readmissions for patients with diabetes and heart disease.Yet one of the AHIP reports says that in an Aetna Pathways to Excellence hospital incentive program, "readmission rates did not improve significantly."
Opponents of a public option argue that it could put government bureaucrats between patients and doctors. Today, for people with commercial or employer-sponsored coverage, care is overseen by private bureaucracies. Where government bureaucracies answer to the body politic, the corporate versions answer to Wall Street.
The issue of whether a public plan would be more successful at bringing costs under control is harder to evaluate. As a prototype for government-run health care, Medicare has failed to control costs and makes little effort to restrict care.
Economists generally agree that if costs are to be brought under control, someone must say no to care that doctors propose and patients demand. So far, that role has fallen primarily to insurers.
"Private insurers have effectively engaged in rationing, so they're doing the dirty work for everybody else," said Jeff D. Emerson, a former health plan chief executive. "It's a thankless job . . . but somebody has to do it or health care will be even more expensive than it is now."
This writer started out so good but had to throw this little gem in. And it's the last paragraph of the article.
Private insurers might be better situated than the government to do the unpopular work of saying no, said Paul B. Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, because they are less susceptible to political pressure.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Really Smart Facebook Campaign to Kick Some Blue Dogs
By: Jane Hamsher Tuesday July 21, 2009 2:00 pm
Max Bernstein and James Boyce of dotPAC are running a campaign of facebook ads in the districts of the 7 Blue Dog obstructionists , asking people who are constituents to call or leave messages on their Facebook walls.
I asked the dotPAC folks how much it would cost to run these ads effectively, and they said $35 per day per representative.
As someone who looks constantly for effective ways to build pressure within the districts of people who can be awfully hard to target, this is really smart, microtargeted and cost-effective effort.
People around here know that I don't jump on campaigns lightly -- most of the traditional ways that liberals do advocacy are in need of serious re-examination because they just plain don't work. But I gave $100 myself to this one. I think it's a great idea and recommend it highly.
Get the links 'n stuff here
Max Bernstein and James Boyce of dotPAC are running a campaign of facebook ads in the districts of the 7 Blue Dog obstructionists , asking people who are constituents to call or leave messages on their Facebook walls.
I asked the dotPAC folks how much it would cost to run these ads effectively, and they said $35 per day per representative.
As someone who looks constantly for effective ways to build pressure within the districts of people who can be awfully hard to target, this is really smart, microtargeted and cost-effective effort.
People around here know that I don't jump on campaigns lightly -- most of the traditional ways that liberals do advocacy are in need of serious re-examination because they just plain don't work. But I gave $100 myself to this one. I think it's a great idea and recommend it highly.
Get the links 'n stuff here
Elizabeth Warren on the Consumer Protection Agency
The Consumer Financial Product Protection Agency would shield consumers against exotic mortgages and confusing credit card offers. As Warren describes it, creating a new agency would, in fact, simplify the current regulatory structure:
Rationing Health Care
Think Progress links to this great article on Health Care Rationing. This is one of the big discussions going on today in our illustrious media. Here's the article by GoozNews on Health:
Here's another thing we have to watch for in these bills coming out of congress.
Rationing of Health Care -- Will It Be Just 15 Minutes of Fame?
by GoozNews ~ 20 Jul 2009 11:09am 
One can only hope that Princeton University bioethicist Peter Singer's article in the Sunday New York Times magazine will trigger a mature national discussion about rationing health care resources. When and how should we pay for wildly expensive medical technologies, needlessly complicated end-of-life care, heroic interventions in terminal diseases and the other drivers of ever rising health care costs?
It has already kicked off a healthy discussion on many blogs, including this excellent historical overview of the "R-word" from Bob Wachter on The Health Care Blog. I would be remiss if I also didn't remind readers that Henry Aaron and some of his colleagues at the Brookings Institution have been raising this issue publicly for many years, encapsulated in "Can We Say No?", which came out in 2005. It would have been nice if Singer had at least quoted some of the intellectual sources of his own work.
Since this blog has been a consistent voice for using comparative effectiveness research and applying cost-effectiveness analysis to medical technology as a way of properly rationing limited health care dollars, I will refrain from rethumping the tub. The reality is that rationing has always been with us in the U.S., as Singer points out in his article. We ration through price and through limiting access to care.
The question on the table now is whether it will continue that way. Or will rationing become rational by using the best medical science to ensure that limited resources are used to provide the greatest health for the greatest number. If we continue to ration through price, we will simply be allowing the growing split between rich and poor in the U.S., which is already reflected in the relative ill-health of the lower classes, to continue.
When I rail against price-driven mechanisms for lowering costs like high deductible insurance plans or taxing health benefits, it's because I believe greater reliance on rationing through price will create an environment where patients will increase their use of short-term economic considerations to decide what's best for their own health. Yet every study on that subject has shown that when faced with a price-driven choice, patients as often as not eliminate useful care that may not be cost-effective for the system as a whole. Indeed, the poorer you are, the more likely you are to make the wrong choice. So if health care reform legislation uses price mechanisms to control costs, the system will wind up with the worst of all possible worlds: even worse health outcomes than we already have, and more expensive health care down the road.
So, rationing? Yes. But rational rationing, not rationing borne of some ideological fascination with free market ideology inappropriately applied to health care. In the end, health care isn't a private good. It's a public good like public education, fighting fires, providing police protection or the common defense. And like any public good, relying on sovereign consumers wielding their own dollars to deliver the desired outcome will never work.
Pres. Jimmy Carter and his stance for Women
Jimmy Carter is the first and so far the only President I've seen in person. At the time I saw him he was running for his 2nd term and was in the middle of an oil crisis and huge interest rates. But I liked him then and still do because I sensed the humanity in this man.
He announced recently that he was leaving his religion which is Southern Baptist and the reason he was leaving he spelled out in this op ed:
He announced recently that he was leaving his religion which is Southern Baptist and the reason he was leaving he spelled out in this op ed:
Losing my religion for equality
Women and girls have been discriminated against for too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God.
I HAVE been a practising Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service.
This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths. Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women's equal rights across the world for centuries.
At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.
The impact of these religious beliefs touches every aspect of our lives. They help explain why in many countries boys are educated before girls; why girls are told when and whom they must marry; and why many face enormous and unacceptable risks in pregnancy and childbirth because their basic health needs are not met.
In some Islamic nations, women are restricted in their movements, punished for permitting the exposure of an arm or ankle, deprived of education, prohibited from driving a car or competing with men for a job. If a woman is raped, she is often most severely punished as the guilty party in the crime.
The same discriminatory thinking lies behind the continuing gender gap in pay and why there are still so few women in office in the West. The root of this prejudice lies deep in our histories, but its impact is felt every day. It is not women and girls alone who suffer. It damages all of us. The evidence shows that investing in women and girls delivers major benefits for society. An educated woman has healthier children. She is more likely to send them to school. She earns more and invests what she earns in her family.
It is simply self-defeating for any community to discriminate against half its population. We need to challenge these self-serving and outdated attitudes and practices - as we are seeing in Iran where women are at the forefront of the battle for democracy and freedom.
I understand, however, why many political leaders can be reluctant about stepping into this minefield. Religion, and tradition, are powerful and sensitive areas to challenge. But my fellow Elders and I, who come from many faiths and backgrounds, no longer need to worry about winning votes or avoiding controversy - and we are deeply committed to challenging injustice wherever we see it.
snip
The carefully selected verses found in the Holy Scriptures to justify the superiority of men owe more to time and place - and the determination of male leaders to hold onto their influence - than eternal truths. Similar biblical excerpts could be found to support the approval of slavery and the timid acquiescence to oppressive rulers.
I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same Scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn't until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy. Read more at link.
I now respect him more than ever and his humanity shines through in this piece.
There is still a fight by women world wide for equality and the prejudice is still shown through many religions against women. It is time that women come into their own around the world!
Keep it in the "Family"
21 Jul 2009 // Manu Raju and John Bresnahan // Politico - Rep. Zach Wamp took a $5,000 campaign contribution from Sen. John Ensign — a fellow Republican and fellow resident of a Capitol Hill Christian fellowship house — eight days after Ensign admitted publicly that he’d had an affair with a former staffer.
The contribution, from Ensign’s Battle Born PAC to Wamp’s Tennessee gubernatorial campaign, shows up on Ensign’s latest FEC filing — and there’s no indication that Wamp has tried to return it.
Wamp did not respond to questions about the contribution Monday; his congressional office referred POLITICO to his gubernatorial campaign, and the campaign did not respond to several messages.
Although Wamp and Ensign live together at the C Street Christian group house, Wamp, a Tennessee Republican, has said little about Ensign’s affair except to suggest that he’ll abide by the code of silence that covers whatever happens in the home.
Two weeks after taking the $5,000 from Ensign, Wamp told the Knoxville News Sentinel: “I hate it that John Ensign lives in the house and this happened, because it opens up all of these kinds of questions.” But, he added, “I’m not going to be the guy who goes out and talks.”
...More at C.R.E.W.
The contribution, from Ensign’s Battle Born PAC to Wamp’s Tennessee gubernatorial campaign, shows up on Ensign’s latest FEC filing — and there’s no indication that Wamp has tried to return it.
Wamp did not respond to questions about the contribution Monday; his congressional office referred POLITICO to his gubernatorial campaign, and the campaign did not respond to several messages.
Although Wamp and Ensign live together at the C Street Christian group house, Wamp, a Tennessee Republican, has said little about Ensign’s affair except to suggest that he’ll abide by the code of silence that covers whatever happens in the home.
Two weeks after taking the $5,000 from Ensign, Wamp told the Knoxville News Sentinel: “I hate it that John Ensign lives in the house and this happened, because it opens up all of these kinds of questions.” But, he added, “I’m not going to be the guy who goes out and talks.”
...More at C.R.E.W.
A Personal Story involving Big Pharma
I have Rheumatoid Arthritis. What is Rheumatoid Arthritis?
Definition
By Mayo Clinic staffRheumatoid arthritis is an inflammatory form of arthritis that causes joint pain and damage. Rheumatoid arthritis attacks the lining of your joints (synovium) causing swelling that can result in aching and throbbing and eventually deformity. Sometimes rheumatoid arthritis symptoms make even the simplest activities — such as opening a jar or taking a walk — difficult to manage.
Rheumatoid arthritis is two to three times more common in women than in men and generally occurs between the ages of 40 and 60. But rheumatoid arthritis can also affect young children and older adults.
There's no cure for rheumatoid arthritis. With proper treatment, a strategy for joint protection and changes in lifestyle, you can live a long, productive life with rheumatoid arthritis.
Because of this condition my rheumatologist put me on a drug called Vioxx from the drug maker Merck. Vioxx was a wonder drug that helped the symptoms of the arthritis. And it did. But the deadly secret was that this wonder drug had serious side effects.
Vioxx Recall and Vioxx Side Effects
All About Vioxx and the Vioxx Global Recall
Vioxx Consumer Guide provides information about the Vioxx recall and the significant heart attack and other cardiovascular side effects of Vioxx. The Vioxx recall was a landmark event amidst many safety warnings during 2004 and 2005 about Vioxx side effects and the side effects of other COX-2 inhibitor drugs.
Rofecoxib, commercially known as Vioxx, is a pain reliever developed and produced by the pharmaceutical giant Merck and Co.
From taking this drug, I developed Atrial Fibrillation...
What Is Atrial Fibrillation?
Atrial fibrillation (A-tre-al fi-bri-LA-shun), or AF, is the most common arrhythmia (ah-RITH-me-ah). An arrhythmia is a problem with the speed or rhythm of the heartbeat. A disorder in the heart’s electrical system causes AF and other types of arrhythmia.
AF occurs when rapid, disorganized electrical signals in the heart’s two upper chambers, called the atria (AY-tree-uh), cause them to contract very fast and irregularly (this is called fibrillation). As a result, blood pools in the atria and isn’t pumped completely into the heart’s two lower chambers, called the ventricles (VEN-trih-kuls). When this happens, the heart’s upper and lower chambers don’t work together as they should.
Because of this secondary condition I developed after taking the drug, I was transported by ambulance to the hospital emergency room approximately 20 times in 5 years. I had no heart problem prior to taking this drug and always had low blood pressure.
So because of this I joined many who were suing Merck because they failed to disclose this side effect when they put this drug on the market. They also failed to disclose this to the FDA. There have been many stories about this and how Merck didn't provide the findings of cardiovascular problems while taking Vioxx. The internet is full of articles.
Merck put together a committee called the Vioxx Gates Committee and would hear and decide each suit. So in essence they took away are day in court. And our government went along with this.
My claim has finally been decided and this is what was sent to me by the law firm that supposedly was fighting for us.
I regret to inform you that after reviewing your Vioxx claim, the Vioxx Gates Committee has determined that your claim fails one or more of the necessary criteria and does not meet the Eligibility Requirements to participate in the Vioxx Settlement Program. In particular, your claim failed to pass the injury gate as there is no record of an actual heart attack; the injury your records indicate , an atrial fibrillation, falls short of the injury requirement.
So because I got help right away and was given medication to prevent the atrial fib from going into a full heart attack or stroke, I was refused. So my day in court was really not a day in court. It was decided by people that work for Merck who found a way to limit their liability with the help of our Government.
Health Care Firms drop money on Baucus
Baucus is making out like a bandit! With all this money coming in, will he have our best interests at the table for Health Care Reform?
From the Washington Post:
Sen. Baucus has some "splainin" to do! Does he really have the best interest for the American people or his pocket book?
Everyone is so worried about how to pay for this and many that I have talked to about healthcare would rather pay a tax than give money to an insurance company. And why don't they bring up more often that insurance companies do get in between you and your doctor and refuse necessary tests and operations often.
From the Washington Post:
As liberal protesters marched outside, Sen. Max Baucus sat down inside a San Francisco mansion for a dinner of chicken cordon bleu and a discussion of landmark health-care legislation under consideration by his Senate Finance Committee.At the table on May 26 were about 20 donors willing to fork over $10,000 or more to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, including executives of major insurance companies, hospitals and other health-care firms.
"Most people there had an agenda; they wanted the ear of a senator, and they got it," said Aaron Roland, a San Francisco health-care activist who paid half price to attend the gathering. "Money gets you in the door. The only thing the other side can do is march around and protest outside."
As his committee has taken center stage in the battle over health-care reform, Chairman Baucus (D-Mont.) has emerged as a leading recipient of Senate campaign contributions from the hospitals, insurers and other medical interest groups hoping to shape the legislation to their advantage. Health-related companies and their employees gave Baucus's political committees nearly $1.5 million in 2007 and 2008, when he began holding hearings and making preparations for this year's reform debate.
Top health executives and lobbyists have continued to flock to the senator's often extravagant fundraising events in recent months. During a Senate break in late June, for example, Baucus held his 10th annual fly-fishing and golfing weekend in Big Sky, Mont., for a minimum donation of $2,500. Later this month comes "Camp Baucus," a "trip for the whole family" that adds horseback riding and hiking to the list of activities.
To avoid any appearance of favoritism, his aides say, Baucus quietly began refusing contributions from health-care political action committees after June 1. But the policy does not apply to lobbyists or corporate executives, who continued to make donations, disclosure records show.
Sen. Baucus has some "splainin" to do! Does he really have the best interest for the American people or his pocket book?
Everyone is so worried about how to pay for this and many that I have talked to about healthcare would rather pay a tax than give money to an insurance company. And why don't they bring up more often that insurance companies do get in between you and your doctor and refuse necessary tests and operations often.
The Family - C Street, is it a cult?
This Story has spiked my interest. Not so much the sex scandals but the Christian cult like story behind the story that interests me.
Rachel Maddow of MSNBC has been focusing on this as well. Here's one of her video segments:
Some of the back story from David Caroll:
A Mafia type cult? And these are some of our representatives in Congress?
And there is a female group as well that you can read about at Roll Call.
The History from Wikipedia:
When you read all this, with all the connections, it is very scary. That this "Family presumes to want to take over our government and how far back it goes. Cult? Why do I think of the Da Vinci Code?
Rachel Maddow of MSNBC has been focusing on this as well. Here's one of her video segments:
Some of the back story from David Caroll:
Described as a Church or Christian Fellowship House, this place on "C Street" in Washington D.C. also serves as a residence for numerous members of Congress. The members of this organization tagged as "The Family" regard it as Refuge; a place to be able to, be their self, and get relief from the aggressive agendas of Washington, D.C. Evidently having been in existence for quite some time, outside of public knowledge, Secrecy seems to be a critical component of this organization. Strangely, it is also rumored that the Members believe that they are "Chosen Ones" appointed by God to see over the rest of us peons or "less than", people of the United States and maybe even the entire world.
Several extra-marital affairs of Congressional leaders, that have recently made the news, were reportedly disclosed to the members of The Family, long before becoming public knowledge. The way that they handled the cover-up and the disclosure of their inequities, was with counsel from The Family. This in itself brings question to what the philosophy and general beliefs of this "Covert" Klan may be. Some with knowledge of the inner workings of The Family declare that it is structured like a "Mafia". This meaning that loyalty to The Family comes before job, career or even blood family, and that the members are bound by oaths of Secrecy. It also implicates, for lack of better words, that this could be considered a pseudo-religious "Cult", mostly consisting of the wealthy, public figures, and government officials.
snip
This seems to be the realization of the greatest fears of some. By and large, as best we know at this time, these "Family" members are largely followers of the far-right faction of the Republican Party and their political agenda. As knowledge of this organization becomes public, its very existence is a rather troubling story. Just how off track with our Democracy is this group? How many elected officials are parts of this "cult"? To what extent is the Secrecy Oath binding? Would they hide a crime committed by a member? Is there an agenda in regard to the future of our country? How much influence on our governing has this group already had? Who, by name, are its members? I expect that the cat may be out of the bag and we will be finding out a lot about them in the future. I have just ordered the book by Jeff from Amazon.com, where you also can find it at a very modest price. Maybe we all need to know what's up with The Family and the secretive "C Street" complex.
A Mafia type cult? And these are some of our representatives in Congress?
And there is a female group as well that you can read about at Roll Call.
The History from Wikipedia:
And the participants are many government officials:The movement was founded in Seattle in 1935 by Abraham Vereide, a Norwegian immigrant and traveling preacher who had been working with the city's poor. He opposed President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and was worried that socialist politicians were about to take over Seattle's municipal government.[3][5] Prominent members of Seattle's business community recognized his success with those who were "down and out" and asked him to give spiritual direction to their group who were "up and out." He organized prayer breakfasts for politicians and businessmen that included anti-Communism and anti-union discussions. Vereide was subsequently invited to set up similar meetings among political and business leaders in San Francisco and Chicago.
Vereide's principal collaborator in France was Edmond Michelet, five-time minister under President Charles de Gaulle.
By 1942, the organization had moved headquarters to Washington, D.C., where it helped create breakfast groups in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives. In 1944, the organization's name was changed to International Christian Leadership, then in 1972, to The Fellowship Foundation. It was at this time that the group's leaders decided to lower the Fellowship's public profile by decentralizing its leadership. snip
The movement in the U.S. is incorporated in the United States as a tax-free 501(c)(3) organization operating under the name The Fellowship Foundation. While they conduct no fundraising operations, they reported revenues of more than $12 million in 2003 from donations. Its mission statement is:
Their primary activity is to develop small support groups for members of Congress, businesspersons, and anyone else who is interested in the teachings of Jesus. Prayer groups have met in the Pentagon and at the Department of Defense.[To develop and maintain an informal association of people banded together, to go out as "ambassadors of reconciliation," modeling the principles of Jesus, based on loving God and loving others. To work with the leaders of other nations, and as their hearts are touched, the poor, the oppressed, the widows and the youth of their country will be impacted in a positive manner. It is said that youth groups will be developed under the thoughts of Jesus, including loving others as you want to be loved.
A large number of members of the United States Senate and Congress, mostly Republicans, are resident or non-resident members of the Family or are associated with it. Boarders at the Family's house on C Street currently include Senators Tom Coburn, R-Okla., John Ensign, R-Nev., Don Nickles, R-OK, Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and Sam Brownback, R-Kan. and Representatives Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., Bart Stupak, D-Mich., Joseph Pitts, R-Pa, Heath Shuler, D-N.C., and Mike Doyle, D-Pa.[8][9][10]
Other members include Senators Charles Grassley, R.-Iowa, Pete Domenici, R.-N.Mex., James Inhofe, R.-Okla., and Bill Nelson, D.-Fla.; Representatives Frank Wolf, R.-Va., and Todd Tiahrt, R-KS, as well as former Senators Don Nickles, R.-Okla., George Allen, R-Va., Conrad Burns, R.-Mont, and Mark O. Hatfield, R.-Or., and former Representatives Steve Largent, R-Okla., Mark Sanford, R-S.C., Chip Pickering, R.-Miss., Ed Bryant, R-TN, John E. Baldacci, R.-Me., and J.C. Watts, R-OK.[6] Former Attorney General Ed Meese under Ronald Reagan regularly presides over prayer breakfasts.[6] Senator Susan Collins, R-ME, regularly attends Wednesday morning meetings at the C Street Center.
The group's leader, Doug Coe, has been a spiritual mentor for Hillary Clinton.[11][12] When asked about Doug Coe’s influence on Hillary Clinton, however, people close to her told NBC News in 2008 that she does not consider him one of her leading spiritual advisors and that Senator Clinton has never contributed to Coe’s group, is not a member of The Fellowship, had never heard of any of the controversial sermons obtained by NBC News, and does not consider Doug Coe to be her minister.[13]
Doug Coe's son, David Coe, also works for the organization and is considered the presumptive heir. David Coe has suggested that members of The Family "are here to learn how to rule the world."[6]
The Fellowship also has ties to "The Falls Church," whose members include Fred Barnes, executive editor of the Weekly Standard magazine, and Michael Gerson, former chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush and a Washington Post columnist. Falls Church Anglican split from the Episcopal Church in December 2006. The Prime Minister of Australia was hosted at the C Street Center in 2009.
When you read all this, with all the connections, it is very scary. That this "Family presumes to want to take over our government and how far back it goes. Cult? Why do I think of the Da Vinci Code?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)