Blue Dogs that hijacked health care support War

Well, yesterday was an exciting day. And potentially the peak viewership for Phil the Pill. To sum it up, after an entire night/morning of procrastination, homework, and watching Daily Show/Colbert on Hulu, I decided I finally had time to write a letter to Virignia’s senators about passing health care reform. After essentially writing an ideological speech, I felt very worked up about and attempted to pimp it on the social media sites.

It worked. And I’m glad it got attention, because I do believe in two main things: 1) the private health insurance industry has played with people’s lives and health and should not be allowed in a civilized society and 2) people don’t tell their representatives to do their job or lose their seat often enough.

Getting that much attention made me somewhat insecure too. I didn’t really analyze this issue as thoroughly as I think people should. There are legitimate concerns with the bill supported by House democrats. On one level you could aruge that it doesn’t do enough. On the other you have a serious question of whether the government can manage this properly.

I’m not sidestepping the fact that it’s a complex. But I do support legislators doing something rather than nothing and I believe they should be listening to individual citizens and not lobbyists to conclude what it is that we need. And that’s why I mailed those letters. To send a strong message that I want cheaper, affordable healthcare and that I’m willing to vote for someone who does if they won’t.

Picture related.

On the health care front, mainstream Democrats made deals with the Blue Dog Democrats to tool the House bill on health care. Some concessions have been made which should appeal to some fiscal conservatives.

House Democrats pushed ahead with a compromise health overhaul Thursday over liberals’ complaints, intent on achieving tangible — if modest — success on President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority ahead of a monthlong summer recess.

But the concessions Waxman made to the so-called Blue Dog Democrats infuriated House liberals. They denounced the proposed new structure of the public plan, which was originally designed to be based on Medicare rates. The new structure says rates would be negotiated with providers as occurs now with private companies, which could result in more expensive care.

“This agreement is not a step forward toward a good health care bill, but a large step backwards,” 53 Progressive Caucus members said in a letter to House leaders Thursday. “Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates — not negotiated rates — is unacceptable.”

Some details of the deal remained murky. As part of the agreement the Blue Dogs are insisting they won’t vote for a bill that costs more than $1 trillion over 10 years, but that would require Democrats to make more cuts or raise more money. It wasn’t clear how much, or how it would be accomplished.

I’m not terribly offended by negotiating rates as opposed to imposing rates by law, but who are these “providers” that are separate from doctors? I’ll put it at the list of questions at the bottom.

As long as there is a public option, subsidized for those who truly can’t afford it, I’m happy. But as far as Blue Dogs voting against something that costs more than a $1 trillion over 10 years what about something that will cost over $1 trillion in two years?

Military-Industrial Complex Watch

Crooks and Liars discussed the Defense Appropriations Act of 2010, citing this Washington Post article:

The Democratic-controlled House is poised to give the Pentagon dozens of new ships, planes, helicopters and armored vehicles that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates says the military does not need to fund next year, acting in many cases in response to defense industry pressures and campaign contributions under an approach he has decried as “business as usual” and vowed to help end.

The unwanted equipment in a military spending bill expected to come to a vote on the House floor Thursday or Friday has a price tag of at least $6.9 billion.

The White House has said that some but not all of the extra expenditures could draw a presidential veto of the Defense Department’s entire $636 billion budget for 2010, and it sent a message to House lawmakers Tuesday urging them to cut expenditures for items that “duplicate existing programs, or that have outlived their usefulness.”

Roughly $2.75 billion of the extra funds — all of which were unanimously approved in an 18-minute markup Monday by the House Appropriations Committee — would finance “earmarks,” or projects demanded by individual lawmakers that the Pentagon did not request. About half of that amount reflects spending requested by private firms, including 95 companies or related political action committees that donated a total of $789,190 in the past 2 1/2 years to members of the appropriations subcommittee on defense, according to an analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonprofit watchdog group.

The White House criticized the addition of $80 million for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor program, which Gates and other Pentagon officials have said is technically troubled, behind schedule, and billions of dollars over budget. But Northrop Grumman, the principal contractor, is building a technology center in Murtha‘s district that would bring 150 related jobs, and Murtha’s subcommittee sought its continuation as a way “to recoup the technology,” according to an appropriations staff member, who was not authorized to speak on the record.

A spokesman for Murtha did not reply to a request for comment.

The latest vote on the has been, surprise, overwhelmingly in favor. Those opposed included Barney Frank, Ron Paul, and Dennis Kucinich. None of them are Blue Dogs. C&L questioned whether the BDs helped this pork-barrel legislation too. I wondered if perhaps they weren’t talking out of their ass. So I looked up the list of Blue Dog Democrats in the House.

Okay, get your buzzers ready. How many of the 49 Blue Dog Democrats in the House opposed this bill with at least $6.9 billion in earmarks and, one could argue, wasted money in campaigns to kill innocent people and lose hearts and minds in the Middle East?

Time’s up. One. Representative Parker Griffith of Alabama.

Congratulations, represenative Griifith! You win the Consistency in the Face of Mind-Boggling Hypocrisy Award!

So, I get it. Healthcare spending? Wasteful. Defense spending? AMURRRIKUH!

I tried to avoid criticism of the Blue Dogs until now. But now it’s clear that they should just stop posing as “fiscal conservatives” and just admit it – they’re neocons trying to get gay, black votes. Well, any candidate campaigning as a “Blue Dog” in my districit isn’t getting THIS gay, black vote.

Er…straight, Latino vote.

I leave you on the political note with a 10-minute video on what we have money for.

The video, from the American Friends Service Committe points out how one day of the Iraq war costs $720 million per day. In addition to health care, that could be 6,482 homes, 34,904 scholarships for four year universities, higher pay for teachers, 1,274,336 homes with alternative energy, or 1,153,846 free lunches for children.

It’s enough to make you consider voting for Ron Paul.

All right, it’s late. I wonder where I can find funny pictures…maybe 4chan…OH, DEAR, GOD, NO!

Quote of the Day

Suicidal glory is the luxury of the irresponsible. We’re not giving up. We’re waiting for a better opportunity to win. – Lois McMaster Bujold

Questions for Readers

What “providers” are being referenced in the amendments to the health care bill? Who do we need to worry about paying their fair share other than doctors?

Is Robert Gates a good Secretary of Defense?

How much do you think we could be saving on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

If Blue Dogs are fiscal conservatives, why are they voting for this much spending in the defense budget?