Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) met with President Obama for one hour in the East Room of the White House yesterday.
CPC Co-Chair, Congressman Raúl Grijalva, said that 50 of the 77 Caucus members attended, and they honed in on two major issues: their commitment to only supporting a healthcare reform bill that includes a public plan option that is "more than a gesture"; and the $83 billion war supplemental.
"It was a serious meeting," Rep. Grijalva said. "It moved quickly, there was a lot of candor from both sides."
Presenting the Caucus' case for healthcare reform were Representatives Yvette Clark, Tammy Baldwin, Jan Schakowsky, and Jim McDermott. Congressman Dennis Kucinich spoke with the President about a single-payer system.
Rep. Grijalva said members made it clear that the Caucus' support for any healthcare bill hinges on a public plan option that is "robust… [and] competitive with the private sector." President Obama called himself "an ally", but said it was up to Congress to deliver him the kind of bill to which the Caucus is committed.
With regard to the $83 billion war supplemental, Rep. Grijalva said the Caucus expressed its concern that "we're making the same mistake -- everything is going into militarization, not institutional reform, human and capital development, healthcare… those kinds of things." They pointed out to the President that the counterinsurgency strategy calls for 80 percent of the resources to be devoted to non-military/political solutions, and 20 percent to the military. But the supplemental devotes $76 billion for the military and approximately $7 billion for diplomatic efforts and foreign aid.
Obama said that the supplemental reflects the mess he inherited from his predecessor and the consequent short-term security needs. He said the Caucus should look at the FY2010 budget to see the kinds of investments that he supports.
Beyond the supplemental, the Caucus cited four other priorities with regard to Afghanistan and Iraq: no permanent bases; a timetable for exit; the aforementioned 80-20 allocation of resources; and the need to cease using drones due to civilian casualties.
Rep. Grijalva reported that President Obama said "he's not going to be caught in a quagmire. We'll be revisiting this decision every week, every month…."
Taking the lead in discussing security issues were Representatives John Tierney, Barbara Lee, Keith Ellison, and Mike Honda.
Grijalva said this wasn't a meeting where they "pinned down" the President and that "he handles tough questions very well." There was mutual respect and the meeting "helped solidify the relationship between the CPC and the White House."
The meeting was a good one for conveying the Caucus' key concerns on critical issues which will loom large in the next 100 days and beyond. It also represented an important and hopeful moment for the CPC itself. Rep. Grijalva explained, "It was good for the Caucus to be unified. There was no questioning the opinions the Caucus members gave to the President. With 50 people -- very few of us were able to speak -- and it demonstrates that members were there to support the Caucus and support each other. That's significant. Today everybody hung together and stuck to these two issues. I think that kind of discipline is very important."
Rep. Grijalva is right. At a time when the significantly smaller Blue Dog Caucus threatens to impede passage of a much needed budget and real healthcare reform, the CPC's work as a more unified team -- allied with the work of millions of progressives across the country -- could translate to real reform at the federal level.
In the past, Caucus members have had a hard time doing their politics together. This afternoon's meeting with President Obama may signal a new unity that bodes well for the tough fights ahead.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
single payer healthcare. get that or something reasonably approaching it and for now i will be happy.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2009 @ 08:13am
the united states will not be able to sustain unless it adopts a single-payer healthcare system.
Posted by darladoon at 04/29/2009 @ 09:49am
Posted by darladoon at 04/29/2009 @ 09:49am | ignore this person | warn this person
but darla...
as the gospel of anarcho-libertarianism dictates...
that gubbament ALWAYS bad, inefficient, wasteful and private industry always effeicient, better, good!!!
its a law of nature!!!!
oh sure...many who HAVE private insurance often fear going for treatment because that identifies them as having a preior condition...and if someone loses his/her insurance and gets a new policy, they are not covered for prir condition (that which they need).
for profit health care is SOOOOOOO efficient, SOOOOOOO humane, SOOOOO superior to all the rest of the stupid developed world's SOCIALIST COMMERNIST INEFFICIENT OVERPRICED awful health care system...
LMAO!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2009 @ 10:34am
The US will become just another 3rd world also ran should they adopt the socialist UHC.
More totalitarian control over people's lives as they left pushes harder to see more liberties taken away.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 10:35am
The US will become just another 3rd world also ran should they adopt the socialist UHC.
More totalitarian control over people's lives as they left pushes harder to see more liberties taken away.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 10:35am | ignore this person | warn this person
yeah, just another 3rd world country like...
canada, australia, UK, germany, france, sweden, italy, japan...
jeez, larry - luv ya, man, but do they pay you to make absurd statements like that?
because you certainly are not that stupid, brother.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2009 @ 10:38am
If the CPC was in the White House at all, that is an enormous improvement over the previous presidency.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/29/2009 @ 10:47am
canada, australia, UK, germany, france, sweden, italy, japan...
jeez, larry - luv ya, man, but do they pay you to make absurd statements like that?
because you certainly are not that stupid, brother.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2009 @ 10:38am
it is not simply because of UHC that I make that statement. Rather it symbolizes the total transformation that will take place, changing the US from the greatest economic engine in the history of mankind into a 3rd world has been.
This transformation is an attempt to change the spirit of what made Amerca great and drew millions upon millions to our nation. the freedom that created the entrepeneurial opportunity in the US will disappear as these liberties are removed.
The reason that the world acknowledges that the US is the premier nation for economic opportunity is our lack of total govt control. It is the backbone also of the American citizen; although thanks to liberalism, it has declined somewhat.
So UHC will be both a symbol and a tool to destroy what made us great as a nation.
And on a personal note, I fear that the John Edwards types will get their wish and mandate mandatory healthcare visits. this will further eliminate freedom of choice for Americans; and this American will not participate in utilizing that system or funding it.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 10:58am
And on a personal note, I fear that the John Edwards types will get their wish and mandate mandatory healthcare visits. this will further eliminate freedom of choice for Americans; and this American will not participate in utilizing that system or funding it.----Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 10:58am
And yet despite that...and our "future 3rd world status"...
your escape plan to El Salvador always seems to have a lot of caveats and DELAYS planned in it, including a "back-up plan" for a move to HAWAII, which I believe not only is part of the United States...but even MORE liberal politically than even California?!?!??!??
Posted by Mask at 04/29/2009 @ 11:42am
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 10:35am | ignore this person | warn this person
You are aware that the US is the only large-power nation in the modern developed Western world that doesnt have a single-payer system? You are aware that no nation with such a system is facing not just crushing costs to employers (the kind that can bankrupt large employers like GM) but nationally unsustainable costs in general?
What planet are you on? You can babble and call something "socialist" and maybe that makes you feel good but what you write, as seems to be your usual, as far as I can tell from what I've read from you, is completely divorced from reality. You seem to inhabit your own private universe. That's fine; but don't be surprised if reality outside of your own private universe is painfully unbearable for you.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/29/2009 @ 12:06pm
your escape plan to El Salvador always seems to have a lot of caveats and DELAYS planned in it, including a "back-up plan" for a move to HAWAII, which I believe not only is part of the United States...but even MORE liberal politically than even California?!?!??!??
Posted by Mask at 04/29/2009 @ 11:42am
What delay? I have said from the time I stated that plan that it would be in 2 years. the Hawaii deal was not so much a backup but an alternative if things don't get too bad. the property I'm looking at is very remote and isolated on the Big Island. And I could live on it for under a 1000 a month including all expenses. But if there is a drastic implementation of UHC like Edwards and others want, I either need to move to a country like El Salvador, or live very remotely in the US where I can live undisturbed by Govt.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 12:12pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 10:58am | ignore this person | warn this person
"it is not simply because of UHC that I make that statement. Rather it symbolizes the total transformation that will take place, changing the US from the greatest economic engine in the history of mankind into a 3rd world has been."
says who? sounds like ideology to me. if anything i think a single payer system will make us MORE competitive, remove the albatross of employer provided insurance from around business's neck, and ultimately increase eficiency. again - the amazing growth engine you refer to, may have tacked out because we pushed it too far. the amazing growth engine of the 50's and 60's was at least in part an unnatural result of historic peculiarities (the devastating aftermath of ww2 and our being spared such destruction)...
--------------------------
"This transformation is an attempt to change the spirit of what made Amerca great and drew millions upon millions to our nation. the freedom that created the entrepeneurial opportunity in the US will disappear as these liberties are removed."
thats not even wrong. when many of those millions came here, none to very few other countries had sucha thing as universal health care. after that i doubt many millions came here to pay overpriced, sketchily doled out private health insurance.
------------------------------------
"The reason that the world acknowledges that the US is the premier nation for economic opportunity is our lack of total govt control. It is the backbone also of the American citizen; although thanks to liberalism, it has declined somewhat."
i just don't think that is "the reason". i'm sure many anarcho-libertarian types have been attracted to such, as well as good
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2009 @ 12:23pm
>>>Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2009 @ 10:38am<<<
You forgot New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark and several other "third" world countries!
LoL!
The bottom line, Larry, is that HMOs don't add sufficient value, and therefore are just driving up the cost of healthcare for everyone by creating unnecessary multiple payers, and by cherry picking which health conditions they will cover that are profitable to them and letting the taxpayer foot the unnecessary and exorbitant expense of "emergency-room care" for those they don't cover.
I am a business guy with an MBA, but HMO's have an unsustainable business model that is self-serving and wasteful to everyone else. The HMO business model is a classic case of selfishness gone awry, in which everyone else has to suffer so they can make a buck.
Let's phase them out by forcing them to cover "all" health conditions, leaving the government as the only payer left when the dust settles. You still will have your choice of doctor, so you can quit this "socialist" nonsense - the only difference is that your doctor will have to only pay ONE bill rather than the large number of bills associated with HMO-care, and that saves ALL OF US a bundle of money.
Posted by Metteyya at 04/29/2009 @ 1:45pm
to antisocialist:
Be careful moving to the Big Island.
There are gay people there. ;)
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 04/29/2009 @ 2:27pm
Posted by Metteyya at 04/29/2009 @ 1:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person
man...i just look at the redonkulous amount of money we spend on health care in this country every year AND STILL HAVE MILLIONS NOT OR UNDER COVERED and and then i hear some know-nothing yakking about how inefficient "them euro-socialists'" system is and wonder...
how goddam stupid do they assume people are? do they really believe their dope?
"look, geniuses...here's what we spend/get for what we spend and here's what they spend/get for what they spend...and WHICH system is better, more efficient???"
its not brain surgery...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2009 @ 4:29pm
I found the fact this meeting occurred and the topics raised greatly inspiring.
I hope those 50 (or more) form a voting block and insist on truly progressive policies in the key areas mentioned. THEN President Obama (a defender of the corporate regime) and the corporate regime-supporting Democrats will be forced to concede to some true progressive policies, such as those mentioned in this excellent article by KVH.
Congratulations to Raúl Grijalva, Yvette Clark, Tammy Baldwin, Jan Schakowsky, Jim McDermott, and Dennis Kucinich. And to Conyers for calling for a prosecutor. And for Lewis, Lee, Woolsey, McGovern and Edwards for getting arrested recently over they Darfur protest.
Not all the members of the Black and Progressive Congressional Caucuses advocate for progressive policies, but some of them do, and we should support them, even as we also support the Green Party and progressive movements.
We can support progressive Democrats in lots of ways, including establishing progressive caucuses in State Democratic parties, as we did in Kansas, and as others did in about 20 other states.
Posted by Earthian at 04/29/2009 @ 4:40pm
"look, geniuses...here's what we spend/get for what we spend and here's what they spend/get for what they spend...and WHICH system is better, more efficient???"
its not brain surgery...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2009 @ 4:29pm
I don't care if the Europeans have the most efficient system in the world. It's not relevant.
A-it's not constitutional
B-they may like giving up liberty, but many Americans are not as disposed to that idea as Europeans are.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 4:43pm
A-it's not constitutional
B-they may like giving up liberty, but many Americans are not as disposed to that idea as Europeans are.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 4:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person
ok, i'll bite. why is it unconstitutional?
giving up liberty...to either not have health care or to be exploited by greed driven middlemen?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2009 @ 6:21pm
ok, i'll bite. why is it unconstitutional?
giving up liberty...to either not have health care or to be exploited by greed driven middlemen?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2009 @ 6:21pm
Because Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution provides no enumerated power for Congress to legislate and fund this .
I noted recently on another thread that even Cong Jesse Jackson Jr acknowledged this and introduced a constitutional amendment to implement UHC because he said that SCOTUS would overturn any legislation passed since Congress lacked the authority.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 6:39pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 6:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
"Because Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution provides no enumerated power for Congress to legislate and fund this ."
strict interpretationist, eh?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2009 @ 7:13pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 6:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Funding a health care system is not unconstitutional. That is a deranged claim. If funding was limited to what is explicitly written in the constitution document itself the US would be an anarchy; however, that idea is ludicrous. If you want to pretend that 'only what's in the constitution' is OK for legislators to budget then you need to begin complaining about a huge amount of court decisions and much of federal law itself.
Furthermore, it is really completely pathetic that you dismiss the fact that these other countries' systems are more efficient with "I don't care". You seem like a very silly person with a lot of time on his hands.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/29/2009 @ 7:49pm
No wonder the Republicans failed.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/29/2009 @ 7:50pm
I hope someone asked the question that "progressives" ignore for a living, how will it be financed. Hell, our current entitlement obligations are into the red to the tune of tens and tens and tens and tens of Trillions of dollars. Even Obama ranted on about this not too long ago, that is until the progressives brought him on line to shut up.
Posted by hughm8 at 04/29/2009 @ 9:13pm
I hope someone asked the question that "progressives" ignore for a living, how will it be financed. Hell, our current entitlement obligations are into the red to the tune of tens and tens and tens and tens of Trillions of dollars. Even Obama ranted on about this not too long ago, that is until the progressives brought him on line to shut up.
Posted by hughm8 at 04/29/2009 @ 9:13pm
Well, a good START would be to drastically reduce our defense budget and scale back our imperial overreach abroad. Not to say that we're anywhere near this yet, however I think Obama has us at least moving in the right direction. This change won't come overnight, but it can and will come so long as progressives continue to push for it.
The real fact of the matter though is that health care, just like the reshaping our energy policy and putting an end to unjust drug policies, is just one aspect of a greater push to dramatically reshape and fix our economy. So long as we are dumping money into failed policies (militarization and empire building, criminalizing drug users, an ineffective health care system), our economy will continue to slump and our nation will continue to spiral downwards.
Posted by Mariner84 at 04/29/2009 @ 9:33pm
Posted by Mariner84 at 04/29/2009 @ 9:33pm
Unjust drug policies?! How much do you think you should pay for your prescription drugs?
Before you answer, I need to remind you that American Pharmaceuticals spend billions on research and development and they "manufacture" the vast majority of medicines this world relies on.
Other industrialized nations don't produce what we do because it cost too much money. That's one of the reasons why they wait for drug patents to expire. They don't have to spend money on R&D, just processing costs, which is pennies for them. That's the main reason why drug are so cheap for them.
Posted by ACook at 04/29/2009 @ 10:11pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2009 @ 7:13pm
Except Larry believes Presidents can start wars...in OPPOSITION to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 06:22am
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 06:22am | ignore this person | warn this person
we all pick and choose.
no aspersion intended to larry, i like him a lot...but his interpretation of the constitution resembles his interpretation of the bible - literalist and supportive of his political philosophy.
no duh, eh?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/30/2009 @ 08:40am
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/30/2009 @ 08:40am
Exactly....just like his SELF-INTERESTED libertarianism, which eschews "Government interfering in our lives and telling us what to do"...
but then he supports Government telling people they HAVE to buy auto insurance because.....HE sells auto insurance.
I asked him and he said "Well, the Government has a duty to protect people's safety!"....so why wouldn't protecting their HEALTH CARE safety fall into that?
Or when he said he'd "support any action Obama wanted to take on national security"....then I asked about him opening up talks with Ahmadinejad or Raul Castro and Larry said "That's not national security...that's foreign policy!".
Basically, he's fine with supporting Obama as long as he's KILLING people...but if he TALKS to people, Larry's loyalty AND "principle" of "The President should run all national security and foreign policy matters"...dries up.
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 09:23am
but then he supports Government telling people they HAVE to buy auto insurance because.....HE sells auto insurance.
I asked him and he said "Well, the Government has a duty to protect people's safety!"....so why wouldn't protecting their HEALTH CARE safety fall into that?
Or when he said he'd "support any action Obama wanted to take on national security"....then I asked about him opening up talks with Ahmadinejad or Raul Castro and Larry said "That's not national security...that's foreign policy!".
Basically, he's fine with supporting Obama as long as he's KILLING people...but if he TALKS to people, Larry's loyalty AND "principle" of "The President should run all national security and foreign policy matters"...dries up.
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 09:23am
Never a surprise when you distort my comments or those of anyone else. You must read these blogs through some very strange prism glasses.
1. I noted previously 2 things about auto insurance; it represents a small part of my income and I would still sell the same amount if it wasn't required by law. That's because I deal with people who actually care about protecting their family's and their assets. And no law instills that mindset into someone.
2. I've said repeatedly that I am consistent with supporting all of our presidents when they put our military in harm's way. I have done it equally with both Democrat and Republican presidents; even to the point of enlisting when LBJ was president.
And I've never said that Obama or any other president should NEVER talk to other leaders. But I do have the right to state that my view is that it is not always right to talk to enemies. When did FDR hold talks with Tojo, Hitler, or Mussolini? Did Truman talk to Mao during the Korean War?
Posted by antisocialist at 04/30/2009 @ 09:46am
"They could save billions in advertising.."
True..
"..if they'd just do research to find drugs that didn't contain a littany of side-effects"
But they are doing the research. Do you know how difficult it is to produce and perfect a medicine that can aid the body's defenses? The main reason side-effects are so common is because on the cellular level, our cell membranes are lined with literally thousands of receptors sites (not to mention voltage/ ion-gated Na+ and K+ channels), that react to different chemical messengers from within and outside of the body.
Get the chemical message wrong and the consequences are fatal on a systemic level.
Posted by snowball666 at 04/30/2009 @ 07:10am
Posted by ACook at 04/30/2009 @ 10:57am
"How much of that research is done by universities and teaching hospitals? Or with NSF/DHHS grants?"
Posted by snowball666 at 04/30/2009 @ 07:15am
Only the most prestigous universities (all Ivy League) and hospitals get federal funds or grants to do the research because they have the most sophisticated and extremely sensitive equipment.
Teaching hospitals, not so much, unless they're beginning clinical trials.
Posted by ACook at 04/30/2009 @ 11:04am
Posted by antisocialist at 04/30/2009 @ 09:46am
Larry, again, none of your "denial"....denies what I said.
1. Do you think the Government should mandate the purchasing of auto insurance and why?
2. Do you think that a President should get unwavering support for "military action"...i.e. KILLING people, while withholding your "right to state that my view is that it is not always right to TALK to enemies"?
And again, you will answer those questions indirectly and with obfuscation....or answer them directly and PROVE my original point and that it was NOT a "distortion", merely a simplification.
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 11:25am
1. Do you think the Government should mandate the purchasing of auto insurance and why?
2. Do you think that a President should get unwavering support for "military action"...i.e. KILLING people, while withholding your "right to state that my view is that it is not always right to TALK to enemies"?
And again, you will answer those questions indirectly and with obfuscation....or answer them directly and PROVE my original point and that it was NOT a "distortion", merely a simplification.
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 11:25am
1. No, I don't believe the govt should mandate auto insurance.
2. Yes I believe it is the duty of every American to support our presidents of any political party when they send troops into harms way. I have never wavered from that belief.
3. Yes, I believe that it is not always right to talk to enemies. I made that quite clear.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/30/2009 @ 12:39pm
1. No, I don't believe the govt should mandate auto insurance.----Posted by antisocialist at 04/30/2009 @ 12:39pm
Huh?
"Ergo, your recession proof business, that you will do so well with....comes at the price of the car and home owners LIBERTY....does it not???"-Posted by Mask at 01/22/2009 @ 12:21pm
"Not at all, liberty does allow you to be foolish, but insurance is about leveraging risk in your life and possessions....
Furthermore these so-called mandates when it comes to auto insurance are to protect the consumer against people who don't have coverage such as illegal immigrants.....
I've never said that there is no role for govt and clearly oversight of insurance is well within the constitutional authority granted to states by the 10th amendment."----Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/22/2009 @ 12:44pm
Harry Reid on EFCA posted by Christopher Hayes on 01/22/2009 @ 09:16am
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 1:34pm
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 1:34pm
Do you understand the difference between constitutional authority and actually mandating something.
Not every power given to the govt means it is the best way.
That said, anyone who doesn't have car insurance doesn't deserve to drive because they are
a) a fool
b) placing greater liability risk on others.
For those reasons, I carry 1.5 million in uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/30/2009 @ 1:59pm
Obama mania -- 100 days of failure By his failure to speak out during the 23 days when Israel bombed Gaza, and by his failing to point out that by law the use of our F16 fighter jets and bombs is severely restricted to defense, the blood guilt for over 6,000 dead and injured civilians is on our heads.
By a failure to stop sending billions of dollars in war materials to Israel each year, all his words of wanting change are nothing more then pure hypocrisy.
If invading Iraq was a blind mistake, then surely his failure to bring our troops home is a clearly visible mistake, and the blood guilt for those killed in Iraq from now is on our heads.
As 911 was the result of vengeance for the harm we did in the Middle East, and as the number of civilians terrorists might kill attacking our homeland would never equal the number killed in our war on Afghanistan, his failure to stop this senseless war is a failure to stop our blood guilt.
By failing to prosecute those responsible for torture because of certain legal memos, this makes it impossible to stop further lawyers from creating new legal arguments that enable new kinds of torture. For only guilt will prevent torture, and no fear of punishment makes it impossible for a criminal to have guilt.
By his failure to start a criminal investigation of Wall Street and zombie banks, by instead giving a trillion dollar bailout to the criminals who destroyed our economy, he has created a dictatorship run by the rich, placed us trillions of dollars deeper in debt to the rich, and made the fall of Empire USA inevitable.
By failing to protect organized labor and our auto industry, by instead destroying hard fought union gains and driving GM and Chrysler toward the brink of bankruptcy, he has put us at the mercy of a
Posted by Alabama.John at 04/30/2009 @ 2:21pm
"Acknowledging that government has gotten bigger since the financial crisis began, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told CNBC Tuesday that it isn't the desire of President Obama to make that larger role permanent."
Really?
Posted by sntauri at 04/30/2009 @ 3:31pm
Commercial TOXIC Real Estate (Texas billionaire Richard Rainwater- you remember him, GW Bush's ex-partner with the Rangers)
Health Care in USA (Texas billionaire Richard Rainwater- you remember him, Rick Scott's ex-partner with HCA- the Medicare Thief)
ALERT! Conservatives for Patients' Rights
NEW COMMERCIAL! Rick Scott is at it again-
--Featuring Rick Scott & doctor in England. He must think we are all stupid!
Conservatives for Patients' Rights
Guess who is in England? HCA International
Remember who Richard (aka Rick) Scott is - The Epitome of Fraud and Abuse- created nothing but waste.
2009-The Wall Street Journal reported that Richard Scott, "the former chief executive of HCA Inc," had formed the non-profit organization Conservatives for Patients' Rights as part of a "lobbying campaign to derail or modify" President Obama's health care proposals, …
The WSJ failed to document why Rick Scott departed from HCA.
Let me remind you: FRAUD- BIGGER THAN ENRON
THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 2003; WWW.USDOJ.GOV; HCA Inc. (formerly known as Columbia/HCA and HCA - The Healthcare Company)
LARGEST HEALTH CARE FRAUD CASE IN U.S. HISTORY SETTLED; HCA INVESTIGATION NETS RECORD TOTAL OF $1.7 BILLION Note: Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) was acquired by Columbia in 1994.
Back to the Conservatives for Patients' Rights commercial with the Doctor in England--- HCA International
2008- Welcome to London's leading private hospitals-HCA International
Why we are London's No. 1 private hospital group
• More than 3,000 top London and UK specialists in private practice
See a pattern here folks?
Posted by sasha2008 at 04/30/2009 @ 4:49pm
I hope someone asked the question that "progressives" ignore for a living, how will it be financed. Posted by hughm8 at 04/29/2009 @ 9:13pm
The question will not be "how will we pay for UHC," but rather, "what should we do with all the money we've saved?"
The U.S. pays more for health coverage in terms of G.D.P. than any other industrialized country. We pay almost twice as much as the second most costly system, which is in Canada. Compared to most European countries, we pay 3 to 5 times as much, and yet we rate lower in metrics like child mortality rates, life expectancy, recovery rates from many cancers, etc. etc.
The money that we currently give to for-profit insurance companies could easily pay for UHC, and still leave a tidy sum.
Posted by Radscal at 04/30/2009 @ 5:53pm
The money that we currently give to for-profit insurance companies could easily pay for UHC, and still leave a tidy sum.
Posted by Radscal at 04/30/2009
Really?
No research you can do, with any source you want to use, can prove this is a true statement. What is the point of making a false statement?
Posted by sntauri at 04/30/2009 @ 6:00pm
Before you answer, I need to remind you that American Pharmaceuticals spend billions on research and development and they "manufacture" the vast majority of medicines this world relies on. Posted by ACook at 04/29/2009 @ 10:11pm
U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers spend 4 to 5 times as much on marketing and advertising as they do on research and development.
Therefore, it would be more true to say that the reason for the high cost of medicines in this country is the expense of drug pushing.
Posted by Radscal at 04/30/2009 @ 6:00pm
The money that we currently give to for-profit insurance companies could easily pay for UHC, and still leave a tidy sum.
Posted by Radscal at 04/30/2009 @ 5:53pm
You're almost as funny as Darla.
Medicare is over a trillion in the hole and projected to be 40 trillion in the red in the next two decades.
<(CBS) Beginning next year, and for 20 years thereafter, 78 million Americans will become pensioners and medical dependents of the U.S. taxpayer.
"The first baby boomer will reach 62 and be eligible for early retirement of Social Security January 1, 2008. They'll be eligible for Medicare just three years later. And when those boomers start retiring in mass, then that will be a tsunami of spending that could swamp our ship of state if we don't get serious," Walker explains.
To illustrate their impact, he uses a power point presentation to show what would happen in 30 years if the U.S. maintains its current course and fulfills all of the promises politicians have made to the public on things like Social Security and Medicare.
What would happen in 2040 if nothing changes?
"If nothing changes, the federal government's not gonna be able to do much more than pay interest on the mounting debt and some entitlement benefits. It won't have money left for anything else – national defense, homeland security, education, you name it," Walker warns.
Walker says you could eliminate all waste and fraud and the entire Pentagon budget and the long-range financial problem still wouldn't go away, in what's shaping up as an actuarial nightmare.
Asked if he agrees with Walker's figures and his projections, Sen. Conrad says, "I do.... Conrad acknowledges that most people in Washington are aware how bad the situation is.>
http://tinyurl.com/ysrqpt
Posted by antisocialist at 04/30/2009 @ 6:08pm
U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers spend 4 to 5 times as much on marketing and advertising as they do on research and development.
Posted by Radscal at 04/30/2009 @ 6:00pm |
More sterling progressive factual statements?
I defy you to look up the Annual Reports of any combination of Pharma companies you want, go to the SEC audited financial statements, pull up the numbers for R&D and Marketing, and defend that statement. Start with Eli Lilly if you want.
FAIL
Posted by sntauri at 04/30/2009 @ 7:26pm
re: Medicare, posted by antisocialist at 04/30/2009 @ 6:08pm
The canard that Medicare is underfunded overlooks the fact that medical procedures paid for by Medicare cost less than the same procedures paid for by private insurance companies.
It's pretty straight forward. Eliminate the profits made by insurance companies, the expenses of marketing and selling their services, and the money spent by them to try to deny care to their customers, and the end cost is less.
This is why all other health care systems in the industrialized world are far less expensive than ours.
Posted by Radscal at 04/30/2009 @ 8:01pm
It's pretty straight forward. Eliminate the profits made by insurance companies, the expenses of marketing and selling their services, and the money spent by them to try to deny care to their customers, and the end cost is less.
Posted by Radscal at 04/30/2009 @ 8:01pm
What feeble talking points memo are you reading? What is the dollar amount of profits that health insurance companies make as a percent of total health care spending? Do you have any clue how to find out?
Next wrong fact you want to share?
Posted by sntauri at 04/30/2009 @ 8:11pm
One of the reasons medicare is going broke is because of all the unnecessary procedures hospitals and some unscrupulous physicians perform on Medicare patients in order to recuperate losses incurred by the uninsured.
Our healthcare system is also burdened by the massive profits of the hospital CEO's, middle managers and other parasites.
Under One Payer, our money is best utilized by paying direct care providers like doctors and nurses and eliminating the bloated insurance industry. There will be plenty of resources for all of us when we finally adopt One Payer.
Posted by nursevic at 04/30/2009 @ 8:44pm
Posted by sntauri at 04/30/2009 @ 7:26pm
My Daddy used to tell me, "if I've told you once, I've told you a MILLION times... don't exaggerate."
Thanks for encouraging me to review the record. The 4 to 5:1 marketing: R&D ratio I gave came from an article that "cherry picked" the most profligate spenders.
Nonetheless, more rigorous research reveals that U.S. drug companies do spend in total about twice as much on marketing as on R&D.
Here's a great journal article PLOS that concludes: "From this new estimate, it appears that pharmaceutical companies spend almost twice as much on promotion as they do on R&D."
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/ info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050001
Here's another article citing a report that comes to the same conclusion that the marketing: R&D ratio is close to 2:1: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/ 2008/01/080105140107.htm
Here's the actual figures from 2000 comparing percentages of net revenues. Under "marketing" is also associated advertising and administrative costs. http://www.actupny.org/reports/drugcosts.html
Company Marketing R&D Merck 15% 6% Pfizer 39% 15% Bristol-Myers 30% 11% Pharmacia 37% 15% Abbott 21% 10% AHPC 38% 13% Eli Lilly 30% 19% Schering-Plough 36% 14% Allergan 42% 13%
Here's a great article that looks at more waste in big pharma than just pushing drugs: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244
Posted by Radscal at 04/30/2009 @ 8:49pm
Here's the actual figures from 2000 comparing percentages of net revenues. Under "marketing" is also associated advertising and administrative costs. http://www.actupny.org/reports/drugcosts.html
Posted by Radscal at 04/30/2009 @ 8:49pm
2008 numbers appear to be very different, with R&D substantially higher. You also need to look at Cost of Sales and Mktg/Admin by company to see where the cost of the sales force is included. Profits are high because compared to other Industry segments, the actual production cost is very low. You try to run a Pharma company where there may be 50 projects at a time going on, taking 10 or more years, costing $50-$60M per year, and having a new drug fail in stage 3 clinical trial because of adverse reactions, after 10 years of effort. All the "easy" diseases have been researched, and really difficult stuff remains. The cost of developing a drug doesn't vary if there are 1000 patients in the world or 500 million. The US spends 250-300 billion on drugs. This is less than 1/8 of the total cost. You want more surgeries instead of pills. I find the anti-pharma zealots to be amazingly uninformed and uneeducated on the industry they demonize.
Posted by sntauri at 04/30/2009 @ 9:13pm
How much anyone wants to bet that Toyota spends far more on marketing than R&D? Same with Nike/Adidas.....Coke/Pepsi.......Kellog......Pilgrams' Pride.......even any of the bottled water labels...and we all know how precious water is!
On the other hand, my home run biotech, Dendreon (DNDN), spends ZERO on marketing and everything on R&D!
Posted by Happy at 04/30/2009 @ 10:15pm
How much anyone wants to bet that Toyota spends far more on marketing than R&D?... On the other hand, my home run biotech, Dendreon (DNDN), spends ZERO on marketing and everything on R&D! Posted by Happy at 04/30/2009 @ 10:15pm
Shameless promotion of your business! I'm shocked, SHOCKED!
;-)
Seriously, good for you if you see that R&D is your priority (though I see DNDN's stocks just went down 7.59%. But, the earnings are turning around... going from losing almost $100 million in 2007 to losing just $71 million in 2008).
http://www.google.com/ finance?q=NASDAQ:DNDN
Maybe you guys SHOULD spend more on marketing.
;-)
OK. No more kidding around. The thing is, I don't believe human health care should be produced and sold like a Toyota.
Certain social services should not be dictated by the profit incentive. I bet almost all of us would agree that police, the military, and fire departments should be publicly funded and administered. Most of us feel the same way about streets, sewage, water and public education.
I think that health care falls into that same category of social services that are so important, and affect so many, that it should be publicly funded and administered.
Posted by Radscal at 04/30/2009 @ 11:44pm
I find the anti-pharma zealots to be amazingly uninformed and uneeducated on the industry they demonize. Posted by sntauri at 04/30/2009 @ 9:13pm
Have you read the articles I cited?
I hardly think the peer-reviewed PLOS or "a long-time researcher of pharmaceutical promotion, Toronto physician, and Associate Chair of York's School of Health Policy & Management in the Faculty of Health" are "uninformed and uneducated."
Simple fact: big pharma spends twice as much pushing drugs as they do in R&D. Insinuating ignorance in those with whom you disagree will not change that fact.
Posted by Radscal at 05/01/2009 @ 12:20am
The CPC and Blue Dog Caucus. So far apart, what is the Dem party really all about? Truly Bush and his friends (mafia?) carried the GOP to the extreme right, but even then the GOP stayed basically united and voting as a block. Now there is Obama promising to carry the Party to its roots (about the center, not really the left if we examine his politics)and so many people are scared to death. I think that the most urgent matter to solve for this nation is to instate only public financing of elections. Too many politicians owe too much to their sponsors to do a righteous job. The service of the public is clearly clashing with interests financing politicians.
If we add up Blue dogs and Reps we end with probably a majority opposed to progressive policies. Will we ever have an opportunity? How far are the BD ready to go to give the American public a fresh start?
People in Political science sometimes say that the center is the best position because it is near the equilibrium. I would say instead that the center - when not well defined - is the worst place to be because it does not support anything but instead opposes everything and therefore accomplishes nothing.
Posted by Frank42 at 05/01/2009 @ 01:11am
Not into this stuff much as I and mine don't often get sick so just use the government provided stuff occasionally. Others like to have private insurance because of long waiting lists for elective surgery and lack of choice of doctor under Medicare.
Here's some stuff (aka everything you ever wanted to know about Aussie health care ) on the Australian health care system:
http://tinyurl.com/dxxow2
Posted by lrjones4 at 05/01/2009 @ 08:49am
Posted by snowball666 at 05/01/2009 @ 09:27am
You'll need to go back and pull all HAPP's old posts on Dendreon.....
otherwise he'll claim "Oh, I KNEW that was going to happen and that's why I got out early before the suckers, cuz I'm an investment wizard!"
LOL
Posted by Mask at 05/01/2009 @ 09:35am
Posted by Frank42 at 05/01/2009 @ 01:11am |
Spot on, Frank!
After, gosh 40 years now of involvement in radical politics, I would die a happy man if only two dreams became reality:
1) And end to all the forms of legalized bribery that pass as campaign financing and lobbying. I say it's treason!
2) Public financing of education on a national basis. That is, not paid for by local taxes. Create true equality of opportunity, which I believe is the attainable "American Dream."
I don't see the Dems uniting to bring these changes - UNLESS they are forced by the electorate.
Posted by Radscal at 05/01/2009 @ 10:37am
Answer: Automatic Stop Loss orders!
======================
5 Dumbest Things on Wall Street: May 1
05/01/09 - 09:28 AM EDT
AXP , SFD , TSN , DNDN , NDAQ , C , BAC
Gregg Greenberg
...Dendreon's(DNDN Quote) cancer drug may prolong lives in clinical trials, but its stock is causing brain cramps at the Nasdaq....
Dendreon stock was inexplicably sliced by more than half Tuesday, mere minutes before shares of the biotech company were halted pending news regarding trial results for its cancer drug, Provenge . When trading in the stock resumed after Tuesday's close, the shares rocketed higher on positive Provenge data, more than doubling the lows seen during the fall and - much to the dismay of many shareholders forced to sell at a loss -- topping its pre-plunge price.
In a bizarre series of events, Dendreon's stock was trading above $24 a share until approximately 1:25 p.m. EDT when it suddenly fell off a cliff.....
No doubt some of the hundreds of thousands of shares sold during the frenzy came from investors unnerved by the stock's hasty decline. More likely, however, they were the result of automatic stop loss orders triggered by the stock's abrupt slide, meaning that most investors were unaware they were unloading their shares at the time.
The stock was still on hold at 2:00 p.m., when the company released the data showing Provenge extended the survival of patients with advanced prostate cancer by more than four months.
Those investors still in the stock -- or fortunate enough to scoop up shares during the brief but powerful selloff -- celebrated the good news. Shares rocketed to $25.75 in after hours trading Tuesday and opened up at $26.82 on Wednesday morning.
Alas, those poor souls who unwittingly unloaded their shares had no such luck....
Posted by Happy at 05/01/2009 @ 10:43am
...I KNEW that was going to happen and that's why I got out early before the suckers, cuz I'm an investment wizard!"
Posted by Mask at 05/01/2009 @ 09:35am
As a matter of general strategy.....I've already recouped my original basis....by selling a small number of shares.....Now, I'll wait to see if a mere home run, will turn into a grand slam...if and when the FDA approves the drug later this year. It's rare to find a new drug as a Billion $$ seller.....
BTW, those who have followed my exploits, like my calls on energy stocks (Rush got that tip from me when oil hit over $130) , know that I'm in fact, "an investment wizard!".......sometimes....LMAO!!
Posted by Happy at 05/01/2009 @ 10:48am
Posted by Happy at 05/01/2009 @ 10:48am
See? And what "minor losses" he suffered last Fall from a "unforseen downturn that even Larry Kudlow (who's almost as smart as me) missed"....are easily explained away.
Thurston HAPPY III is the Wolf of Wall Street!
Posted by Mask at 05/01/2009 @ 11:06am
People in Political science sometimes say that the center is the best position because it is near the equilibrium. I would say instead that the center - when not well defined - is the worst place to be because it does not support anything but instead opposes everything and therefore accomplishes nothing.
Posted by Frank42 at 05/01/2009 @ 01:11am
We agree, and most certainly, Mask will disagree with both of us.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/01/2009 @ 2:13pm