This new legislation is so disgusting that I'm surprised Bush didn't try to get this passed at the beginning of his second term. It's no shock that the right-wing freaks always target women with their extreme anti-choice agenda. Now they are trying to set back the medical world 200 years.

A last-minute Bush administration plan to grant sweeping new protections to health care providers who oppose abortion and other procedures on religious or moral grounds has provoked a torrent of objections, including a strenuous protest from the government agency that enforces job discrimination laws.

The proposed rule would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.” It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices and drugstores from requiring employees with religious or moral objections to “assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity” financed by the Department of Health and Human Services. The counsel, Reed L. Russell, and two Democratic members of the commission, Stuart J. Ishimaru and Christine M. Griffin, also said that the rule was unnecessary for the protection of employees and potentially confusing to employers. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already prohibits employment discrimination based on religion, Mr. Russell said, and the courts have defined “religion” broadly to include “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong, which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.”

Medicine should be religion free in America. Have you ever wondered why they don't ever target legislation that puts restrictions on men?

From a press release:

In light of reports that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is preparing to enact a rule that would undermine critical health care services for women and families, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Patty Murray (D-WA) today introduced legislation that would prevent the HHS rule from going into effect. The proposed HHS rule would require any health care entity that receives federal financing to certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable. The proposed bill would keep HHS from moving forward with this rule.

"In the final days of his administration, the President is again putting ideology first and attempting to roll back health care protections for women and families. The fact that the EEOC was never consulted in the drafting of this rule further illustrates that this is purely a political ploy. This HHS rule will threaten patients' rights, stand in the way of health care professionals, and restrict access to critical health care services for those who need them most.

The House is also introducing legislation to fight this too.

DeGette and Slaughter Introduce Legislation to Stop HHS Rule

(h/t Heather)

I don’t pretend that I am some great political genius, but I do know that there are some truisms in America politics. One big truism is that senior citizens vote as a much higher percentage than other subset of the population and the biggest way to ensure that they will come out to vote is to threaten the programs upon which they rely.

That’s what makes announcing the intent to cut spending to Medicare by $1.3 trillion such an odd, Bizarro-world choice on the part of the McCain/Palin campaign.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show to confirm that those all-too-critical 27 Florida electoral votes don’t look like they’ll be heading into the McCain column:

You are so right when you say that this is a third rail – of Florida politics – certainly, and politics nationally among senior citizens is Medicare and Social Security and John McCain and Sarah Palin are shockingly wrong on both of those issues. I mean, it’s bad enough that he clearly and consistently has supported privatizing Social Security. Especially considering that this morning the stock market was down 797 points at one point and he thinks we should just be investing—the best thing to do is invest people’s Social Security funds in the stock market. [sarcastically] That’s a really good idea, right now.

But then, on top of that, he goes so far as to say in order to cover about five million more people out of the 47 million that don’t have health insurance, his plan is to cut Medicare $1.3 trillion. Now there is 3.2 million Floridians that are covered by Medicare; we have the second highest number of Medicare recipients in the country and a higher percentage even than California of our population. I can tell you, I represent a district in South Florida for sixteen years, between the Legislature and Congress and there is no way that my senior citizen constituents are going to be supporting John McCain. They are really concerned about two things: making sure they don’t have their safety net yanked out from under them and making sure that their health care, that they have fought for and earned in the golden years of their retirement.

For the record, Barack Obama and Joe Biden have both signed off on Health Care for America Now.

At least some countries are getting it: (h/t Orangutan)

Finnish Fortum and the City of Stockholm have been feverishly working to design a pay-to-pump electric car infrastructure. Sweden took a baby step ahead this week when start-up company Sust (Sustainable Innovation AM) declared its intention to quickly make the country a test market for the world's electric hybrid and pure electric car manufacturers. They'll have to beat off Israel abroad.

But Sweden isn't particularly far ahead in building electric infrastructure in Scandinavia. Norway takes that prize - it has longer had THINK and Buddy electric cars tootling around the streets of Oslo and other cities, and has both built 20 and promised 400 more recharging stations. Both Sweden and Norway have a secret weapon compared to most other countries.

It's thousands of old motor-warming posts that are stationed up and down the countries' long, cold and even desolate northern highways, where you may be more likely to meet a moose than a fellow traveler. The advantage of the motor-warmer stations is that they are estimated to cost only about US$ 35 each to upgrade with the grounding and currency requirements to recharge cars. Everything else - freeway exit and entrances, especially - are already in place.

But we're talking about allowing off-shore drilling and tax subsidies to oil companies for alternative energy "exploration".

Longer version here  Download | play   Download | play   (h/t Heather)

Make sure you buy: "The Shock Doctrine"

It's so chic of conservatives like Sullivan to blame the American people for the economic crisis, because as Sullivan stated on Real Time, millions and millions of people took out loans on homes that they couldn't afford. Yes, the Kudlow Thesis of the market housing crisis. Don't blame the lenders and grifters that came upon us like a biblical plague of locusts, blame the  people.

Naomi Klein, God love her, told him that it was the Wall Street profiteers that preyed upon society. His ideal conservative world is completely fictional. And as she says, what comes next is the real disaster. Today was Christmas morning to the fat cats on The Street, but what happens next to all the debt we the people have just incurred? Whoever is elected president will have a major role in deciding our fate. Sorry, I can't write the whole transcript, so watch the entire clip. 

Klein: The disaster is far from over. They've actually just relocated. The disaster was on Wall Street and they have moved the disaster to Main Street by accepting those debts and you said they didn't have to bomb, the bomb has yet to detonate.  The bomb is the debt that has now been transferred to the taxpayers so it detonates when, if John McCain becomes president in the midst of an economic crisis and says look we're in trouble, we have a disaster on our hands, we have to privatize social security, we can't afford health care, we can't afford food stamps, we need more deregulation, more privatization. The thesis of the Shock Doctrine is you need a disaster to rationalize these very unpopular policies so the real disaster has yet to come.The real disaster is the debt that is going to explode on the American taxpayers. And then they do economic shock therapy.

They had to step in, but I don't think they had to step in in the way they did. The reason why the stock market went up on Wall Street today is because it's Christmas morning. Imagine waking up and being told your credit card debits have been wiped out, your mortgage has been erased. There's a fairy godmother that has taken care of you. A guardian angel. But actually that's the tax payers.

With a smirk, Andrew gets pissed and chimes in

Sullivan:  You're favoring nationalizing the other companies.and most industries?

Klein:  No, I'm just saying. This is socialism for the rich. 

Maher: Why are you so hostile towards this?

Sullivan:  Because I think the fundamental thesis that she is proposing is wrong. I think the reason why we're in this situation is not demonizing a few individual companies, it's systemic. And part of the reason we have this is the American People. The American people since the 70's have had stagnating income, so they decided to get something for nothing. And the government never told them they couldn't. So we have the stock bubble of the 90's and now we have the real estate bubble in the 2000's. 

Klein: That's not why we have this.

Sullivan: And the government never told them they couldn't. Wall Street is to blame for giving these people these loans, but no one is ever forced to take out a bad load they cannot pay.

Klein: The reason why this bubble was allowed to inflate was not that the American people demanded it, it was spectacularly profitable for Wall Street. Just in bonuses last year, they handed out 33 billion dollars in bonuses...  The problem is we have crybaby capitalism where when the times are good they are preaching deregulation and when the times are bad they want the bail-outs. The problem I have with your argument is where is this ideal capitalism of which you speak?

Andrew, the lenders told them they could get the houses for nothing and then lied about how they would pay for it and what they would pay, then bundled the cash and passed it on... And it's not the government's role to tell people what they cannot do. That's why we used to have regulations and background checks and down payments and mortgage lenders to oversee the system. It weeds out the people that can and cannot afford a home. He tried to deconstruct her argument because apparently he wasn't getting enough air time at that point (he filibustered the entire show after that) with nonsensical rationalizations on the current state of affairs. I lived through it and saw it up close and personal. Yea, he supports Obama, great, but his conservative ideology is a sham.

Andrew Sullivan has been conned by a fictitious notion of what conservatism really is. He states his Utopian vision of conservatism, but leaves out the part where conservatives want to deregulate everything and get rid of oversight and government so they can reap a magical harvest of cash like they have been doing during the entire Bush administration. Now we are seeing the results of conservatism. It's a failure. Does Sully really believe that conservatism exists without the fat cats expanding their pie of wealth in America to 1920's or pre-New Deal proportions? They've been trying to undo the New Deal ever since it was instituted and by the way which brought the country back from the brink of destruction.

Do you want Barack Obama or John McCain to make these decisions? I think the choice is easy. Conservative rule rains Armageddon down upon our heads---whether it happens in two years or twenty. It's inevitable.

Rightwingers scare more easily than liberals, according to a new study.

... participants were then given two laboratory tests, to establish their physiological responses to frightening or unexpected stimuli. In the first test, they viewed 33 images, three of which were distressing or threatening: a large spider on the face of a frightened person; a dazed person with a bloody face; and maggots in an open wound. The scientists measured the electrical conductance of the skin, a standard measure of distress and arousal.

In the second test, the volunteers were subjected to a loud, unexpected noise, with scientists measuring the involuntary blinking that followed. A strong startle response is indicative of heightened fear and arousal. The results, which are published in the journal Science, revealed significant differences in both responses, which corresponded with people’s political views. Those with “markedly lower physical sensitivity to sudden noises and threatening visual images” tended to support liberal positions, while those with strong responses tended to be more conservative.

This would fit with the hypothesis that people who have more fearful responses to perceived threats are more likely to be conservative, while those who have weaker responses develop more liberal views.

Jeebus, they went to all that trouble when they just could have asked Karl Rove? The GOP has been using fearmongering - on terrorism, evil axises, taxes, guns, God, gays etc etc - as a vote-getting tactic for how long now?

Remember this?

Download | play Download | play

Crossposted from Newshoggers

In an interview with CBS' Katie Couric Wednesday, Cindy McCain seemed surprised to learn that her husband John wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned. But as it turns out, the surprises hardly end there for the McCains when it comes to abortion and the 2008 Republican platform. By rejecting John McCain's limited proposed exemptions for cases involving rape, incest and the life of the mother, the GOP's hard-line abortion banning plank echoes not its presidential nominee, but his running mate Sarah Palin.

That result was to be expected.  During a July 30 interview, John McCain admitted he had "not gotten into the platform discussions." And it shows. Unlike Barack Obama, who personally intervened to help create a new abortion plank in the Democratic platform, John McCain left the GOP committee to its own devices in producing a document that is far more radical than even McCain's own draconian anti-abortion stand.

Continue reading »

I know putting together a convention of this magnitude is no small task.

There have been many glitches and complaints, which is par for the course and I know the DNC have tried to do the best they could with parking and credentials and whatnot. But I have asked the DNC for weeks and weeks how they could help me get around during the convention because I have a handicap placard in California due to a real problem walking distances from my nerve damage. I got no response.

I didn't see this link on their website. I wish it was more prominently placed. Obviously, there is a tremendous amount of security and many checkpoints, but there is no assistance available for those that are elderly or not in the best of health, who would not be able to walk miles and stand in the blistering heat waiting to proceed to the Pepsi Center. It's hot and the high altitudes have many people flustered. How many of them knew that Denver would be so hard to maneuver in? I certainly didn't.

When I finally got to the first check point, I asked if there were any carts to take the elderly and handicapped to the next stop. I was told that they were only there to get water for the Secret Service. Hey, they did an amazing job and needed the help too, but what about all the elderly people that came here, dressed to the nines and high heels, because this is an important event to them and they had to travel miles and stand for hour long check points to even see the Pepsi Center? I saw some almost passing out.

I made many calls, not asking for special treatment, but for decent treatment of a handicapped person. When I called ten times on Tuesday, I got voice mails and then was told I would be called back. Nothing happened. I left an angry message yesterday telling them I'd write about it and now suddenly I find out that there is help available. Really? Well, it's too late now. I'm already devastated. I'm pretty good at putting on a happy face when I'm being interviewed and never want to make it much of an issue to my readers, but I just couldn't handle the pain of trying to go out any more.

I have to take some of the blame too. I had people helping me and they came up short too in finding out all that could have been done. I'm writing this to voice a complaint so that the next time an organization puts on a huge event, they seriously take into consideration what all handicapped and elderly folks have to go through to even show up to support or cover that event. I promise to do a better job in finding out how to help those in need of assistance for future events. And I don't think this is only a DNC problem. They are being very kind now and said they misunderstood my situation. I believe them, but I think it's a systemic problem that needs more attention. Telling someone that you are handicapped is not always understood and I get that that's why my calls were misinterpreted. I hope to help those in need in the future because this is a serious issue for many people.

The Convention still has been a blast and I think it's been a valuable experience.  

  Uninsured Americans will spend $30 billion a year in out of pocket expenses and incur another $56 billion in government-subsidized expenses, says a new study for healthaffairs.org by Jack Hadley of George Mason University in Virginia and a team at the Urban Institute.

"The uninsured receive a lot less care than the insured, and they pay a greater percentage of it out of pocket. Contrary to popular myth, they are not all free riders," Hadley said.

Current estimates show that 47 million Americans lack any health insurance, and 28 million have gone without for some part of the year. The U.S. Census bureau is scheduled to release new estimates on Tuesday.

The study goes on to suggest that if the uninsured were covered, they would spend more on healthcare. An insured person spends about $100 dollars more a year, on average, out of their own pocket than does someone without insurance.

And in the meantime, Sen. Bernie Sanders has a sensible suggestion for a filler measure.

For a relatively small amount of money, we can provide primary health care to every American in need of it through an expansion of the successful Federally Qualified Health Center program.  On a budget of only $2 billion a year, this program, which has enjoyed widespread bipartisan support, now provides primary health care, dental care, mental health counseling, and low-cost prescription drugs to 17 million people through 1,100 health center organizations in every region of the country for an average cost of $125 per patient per year.  The doors of these centers are open to all, including patients with Medicaid, Medicare, private insurance, or no insurance at all, with sliding-scale fees.

... for a total of $8.3 billion a year, we could have 4,800 centers caring for 56 million people in every medically-underserved region of the country.

This upfront investment – which constitutes less than 0.5 percent of overall U.S. spending on health care – would more than pay for itself. The centers are among the most cost efficient federal programs in existence today.  On average, medical expenses at health centers are 41 percent lower than in other health care settings. 

Most importantly, from a financial point of view, by treating people when they should be treated, we can save billions by keeping patients away from emergency rooms and expensive hospitalizations. 

What's not to like?

When even Reader's Digest goes after the Federal Government, watch out:

A 2007 Justice Department audit found that the FBI was somehow losing 2.6 laptops per month, many with sensitive or classified information. More than 1,400 Energy Department laptops went missing in a six-year period, according to another audit. So much for homeland security.

Despite growing awareness of the problem, real safeguards are not in place. A February report by the Government Accountability Office found that only two of 24 agencies the GAO reviewed had implemented all the security measures recommended by the government. So it shouldn't be a surprise that the GAO also found that at least 19 of 24 agencies had experienced one or more breaches that could expose people's personal information to identity theft.

Read more...

  Daily Tech had an item that caused a bit of a stir in conservative circles.

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming “incontrovertible.”

This, coming the same day as Al Gore’s speech, was apparently quite exciting to those on the right who prefer to deny global warming and/or its causes.

One said, “The Association of Physical Scientists has reversed its position on anthropogenic global warming. Where it once considered its position ‘incontrovertable’ [sic] it is now sponsoring open debate on the matter... This is a big deal."

Another argued, “[Physicists] bailing on Gore…. The rats are leaving the ship. Global warming alarmists are frauds.”

Jonah Goldberg initially said, “The same day that Al Gore does his man-to-the-moon spiel on global warming, the American Physical Society — the second largest professional association of physicists — rescinds its total support for the global warming. I await the usual chorus to sing us a tune about how the APS is ‘anti-science.’”

Red State told readers, “The headline at The Drudge Report website, ‘Group Repping 50,000 Physicists Opens Global Warming Debate…’ [linked to dailytech.com] says it all.”

Except, in this case, it didn’t say it all. Climate Progress explains the story very well, including all the reasons the right is wrong about this.

  It's about time Congress stood up to the most unpopular President in American history. Unfortunately they can't do the same on some more pressing matters.

CNN:

Congress voted to halt planned cuts in Medicare payments to doctors Tuesday, overriding President Bush's veto in a battle that pitted health insurers against physicians.

The new law stops a 10.6 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors, part of a scheduled cost-saving formula that went into effect July 1.

The money for the doctors will be taken from the government-subsidized Medicare Advantage program, which the Bush administration strongly supports.

Bush spiked the bill Tuesday, telling lawmakers they would be "taking choices away from seniors to pay physicians."

"I urge the Congress to send me a bill that reduces the growth in Medicare spending, increases competition and efficiency, implements principles of value-driven health care and appropriately offsets increases in physician spending," he said in his veto message.

The Senate voted 70-26 to enact the law over Bush's objections, the third time in his presidency that Congress has overridden his veto. The margin in the House of Representatives was a lopsided 383-41, well beyond the two-thirds majority needed.

Download | play   Download | play (h/t BillW)

The House has sent articles of impeachment against George Bush to the House Judiciary Committee, however Speaker Nancy Pelosi now says that an actual impeachment VOTE isn't on the table. On Wednesday's Countdown, Jonathan Turley gives his expert analysis on this epic fail as well as the latest attempt by the president to obstruct Congressional oversight by claiming executive privilege in the CIA/Plame leak investigation.

As for Bush's executive privilege claims, Turley goes right for the jugular. Attorney General Michael Mukasey all but begged the president not to make him testify about Dick Cheney's role in the Plame case and has ignored a subpoena to appear to testify about the matter before Congress -- which Turley says should prompt Congress to charge him with Inherent Contempt. That's not likely to happen, and as Jonathan points out, Democrats who voted for Mukasey are now getting what they paid for:

"...This is why, when Senators Shumer and Feinstein saved Mukasey's confirmation, this is what they purchased. And, what Congress needs to do, the only thing they can do, is bring back Inherent Contempt and to say they're going to start to exercise contempt on their own, that the deal is off. Attorney General Mukasey has broken a very long standing promise to be a faithful broker, to bring these cases to the grand jury - he won't. And Congress has a right to now say we're going back to doing this stuff ourselves." 

ARS Technica:

 As we noted last month, a number of states have been considering laws that, under the guise of "academic freedom," single out evolution for special criticism. Most of them haven't made it out of the state legislatures, and one that did was promptly vetoed. But the last of these bills under consideration, the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), was enacted by the signature of Governor Bobby Jindal yesterday. The bill would allow local school boards to approve supplemental classroom materials specifically for the critique of scientific theories, allowing poorly-informed board members to stick their communities with Dover-sized legal fees.

The text of the LSEA suggests that it's intended to foster critical thinking, calling on the state Board of Education to "assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories." Unfortunately, it's remarkably selective in its suggestion of topics that need critical thinking, as it cites scientific subjects "including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

The bill has been opposed by every scientific society that has voiced a position on it, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science. AAAS CEO Alan Leshner warned that the bill would "unleash an assault against scientific integrity, leaving students confused about science and unprepared to excel in a modern workforce." Read on...

Jindal is definitely vying for the far right base of the GOP and this move will score big points for him. The rabid right-wing base of the party can't stand McCain, so Jindal might prove to be a good fit for them. As The Huffington Post reports, Jindal has joined the GOP's bold march backwards.

Think Progress:

With a contempt of Congress vote looming by Rep. Henry Waxman’s (D-CA) House Oversight Committee, President Bush asserted executive privilege this morning to block the committee’s subpoenas for documents relating to the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to reject California’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to override scientific recommendations on ozone standards.

Waxman’s committee had scheduled the 10 am business meeting to hold contempt votes for EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and White House Office of Management and Budget regulatory administrator Susan Dudley. On May 20, Johnson appeared before the committee, without the subpoenaed documents and evading questions about Bush’s involvement. Read on...

As you might imagine, Henry Waxman isn't too happy. From TPM:

I don’t think we’ve had a situation like this since Richard Nixon was president. When the President of the United States, may have been involved in acting contrary to law and the evidence that would determine that question for Congress, in exercising our oversight, is being blocked by an assertion of executive privilege. I would hope and expect this administration would not be making this assertion without a valid basis for it, but to date I have not seen a valid instance of their executive privilege. Read on...

As the American people sit and watch the Democrats  cave to George Bush and the GOP on issues like FISA and war funding without provisions for troop withdrawal, there is little hope that Congress will step up and do the right thing. Someone should be held accountable for these crimes, but so far, the Democratic leadership has shown no real stomach to fulfill their constitutional duties. With impeachment off the table, this, like so many other crimes, will go unpunished. 

(full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign)

Today, thousands of health insurance executives are gathering in San Francisco for their major industry convention. We thought that we would welcome them to town with a TV ad to go along with a greeting committee of hundreds of protesters.

The ad is called "Insurance Jive" and it features a nurse (actor Beth Broderick of "Lost", see her HuffPo piece on the ad) who – reminiscent of the Barbara Billingsley character in the 1980 movie "Airplane" – translates insurance jargon for a hospital patient and her husband.

"Insurance Jive" is based on the true story of Patsy Bates. Health Net canceled – or "rescinded" – Patsy's health insurance policy after this 52-year-old grandmother was diagnosed with breast cancer, forcing Patsy to halt chemotherapy for several months while piling up $129,000 in medical bills.

A judge recently ordered Health Net to pay Patsy a whopping $9 million in mostly punitive damages.

Continue reading »