Goodbye and Good Riddance, Joe Lieberman

Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman made his farewell speech yesterday to a mostly empty Senate chamber. And for good reason: nobody gives a shit about him.

Whenever I hear the name Joe Lieberman my reaction is "fuck that guy."

Lieberman droned about the need for bipartisanship in the Senate. He recalled the days when things got done by working with friends on the other side of the aisle. But Lieberman lost Democratic support not because he sided with Republicans on occasion, but because not only was he was an opportunistic scumbag who would stab you in the back, but more importantly because he was so goddamn consistently wrong.

He almost blew the 2000 Election (before the Supreme Court actually blew it) when he gnashed his yellow teeth on the Sunday talk shows and couldn't stick to what he knew to be the truth, what he was told by his own advisers. I remember that day well, as I was watching with bleary eyes and suddenly my hair caught fire. Here's the dramatized scene from HBO's fantastic movie, Recount.



The Democratic Party didn't leave Joe Lieberman. Joe Lieberman left the Democratic Party.

He left it when he supported the Iraq War even after we found out the truth. Joe Lieberman left the Democratic Party when he lost his 2006 Democratic primary against Ned Lamont and decided to run as an "independent." After he won the election in a three way race, he then he held his vote hostage to keep leadership positions on certain committees.

Joe Lieberman left the Democratic Party when he endorsed John McCain for president and speechified his mind-numbing patented drone that only Lieberman can drone at the Republican National Convention in 2008.

And don't fool yourself about why he's quitting. If he thought he had a chance to win he would have run in a second. He lost his support because he's become completely untrustworthy. He supported lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 55 until then Rep. Anthony Weiner and other liberals touted it as a great idea and included a Medicare buy-in in the Affordable Care Act. Then Lieberman completely backed off the idea. Was it because of fiscal reasons as he states, or was it payback for feeling rejected by the party he walked away from? So much for that bipartisanship he was mumbling about on the floor yesterday.

Whenever I hear idiots on the right whine on and on that President Obama had majorities* in both the House and the Senate, including that the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate, where Republicans have engaged in record filibusters to stymie every bill that comes their way, all I can think of is three words: Joe. Fucking. Lieberman. He was consistently a thorn in the side of the Democratic party and leadership when his vote really counted. Sort of like McCain was after 2000. The only difference between McCain and Lieberman is that you know McCain is just prison fucking you in the ass out of spite, while Lieberman smiles that yellow toothy smile as he reaches for the Vaseline. Both are nasty, old, bitter warmongers who legislate out of spite while the latter tries to do it in sheep's clothing.

So goodbye and good riddance, Holy Joe. I'd say, "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out" but actually, I don't give a fuck.

__________________
* And don't get me started about waiting for Al Franken for six fucking months and then Ted Kennedy dying less than two months later. The fact is that Democrats NEVER HAD 60 fucking votes.

Fact Check: Enough of the GOP Medicare BS

The new lie from the Romney camp and its hatchet men is that the Affordable Care Act cuts $716 billion from Medicare. Mitt Romney himself says that President Obama "stole $716 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare" and that current seniors are seeing a reduction in their benefits and their service. All of it is absolute horse shit.

And thank you, Soledad O'Brien for giving us a concise look at the facts.

 


This has to be shouted from the mountaintops. I don't give a shit that Paul Ryan's plan which Mitt Romney embraces, cuts the same amount of money out of the Medicare program. This is a bad argument for the mere fact that it'll get convoluted in a "both sides are the same" meme.

The argument is that ACA reduces Medicare increases by $716 billion over 10 years by reducing payments and streamlining the system and pumps that savings back into the healthcare system. Romney and Ryan would have that $716 billion come from the pockets of those who can least afford it, namely seniors on a fixed income, by restructuring Medicare into a voucher system that will never keep up with the rising cost of healthcare, especially if they plan on "repealing ALL of Obamacare" as Romney continues to threat.

And here's a great catch from Bob Cesca on the latest Romney ad flat out lying about the CBO report that I didn't catch the first time I saw it:

...the CBO’s director Doug Elmendorf wrote that if the House Republicans repeal the Affordable Care Act, the repeal would increase federal spending on Medicare by $716 billion. There’s nothing about cutting Medicare in there. NOTHING. Romney and his campaign are lying. Again. And they’ll keep on doing it.

(Cross-posted on ABLC)

Mitt Admits Mandate a Good Thing

Long, long ago, in a fantasy world far, far away (2010), a man named Mitt was trying twisted logic on questions regarding the health care law, insisting that there are differences between Romneycare and Obamacare, but admitting there are similarities and that the mandate is a good thing.

(Via Under the Mountain Bunker)

 

ROMNEY: "The similarities are that we have an incentive to become insured. And the incentive works - we have 98% of our citizens in Massachusetts that are insured, so that's working. Another similarity is you can't be denied insurance coverage because you have a preexisting condition, or if you change jobs you don't need to worry about losing your insurance, so our insurance is entirely portable. Those are perhaps the most important or well known similarities. 

We also have in place an exchange which allows individuals to purchase insurance at very low rates because you have the entire state as a pool of citizens. Everybody's in the insurance pool, as a result the rates are much lower than they otherwise would be."

Okay, let's stop there for a minute.

What's Romneycare's incentive to become insured? The individual mandate, that's what. Logic would dictate that a larger pool of arguably healthier people, whether it be across a state or across the country, would also result in lower rates across the board.

As far as the exchanges that are similar in the plan, it would be nice if Republican governors across the country would actually put them in place as is the law, and not ignore it, thereby ignoring their respective constituents' health care needs. Now, as for the differences...

ROMNEY: "The differences: One is, our plan was a state plan. I believe in Federalism. I believe the 10th Amendment gives to the states the right to create their own health insurance programs rather than have the federal government intrude on the rights of states. That's number one.

Number Two - Ours didn't raise taxes. The President's raises taxes by about a half a trillion dollars. 

Number Three - We didn't cut Medicare. His cuts Medicare by about a half a trillion dollars. 

And one more difference that is a problem from my standpoint is the price controls he puts in place. The government pricing insurance is, in my view, a recipe for difficulty and will end up encouraging the government to get in the insurance business. I think that's a mistake."

Let's go over the "differences" one at a time, shall we?

One: Yes, one the differences is that Mitt's is a state plan. That's the difference between state and federal. As far as the 10th Amendment? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," though I'm not a Constitutional scholar or a lawyer, it seems to me that Article I, Section 8 supersedes  the 10th Amendment: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States..."


Two: Mitt claims his plan didn't raise taxes only because he didn't call his mandate a tax. They called it a penalty. And a quick look at verified Wikipedia information actually calls it a "tax penalty."

"[Romneycare] included tax penalties on residents for failing to obtain an insurance plan and tax penalties on employers for failing to offer an insurance plan to employees. In 2007 Massachusetts tax filers who failed to enroll in a health insurance plan which was deemed affordable for them lost the $219 personal exemption on their income tax. Beginning in 2008, the penalty became pegged to 50% of the lowest monthly premium for insurance available from [the state's insurance exchange clearinghouse.]"

Three: Medicare was not cut by half a trillion dollars. The savings to Medicare comes from the Medicare Advantage or  Part C overpayments due to their being tied to private insurance carriers.

There is considerable confusion about what the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or ACA) of 2010 did with respect to Medicare Advantage. As part of a broad set of reforms aimed to control the cost of Medicare, the ACA eliminated subsidies which the federal government first used to establish the Medicare Advantage program...  As of 2008, the federal government spent 12 percent more on Medicare Advantage than it did for comparable care under traditional Medicare. These subsidies (which added an additional $14 billion to the Medicare program last year alone) will gradually be reduced until payments to Medicare Advantage are in line with the cost of traditional Medicare.

Traditional Medicare will now cover what Part C did, something that should have happened when it was first implemented.

In any event, Obamacare does not cut Medicare benefits, but you won't hear that from the opposition. They'll just tell you that ACA cuts Medicare by $500 billion as a scare tactic, and not that it saves the government $500 billion in Medicare costs. And these finger pointers are the same people who want Medicare dead in the first place - or have seniors left to their own devices by putting a voucher program in place that wouldn't cover their insurance costs.

Also, Mitt, you didn't cut Medicare because you CAN'T cut Medicare. It's one of those "intrusive federal government programs" you were yapping about when you were going on with the 10th Amendment drivel. But go ahead and ask your state's and the country's seniors how they like that intrusion of their lives.

And finally there's this price control nonsense. I don't understand exactly what he was talking about because it was probably some talking point he spouted out, but my only guess it the ACA's provision that health insurance companies use at least 80% of your premiums on health care costs instead of overhead, advertising and profits. $1.1 billion in insurance rebates are headed our way because of Obamacare. I'll take it.

Dewey Beats Truman!

What happened at Fox News and CNN?!

In what appears to be a case of premature ejaculation on the part of the networks for the intense need to come out with the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act first, they both got it wrong.

 

Now, while I understand the need to put out information as they get it, maybe they could get past the first page of a 50+ page ruling before jumping to conclusions. They were so intent on putting out the news that the individual mandate was not necessarily covered under the Commerce Clause, it is permissible as a tax, and in their haste, they assumed the mandate was struck down and got the story completely wrong. In the case of Fox News, I'm sure it was also a bit of wishful thinking on their part.

As for CNN, they have apologized for the mishap. No so at Fox.

Fox issued a combative statement in which the network claimed they "gave our viewers the news as it happened," and went on to say that CNN's reporting had been worse. CNN issued a statement hours earlier that included a full-throated apology for their misstep.

BREAKING: ObamaCARES UPHELD!!

Posted by JHW22

YES, I saved my Obama mug all week just for today and YES you bet your ass I'm drinking my coffee out of it. :)

UPDATE: 

Let's Be Blunt

POSTED BY JHW22

What would you do if your boss said he was morally opposed to providing health care plans that cover pregnancy if you are in your second marriage because you were divorced from your first? And then you got pregnant with your new husband. Would you have to quit your job? Find a private policy to cover your health care? Scrape the money together? What if a female business owner thought prostate cancer was something she didn't want to cover in her company-provided plans? What would her male employees do? This Blunt amendment could mean YOU don't get health care coverage through your job. So, where ya gonna get it?

A "Government Takeover" It Is NOT

A few days ago, a couple of my colleagues asked me what I thought about the Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare). Both of these colleagues are what I consider to be liberal to progressive Democrats and what they ultimately were questioning was where I stood in the government mandating that everyone buy health insurance from a private entity.

I believe they had no problem adding some coin to the coffers for a health care plan we could all enjoy, but I had the sense that they were kinda pissed about the fact that we'd still be purchasing said health insurance from private corporations. Wasn't this some kind of ethical breech of liberal conduct? Don't we hate corporations and why are we lining their pockets?

After explaining my position (it's a good first step in the right direction), we all nodded and went our separate ways. So imagine my surprise when about 10 days later I was perusing through my Twitter feed and found someone mentioning PolitiFact's "Lie of the Year" for 2010 was this:

PolitiFact editors and reporters have chosen "government takeover of health care" as the 2010 Lie of the Year. Uttered by dozens of politicians and pundits, it played an important role in shaping public opinion about the health care plan and was a significant factor in the Democrats' shellacking in the November elections.

Now, the person tweeting this probably wasn't aware they were tweeting last year's Lie of the Year, but it's worth a second look and it goes to show you how this discussion hasn't faded away. Everyone, both on the left and the right, especially with the clown car full of GOP presidential nominees who are vowing to "repeal Obamacare on Day One," are still discussing this issue.

Now, Mitt Romney may want to repeal a health care law that is based on his own Massachusetts health care law (including the mandate to purchase insurance), but if he were ever to be in that position, and for the good of the country I hope not, he'd have to have a complicit Congress to revote and reject ACA. You can't just declare a law null and void because you don't like it - and the fact that ACA has helped millions of people who weren't eligible for insurance previously due to preexisting conditions will make it difficult for members of Congress to deny that new privilege to their constituents.

So sure, this first step towards a country where health care can be available to all Americans may not be exactly what progressives wanted, but know that it's not a final step. Just as Social Security's first round excluded farmers for example, ACA will need to be tweaked over the coming years to make it fairer and more affordable. It will happen, but it will take time. Rome wasn't built in a day. But no, thank you Frank Luntz. A "government takeover" it's not. If only that were true, we actually might be better off.

Dumbass Quote of the Day

...when you find out we're being sent to Libya to use our treasure and American lives there, maybe there's intention to so deplete the military that we're going to need that presidential reserve officer commissioned corps and non-commissioned corps that the president can call up on a moment's notice involuntarily, according to the Obamacare bill.

~Louie Gohmert (R-Wingnutville) on the House floor March 30th, 2011

Yes, you read that correctly. It's not an April Fool's joke. Gohmert thinks that the Affordable Care Act creates a private army for the President to call up at any time. Maybe if Gohmmert could read, and actually looked through the "2,800 page bill" as he incessantly reminds us, he'd know that what that provision in the bill does is create a corp of public health workers to react to disasters. But why bother reading a bill you have no intention of voting in favor of anyway?

As TPM notes...

Some on the far-right believe the health care law creates a private army for President Obama to call up and train on U.S. citizens. What it really does is make good on a plan first envisioned by Bush HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson in the wake of the September 11 attack to create a Ready Reserve Corps of several thousand public health professionals -- nurses, doctors -- that can be called up to treat people in the wake of an epidemic or a disaster like Hurricane Katrina.

Gohmert gave credence to the theory on the House floor, with an addendum. The administration's Libya operation is actually a false flag, to draw down the country's military reserves, and give Obama the excuse he needs to call up his private army.

This is 9/11 truther-type stuff, on the House floor.

And I thought Michele Bachmann was the stupidest member of Congress. I stand corrected.