I sent an email to Eric Massa some time back, thanking him for voting against HR 3962, and specified that I didn't need a reply, as I'm not one of his constituents. I got a 'form letter' response anyway, and thought I would share it.

Dear [hipparchia]:

Because you have previously been in touch about health issues, I am writing to let you know why I voted "no" on the 2009 major health care reform bill (H.R. 3962). Being accountable to you for my actions, perhaps you will forgive a detailed response.

Crossposted at ZBlogs, Firedoglake and TPMCafe

How can we get repealing bans on first cousin marriage on the US legislative agenda?

I think it would clearly help in getting started to consider why it has not already been raised as an issue, given facts like that no other Western country prohibits it and that the genetic arguments have been shown to be hollow.

I can see at least two big reasons why it's been neglected:

That's the sting in the tail of this Golden Sacks report quoted at HuffPo. To GS, though status quo is best* (bien sur), the Senate Finance Bill is the "base" scenario, a watered down version of it the "bull" scenario_{MR SUBLIMINAL No shit} and the HR 3962 is the "bear" scenario. But remember the baseline on financial reform? That if the banksters aren't threatening to commit suicide, the reforms are too weak? Same here. If GS isn't saying the bills are the end of the world, they're too weak.)

A Goldman Sachs analysis of health care legislation has concluded that, as far as the bottom line for insurance companies is concerned, the best thing to do is nothing. A close second would be passing a watered-down version of the Senate Finance Committee's bill.

Haw.

A study put together by Goldman in mid-October looks at the estimated stock performance of the private insurance industry under four variations of reform legislation. The study focused on the five biggest insurers whose shares are traded on Wall Street: Aetna, UnitedHealth, WellPoint, CIGNA and Humana.

The Senate Finance Committee bill, which Goldman's analysts conclude is the version most likely to survive the legislative process, is described as the "base" scenario. Under that legislation (which did not include a public plan) the earnings per share for the top five insurers would grow an estimated five percent from 2010 through 2019. And yet, the "variance with current valuation" -- essentially, what the value of the stock is on the market -- is projected to drop four percent.

Things are much worse [that is, better for people who need health care], Goldman estimates, for legislation that resembles what was considered and (to a certain extent) passed by the House of Representatives. This is, the firm deems, the "bear case" scenario -- in which earnings per share for the top five insurers would decline an estimated one percent from 2010 through 2019 and the variance with current valuation is projected to be negative 36 percent.

What the firm sees as the best path forward for the private insurance industry's bottom line is, to be blunt, inaction.

The study's authors advise that if no reform is passed, earnings per share would grow an estimated ten percent from 2010 through 2019, and the value of the stock would rise an estimated 59 percent during that time period.

And now, here's the sting:

No Associated Press content was harmed in the writing of this post

Barney Frank has become something of a darling on the left because of his feistiness, which heaven knows is in short supply among Democratic politicians. That quality seems to work best for someone who will go down with the ship on principle, all other considerations be damned; someone like Dennis Kucinich, who voted against the House health care bill under just that circumstance. (Phoenix Woman brilliantly articulated the hazards of this outlook.*) It does not work so well with someone who appears to be at least half in the pocket of the interests he ostensibly oversees.

His interview with Ed Schultz earlier this week gave a clear illustration of why. Schultz pushed on a couple of key points: Last year's bailout came with no strings attached, and as a result the major players have gone back to the same reckless behavior. Frank turned prickly, which is what feisty looks like when you don't like it, and almost immediately said "don't condescend to me" when Schultz was obviously doing no such thing. He proceeded to condescend to Schultz throughout the interview; "the point I made to you several times" and "What's the matter with you?" stand out. There was also this:

SCHULTZ: Congressman, why can't you just admit that this was a serious misstep on the part of the Congress? You forked out billions of dollars to save the economy, I get all that, to get the structure back going again. But you didn't ask them questions about how this...

FRANK: No, Ed. You're wrong.

SCHULTZ: Oh, tell me I'm wrong.

FRANK: You're wrong. And I'd like to be able to explain it.

Krugman:

[T]he G.O.P. has been taken over by the people it used to exploit.

If only the same thing would happen with the Democrats!

eWeek:

According to documents leaked earlier this week, the United States favors forcing international ISPs to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material and would require ISPs to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. In addition, the U.S. negotiators [on ACTA (International Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement)] are seeking international notice and take down agreements and mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM systems. The provisions are all favored by major U.S. content owners.

This is a transcript of the chat I had with Matthew Kerbel about his new book celebrating the "netroots," including groups like Daily Kos and Open Left which he considers to be part of "the Left." In this chat I tried to pin him down more specifically about what he meant by "the Left" and "progressives." First I'll post the Firedoglake summary so you can get more of an idea of what his book is about, and then the chat.

A new poll on the Massachusetts Senate race has state Attorney General Martha Coakley dominating the field with 37 percent support from registered Democrats and unenrolled voters, who are eligible to vote in the primary. That is more than double her nearest challenger, with 14 percent backing Boston Celtics co-owner Steve Pagliuca and 13 percent supporting Congressman Mike Capuano.

Get a load of this:

As currently drafted, the Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009 (released by the House Financial Services Committee on 10/27/09) contains several important elements for reducing systemic risk. It aims (1) to identify systemically dangerous financial firms, (2) to apply heightened regulation to these firms, (3) to establish a stabilization system to prevent or quell panic during periods of systemic distress, and (4) to create a resolution mechanism that would wind down complex financial firms when necessary. These could represent very important steps forward.

Unfortunately, these reforms may ultimately be undermined by one very significant weakness – the explicit requirement in the bill that the identification of systemically dangerous financial firms by federal regulators remain entirely secret, and never be revealed to the public. This is the bill’s Achilles heel.

So, the problem isn't that our rulerz put the taxpayers on the hook for $22 trillion with no transparency and no accountability. The problem? The taxpayers know the names of the firms their money went to.

[pounds head on desk]

Elliott Spitzer:

The first structural issue that Phil Angelides and his colleagues should investigate is what corporate boards knew about the state of corporations they governed and why they did so little to protect them. ... Tracing the information flow will also permit us to understand whether the risk analysis was wrong from its inception, ignored by those up the chain, or filtered as it went up the chain.

Isn't it time to have a Democratic President? A long quote from Taibbi, but a good one. And I'm glad we're starting this discussion now instead of in 2010 or, heaven forfend, 2012:

I’m personally of the opinion that our main problem lay with the fact that the Democratic Party as currently constituted is more afraid of losing the financial support of Wall Street and the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry than it is of losing progressive voters. In fact, I think I’ve put that wrong, because it implies that the Democratic Party pushes the agenda of industry insiders out of fear. That is a misread of the situation, I think.

Pacific John at Alegre's Corner

A public health expert from Hawaii took his turn in utter exasperation: "We've already run the experiment and come up with the solution! All you have to do is see what we did and copy it!" In short, what Hawaii did was cover nearly everyone, funded by a modest hike in the payroll tax. The last I knew, they offered all people of working age three major options: an HMO for little or nothing aside from the payroll tax, a fee for service plan with very modest premiums, and a version of Medicaid for those who would otherwise fall through the crack. Hawaii would put the private plans up for bid every couple of years, with intense competition for price and quality.

WaPo:

The bipartisan initiative [Hold onto your wallets! -- lambert], largely eclipsed in the health-care debate, builds on a trend that is in play among some corporations and that more workers will see in the benefits packages they bring home during this fall's open enrollment. Some employers offer lower premiums to workers who complete personal health assessments; others limit coverage for smokers.

The current legislative effort would take the trend a step further. It is backed by major employer groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. It is opposed by labor unions and organizations devoted to combating serious illnesses, such as the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and the American Diabetes Association.

Critics say employers could use the rewards and penalties to drive some workers out of their health plans.

President Obama and members of Congress have said [and of course, we believe them -- lambert] they are trying to create a system in which no one can be denied coverage or charged higher premiums based on their health status. The insurance lobby has said it shares that goal. However, so-called wellness incentives could introduce a colossal loophole. In effect, they would permit insurers and employers to make coverage less affordable for people exhibiting risk factors for problems such as diabetes, heart disease and stroke.

Or... Whatever! Pre-existing conditions are right back in the game, except now they're called "risk factors." Can anybody seriously believe that the bill won't create a whole industry devoted to finding "risk factors" and denying people care who have them? Or can plausibly be said to have had them, perhaps during rescission? Ectomorphs under the bus! Endomorphs under the bus! Black men have a higher "risk factor" for stroke? Under the bus! People who worked in chemical plants have a higher "risk factor" for cancer? Under the bus! People with blue eyes have a higher "risk factor" for uveal melanoma? Under the bus! Women have a higher "risk factor" for pregnancy? Under the bus!

It's the same old game: Collect premiums, deny care.

Here:

Seven protesters have been arrested in Chicago during a sit-in for single-payer universal health insurance.

The arrests took place Thursday at the corporate offices of Cigna insurance company. A police spokesman says the protesters were arrested on criminal trespassing charges.

They were among about two dozen advocates who picketed at Cigna. Protesters carried signs and chanted "patients, not profits."

Organizers include the groups Healthcare-NOW! and the Center for the Working Poor. They plan similar protests next week in several other U.S. cities.

The major health reform proposals being worked out in Washington don't include a single-payer plan.

Same as the old health care system. I'm shocked.

Which is only to say that this is not the end.

Please, no Churchillian oratory, mkay?

That's true also for the House and HELP bills. All these proposals are major improvements for the uninsured and those left out of the employer-based market. That means they're major improvements for those who are hurting the worst. And in constructing exchanges and beginning the hard work of delivery system reform and creating a system of subsidies and an individual mandate, they're building the foundation of a better health-care system. But as they embark on that project, they're leaving most of our current health-care system virtually untouched, which means most of the systemic problems will remain unsolved.

Time to go to Jail; Civil Disobedience Campaign "Patients NOT Profits: Healthcare for All"

On September 29th in New York City, the Mobilization for Health Care for All is launching a campaign of "Patients Not Profit" sit-ins at insurance company offices to demand an end to a system that profits by denying people care and puts insurance company bureaucrats between doctors and patients. We want the real "public option": improved Medicare for All, a national single payer plan that cuts out the profit and puts patients first.
Private insurance death panels are killing people every day and blocking real health care reform.

It's time for nonviolent civil disobedience to turn the tide.

... despite what anyone says, and I'm totally confident that Obama's vetting process will continue to produce public servants of the most awsum and unimpeachablest integritude, despite blips like chief speechwriter Jon Favreau, Commerce Secretary-designate Bill Richardson, and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, but doesn't this pose the appearance of conflict?

[Daschle's] finances [include] more than $300,000 in income from health-related companies that he might regulate as secretary....

And, even though a substantial proportion of that $300,000 must come from the insurance parasites that single payer would remove from the health care system, it's impossible for me to imagine that this would influence Daschle's views of what's "politically feasible [rhymes with weasel] and what isn't.

[Do read the comments. --lambert]

So some people were talking about the problems the Dems have getting out the message recently, and the comment was made:

Clinton just blasted every thing about Commander CCB. Edwards just blasted him. John Kerry gave an incredible speech to Brown.
And of course, the MSM carries almost none of this.
Gore underwrote two planes to fly people out of NOLA and personally flew in supplies.
Is that a headline at NYT? No.