Here are the FDL Action health care reform highlights for Friday, December 4.

1. Jane Hamsher points to a new Mason-Dixon poll indicating that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid trails two potential GOP opponents.  This doesn’t make Hamsher particularly sad, to put it mildly, given that she believes Reid “is doing what he always intended to do – take the public option out of the bill.”

2. Jon Walker warns that “unless we do health care right, every private sector union will be dead in nine years.” The reason? “Manufacturing in this country will not expand or even survive as long as health care insurance is an ever-growing overhead cost,” which means “there simply will not be a manufacturing sector to unionize.” I’d add that there won’t be a healthy economy in general if health care costs continue to rise and health care expenditures make up an ever-growing portion of our GDP.

3. Jon Walker has Part 5 of his series on “what the Senate bill does better.”  In this episode, we’ve got the fact that “the risk adjustment mechanisms in the Senate bill (page 226 – 238) are slightly better [than in the House bill].”  Well, that’s something at least. 🙂

4. Jane Hamsher announces that “Blue America is going to be working to get single payer candidates on the ballot in every Congressional district across the country.”  Also, “Tomorrow at noon ET, Blue America will host Jonathan Tasini, a long time single payer advocate who is running for the US Senate in New York.” That should be interesting, check it out.

5. Jon Walker writes that he has been “watching the debate on health care reform for the past five days, and it is amazing how much time and effort the Republican party has dedicated to defending massive government waste and huge corporate giveaways.”  Walker is talking, of course, about Medicare Advantage, “a network of private plans that the government pays to provide Medicare-eligible seniors with health insurance instead of covering them with traditional Medicare.” The problem is that “[a]s the result of a broken payment formula (put in place by the Republicans), the government overpays these private insurance companies by roughly 12%.” It’s a huge corporate giveaway, in other words, which certainly helps explain why Republicans are so enthusiastic about it!

6. I highlight an interview on Blue Arkansas with the founder of “Draft Bill Halter” to primary Sen. Blanche “No Public Plan For You” Lincoln.

7. Speaking of Blanche Lincoln, Jon Walker says that she’s trying to “shake her corporate shill image with [a] faux-populist amendment,” but that “it is unlikely that most insurance companies will even be affected by this amendment.”  Walker concludes, “Sorry Blanche, but no amount of meaningless symbolic amendments will change the fact that you are doing everything you can to defend the profits of the private insurance industry.”

8. Finally, Jon Walker predicts that the Senate “like all entrenched institutions, will only change when there is a crisis.” And, Walker believes, “[t]his is the perfect moment for the progressives to force the crisis needed to change how the Senate works.” Walker believes that if this doesn’t happen, it “will pretty much guarantee not a single piece of really progressive legislation is passed during Obama’s presidency.” On that cheery note, have a great weekend! 🙂

Here are the FDL Action health care reform highlights for Thursday, December 3.

1. Jon Walker reports that “Thomas Carper’s terrible new “alternative” to a public option is not winning over progressives in the House,” with Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona saying, “I think that compromise is totally unacceptable…It basically emasculates the public option.” Jon Walker adds, “If there is a choice between Carper’s worthless fig leaf and no public option at all, I would choose the latter.” Yes, it’s that bad.

2. Jon Walker writes about a report in Politico that ” Snowe, Lincoln, and Landrieu have submitted an amendment that would effectively eliminate all state regulations concerning what insurance companies must cover.” According to Jon Walker, “This is a very bad amendment that will make health insurance worse for millions and millions of Americans.” Uh, guys? That’s not what we mean by “reform.”

3. Jon Walker reports that a new poll by Thomas Reuters finds that “59.9% of people favor reform containing a public option.” In other words, the part of health care reform that’s supposedly the most “controversial” is also the part which polls strongest among the American people.  And we wonder why people are cynical about politics and politicians?

4. Michael Whitney asks for help to “raise money to make a big move against Harry Reid in his home state of Nevada.” If you would like to contribute, please click here. Thanks.

5. Jon Walker reports that Sen. Barbara Mikulski’s “relatively uncontroversial” amendment dealing with cost-sharing for women’s preventive care passed earlier today by a vote of 61-39. Three Republicans (Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, David Vitter) voted yes, while two Democrats (Ben Nelson, Russ Feingold) voted no. Walker believes that “Vitter’s yes vote is a big surprise,” but that perhaps he is “hurting with women in his re-election polls.” Apparently, the diaper and prostitutes weren’t bad enough to lose him a chance at reelection. Sigh.

6. Jon Walker remarks that Sen. Mary Lasndrieu (D-LA) “has created the unholy grail of terrible gimmicks meant to cripple the public option…a several-year-delayed, triggered, state-based, non-public co-op limited to the exchange option.”  This may sound funny in a way, but according to Jon Walker, “If Senate Democrats think they can pass a bill forcing Americans to buy extremely expensive junk insurance from for-profit corporations, with only the vague promise that possibly, after five more years of abuse, they might get the to choose a completely unworkable, state-based, non-public ‘alternative,’ they are in for a rude awakening.”

Here are the FDL Action health care reform highlights for Wednesday, December 2.

1. Jane Hamsher announces the launch of One Voice for Choice, “a national phone bank that will launch calls into the districts of the Representatives who voted for Stupak.” For more on this, see Politico. To volunteer, please click here. Thanks.

2. Jon Walker reports on Day #3 of the Senate “debate” on health care reform, with not “a single vote on any amendment.” Given this snail’s pace, Walker concludes that a final vote by Christmas is “highly unlikely.”

3. Jon Walker says we can “get ready for Carper’s non-public non-triggered co-op non-option.” Walker believes that Carper’s proposal “will serve none of the goals of the public option, and will be completely worthless.” Other than that, he loves it. 🙂

4. Jon Walker writes about Republicans spending the last three days “defending the massively wasteful corporate giveaway to private insurance companies,” also known as the Medicare Advantage program. According to Walker, you “can’t be a defender of the broken Medicare Advantage program and still be a fiscal conservative.” And yet Republicans will do just that and claim to be fiscal conservatives. Of course, these are the same people who racked up much of our national debt, so what else would you expect from them?

5. Jon Walker notes that “Ben Nelson is currently threatening to filibuster reform if it does not contain a version of the anti-choice Stupak amendment.” Of course, as Walker points out, “for months now, Reid has had the option of using reconciliation to pass a decent bill without the Stupak language and with a public option.”  Apparently, that would be too easy.

6. Jon Walker believes that “Democrats made a huge mistake not pushing the bill through months ago using reconciliation” and that now, having failed to do so – and given Republican obstructionism and delaying tactics –  “this is going to be an extremely long debate.”  So, pull up a chair, grab some popcorn, and “enjoy” (or, more likely, not)! 🙂

7. Finally, Jon Walker advises that we should not “confuse capitulation with compromise” when it comes to the public option, especially since a “handful of conservative Democrats” — Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Mary Landrieu — “have all the power.” What’s that saying again about Democracy being the worst system ever invented, except for all the other ones?

Here are the FDL Action health care reform highlights for “Black Friday” (November 27).

1. On Wednesday, Jane Hamsher asked, “Why is HCAN Defending Blanche Lincoln From A Primary Challenge?”  The answer: “[HCAN] will continue to operate as part of the Democratic party infrastructure, try to kill primary challengers and move to protect their ‘own.’  And that means Blanche Lincoln.  If health care reform happens in the meantime, well, what a happy coincidence.” Or “unhappy,” as the case may be.

2. Yesterday, Jane Hamsher wrote about “The PR Push That Helped PhRMA Buy the Government.” Included in “Government” are “the 42 members of Congress who helpfully inserted lobbyist language into the Congressional Record in favor of endless patents on biologic drugs on behalf of the prescription drug industry.” So nice of those 42 members of Congress, huh?

3. Jane Hamsher wonders, “How is Newt Gingrich Not a Lobbyist?”, and concludes that the “definition of ‘lobbyist’ seems a bit too flexible to prohibit the biggest of the professional influence peddlers from getting their claws in.” Not that we’d ever think Newt Gingrich had claws or anything. Heh.

4. Jon Walker provides “13 very specific proven solutions” for OMB Director Peter Orszag, who had “defended the Senate health care reform bill’s minor cost-control measure” by suggesting that critics had no ideas of their own for controlling costs. Among the 13 ideas Walker presents: “Turn all health insurances companies into non-profits;” “Allow Medicare to directly negotiate lower drug prices;” “create a much stronger risk adjustment mechanism [on the new exchanges];” and “Create a robust public option that can use Medicare rates and Medicare’s provider network.” I believe the ball is now in your court, Mr. Orszag! 🙂

Here are the FDL Action health care reform highlights for Tuesday, November 24.

1. Jon Walker explains “the difference between really trying and pretending to try” by Majority Leader Harry Reid on the public option. Walker quotes Gerald Seib of the Wall Street Journal, who writes, “Maybe Mr. Reid plans to push as far as he can with a bill including a public option, to show his party he has done all humanly possible, before yanking the public option just before the whole effort goes off a cliff.”  The problem for Reid, though, is that such a maneuver is not likely to fool anyone. Or, as Walker puts it, “his party’s base will not buy it.” So much for that idea.

2. Jon Walker has the second part of his series on what the Senate health care bill does better: “the Cantwell basic health program,” which Walker argues “is much closer to how sensible countries have designed their regulated health insurance marketplace or exchange.” Wait, we’re gonna start being “sensible” now? Ha.

3. David Dayen predicts that immigration could become a new sticking point for health care reform legislation, with “Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), a key ally of Barack Obama’s from Illinois, [saying] today that he would find it ‘extremely difficult if not impossible’ to vote for a health care bill that included the restrictive and discriminatory measure on undocumented immigrants that appears in the Senate’s version and has the White House’s support.” If it’s not one thing, it’s another…

4. Scarecrow explains why there needs to be a viable public option, arguing that “[w]ithout it, health insurance reform will be just a very bad, very foolish, and very expensive experiment – and clearly not the platform Democrats should want in 2010.”

5. Jon Walker asks, “Is PhRMA Afraid Of The Progressive Block?” The question is prompted by the fact that PhRMA is running ads in Connecticut urging Joe Lieberman to support the current Senate bill. Verrrry interesting.

6. Michael Whitney points to a powerful new video contrasting Blanche Lincoln vowing on the Senate floor to oppose a public option with thousands of uninsured Arkansans in Little Rock for a free health care clinic. It’s powerful stuff, and if you’d like to help us run the ads, please click here. Thanks.

7. Finally, Jon Walker compares the Senate filibuster to a game of “Shoots and Ladders” with “made up rules.” Walker concludes that “Senate Democrats have to decide if keeping their fun, made up rules is more important to them than helping millions of Americans in need.” Why does something tell me they’re going to go with the “fun, made up rules?”  Sigh.

When I lived in Michigan, it was easy to know where to put your focus on politically. National and state races, of course, took place as always on November of even numbered years. Local elections typically take place in odd-numbered years with school board election orruring annually during the summer. Under that system, it was easy to focus on a given set of elections. Now, I live in San Francisco.

Even for a national election, I have never seen anything like 2008. We have what I think is the most important presidential election in history (and I don’t need to go into all of the historical ramifications). Some 70 Congressional seats are competitve as are at least a dozen seats in the Senate and three gubernatorial races are red hot. That’s a lot right there.

But I live in San Francisco.

On the local level there are four vacant Board seats with a big push by “Downtown” to move it to the right. District 3, where I live, is probably Ground Zero in this struggle as it is shaping up to be a three way fight between David Chiu, Claudine Cheng and Joe Alioto. Four seats are up for the School Board and everyone anticipates an ungodly number of ballot proposals. Oh, did I mention there is yet another anti-gay proposal on the state ballot?

You would think this is heaven for a political junkie like myself, but enough is enought. It’s July and I’m already exhausted. But there are too many important races going on and I do not know the Board and School Board members well enough to decide. How are my fellow San Francisans faring?

(Now cross-posted at MyDD and My Left Wing… And thanks to The Liberal OC for the nice shout-out : ) – promoted by atdleft)

As you all know by now, State Senator Lou Correa voted against SJR 1. And as you remember, SJR 1 is the the resolution opposing the proposed escalation of the Iraq War. I wanted to know why my own State Senator would vote against this resolution. I wanted to know why he voted against a resolution that called for an end to this disastrous war that has hurt our community in Central Orange County in many, many ways. So I took out some time last night to write my Senator a letter. And since Senator Correa’s office has still not responded to any of the previous calls and emails asking him why he voted the way he did, I figured that I might as well share my letter with all of you. And besides, I would like for everyone here to know how one of Lou Correa’s own constituents feels about his vote.

Follow me after the flip for the full letter…

Senator Correa,

My name is Andrew Davey, and I am one of your constituents. I live in Santa Ana. And like many of your fellow constituents in Santa Ana, I would like to see an end to this disastrous war in Iraq. That is why I am writing to you today: I would like to know why you voted against SJR 1, the resolution opposing the proposed escalation of the Iraq War.

I don’t know if you remember me, but I helped get you elected last year. I voted for you in the primary last June, even as many of my friends were supporting the other Democrat. I voted for you because I considered you to be a man of integrity, and I thought that as you have real roots in our working-class community, that you wouldn’t ignore our concerns. I then walked the streets of Santa Ana during the general election campaign, letting my neighbors know that you were the candidate best suited to fight for our community in the State Senate. One time when I brought my dad into the campaign office, your staffers put BOTH OF US to work sealing envelopes. However, we didn’t mind because we knew that we were helping to send a good man to fight for us in Sacramento. On election day, we were with you all day. I walked in Santa Ana all day, urging my fellow Santa Ana voters to get out and vote for you. And again, I did it because I believed in you. I thought that you would be someone who would serve our community well in Sacramento.

So what happened? Why would you vote against a resolution condemning this failed war in Iraq? Why would you vote against a resolution urging Washington to find a solution that would bring home our brave troops as soon as possible? I would like to know, since our community is being affected by this ongoing war in such a great way. Our kids are being recruited to fight a civil war between Shi’a and Sunni factions thousands of miles away from home, when they should be in college, preparing for a better life. Our hard-earned tax dollars are being spent on propping up a lame, sick joke that some would like to call the “Iraqi government” in Baghdad, even as our own government refuses to put our tax dollars to work for us in providing health care coverage for all and helping us improve our local schools. As our brave sons and daughters are being sent off to fight another war over limited supplies of fossil fuels, our federal government has done NOTHING to invest in renewable energy that would both free us from all these foreign entanglements over oil AND do something to stop the oncoming catastrophe of global climate change. So, Senator Correa, why would you vote to support a continuation of this ongoing fiasco when you know that this war is not in the best interest of our community?

I once had faith in you, that you would take into consideration the best interests of our community. And you know what? I just realized that I still do. If I didn’t believe that you cared about our best interests, then I wouldn’t bother writing to you in the first place. So why, Senator Correa? Why would you vote against this resolution, even as your own constituents cry for an end to this war? Why would you vote against this resolution, even as your constituents are paying a dear cost for this failed war in some way or another? Why, when you know how this war is hurting our nation, and our state, and our neighborhoods? I would like to have faith in you again, Senator, as someone who cares about the community. And oh yes, I would like to see an end to this war as soon as humanly possible. Please give us an answer soon, as we would like to know why you voted this way.

Oh yes, and thank you for reading this letter. I certainly appreciate your attention to my concerns.

Sincerely,
Andrew Davey
Santa Ana, CA

While this is a California site and has a great California focus, I believe we need to bring to the largest possible audience, with every blog at our disposal, the messages that Keith Olbermann is sending to the American People and to the Bush Administration.

I just saw on Pay per View, since I’ve given up on civilized behavior in movie theatres, ‘V for Vendetta’. On top of the first episode of Keith Olberaman speaking out it gave me the chills.

Now we know for a fact that this is a coordinated effort to place fear at the center for the final 61 days if our campaigns. We must show every volunteer these words so they can know if they have any doubt.

I have the full video at Political Dogfight and the first Olbermann video at Political Interviews. I hope the people who see these who don’t have as many years as I do realize the chances that Olbermann is taking by speaking for us.