Barack Obama Archives - Page 16 of 31

Take Dick Durbin’s Poll to Support the Public Option

Posted on October 28, 2009 by TL

Senator Dick Durbin wants a public option for health care in the United States. Support the public option by taking this poll:

From Senator Durbin:

The tide is shifting our way.

Thanks to the tireless efforts of activists like you we’ve seen a tremendous shift in the health care reform debate. On Monday, Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced the merged Senate health care bill — a bill that includes a public option.

The question is no longer if we will have some sort of public option in the final health care reform bill, but instead what form it will take.

There are several interpretations of what a public option should look like, and I’d like to share the preferences of the American people with my colleagues in the Senate.But I must do so before the final health care reform bill comes to a vote on the Senate floor in the coming weeks.

Please rank your preferences for what form the public option should take in the final bill at:

http://www.DickDurbin.com/PublicOptionPoll

I believe that a robust public option must give more Americans more choice on day one. But some of my colleagues would be content with a public plan that only kicked in if insurance companies continued to raise premiums at an unreasonable rate — the so-called "trigger." Others would prefer a more limited public option, requiring state governments to "opt-in" to participate in the program.

I am "whip counting" the votes in favor of all of these in the Senate, and we’re very, very close to reaching the 60 votes we need to pass a robust form of the public option — one that provides more coverage to more people by requiring states to "opt out" if they don’t want to participate. That’s exactly how Medicare and Medicaid work, and all 50 states participate in those popular programs.

Ultimately my colleagues need to know what their constituents think a robust "public option" really means — and what it doesn’t.

Read up on the various interpretations of a public option now under consideration, and tell me — and my colleagues — where you stand.

http://www.DickDurbin.com/PublicOptionPoll

Virtually every poll now shows most people support a robust public option to expand health insurance choice and offer coverage to more Americans. And the American people will not settle for a "public option" in name only.

Neither will I.

Let’s tell Congress what precisely we want and expect to see in the final health care reform bill that President Obama signs into law.

Thank you for taking my poll.

Sincerely,

Dick Durbin
U.S. Senator

The ‘Public Option,’ Medicare Part ‘E’, Lives On

Posted on October 25, 2009 by TL

From the Washington Post:

The resurrection of the public option is the latest and one of the most surprising turns in the long battle over legislation to overhaul the nation’s health-care system. Under assault for months, and declared on life support repeatedly in recent weeks, the provision for a public insurance option is unexpectedly alive as House and Senate leaders prepare to send their bills to the floor.

That doesn’t mean it’s a done deal. Whether it survives the final battles, and in what form, are still the unanswerable questions. Multiple versions of a public option are on the table. Liberal and moderate Democrats are still at odds and are drawing lines in the sand in hopes of exercising maximum influence on the outcome.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are still scratching for the votes to pass bills with a public option included. But by next week, both hope to have bills ready either for unveiling or to send to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis and scoring.

What encourages some of those who have followed this debate closely from the inside is the degree to which Democrats are in sight of a compromise on the public option and other remaining differences — though many may have to accept some disappointment to get a bill to President Obama’s desk.

The public option, Medicare Part E, lives another day.

And that is a good thing.

The president and congress must remember those who have nothing. They are Americans, who have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Really, they do.

NYTimes: U.S. to Order Steep Pay Cuts at Firms That Got Most Aid; GOP: Reward Their Greed

Posted on October 21, 2009 by TL

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Responding to the furor over executive pay at companies bailed out with taxpayer money, the Obama administration will order the firms that received the most aid to slash compensation to their highest-paid employees, an official involved in the decision said on Wednesday.

The plan, for the 25 top earners at seven companies that received exceptional help, will on average cut total compensation by about 50 percent. The companies are Citigroup, Bank of America, American International Group, General Motors, Chrysler and the financing arms of the two automakers.

Some executives, like the top traders at A.I.G., will face tight limits on their pay. In addition, the top-paid employees at all the affected companies will face new limits on their perks.

The plan will also change the form of the pay to align the personal interests of the executives with the longer-term financial health of the companies. For instance, the cash portion of the executives’ salaries will be slashed on average by 90 percent, and the rest will be replaced by stock that cannot be sold for years.

But while the plan would pare compensation substantially from what the highest-paid people at the companies might have received under normal circumstances, it would still permit multimillion-dollar pay packages. And it would have no direct impact on firms that did not receive government bailouts or that have already repaid loans they received from Washington, leaving it unclear how much effect, if any, it will have on the broader issues relating to executive compensation, income inequality and the populist animosity toward Wall Street and corporate America.

The plan, which was written by Kenneth R. Feinberg, the official at the Treasury Department in charge of setting compensation for bailed-out companies, will be made public in a few days. The official who described the plan’s basic components did not disclose the particular impact on specific employees of the firms.

Three cheers!

To Keith Olbermann: Let’s All Take Credit for “Medicare Part E” and Get It Done Already

Posted on October 21, 2009 by TL

I was listening to Countdown this evening listening to Keith Olbermann pat himself on the back for calling for a "rebranding" of the term "public option." Olbermann suggested calling the alternative to for-profit health insurance "Medicare Part E — ‘E’ for ‘Everyone.’ "

That’s a great idea, but Keith is hardly the first to name the new plan. For that, I credit Thom Hartmann, who wrote on September 9, 2009:

The President this morning admitted on national television that he lost control of the message with health care. It’s time to reboot – and use a very, very, very simple message so all Americans can understand it.

Let’s use Medicare, which nearly every American understands. Just create “Medicare Part E” where the “E” represents “everybody.” Just let any citizen in the US buy into Medicare.

It would be so easy. No need to reinvent the wheel with this so-called “public option” that’s a whole new program from the ground up. Medicare already exists. It works. Some people will like it, others won’t – just like the Post Office versus FedEx analogy the President is so comfortable with.

Just pass a simple bill – it could probably be just a few lines, like when Medicare was expanded to include disabled people – that says that any American citizen can buy into the program at a rate to be set by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) which reflects the actual cost for us to buy into it.

Thus, Medicare Part E would be revenue neutral!

To make it available to people of low income, Congress could raise the rates slightly for all currently non-eligible people (like me – under 65) to cover the cost of below-200%-of-poverty people. Revenue neutral again.

This blows up all the rumors about death panels and grandma and everything else: everybody knows what Medicare is. Those who scorn it can go with United Healthcare and it’s $100 million/year CEO. Those who like Medicare can buy into Part E. Simplicity itself.

And there’s more. Hartmann’s analysis also appeared in CommonDreams.org.

I don’t want to detract from Mr. Olbermann. House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn thanked Keith publicly this evening on Countdown, saying he heard the term first from Mr. Olbermann, and at least one Blue Dog Democrat has thrown his support behind Medicare Part E. Medicare Part E would not be single payer. Since everyone is taking credit, I’ll pat myself on the back also for writing this on August 7, 2009. However, I only wrote that after I heard the term "Medicare Part E" first on Thom Hartmann’s radio program, at least a month before he wrote his analysis. And, to be honest, my call was for a single-payer system. “Medicare Part E” would be an opt-in insurance program, entirely optional. Do you like your for-profit health insurance company? Well, you’ll be allowed to keep it.

Olbermann’s commentary is from his special commentary on October 7, nearly a month after Thom Hartmann:

Once you said "Medicare For Everybody," there would be just as much to explain. If you were under 65 you’d be paying for it. You wouldn’t have to buy it. You wouldn’t have to change from whatever you have now. There are just as many caveats.

Still, the intent of all this would be clearer. Much of the criticism of health care reform is coming from those who have or are about to get Medicare and, in confusion, in fear, in the kind of indescribable realization that we are far closer to the end than to the beginning, they are suddenly mortally afraid that health care reform will take it away from them. "Medicare For Everybody," might not be literally true, but instead of terrifying, it would be reassuring. And the explanations and the caveats would be listened to, and not shouted down, as anger and fear — fear, remember, of death – swell up inside.

Thom Hartmann has been on Countdown before. Keith, invite him back and give him credit as well. After all, the best ideas always happen when no one cares who gets the credit.

I’m cautiously optimistic that this will actually happen.

Keith deserves credit for his incredible commentary. Thom Hartmann deserves credit as well. Let’s all take credit for the concept, the name, and make "Medicare Part E for Everyone" finally happen.

Pappy Bush Loses It, Calls Olbermann and Maddow ‘Sick Puppies’

Posted on October 19, 2009 by TL

Yes, you heard right. It’s true. Former President George H.W. Bush actually lowered himself to take a shot at MSNBC news anchors Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow “sick puppies.” The nation’s forty-first president made these remarks in an interview with CBS radio purportedly as a means of explaining why there is a lack of civility in politics today.

"I don’t like it," Bush said. "I think the cables have a lot to do with it. I’ll take you back to when I was president we got tons of criticism but didn’t seem day in and day out quite as personal as some of these talk show people."

"And it’s not just the right," Bush 41 continued, "There’s plenty of people on the left. If you want me to name a couple of names I’ll be glad to do that for you."

"Go ahead," the CBS reporter says.

"Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow," Bush said. "I mean here are a couple of sick puppies."

"And the way they treat my son and treat anybody that’s opposed to their point of view is just horrible."

Reached by phone, Karl Rove said, "Irony is dead."

Okay, I just made up that last quote.

I now present Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann in “The Response”:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Senator Roland Burris Definitively Favors Government Health Plan

Posted on October 15, 2009 by TL

Washington, D.C.– United States Senator Roland Burris (D-IL) wants health care reform with a government health insurance plan and he’s willing to fight for it, says the Wall Street Journal.

From the Chicago Sun-Times:

The Wall Street Journal named him as one of six senators to watch in the coming days as the Senate’s no-public-option bill is merged with the House’s public-option bill.

The other five senators are Republicans and conservative Democrats averse to a public option. Burris, the Journal says, is the one senator out of 100 most insistent that the final bill have a public option:

"The Wild Card: Illinois Democratic Sen. Roland Burris. Mr. Burris has announced his intention to oppose any bill without a public option. . . . Because he isn’t standing for re-election, Mr. Burris has little to lose," the article states.

And from the Wall Street Journal:

The Wild Card: Illinois Democratic Sen. Roland Burris. Mr. Burris has announced his intention to oppose any bill without a public option, and Sens. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and John Rockefeller (D., W.Va.), among others, have also voiced a strong desire for a public option. The message: Democrats at their peril shift to the right to court centrists and Republicans. Because he isn’t standing for re-election, Mr. Burris has little to lose. Democrats hope liberals will support a health overhaul in the end, but they have scant margin for error.

GOP’s Olympia Snowe On Board for Democratic Health Care Reform Bill

Posted on October 13, 2009 by TL

Already referenced here, t his one deserves its own headline.

From WTAE Pittsburgh:

Washington– Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe broke with her party Tuesday and said she will vote for a Democratic health care bill, handing President Barack Obama a much-sought boost in his quest to expand access to medical coverage to all Americans.

Approval of the legislation by the Senate Finance Committee was a foregone conclusion going into Tuesday’s vote, since Democrats outnumber Republicans 13-10 on the panel. But Snowe’s decision gave the vote a significance that transcends partisan divisions. For months, congressional Republicans have been virtually unanimous in denouncing the Democratic bills as an unwarranted expansion of government influence.

The Maine senator kept virtually all of Washington guessing about how she would vote until she announced it late in the Senate Finance Committee debate Tuesday. She told her colleagues she has misgivings about the bill, but "when history calls, history calls."

Perhaps the ice is thawing between Democrats and Republicans. It would be nice to have Senator John McCain on board too. That would be good for the country.

Video: President Obama Addresses Gay Rights at HRC Dinner

Posted on October 11, 2009 by TL

Watch President Obama’s speech at the Human Rights Campaign’s annual dinner in Washington, D.C., on October 10.

The President vowed to end the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, but did not say when. The President also acknowledged that policy changes he promised on the campaign trail are not happening as quickly as many had expected.

Obama Says He Will End ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ But Doesn’t Say When

Posted on October 10, 2009 by TL

Giving what some are calling a “barn-burner of a speech,” President Obama told attendees at the Human Rights Campaign’s annual dinner that he would end the controversial “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for the U.S. Military.

But he didn’t say when.

From the Chicago Tribune:

President Barack Obama pledged to end the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military in a speech Saturday, but acknowledged to a cheering crowd that the policy changes he promised on the campaign trail are not coming as quickly as they expected.

“I will end ‘don’t ask-don’t tell,'” Obama said at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay civil rights advocacy group.

He did not give a timetable for the repeal of the law passed by Congress in 1993 and signed by President Bill Clinton, who also promised to repeal the ban on homosexuals in the military but was blunted by opposition in the military and Congress.

“We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve the country,” Obama said. “We should be celebrating their willingness to step forward and show such courage … especially when we are fighting two wars.”

Coming from a different perspective, a Muslim Imam told me he recognized President Obama’s ability to speak, and speak well. He said that, through his gift of rhetoric, the President can give any group the perception that their concerns are the most important thing in the world to him.

And then the President goes and does what he wants.

The jury is still out on President Obama, really. Congress will have to act to end the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military. Let’s see what the President accomplishes with health care reform. With a Congress so polarized and afraid to come together to address issues in any rational manner, I’m wondering how much true reform Barack Obama will be able to accomplish at all.

He must step up his efforts to reform if he’s serious. And Congress must learn how to be a deliberative body again.

2009 Nobel Peace Prize Announcement

Posted on October 10, 2009 by TL

I know so much water has already gone under the bridge about this. For what it’s worth, I want to have the complete Nobel Peace Prize Announcement from the Norwegian Nobel Committee here on Turning Left for the benefit of our readers, and myself:

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”

Oslo, October 9, 2009