c-span/youtube

don't know how i missed posting this a month ago, but here 'tis now:

business insider

Meet The Georgetown Law Student Rush Limbaugh Called A 'Slut'

hillary clinton in 1994 on right wing ideologues

Reporter: You told Peter Maier that there are right-wing radical ideologues who don't want people to have health care in this country. Who are you talking about? Who are these folks?

Mrs. Clinton: Well, you know I think they are a combination of the same kind of people who have been around in our country since its beginnings, the sort of ideologically-opposed who think that nobody should get anything from anybody else. And there's a streak of that in American politics. There always has been.

There are people who opposed social security, opposed civil rights, opposed minimum wage, opposed Medicare, opposed Medicaid. I mean at every step along the way, there is this small core of people who do not believe that government should do anything. Now they're the same people who drive down highways paid for by government funds. They are the same people who love the Defense Department which is funded by government money, but they have a different mind set when it comes to social policy in trying to be a compassionate and caring nation.

Then there are the people who for opportunistic reasons are opposing health care reform both because it is in their financial interest to do so because they want to be able to maintain the status quo and they are not above inciting other people to be very emotional about helping them to sustain their favored position. And then there are those who are for political reasons opposing health care reform because there are lots of people who don't want any changes and particularly don't want changes by this President to occur.

Now, most of the people I've just described are ones who pull the strings of others and inflame people by making charges of socialized medicine, for example, or the government is going to take over the health care system. And there's a very well-organized and well-financed effort to convey that message so that, for example, when you see people protesting in the streets as we saw a couple of weeks ago, as I personally saw in Seattle, they were there in large measure because they'd been inflamed by a local radio talk show host who finds it in his own personal financial opportunistic interest to take this position. I had no idea whether the man was insured or not, but he inflames people who are sitting at home that somehow the Clintons are going to take over the government and they're going to find themselves without a doctor or whatever their arguments are.

And if you talk to these people very often they don't have a clue about what health care reform is about. They are responding to these emotional kinds of attacks. And I just think that's part and parcel of what you always find when you look at moments of a lot of change converging at the same point in American history. You will find that strain of people. And I think it's very unfortunate, but it's something that is part of our political scene.

What I do not like and what I find regrettable is the amount of hatred that is being conveyed and really injected into our political system. I don't have any problem with anybody disagreeing with this President on any policy position. I don't have a problem with any member of Congress opposing health care reform because he doesn't think it's a good idea or he wants to use it as a political weapon. I mean, that's politics.

But this personal, vicious hatred that for the time being is aimed primarily at the President, and to a lesser extent myself, I think is very dangerous for our political process. And I think those who are encouraging it should think long and hard about the consequences of such encouragement. And in a free society, certainly people are free to say or do what they think furthers their political agenda.

But we have to draw the line on violence, and you have to draw the line on protests that incite violence. And a lot of the talk that is coming out is, to me, very sad, and I think we'll have very unfortunate consequences for our entire body politic and not just for this Administration. [more]

breitbart/cpac

what ann coulter doesn't get is that health coverage is not insurance. insurance companies took over health maintenance organizations, thus confusing the issue. HMOs were started to give preventive care so folk could stay as healthy as possible.

insurance companies don't necessarily care about keeping us healthy. they took over the HMOs for one reason: profit. but they can make more money if we don't need expensive treatment, so they prefer prevention because it's cheaper.

and birth control is cheaper than childbirth.

so don't complain about your money getting spent on birth control. it may cost you less than the alternative.

nationalmemo/ap

With Birth Control Course Correction,
Obama Splinters Opposition

...
Obama caved to the pressure on Friday, announcing a compromise that allows employees at religious-affiliated institutions to get free contraception directly from health insurance companies rather than employers who say it would violate their long-held convictions.

Almost immediately, Democrats who had disagreed with the White House backed the revised policy. So did Sister Carol Keehan, president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association of the United States and a crucial player in both this debate and the fierce fight over Obama's health care overhaul law. The head of the nation's bishops called it a good first step but reserved final judgment.

The once formidable coalition against the president had splintered. Factions that had stood with the GOP cautiously backed Obama's midcourse correction. It was a necessary policy change that reversed the political dynamic. [more]

does GOP health plan cover abortions?

a few days ago i heard someone say on the radio that the republican national committee's employee health insurance includes abortion coverage.

turns out that was old news — old and out of date. a week or so after 64 house dems joined 176 GIGOP RWNJs to pass the stupak amendment in november 2009, POLITICO reported that RNC employees had been covered for abortions since 1991.

the party's red-faced then-chair michael steele quickly moved to opt out, which insurer cigna employees said the RNC could have done at any time but did not choose to do.

red-faced GIGOP RWNJ rep jack kingston of georgia was quoted by POLITICO as saying “they need to drop that clause.... from a philosophical standpoint, it’s inconsistent.... it makes me think someone isn’t scrutinizing the purchases.”

what? the party that ran this country's (and much of the world's) economy into the ground not scrutinize? impossible, jack! shame on you for even thinking such a thing, let alone suggesting it so publicly.

as red-faced pols all over the RW end of the spectrum denied knowledge of the policy [no pun intended], POLITICO also solicited comment from planned parenthood president cecile richards, who said it was “no surprise” that the RNC offered it.... “it’s an employer that wants to provide standard health benefits for its employees.... that’s why the stupak amendment goes too far in taking away benefits that women have today....”

npr

Tai Chi May Help Parkinson's Patients
Regain Balance

Tai chi, the Chinese martial art involving slow and rhythmic movement, has been shown to benefit older people by maintaining balance and strength. Now, researchers have found that tai chi also helps patients who suffer from Parkinson's disease. [read or listen]

progress women/the hill

Poll: Majority of Catholics
Support Contraception Coverage

A majority of Catholics believe their employers should be required to provide coverage for contraception and birth control, according to a poll released Tuesday from the nonprofit research organization the Public Religion Research Institute.

The poll found that a solid majority of Catholics, 58 percent, say contraception and birth control should be a required, no-cost benefit under their company’s healthcare plan.

The president has been hammered in recent days by leaders in the Catholic Church, as well as his Republican rivals, for the administration’s decision to force employers, including religious institutions, to provide health insurance coverage for contraception.

At a Monday press conference, press secretary Jay Carney said churches and houses of worship would be exempt, and that some aspects, such as a possible “rider,” could still be included in the final plan.

Hospitals and charities run by the Catholic Church, however, would not be eligible for an exemption.

The PRRI poll shows broad support for employer-provided healthcare coverage for contraception and birth control, with 55 percent of all Americans saying they support the idea.

Sixty-one percent of religiously unaffiliated Americans, 73 percent of Democrats, 51 percent of political independents, 65 percent of young voters, 50 percent of white mainline Protestants and 62 percent of women were in favor of employer-provided healthcare coverage for contraception and birth control.

Only white evangelicals, at 38 percent, and men, at 47 percent, did not show majority support. [more] [less edited original in the hill]

using religious liberty to suppress women's liberty

GOP candidates have picked up the ball put into play by a group of conservative catholic bishops to attack president obama by claiming he attacks religious liberty by keeping birth control available to women who want it.

a few days ago i posted an article from catholic democrats that gives some of the history of that particular smear of obama. here's an excerpt:

The bishops' "religious liberty" campaign derived its origins in part from a 2009 conservative political document called "The Manhattan Declaration," written by Princeton Professor Robert George and endorsed by a broad range of Republican activists. George was a leading architect of what can only be labeled a campaign of hate speech toward candidate Obama in 2008, repeatedly labelling him as "the most pro-abortion candidate of either major political party in history." Archbishop Dolan and several other bishops with strong anti-Obama views signed that document, which claimed that there was a growing assault on religious liberty in America because Democrats refused to adopt Republican views on reversing Roe-vs-Wade and other conservative postures. Some bishops have now signed-on wholesale to the Republican view that President Obama is somehow out to get Catholics, despite his having a cabinet with an unprecedented number of Catholics....

on jstor.org i found a review of a 1993 book by professor george. consider this excerpt:

...he is consistently respectful of his opponents and careful in his attempts to present their arguments. ...george scrupulously avoids rhetorical excesses in favor of considered argument.

note how that contrasts with george's description of obama as "the most pro-abortion candidate of either major political party in history."

apparently the professor was once able to maintain objectivity in his academic pursuits but has more recently abandoned that ethical stance in his political activities.

too bad.

Secret money is funding more election ads

APNewsBreak: Komen official quits breast cancer charity over Planned Parenthood dispute

Calif. same-sex marriage ban ruled unconstitutional

my mind is made up
don't confuse me with facts

Rick Santorum Says
Abortion Is A Cause Of Breast Cancer
(VIDEO)

wikipedia:
Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis

catholic democrats

Archbishop Dolan and the invention of the "attack on religious liberty" idea

Archbishop Timothy Dolan, the president of the USCCB, is leading a campaign against the Obama Administration rooted in the charge that the Administration is somehow infringing on the "religious liberty" of Catholics. In an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal, Archbishop Dolan cites Alexander Hamilton and the other authors of the US Constitution in an attempt to conflate expanded healthcare in America today with the concerns about established state religion in 18th Century England.

It is telling that the USCCB put out 17 press releases in January, eight of them dealing with "religious liberty." None of them dealt with poverty, despite January having been declared "Poverty Awareness Month" by the USCCB itself. At a time of continued economic duress for many Americans, the leaders of the bishops' conference seem to have lost interest in the one most unifying concern of Catholics: the plight of the poor. The USCCB webpage has numerous references to an attack on "religious liberty," and it urges Catholics to write to Congress to overturn HHS regulations insuring that workers for Catholic-affiliated institutions will have access to birth control like all other American workers. But with regard to poverty, the website merely urges that Catholics "Please visit and "like" our special Poverty Awareness Month Facebook page."

The bishops' "religious liberty" campaign derived its origins in part from a 2009 conservative political document called "The Manhattan Declaration," written by Princeton Professor Robert George and endorsed by a broad range of Republican activists. George was a leading architect of what can only be labeled a campaign of hate speech toward candidate Obama in 2008, repeatedly labelling him as "the most pro-abortion candidate of either major political party in history." Archbishop Dolan and several other bishops with strong anti-Obama views signed that document, which claimed that there was a growing assault on religious liberty in America because Democrats refused to adopt Republican views on reversing Roe-vs-Wade and other conservative postures. Some bishops have now signed-on wholesale to the Republican view that President Obama is somehow out to get Catholics, despite his having a cabinet with an unprecedented number of Catholics, and despite record spending through the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships for Catholic charitable efforts.

At a moment when middle class Americans continue to suffer economically, with all the ramifications for family life, the president of the USCCB is speaking to the wealthy readership of the Wall Street Journal with words tarring President Obama as somehow unsympathetic to Catholic sensibilities. This politicization of the Church may please Republicans in the pews, but it may well accelerate the departure of other thinking Catholics who expect more from their Church leaders.

oops! looks like i'm a bit late for poverty awareness month, but i'm quite aware of poverty, and the issues in the above article are well worth further awareness.

ap

Amid abortion debate, Komen cancer charity halting grants to Planned Parenthood

NEW YORK — The nation’s leading breast-cancer charity, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, is halting its partnerships with Planned Parenthood affiliates — creating a bitter rift, linked to the abortion debate, between two iconic organizations that have assisted millions of women.

The change will mean a cutoff of hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants, mainly for breast exams.

Planned Parenthood says the move results from Komen bowing to pressure from anti-abortion activists. Komen says the key reason is that Planned Parenthood is under investigation in Congress — a probe launched by a conservative Republican who was urged to act by anti-abortion groups.

The rupture, which has not been publicly announced as it unfolded, is wrenching for some of those who’ve learned about it and admire both organizations.

“We’re kind of reeling,” said Patrick Hurd, who is CEO of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Virginia — recipient of a 2010 grant from Komen — and whose wife, Betsi, is a veteran of several Komen fundraising races and is currently battling breast cancer.

“It sounds almost trite, going through this with Betsi, but cancer doesn’t care if you’re pro-choice, anti-choice, progressive, conservative,” Hurd said. “Victims of cancer could care less about people’s politics.”

Planned Parenthood said the Komen grants totaled roughly $680,000 last year and $580,000 the year before, going to at least 19 of its affiliates for breast-cancer screening and other breast-health services. [more]

komen, are you people crazy? look what kos is saying about you:

Cancer screening and prevention comprises 17 percent of Planned Parenthood's services. For many low-income women, Planned Parenthood is their only source of health care. By going along with anti-choice extremists who are determined to put Planned Parenthood out of business, Susan G. Komen for the Cure is essentially saying it doesn't matter if low-income women get breast cancer.

cowardice is no mere lack of courage. it is the denial of conscience.

thinkprogress

Half of North Carolina Concealed Carry Permit Holders With Felony Convictions Keep Their Permit


VIDEO: New Iowa Frontrunner Thinks Medicare, Paper Money And Nearly Everything Else Is Unconstitutional


Justice Who Upheld Gov. Walker’s Anti-Union Law Received Over $10k Worth Of Free Services From Walker’s Law Firm


Romney Wants His Billionaire Wall Street Donors To Be Able To Give Him Unlimited Sums Of Money

probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rules of thumb, above all of the principle of laissez-faire capitalism.
—F A Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (University Chicago Press, 1960), pp. 502–3

The successful use of competition as the principle of social organization precludes certain types of coercive interference with economic life, but it admits of others which sometimes may very considerably assist its work and even requires certain kinds of government action.
—Hayek, The road to serfdom (University of Chicago Press, 1994)

To prohibit the use of certain poisonous substances, or to require special precautions in their use, to limit working hours or to require certain sanitary arrangements, is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. The only question here is whether in the particular instance the advantages gained are greater than the social costs which they impose.
—Hayek, The road to serfdom (University of Chicago Press, 1994)

Nor can certain harmful effects of deforestation, of some methods of farming, or of the smoke and noise of factories, be confined to the owner of the property in question, or to those who are willing to submit to the damage for an agreed compensation.
—Hayek, The road to serfdom (University of Chicago Press, 1994)

Even the most essential prerequisite of its [the market's] proper functioning, the prevention of fraud and deception (including exploitation of ignorance), provides a great and by no means fully accomplished object of legislative activity.
—Hayek, The road to serfdom (University of Chicago Press, 1994)

There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.
—Hayek, The road to serfdom quoted here

In no system that could be rationally defended would the state just do nothing.
—Hayek, The road to serfdom (University of Chicago Press, 1994)

free market hayek fans generally avoid mention of such inconvenient quotes, but some opponents of national health care will cite "without endangering general freedom" (in the next to last quote above) as a reason to oppose the individual mandate. i tend to agree. the mandate is inconsistent with social justice. supporters of the patient protection and affordable care act would do well to have a backup plan ready to go if and when the supreme court declares that the individual mandate violates the due process clause. even the idea of a public option has it backwards: what we need is a public plan (i.e., single payer) with a private option (so anyone who doesn't want to be in the public plan could choose private coverage, rather than the other way round).

fiore

fiore

this email came yesterday, so it may be out of date already, but maybe not...

Dear ACLU Supporter, Tell your member of Congress to protect life-saving health care for women. Vote NO on H.R. 358. This is unbelievable. The House of Representatives will vote tomorrow on a bill that would deny emergency abortion care to women — even if their lives are in danger. If it passes, this bill would allow hospitals to refuse to treat a pregnant woman experiencing a life-threatening complication without further regard for her health or well-being. We need you to act right now to keep this bill from becoming law. Tell your representative to vote NO on H.R. 358. This dangerous measure was introduced earlier this year by Representative Joe Pitts (R-PA). In addition to permitting hospitals to simply abandon women whose lives are on the line, this extraordinarily harsh legislation would effectively ban insurance coverage of abortion in the new health care system. Most insurance plans already cover abortion. So, the Pitts bill would have the effect of taking away insurance coverage that millions of women already have. The Pitts bill would also let states give exceptions to insurance companies that do not want to cover certain care that the Department of Health and Human Services has determined must be covered. This means states could pick and choose which coverage you'll receive, including coverage for contraception or screening and counseling for HIV. We have to oppose the Pitts bill at every turn. Tell your member of Congress to protect life-saving health care for women. Extreme measures such as the Pitts bill should be rejected out of hand. Congress has no business taking away the abortion insurance coverage that millions of women now have — and no place telling hospitals they are free to endanger the life of a woman in need of emergency care. The vote is happening tomorrow, so please act now. Sincerely, Laura W. Murphy Director, ACLU Washington Legislative Office © ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10004

nyt

Health Insurers Push Premiums Sharply Higher

A study released on Tuesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a research group, showed that the average annual premium for family coverage through an employer reached $15,073 in 2011 — 9 percent higher than in the previous year. And even higher premiums could be on the way, particularly in New York, where some companies are asking for double-digit increases for about 1.3 million New Yorkers in individual or small-group plans, setting up a battle with state regulators.

The higher premiums are particularly unwelcome at a time when the economy is sputtering and unemployment is hovering at about 9 percent. Many businesses cite the cost of coverage as a factor in their decision not to hire, and health insurance has become increasingly unaffordable for more Americans. The cost of family coverage has about doubled since 2001, compared with a 34 percent gain in wages. [more]

another argument for a public option....

thinkprogress

Texas Doctor On Perrycare:
‘This Kind Of Thing Happens In Somalia’

...
1) Texas has the highest rate of uninsured people in the country – 24.6 percent – and the number of uninsured that has grown by 35 percent during Governor Rick Perry’s 11-year tenure.

2) Overall health care quality for Texas is poorer than in every other state, especially when it comes to preventive, acute, and chronic care, as well as care for diabetes.

3) Texas places 39th among the states in the percentage of adults over 50 who receive recommended screenings such as mammograms and colonoscopies.

4) A fifth of Texas’ pregnant women receive no prenatal care in their first trimester.

5) 16.8 percent of children are uninsured, more than all but one other state, and only half of Texas children have a medical provider who knows them and coordinates their care. More than a third of them have not received recommended medical and preventive care within the year, and immunization rates are low as well.

6) Texas also ranks last in the country in the percent of children who receive needed mental health care.

7) The state cut two-thirds of the funding for women’s health clinics and underfunded Medicaid by almost $4 billion, in addition to cutting hospital reimbursements.

8) Perry vetoed a bill in 2001 that would have expanded Medicaid services and added cancer screenings such as Pap smears to women’s health services. In 2003, Texas tightened the eligibility requirements for the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and as a result, 237,000 children were kicked off its rolls, said Garnet Coleman, a Democratic state representative from Houston who has served in the Texas Legislature for 20 years and is a member of the House Public Health Committee. [more]