It's always April Fool's Day when FDL writes about HCR

that "one side is lying, and the other is not telling the truth."

Is it possible to get banned twice on the same issue :-) ?

The only option the public had in the final run up to a vote was to except or reject a Dem bill which instilled a mandate. When given that scenario FDL heads of blog never said kill the bill when they should have done so well before Christmas... while many, such as Jason at Seminal cheered for it (highest price in the world, no negotiated pharma, fascist profiteer subsidized mandates, endless exclusion of ten of millions from care) relentlessly.

I was a bit surprised and quite disappointed. Much more so that not one Prog in the House voted no on the final bill. How can the left develop a spine when they have not one unwavering representative? HOw can the left of the D party get a win for all people when their biggest player Labor was against single payer, against ending the jobs which would be lost for a while if we reduced MIC, etc?

Anyway, that party/wing of congress is either a big lie or a big coward or both. Either way, they have lost me for a long, long time. Kucinich (or any other elected House progressive) at his age killed the best chance for a progressive spine in generations... rejecting a golden opportunity, he failed to lead.. He should have bolted even if it was a political career ender. He's old enough and would be financially secure enough.... it was not about him, but appears he made it so in the most embarrassing light (Fu** Kos, Rachel, Keith too - all of whom probably don't know how much their HC costs or have to look at their balance before writing the check). To me, Kucinich's fold was an inherently unprogressive decision... as was so much of what happened/didn't happen at FDL and many other so-called prog blogs. Thus the defining moment was a loss too.

It really is time for the next blog like FDL (or FDL's potential - FDGreen!) to lay all their finances out in the open... as well as have authors and staff disclose any potential financial conflicts of interest. I don't know, but will always wonder what they might be over there.

Additionally these vague PO advocates failed then and now to embrace their left flank in a manner which could only help the PO move to a center compromise.

The best thing about the PO such as it was, was that a mere 25b out of a trillion dollars would not be tolerated... even though it would have improved image alone by millions of misled voters in the D party. Another huge tell as to how unrepresentative, and criminal the system is. WHy a PO or SP advocate will waste on minute negotiating with a D party apparatus instead of demanding it be dismantled is beyond me. One long exercise in negotiation with errorists.

looming from budget strapped states. In LA, per this NYTimes article, specialists are becoming almost impossible for those on Medicaid to see. The repayment for treatment is so low, specialists are not taking Medicaid patients. Thus, patients diagnosed with need for surgery to be able to work, for example, can't get a specialist to do the surgery, and children diagnosted with psychological, development, or neurological conditions can't get a doctor to help them stay in school, for another example.

Around the nation, at least 20 states are trying to cut expenditures by cutting reimbursement to Medicaid providers.

And, the pressure is going to increase as more people are expected to be covered by Medicaid under Obama's insurance profit protection legislation.

Medicaid, which is paid for jointly by the federal and state governments, is the subject of an intense debate in Washington over how to make it more efficient as Congress addresses the budget deficit and the growing federal debt.

But for now the administration is counting on Medicaid to play a vital role in expanding access to care under the law President Obama signed last year. The program is already a major presence here, paying for 70 percent of births in Louisiana. State health officials estimate that the Medicaid program will grow by more than 40 percent as a result of the federal health law, with the addition of 467,000 new recipients to 1.1 million now on the rolls.

“How can an already overtaxed Medicaid system handle such a huge influx of people?” asked Dr. Michael A. Felton, a family doctor in Church Point, La., near Lafayette.

It is a question being asked in many states. With the expansion of Medicaid to cover nearly all people under 65 with incomes up to 133 percent of the official poverty level* (up to $29,330 a year for a family of four), Medicaid will soon be the nation’s largest insurer. It accounts for almost half of the increase in coverage expected under Mr. Obama’s health law, but has received less attention than other parts of the law regulating private insurance.

The Congressional Budget Office predicts that average monthly Medicaid enrollment, now 56 million, will rise to 71 million by 2016, with another five million people added to the rolls in the five years after that. (My emphasis)

We coulda had a contender; we could have aimed for Medicare for All Improved. But no, Obama had his promises to Big Health Insurers, Big Pharma, and other health industry players. He promised to protect the their profits through mandates -- and by shunting the poor into Medicaid.

Well, what good will it be with what the states are doing?

So, now even coverage for the poorest among us is on the chopping block.

Thanks a lot, Obama. NOT.

*The official poverty levels in this nation mean less than livable conditions and must be changed, but that's a different comment.

Jon Walker has been making favorable references to single-payer. Also Jane Hamsher has been brushing elbows with Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers in supporting Bradley Manning.

These straws in the wind may mean nothing, but at a minimum the party line over there isn't being enforced on Jon Walker.