After listening to Thom Hartmann, it is good to see Wal-Mart attempting get into his good graces by advertising during his show on AM 620 KPOJ & KTLK 1150AM. Hopefully, Wal-Mart will generate no increased patronage from their smarmy ads but Thom will be increase exponentially in market share.

Put a sign at the bottom of your T.V.

Cheney/Bush Did not keep us safe for 8 Years

This is the first lie that comes out of their mouth every time they speak. We as Strong Americans need to stop any conversation that starts with "We kept this country safe for 8 Years." I have emailed MSNBC this morning on it. I recommend everyone to do the same. Contact the Democratic strategist as well.

This lie is propogated just like Iraq had something to do with 911. We have to stop the lies.

Thom's info on infant mortality rate is deceptive... he says we are ranked somewhere in the 30's as one of the worst countries for infant mortality... what Thom is NOT telling you is that the US uses the W.H.O. definition for a live birth, whereas most other countries disregard many of the "definition" for a live birth... Some of the countries Thom says has a better IMR than the US, doesn't count any baby born weighing less than 500 grams, or any baby born before 24 weeks, or any baby that dies in the first 24-72 hours after birth... Taking all these factors into account, it is my view that the US IMR number is probably correct because we use the whole W.H.O. definition... what is wrong is that the other countries IMR number is artificially low because they DON'T use the entire W.H.O. definition... SO to say that their health care system is better than ours based on IMR is.

THE COST OF THE PUBLIC OPTION

I went to Rep. Jay Inslee's Town Hall Meeting yesterday in Washington State. I thought it was funny that the tea-bagging Right was afraid that public option might be so successful that eventually we WOULD have a Single Payer system.

Not to worry Tea Baggers...The cost of the Public Option, according to Representative Inslee will insure that the Blood-Sucking Insurance companies will keep us in the poor house for years to come.

The cost to buy into the Public Option will be (according to Jay) 12%, with subsidies phasing out at 400% of the poverty level (roughly $88k).

So at $88k gross salary a year, a family of four would cost about $880/month to buy into Public Health. Did they think 12% was reasonably sustainable? And this plan doesn't tell us what copays and medicines will cost on top of $880 PER MONTH.

I totally agree with THOM that we should advocate for expanded Medicare for All where our right to bargain with big Pharma has not already been bargained away.

Sigh.

FWIW, the Congressional Budget Office calculated that on 3% of Americans (or 9,000,000 people) would opt into this program. My guess would be that it would only be the 9,000,000 or so that would most likely qualify for 100% subsidies.

Again Sigh.

Medicare for All!!!

Tom please read and see if you can get this Republician on air. I receive this in an email from a group of Don Siegelman supports...

One Republican's view on single payer

Jack Bernard writes an Op_Ed for the Columbs, GA Ledger-Inquirer:

I am a Republican, former chairman of the Republican Party in Jasper County, Ga., and chair of that county commission. ...

In my view, it is unpatriotic to continue to lie to the American public about the situation facing us. Over the last 10 years, wages have gone up by about one-fourth. Health insurance premiums have gone up well over 100 percent. We cannot continue along this path to fiscal destruction. Inaction is not an option.

It is also against American values to mislead the public into believing that everyone can get good care even if they do not have insurance. The mark of a great nation is not how well it treats its privileged, but rather how well it treats its downtrodden. On this measure, we fail miserably; strange for a nation that prides itself on being the most religious democracy in the world. Where in the Bible did Jesus say “might makes right” or “those with the gold rule”?

Very few health or insurance professionals advocate for a single-payer system, the best way to control costs and ensure access. I hear all sorts of reasons: rationing (really, like HMOs do not do that now), paperwork (apparently insurance company bureaucracy does not count), socialism (come on — practitioners will still be independent and we all know it) and so forth. It is rare that we hear the underlying cause openly stated: greed. It will cut my income.

The members of Physicians for a National Health Plan are an exception to this rule. If you take a look at their Web site, www.pnhp.org, the rationale for a single-payer system is clearly articulated. The French have the top system in the world, with something like Medicare covering 66 percent of costs and private insurance for the rest, yet their cost per capita is half of ours. Universal Medicare will both control costs and achieve universal access to high quality care. Congressmen would get the same insurance as you and I. You better believe your coverage would be just as good as or better than what you are getting now.

The problem is not technical; it is political. It is high time we put the country ahead of ourselves and establish a single-payer system.

Jack Bernard is CEO of Monticello (Ga.) Health Care Solutions and a former chairman of the Jasper County Commission and the Jasper County Republican Party.

It was a sad day when the Seattle Post-Intelligencer closed its doors, for unlike the Seattle Times, it represented the progressive pretensions (and I do mean pretensions) of the city. The Times, on the other hand, in an attempt to increase circulation has thrown red meat to attract the flesh-eating right. The Times has often filled what little remains of their slim news section with tabloid-like stories of violence and mayhem, usually by people or groups who are not white, obviously playing to the paranoia and fears of that right-wing white audience. The only “constant” has been the Times’ gender politics, but then again, I’ve always believed that some issues are less about liberalism than about narcissism and tyranny. The Times also endorsed George Bush over Al Gore in 2000, although it may have only been the Blethens’ in-your-eye response to the 2000-2001 newspaper strike; its (reluctant) endorsement of Kerry and Obama may have been due only to fears of alienating a large segment of its readership.

An editorial in the Times this past Saturday also indicates that it has little sympathy for labor rights. It applauded the 5-4 state supreme court decision to allow the malicious, capricious actions of Linda Brennan, the CEO of a Spokane –based nonprofit, Nova Services, to stand in the firing of two managers for alleged “insubordination, disloyalty and organizing against her,” as well as the dismissal of four other managers and two employees who walked out in protest.

According to the complaint put forward by the managers and employees, they had attempted to warn the Nova Services board of directors about Brennan’s “inattention” to day-to-day activities, “hostile” and “dismissive” comments to employees and disabled clients, which “demoralized” employees. The employees also claimed that Brennan had “mismanaged” budgeting, fundraising, and “partnership relations,” and that “she had put the entire organization, including the jobs of every employee, at risk.” It was also claimed that Brennan had hired her mother to spy on employees and report back to her, making employees fearful of speaking to each other.

Employees also charged that Brennan removed grievances against her from employment files, and that she had threatened to “get rid” of employees by “making them want to leave.” They also reported that Brennan's “harassing, hypercritical and dismissive treatment of and violent
verbal outbursts to staff were demoralizing and humiliating; and that there
was high turnover among production staff because of Brennan's harassing
treatment of them.” The Nova Services board hired an attorney to investigate, and who suggested that the board either fire Brennan or two managers she particularly didn’t like. The board decided to fire the managers. Emboldened in her malice, Brennan then informed the other employees unhappy with her “style” that they could “go forward” with her, or hit the highway. The employees then informed the board that they wanted action on their complaints, and the following Monday did appear for work, which Brennan took to mean that they had “resigned.”

None of this was every reported by the Times. The dismissed managers and employees attempted to argue that they had a right to organize and petition for redress of grievances without fear of being fired, but the state supreme court and the Seattle Times editorial board took the narrow view that any employer can fire “at will” any worker who is not covered by a labor contract, and not have to “prove anything to a third party.” This attitude shouldn’t come as a surprise, given that the Times “endured” a labor strike earlier in the decade, with its editors holding down the fort. Thus it should come as no surprise to me that they would be narrow in their view of the rights of labor.

On Monday, August 24, Mark posted several comments about people who criticize Israeli policy in the Israel/Palestine conflict. I’m going to comment on two of his claims.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/2009/08/23/highlights-for-monday-august-24th...

“Mark August 23rd, 2009, 6:26 pm

I have to confess that I am much less impressed with these “passionate” pro-Palestinian advocates than some other people seem to be; too bad the Palestinians and their advocates are not as passionate about peace…”

And
Mark August 24th, 2009, 9:39 am
… I’ve read on this page absurd “discussions” critical of Thom’s alleged pro-Israeli “bias.” Being pro-Israel and being progressive are incompatible? Now who is way out there now? Don’t these people have ANY knowledge of history? Any idea of cause and effect? Well, if I’m “arrogant,” that is certainly preferable to being purposefully ignorant, esepecially to the point of being anti-Semitic.
There were a few other comments, one of which I addressed last Friday, but I’ll take this opportunity to reiterate a point I made the previous Friday, August 21.

Mark claims that people he describes as pro-Palestinian aren’t passionate about peace, have no knowledge of history and are purposefully ignorant to the point of being anti-Semetic. He assumes that pro-Palestinian equals anti-Israeli. He doesn’t understand that some of us come from the orientation of being pro-justice.

So here’s a re-edited version of a post I made on August 21. It’s a list of well known progressives and peace activists that Mark apparently thinks aren’t passionate about peace and are purposely ignorant to the point of being anti-Semetic.

Nelson Mandela is a Nobel Peace Pride winner.

Desmond Tutu is a Nobel Peace Pride winner.

Jimmy Carter is a Nobel Peace Pride winner.

Mairead Maguire is a Nobel Peace Pride winner.

Maguire was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her work in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She was on the Spirit of Humanity along with Cythnthia Mckinney and others; the boat that was intercepted by the Israeli Navy while bringing humanitarian supplies to Gaza. I added her to this list.

Right there you have four Nobel Peace Prize winners whose criticism of Israel is similar to mine. Imagine, four Nobel Peace Prize winners who aren’t passionate about peace.

Amy Goodman, a Jewish American woman who Thom has recently said was the only person doing real journalism.

Chris Hedges – a favorite of Thom’s has an article from December 2008 on AlterNet “Israel’s ‘Crime Against Humanity”.

Naomi Klein – author of The Shock Doctrine made a video in Palestine calling for a boycott of Israel. Klein is Jewish and also a peace activist.

Ron Kovic, author of “Born on the Fourth of July” and peace activist who was grievously wounded in Vietnam.

Cynthia McKinney, a former Georgia congresswoman who Thom has referred to as a friend. She’s a long time peace activist and who has been intercepted by the Israeli navy twice trying to bring humanitarian supplies into Gaza and recently was part of the Viva Palestina convey bringing supplies into Gaza. That’s not passion.

Cindy Sheehan, aka “The Peace Mom” and Gold Star Mother who singlehandedly revived the peace movement with her extended protests outside Bush’s Texas ranch in 2005. I guess she’s not passionate about peace either. Last I heard she’s protesting against Obama’s war policies on Martha’s Vineyard where he and his family are vacationing.

Arundhati Roy, another internationally known author and activist mentioned by Thom.

Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and Harold Pinter, who co-wrote or signed “An Open Letter On Israel/Palestine” along with Arundhati Roy. Chomsky, Zinn and Pinter, all well known long time peace activists are all Jewish.

Medea Benjamin, a co-founder of Code Pink who’s been repeatedly arrested protesting war, but does she really care about peace. Benjamin is Jewish.

Thom Hayden, a recent guest on Thom’s show who’s anti-war activism goes back to the Vietnam War.

And for good measure

Progressive Democrats of America (PDA), is an organization that Thom sits on the advisory board of. Many of the board members are Jewish. There’s a fairly recent article on the PDA website with the title “PDA Reiterates Call for an End to Israeli Occupation”.

Does Mark believe that the list above is full of people who aren’t passionate about peace or are purposely ignorant anti-Semites? Maybe he can’t tell the difference between Amy Goodman and Rasta.

The original list with a few more people and more details about their thoughts on the conflict can be found at

http://www.thomhartmann.com/2009/08/16/friday-august-21-2009/#comments

It’s “Part Two – How do other prominent progressive view the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict?”

Why don’t we just start the conversation with the facts? Then a reasonable solution becomes a little more obvious. Very simply put, Medicare and Medicaid are forms of wealth redistribution and corporate welfare that collectively are going to bankrupt the country at both the state and federal level. Under the current system Medicare recipients only pay a fraction of coverage costs while Medicaid recipients pay nothing. On the corporate side of the coin, the insurance companies are subsidized by not having to cover the highest risk and least profitable groups, seniors and the poor. Not to mention the waste and redundancy in the various billing and administrative systems.

So much like everything else corporate America has been able to concoct, they are able to privatize profits and public side risk. Therefore we have basically two possible solutions. Either the private insurance companies cover everyone no questions asked or the government covers everyone no questions asked. In either case, premiums would have to be set in a progressive manner. In order to subsidize the progressive premiums we need to start holding the sources of our poor health and chronic diseases financially accountable for the damage they caused.

As a country we need to bring an end to public private entities that allow profits vs risk to be disproportionally slanted to the private side, ultimately leaving the tax payer holding unsustainable amounts of risk or debt.

I found a very useful site regarding the federal budget. Check this out.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/

Loretta, Some unsolicited advice about your convincing arguments for Senator Wyden: Make your question as short and direct as possible. Remain calm and try and have a friendly disposition. Try to avoid talking about yourself unless your story is germane. Avoid making a speech. Come armed with facts. Have fun.
If you can do these things, your questioning will be seen in a positive light and your intended effect will be more successfully persuasive.
Good on you for taking a role in democracy. If you really want to have fun, take a squirt gun in a readily visible holster yourself. You'll get a laugh or two which never hurts.

DDay: I was making a joke of course, but I wish you were in Oregon because I have been seriously thinking about learning.

We have a health care reform rally here in Portland, OR on Saturday and I am hoping that Senator Ron Wyden will show up so we can, with our convincing arguments, make sure he will vote for a public option . The plan he was promoting taxes healthcare benefits, so I hope he is changing his mind now. He has been receiving tons of emails and letters and we have picketed outside his office.

If I heard accurately,Thom didn't list Wyden today, so I hope that means he's seen the light!

Ted Kennedy's passing leaves Massachusetts without full representation in the US Senate, and the nation without our greatest champion for Universal Health Care right when we need him the most.

With respect to the probability that Massachusetts will change it's law to appoint a temporary Senator until a new Senator can be chosen in a Special Election in February - most of those suggested in the media as replacements are not going to be interested in a temporary position from which they will be barred (as seems likely) from running in the special election

What Massachusetts, and the nation, needs is an strong interim Senator with no interest in a permanent position, but who has the stature, ability and connections to step into Kennedy's very large shoes and push Ted's health care reform through. Even better if that is someone with a long commitment to universal health care, who would find this temporary role as a chance to fulfill one of his own greatest goals.

I can think of one person who perfectly fits those needs:

Bill Clinton

He'd have to change his address, yet again, but he can afford it. He's been vetted - both as a former president and most recently during Hillary's confirmation.

The Big Dog can carry Kennedy's water for 5 months, working to get Universal Health Care passed, while Massachusetts works out who they want to elect for the permanent position. Then he can retire with his greatest legislative failure as president redeemed, and Ted Kennedy's legacy fulfilled.