kruker wrote:No, it's fine he's against the bill. But, from what I've read, his office is taking offense to his words regarding end of life care being used in defense of a proposed provision that matches up with his thoughts.

Ezra interview

I might be misinterpreting it or missing something, but I haven't seen anyone try to use Isakson's words as a defense for the bill at large, only that specific provision. That he is trying to put some distance between his words and the common ground held by him and the opposition on this issue seems weak to me. Kind of like, "oh $#@!, if I had known you guys thought that way on this issue, I wouldn't have said this in the first place".

It doesn't mean his backtracking has anything to do with cowardice, bowing at the altar of Palin.

Then what does it have to do with? Call me cynical, but his backtracking started after Palin's comment picked up momentum, not when the issue of end of life care entered the debate. As recently as the 10th he called the comment "nuts" in an interview when he talked about his support of the 2007 "Medicare End-of-Life-Planning Act". Now, all of a sudden, it looks as if he wants to distance himself from the debate. I think it's because he didn't anticipate this being such a hot button issue with his base. The Palin comments served to polarize the debate and it appears to me that he wants to be on his home team's side. If that's not what's going on, if I'm applying a label that doesn't fit, then I apologize, but if he's backing down from his recorded belief because of political pressure, then calling him a coward is apt.

How did this become a question of euthanasia?

I have no idea. I understand -- and you have to check this out -- I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin's web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don't know how that got so mixed up.

You're saying that this is not a question of government. It's for individuals.

It empowers you to be able to make decisions at a difficult time rather than having the government making them for you.

The policy here as I understand it is that Medicare would cover a counseling session with your doctor on end-of-life options.

Correct. And it's a voluntary deal.

That is not to suggest that he supports the House bill in general, or even the bill passed by the Senate Health Committee. But he was pretty specific in trying to ratchet down the misinterpretations of the House's end-of-life counseling section.

And, given Isakson's record, there's plenty of reason for that. The specific amendment Isakson offered in the Health Committee is substantially different than what's in the House health-care reform bill. But the 2007 Medicare End-of-Life Care Planning Act, which Isakson co-sponsored, is actually very similar to the section on end-of-life planning in the House bill. And Isakson wasn't the only Republican on the legislation.

What's changed or where have his comments or provision been taken out of context? Like I said, I might be missing someone misusing his comments, in which case I can understand why he'd want to correct them, but to me it appears like he's uncomfortable being on the "wrong" side of a hot button issue.

Isakson's backtracking is a good example of what scares me: the knowledgeable deferring to or being overcome by the ignorant.

I understand why he's doing it, and I get that in the larger sense he's using their uninformed opposition as a means to advance the end of his (presumably) informed opposition. But it's still not healthy for a society that relies upon informed debate.

kruker wrote:Then what does it have to do with? Call me cynical, but his backtracking started after Palin's comment picked up momentum, not when the issue of end of life care entered the debate. As recently as the 10th he called the comment "nuts" in an interview when he talked about his support of the 2007 "Medicare End-of-Life-Planning Act". Now, all of a sudden, it looks as if he wants to distance himself from the debate. I think it's because he didn't anticipate this being such a hot button issue with his base. The Palin comments served to polarize the debate and it appears to me that he wants to be on his home team's side. If that's not what's going on, if I'm applying a label that doesn't fit, then I apologize, but if he's backing down from his recorded belief because of political pressure, then calling him a coward is apt.

How did this become a question of euthanasia?

I have no idea. I understand -- and you have to check this out -- I just had a phone call where someone said Sarah Palin's web site had talked about the House bill having death panels on it where people would be euthanized. How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don't know how that got so mixed up.

You're saying that this is not a question of government. It's for individuals.

It empowers you to be able to make decisions at a difficult time rather than having the government making them for you.

The policy here as I understand it is that Medicare would cover a counseling session with your doctor on end-of-life options.

Correct. And it's a voluntary deal.

That is not to suggest that he supports the House bill in general, or even the bill passed by the Senate Health Committee. But he was pretty specific in trying to ratchet down the misinterpretations of the House's end-of-life counseling section.

And, given Isakson's record, there's plenty of reason for that. The specific amendment Isakson offered in the Health Committee is substantially different than what's in the House health-care reform bill. But the 2007 Medicare End-of-Life Care Planning Act, which Isakson co-sponsored, is actually very similar to the section on end-of-life planning in the House bill. And Isakson wasn't the only Republican on the legislation.

What's changed or where have his comments or provision been taken out of context? Like I said, I might be missing someone misusing his comments, in which case I can understand why he'd want to correct them, but to me it appears like he's uncomfortable being on the "wrong" side of a hot button issue.

Obama publicly cited Isakson by name at a forum yesterday. That's what changed. Has fuck all to do with Palin.

jerseyhoya wrote:Obama publicly cited Isakson by name at a forum yesterday. That's what changed. Has $#@! all to do with Palin.

That was what I was missing then and I was wrong. Although I hope he will continue to try to temper the rhetoric he has already spoken out against.

AJC Story

kruker wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Obama publicly cited Isakson by name at a forum yesterday. That's what changed. Has $#@! all to do with Palin.

That was what I was missing then and I was wrong. Although I hope he will continue to try to temper the rhetoric he has already spoken out against.

AJC Story

Except what Obama said was correct. Isakson did propose that Medicare cover this counseling. Obama didn't say Isakson was a sponsor of any of the existing reform bills, just that the initial Isakson bill was the progenitor of this provision.

allentown wrote:Except what Obama said was correct. Isakson did propose that Medicare cover this counseling. Obama didn't say Isakson was a sponsor of any of the existing reform bills, just that the initial Isakson bill was the progenitor of this provision.

Not according to the article.

On Tuesday, in a speech in New Hampshire, Obama inferred that Isakson was one of the chief sponsors of health care legislation moving through Congress.

That was what Isakson was objecting to. I can understand that. He's angry that he got tied to the larger reform (which he opposes) rather than the specific provision.

Bloomberg loses a union endorsement

This is probably of interest only to me and lethal because we live here and follow this stuff and to jerseyhoya because he's a junkie, but that's okay. DC37 did endorse the mayor four years ago against Ferrer, so it's a bit of a blow. But it probably helps his "independent" cred to have an obviously self-interested entity go the other way, and he does have other union backing--including at least one of the big SEIU locals.

Every time I read a Howard Wolfson quote on behalf of the mayor, I'm momentarily taken out of the city race and thrown back to what a relentless a-hole that guy is. He did work against Bloomberg in '05, and the mayor bought him (along with a slew of other Democratic operatives and progressive policy types) this time around. But this was well played:

In a statement, Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg’s campaign, said: “DC 37 opposes pension reform, mayoral control of schools, and wants the city to hire more employees, even in a time of fiscal crisis. This is their job, so we understand their position. But these are clearly not things that the mayor could agree to, and so it’s not surprising that they would endorse Mr. Thompson.”

“The real question,” he added, “is what promises Mr. Thompson made them and how much his promises will cost taxpayers.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Thompson, who is considered the leading Democratic contender for the party’s nomination next month, declined to comment on Mr. Wolfson’s remarks.

It also gets to the heart of why I'm probably going to wind up voting for Bloomberg again. While the mayor is increasingly arrogant and I fear that his self-regard and obstinacy will go off the charts in a third term (not to mention that the next successful third mayoral or gubernatorial term in NY might well be the first...), I think I'd rather go with that than hazard a New York City Democrat who comes more or less pre-corrupted by all the deals he has to cut to win endorsements and gain support, not to mention rise through the truly vile borough and citywide Dem machines.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q-SeIIUe1A[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q-SeIIUe1A

Rasmussen is out with a poll today with some eyebrow-raising numbers — Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) trails former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) by double-digits in a head-to-head matchup.

According to the August 11 automated survey of 1,000 likely Pennsylvania voters, Toomey leads Specter by 48-36 percent, with 12 percent undecided. That's a pretty notable flip from Rasmussen's June survey, which found Specter with a 50-39 percent advantage.

I find this arousing

jerseyhoya wrote:

Rasmussen is out with a poll today with some eyebrow-raising numbers — Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) trails former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) by double-digits in a head-to-head matchup.

According to the August 11 automated survey of 1,000 likely Pennsylvania voters, Toomey leads Specter by 48-36 percent, with 12 percent undecided. That's a pretty notable flip from Rasmussen's June survey, which found Specter with a 50-39 percent advantage.

I find this arousing

Yeah, it'll be great to have a rational, reasonable, entirely non-ideological deep thinker like Toomey in the Senate. He'll really be a credit to the upper house, and a strong voice for well-considered, serious governance that focuses on solving problems.

I'm glad we agree

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm glad we agree

I guess we also agree that you don't give a shit if the country is wrecked so long as Your Team Wins. It's why I have no doubt you'll go far in Republican politics; you've learned well.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm glad we agree

I guess we also agree that you don't give a $#@! if the country is wrecked so long as Your Team Wins. It's why I have no doubt you'll go far in Republican politics; you've learned well.

Someone's got a case of the Mondays.

I like Toomey. I agree with him on probably 90% of the issues. I think Specter is about the most disgusting type of Congressman, interested in self preservation above all else.

I don't work in Republican politics anymore, and don't intend to ever again, which I thought was relatively well known, but to each his own on the ad hominems.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm glad we agree

I guess we also agree that you don't give a $#@! if the country is wrecked so long as Your Team Wins. It's why I have no doubt you'll go far in Republican politics; you've learned well.

Someone's got a case of the Mondays.

I like Toomey. I agree with him on probably 90% of the issues. I think Specter is about the most disgusting type of Congressman, interested in self preservation above all else.

I don't work in Republican politics anymore, and don't intend to ever again, which I thought was relatively well known, but to each his own on the ad hominems.

Yeah, that was too harsh. I take 90% of it back

I didn't know that. I always thought you should become an information officer--can't remember the actual job title--for a college sports department, hopefully doing that for G'town one day with a six figure salary and a hot young trophy wife and a townhouse there.

I know you loathe Specter, and I appreciate why. But Toomey is exactly the kind of mindless ideologue who fucks up Congress. I'm sure he's out there today, stoking fears of Death Panels and Socialism unless we cut the capital gains tax to 0 and dismantle the SEC. The adrenaline rush you get from seeing anyone with an R after his name winning (or leading) isn't worth the additional poison he'll put into the Senate, so soon after we got rid of Santorum no less.

Well I mean we fundamentally disagree politically on a lot of things. I think he might be a bit too much of an ideologue on some issues, but I think he's in the right direction on most of them. He's not a complete, down the line right wing vote, for example he said he would have voted to confirm Sotomayor, which would have put him in a pretty small group in the Senate GOP caucus. I think he's very smart and knowledgeable about financial issues. You might disagree with his positions, but it's not like he just picked up a CATO pamphlet last week and decided this is what he thought. He had a background working in the financial industry, then opened his own small business prior to serving in Congress. As a Congressman he won a tough district three times against real candidates. Obviously you don't want him to win, you disagree with him vehemently on a ton of issues. That's fine.

Cheney writing memoirs, turns on Dubya

Obama nuts up?

Reaction #1: this is deeply admirable, to the point that it almost wipes out all the disappointment I've felt with the guy since this spring

Reaction #2: if he's truly set to go out nailed to the cross of politically unpopular measures, could they at least be a little, y'know, stronger in terms of how much reform they deliver?

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Cheney writing memoirs, turns on Dubya

Yeah, that was Bush's problem: he did what the public wanted him to do too often.

Serious question: is Cheney the most obviously sociopathic politician this country has ever seen?

Stayed away from the politcal thread for a while now, but the reporting of increasingly shrill calls of death panels and the like, and the report today that some Tory dick thought it was a good idea to shout down the NHS in the US has really given me a bad case of vertiginous disbelief.

I would have to wade through the single payer thread at length to inform myself of what obama is planning, but what dismays me is that opponents to healthcare reform can sucessfully pedal a line that somehow the existing american system is fairer, because it does not 'choose' who is most deserving of free healthcare and the best way to deliver that.

There is no doubt that the NHS is a large institution, which results in all the same problems large institutions everywhere inflict on their users. It's use of internal markets don't work well and it's still prone to abuse by drugs companies who will try to sell it their choice of product with profit in mind. It has a tendency (like many UK state bodies) to isolate spending decisions from the wider context of user care in the interest of economic efficiency, with the result that it has an excellent record on surgery, less so on care of the patient and facilities. And there are without doubt better systems on the continent which remain committed to public health care. France and Germany come to mind.

But what shocks me time and again about the commentary I'm reading stateside (outside of the gross distortions - see here for a comparison between american claims and UK facts) is that the basic point is missed. The healthcare is free. It does not cost me to go to my doctor. It does not cost my wife to get breastfeeding support when our baby is born. It does not cost us to have a group of dedicated consultants to consider best care of our son's deformed ear for the next 10 years. It does not cost me to self-refer myself to a physiotherapist when I start experiencing recurring back pains.

The system doesn't (in theory) give a damn whether I'm minted or broke, although in the case of the latter, the simple fact is that without the necessary knowledge and education, I probably will only get basic treatment (but show me a system anywhere which treats poor people differently. Please).

Nevermind that private healthcare in the UK keeps on trucking just fine, so is always an option if you don't like what the state has to offer. Nevermind that is always an option to seek 2nd and 3rd opinions to give yourself the best choice - yes, you may have to spend for these, but you're still coming out ahead in terms of cost compared to the US. Set aside the issue that although a board decides on which drugs are in the best economic interest to use, that board operates in a public environment which can if necessary, be made respond to the interests of patients.

It's fucking free. It can potentially help anyone with the most serious of surgeries. It does not exclude you from pursuing private healthcare options. I find it beyond disbelief that this can be described as an orwellian system of CONTROLLING YOUR HEALTH WHICH WILL EUTHANISE YOU WHEN YOUR ECONOMIC BENEFIT HAS DIMINISHED BEYOND THE POINT OF REASONABLE RETURN. Truly, I bow down to the ability of the american political system's commitment to successful doublespeak.

(I'll also assume that those touting the compulsory euthanasia thing missed the debate going on over here about a patients right to suicide, which has recently come before the Law Lords, the panel of judges that is the UK equivalent of the supreme court.)

Last time I checked, having to pay more for healthcare did a pretty good job of taking those kind of tricky life and death decisions out of the hands of the doctors.

I'm stopping now and leaving before I start punching stupid people. On the plus side, it does at least commit the tories to supporting the NHS in public at least.