Left in the West - Front Page

Rehberg flirts with the lunatic fringe

Jay Stevens — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:23:52 GMT

Look who voted against the healthcare reform bill in the House, and why!

Rep. Denny Rehberg, who joined all but one of his fellow Republicans in voting "no" Saturday on the major health-reform bill that passed the U.S. House, said the measure is an ill-advised "trillion-dollar government takeover of health care."

I wish!

Wait, there's more!

"I'm standing with Montanans in favor of sensible reforms that don't simply replace insurance bureaucracies with more expensive government bureaucracies," he said.
Rehberg said he supports a Republican alternative proposal rolled out last week that would allow Americans to buy health insurance across state lines, encourage small-business health insurance pools, increase the use of individual health savings accounts and reform medical liability to reduce the cost of medical-malpractice lawsuits.

Okay...two outright falsehoods in those statements. The House bill is definitely anything but a government takeover of healthcare; and insurance bureaucracies are not more expensive than government bureaucracies. In fact, the opposite is, of course, true.

We're in Beck-ian territory here.

As for the Republican proposal, well, I've written about this stuff before, but buying insurance across state lines will only make insurance less reliable, cover fewer conditions, and cause you more out-of-pocket medical costs; small business insurance pools and individual health accounts don't solve the problem of the uninsured; and tort reform doesn't work, doesn't lower healthcare costs, and gives medical professionals a disincentive to give good care.

In these few words, Rehberg illustrates the difficulties facing progressives and reformers who, like me, are not entirely pleased with a healthcare reform bill that preserves the broken-down insurance status quo and essentially bribes the industry to cover the uninsured. On one hand, we need to pressure Democrats into adopting real and effective policies. On the other hand, Republicans -- and Rehberg now, too, apparently -- are entering crazy land. We can't entrust governance to these people. Things were bad enough under the recent Republican hegemony -- widespread corruption, a broken economy, stagnant wages, wars, the politicization of government, illegal domestic spying, torture -- how much worse would things be under lunatic rule?

House Health Care Bill's Impact on the LGBT Community, and People Living with HIV/AIDS

Jamee Greer — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:13:05 GMT

Despite some significant problems in the Affordable Health Care for America Act, very serious and infuriating setbacks involving reproductive and privacy rights that Jay talks about in his previous post, there are a couple of progressive provisions included in the bill that will impact the LGBT community, as well as people living with HIV/AIDS, that are worthy of discussion.

The Human Rights Campaign's blog Back Story details the provisions and how they are intended to positively impact our community:

Health Disparities - the bill specifically designates LGBT people as a health disparities population, opening up health data collection and grant programs focused on health disparities related to sexual orientation and gender identity. With collection of data and funding of research, we can better address the specific health issues facing LGBT people.
Unequal Taxation of Domestic Partner Benefits - the bill ends the unfair taxation of employer-provided domestic partner health benefits, incorporating the language of the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act. Without this tax penalty, more people will be able to afford employer-provided coverage for their families, and more companies will be able to offer these important benefits.
Early Treatment for HIV under Medicaid - the bill also incorporates the Early Treatment for HIV Act, which allows states to cover early HIV treatment under their Medicaid programs, instead of withholding treatment for Medicaid recipients until they develop full-blown AIDS, This will dramatically improve the quality of life for low-income people with HIV, as well as saving taxpayers money and reducing the transmission of the virus.
Comprehensive Sex Education - the bill provides funding for comprehensive sex education programs that focus not only on abstinence, but also reducing teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. After more than $1 billion wasted on failed and discriminatory abstinence-only programs, this funding will provide youth, including LGBT students, with the tools they need to live healthy lives.
Non-discrimination - the bill prohibits consideration of personal characteristics unrelated to the provision of health care. HRC worked with a coalition of civil rights groups to develop and lobby for this language and we believe it will help protect LGBT people from discrimination in the health care system, where there are currently no federal protections for our community.

Neither the Senate Finance or HELP bills contain these important provisions, and HRC notes that to include them in the final health care reform legislation, they'll have to be either added on the Senate floor or via conference committee.

Health care reform passes House, with gut punch

Jay Stevens — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:29:32 GMT

Well...the healthcare reform bill passed the House, but not without a gut punch to women.

First, Democrats struck a deal over healthcare to win the support of Catholic bishops by allowing an amendment to reach the House floor that would disallow any insurance passed in the health insurance exchange to cover elective abortion procedures.

Jane Hamsher: "Democrats in Congress have just proudly signed a deal...which allows a bunch of old men who have spent the better part of the last century avoiding their own sexual issues to dictate access to abortion services..." Hamsher rips Planned Parenthood and NARAL for rolling over on this and other women's issues wrapped up in health care reform.

Even Ezra Klein thinks it's a bad deal:

The idea that people are going to go out and purchase separate "abortion plans" is both cruel and laughable. If this amendment passes, it will mean that virtually all women with insurance through the exchange who find themselves in the unwanted and unexpected position of needing to terminate a pregnancy will not have coverage for the procedure. Abortion coverage will not be outlawed in this country. It will simply be tiered, reserved for those rich enough to afford insurance themselves or lucky enough to receive from their employers.

A great day for women, that started off with the Democratic women's caucus being repeatedly shouted down by Republican Congressmen on the House floor.

It's hard to jump and down and cheer for a bill with so many bad compromises in it - how did we get here? In part, I blame the group of "moderate" or "centrist" Democrats who drag their feet on Democratic policies while taking in industry donations. But those Democrats exist and wield power because the Republicans are quickly ceding their role as rational political players. They vote against every piece of legislation in Congress, and refuse to even enter negotiations in crafting legislation. The effect is particularly dire in the Senate, where Republicans so far have filibustered, or threaten to filibuster, nearly every Democratic bill or judicial nomination. As a result, the worst Senators - Lieberman, Baucus, Nelson, Lincoln - are having the most influence on policy.

And it might get worse. Krugman:

In fact, the party of Limbaugh and Beck could well make major gains in the midterm elections. The Obama administration's job-creation efforts have fallen short, so that unemployment is likely to stay disastrously high through next year and beyond. The banker-friendly bailout of Wall Street has angered voters, and might even let Republicans claim the mantle of economic populism. Conservatives may not have better ideas, but voters might support them out of sheer frustration.
And if Tea Party Republicans do win big next year, what has already happened in California could happen at the national level. In California, the G.O.P. has essentially shrunk down to a rump party with no interest in actually governing - but that rump remains big enough to prevent anyone else from dealing with the state's fiscal crisis. If this happens to America as a whole, as it all too easily could, the country could become effectively ungovernable in the midst of an ongoing economic disaster.
The point is that the takeover of the Republican Party by the irrational right is no laughing matter. Something unprecedented is happening here - and it's very bad for America.

"Employment Discrimination Bill a Top Priority" says DOJ

Jamee Greer — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:55:37 GMT

Definitely worthy of being posted another time besides late Friday afternoon, but it's important that this gets out.

Thomas Perez, the US Justice Department's assistant attorney general for civil rights, told members of a Senate hearing on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) on Thursday that the fully-inclusive legislation is "top legislative priority" for the Obama Administration.

Recently, several prominent members of the GLBT community have expressed concern about the state of civil rights legislation, upset with the Administration for what appears to some as being slow to pass pro-equality legislation at best, or stalling and inaction at worst. The testimony by Mr. Perez is a clear indicator, that at least on ENDA, the Administration is trying to move the legislation quickly so it can protect a discriminated class.

From The Blog of Legal Times:

The "Employment Non-Discrimination Act" would make it unlawful for an employer "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the individual, because of such individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity."
As with other forms of discrimination, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, which Perez leads, would enforce the law against municipalities and other public employers. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would do so against private employers.

Montana is one of 29 states where it is still legal to be denied employment, or fired, simply based on one's sexual orientation; members of the transgender community lack workplace discrimination protection in 38 states.

I've got protection from discrimination at my work place, but there are millions of Americans who go to work every day that could lose their jobs based on who they are and who they love.

While we know Rep. Rehberg's staff has indicated our sole Representative does not support ENDA, there's been no clear indication on where any of his opponents in 2010 stand on GLBT equality. Perhaps it's time they begin making their positions clear.

And, as a member of the GLBT community, I think it's time we thank Mr. Perez and President Obama for their willingness to make sure this discrimination ends.

Sierra Club canvassing in Billings for green jobs

Jay Stevens — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:04:22 GMT

Got an email from the Sierra Club organizer in Billings I thought I should share with everyone. Climate change legislation is coming up that's crucial for investing in green energy jobs -- and I suspect that both Baucus and Tester are a little nervous about backing it. So here's something you can do...

If you need contact info for the organizers, email me... Jay

Senators Baucus and Tester need to hear that Montanan's support strong legislation which will save us all money AND create jobs by putting people to work retrofitting homes for energy efficiency. They need to hear from Montanan's that we want clean energy jobs, and for our Senators stand up to the corporate polluters who seek to weaken the bill. They need to hear that we want carbon emissions cut back 20% -- OR MORE -- by 2020.

This Saturday Nov. 7, we will be dropping literature across Billings urging people to contact their Senators and show them that there is broad support for clean energy and green jobs. We need your help to distribute this call to action to as many people as possible.

When:

This Saturday Nov. 7
11AM-3PM

Where:

Meet at the Sierra Club Office at 11AM
2401 Montana Ave
Billings, MT 59101
On the second floor in Suite 4

Rehberg to challenge Tester in 2012?

Jay Stevens — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:11:48 GMT

Did Montana's 2012 Senate race begin?

Montana Rep. Dennis Rehberg met with Republican recruiters about a 2012 Senate run against Democrat Jon Tester on Thursday.
Rehberg, who was seen exiting the National Republican Senatorial Committee's Capitol Hill headquarters Thursday morning, is the state's lone representative in the House.
There's mutual interest between Rehberg and NRSC officials, according to a source familiar with both sides.
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said Thursday night that Tester's represented his constituents well and will be formidable when he seeks re-election in three years.
"I don't think it would be wise" to challenge him, Baucus said.

Congress to kill SCHIP?

Jay Stevens — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:03:10 GMT

John Morrison, on Facebook:

[John] notes that the health care reform bill emerging now in the U.S House terminates the Children's Health Insurance Program in four years.

It's true:

The $894 billion, 1,990-page health reform bill unveiled by House Democrats last Thursday would repeal CHIP at the end of 2013, shifting millions of kids instead into private plans contained on a proposed health insurance marketplace, dubbed the exchange.
Party leaders have been mostly tight-lipped about their motivations. But a series of factors seem to have driven their decision, according to sources on and off Capitol Hill, including hopes to get family members under the same plan, to centralize control of the state-run CHIP program, and to shift more folks into private coverage to win the support of both the insurance lobby and moderate Democrats.

What th--? How do you justify something like this?

Suzy Khimm:

It could strengthen one of the most fundamental parts of the Democratic reform package -- a robust insurance exchange with a pool of participants that's large enough to drive down costs precisely because insurance companies have an incentive to jump in and compete for customers. Moreover, folding CHIP into the exchange would add a younger, healthier pool of participants to the exchange, offsetting its potential of becoming a dumping ground for the sick and elderly. Finally, CHIP has always suffered from under enrollment -- about 6 million children aren't insured in the program who should be -- and by bringing whole families in under the same plan, more children will be covered.

Call me unimpressed with this line of reasoning. Essentially Khimm is arguing that we should offer up the children of the least wealthy Americans to the private insurance industry in hope that they'll lower prices for the rest of us.

Additionally, it's probable that most of these families whose children we'll be thrusting into the private market will need taxpayer subsidies to afford the more expensive private plans for their children, which seems to me to be a much less efficient use of tax dollars, given private insurers' much less efficient coverage. And what about the health of the children under CHIP? CHIP insurance plans actually pay claims to ensure that children get the medical care they need. There's no such guarantee under private plans.

Oily

Jay Stevens — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:30:18 GMT

Baucus promises to be major obstacle in passing climate change legislation

Jay Stevens — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:13:08 GMT

The Senate Environment and Public Works committee today passed the Senate's version of the cap-and-trade climate-change legislation bill - Sens. Kerry and Boxer's "Clean Energy Jobs Act." The bill passed by a 10-1 margin...with Republicans boycotting the vote.

Ah, so who's the sole Democrat that voted against the legislation?

Max Baucus.

Not that it's much of a surprise. Baucus raised "concerns" with the bill last month, saying the 20 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 was too lofty a goal. Baucus' statement -- "we cannot afford a first step that takes us further away from a conceivable consensus on climate change" - hints that he'll stall the bill in the Tax and Finance committee, likely convening a "green" "Gang of Six" to gut the bill, or kill it altogether.

Frankly, Baucus should listen to Lindsey Graham, Republican:

The green economy is coming. We can either follow or lead. And those countries who follow will pay a price. Those nations who lead in creating the new green economy for the world will make money.

Or retired admiral Dennis McGinn, who reminded Montana's delegation that climate change is a national security issue.

Or the 101 Montana businesses that urged the state's delegation to support "strong climate and energy legislation."

Sadly, Dennis McDonald demonstrates how you can join Baucus in opposing climate change legislation while simultaneously keeping your enviro "cred," from his Facebook page:

Cap and trade has proven to be complex, inefficient, and an obstacle to investment in alternative energy. I think a straightforward carbon emissions tax would be a lot simpler and a more effective way of getting people to invest in alternative energy.

There are bumps in the European cap-and-trade program, but remember, a cap-and-trade system was a key instrument in the enormous success in the reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions that caused acid rain in the 1990s. It works.

And the Waxman-Markey House cap-and-trade bill, with all of its faults, sets the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. That's huge.

Here's a primer on what "cap and trade" is...and, of course, Grist is the place to go on climate and energy news - check out thoughts on carbon tax v cap and trade, thoughts on the House climate change bill, and an appraisal of the Kerry-Boxer bill. Oh yeah, and debunks the hysteria around financial institutions planning to "game" the cap-and-trade bill.

2009 election results analyzed...

Jay Stevens — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:14:03 GMT

The best analysis of the outcome of yesterday's election comes from - of course - Nate Silver, who crunches the numbers on each of the results of the major issues and elections that politicos were following. Be sure to read the analysis, but in short, there's not much we can take away from these results.

In Maine, gay marriage lost out by a narrow margin; in Washington, gay rights look like they'll be affirmed in a strengthened domestic partnership law. Republicans won gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey - but lost a House race that was supposed to be a bellwether on the Obama presidency and Congressional Democrats.

Some folks are rushing to make sweeping conclusions from these races about national trends - Cillizza, for example, notes that independents flocked to the New Jersey and Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidates, but ignores the fact that most of them still approve of, and like, president Obama. Essentially, as Silver demonstrates, most of the results seem to be based on local politics - that's as true for NY-23 as it is NJ-GOV or the outcome for gay marriage in Maine.

But I do think there are some things to look at in these elections. For one, Democratic turnout was low - although not a factor - in Virginia, for one. Also, voters (especially independents) are no longer voting against Republicans - which you could argue they were doing in the Democratic sweeps of 2006 and 2008. Those elections were, in part, a forceful rejection of Republican policies. But now Democrats comprise the incumbent majority in federal government; any ills or unhappiness the electorate experiences will work against them. Still, there's no sign any of yesterday's results was an indication that voters are opting either for the Republican brand, or against the Democratic brand.

Whatever. Even if healthcare reform had gone swimmingly, and we had something bold and real in Congress, I don't think the results would be any different. Maybe there would have been more Democratic turnout, but it probably wouldn't have made much of a difference. But I do think abandoning Democratic principles will pose a real danger to Democratic electoral chances in 2010.

That said, I do think DC-based Democratic strategists are going to look at these races, see scattering independents, and urge their candidates to again tack rightward. This may not affect healthcare reform - though I wouldn't be surprised to see another push to drop the public option, such as it is - but it may be enough to down cap-and-trade, where many of the most conservative Democrats are from coal and oil states. (See Max Baucus' recent statements on cap-and-trade.) That's par for the course for elected politicos, who prefer to act cautiously and minimize risks than to act boldly and fight to win and re-win their seats.

In short Congressional Democrats - as usual? - will do the exact opposite of what they should do.

One way to mitigate this probable rightward shift is threaten primaries in key districts....