That last one is awesome. Jesus had some pretty explicit things to say about doing good on the Sabbath.

I do not understand what is so odious about voting for a Senate bill that is almost immediately rendered inoperative by the Reconciliation bill vote. How could anyone hold against you a vote for an obnoxious bill that is only a transition step and never goes into effect?

There is a lot I don't understand about some Democrats these days.

If Jesus could perform healings on the Sabbath (e.g., Matthew 12:10, Mark 3:2), surely Congress could vote to bring healing to thirty million uninsured Americans. Then again, Republicans often act like Pharisees...

That Organizing For America youtube video "The Cost of Doing Nothing" is really cool. Nicely done, I hope it goes viral.

Never on Sunday, eh? Though, of course, I understand where they're coming from: voting is hard work, especially voting "no". I do have a solution for the Repubs: just don't show up. Stay in bed, or go to church. The bill will pass and you'll be able to go home and defend yourself with "I didn't vote against it".

Steve King, "Christian" conservative, should be pointed toward the Gospel of Mark 2:23- where Jesus is accused by the pharisees of feeding the hungry on the sabbath. His response: "And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath." He then really pissed off the Pharisees by healing a man's shriveled arm on the sabbath.

Sorry to bring in the Bible, but it seemed apt.

Dennis really is pushing for passage of the bill - now that's a surprise. I figured he would eventually hold his nose and vote for it, voicing misgivings all the while. So, congratulations and thanks to him, and let's get some more progressive democrats elected so we can improve it quickly.

* A vote on a House resolution to prevent a vote on a self-executing rule was defeated. -- Steve Benen

I guess Dems are beginning to taste the victory and getting bolder on it. The high-voiced Cantor tried to attack the deem-and-pass through another avenue and got smacked even worse:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/house-defeats-two-gop-motions-against-deem-and-pass-in-one-day.php#more

Ask Mr. Lieberman what day the Sabbath falls upon, and when it starts. Hold the vote on a Saturday or Friday after sunset, and he will not show up because he is an "observant" Jew. Maybe you could hold the vote on two days: one for Christians and Muslims and one for Jews. Maybe another day for Atheists and Agnostics. Just so we can know who observes what Holy Day. Maybe have a day for anti-abortionists to vote no, so we know who is standing on principle and who is a hypocrite.

Bring on the Pharisee's...

If you don't want to treat HIV patients, just get rid of their doctor:

http://theworldofhowey.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/without-a-doctor/

Right-wing bloggers really should learn to use Google before accusing the president of making up earthquakes.

to vote on health care reform on a Sunday because, as Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), it's "the Sabbath." Glenn Beck called the legislative schedule "an affront to God."

Repeat after me: "Glenn Beck... I cast you out!"

What's the deal with recission? As it is now, insurance companies can't drop your coverage when you get a serious condition (because you have a contract with them) UNLESS they comb through your extensive application and find some evidence of a contradiction or falsehood. In other words, they claim that you entered into the contract fraudulently, and so it's void.

But, under the Health Care Reform bill, recission is illegal EXCEPT in cases of fraud. They make an "exception" for fraud, but that was the only situation where it was legal, pre-reform...

I haven't seen the details yet, but I wonder, will anything actually change there, or was it a trick?

What can I say, other that "Glennda the Dude Witch" is obviously positioning himself to be the next Waco Drama Queen.

When an insurance company targets HIV patients to drop their health coverage, it tells you quite a bit about the industry.

i'm tempted to wish ill on these folks, that someone does unto them what they do unto others, but that would be stooping to their level. how anyone could consider routine, aggressive rescission a moral business practice is beyond me. how anyone could do it and live with themselves, especially considering the consequences it may have, is also beyond me.

Jesus doesn't work here any more. Get a responsible clue..

Really! Kucinich is actually helping to whip Democratic votes for the health reform, eh? Can we walk back some of this "Nader" rhetoric now, give the guy some credit?

Nah. More fun to go on bashing him, I'm sure.

... the number of Americans filing for initial unemployment insurance fell last week, but it's still too high.

well stated on both counts. thanks.

Here's an idea: Let'sbreak from being brilliant commentators for a minute and: 1) call our Representatives and ask them to vote for HCR or, if they have announced support, thank them; and 2) call our lcoal Chamber of Commerce and complain about the twisted, misleading and distorted "facts" the COC is using about HCR in ads that tell listeners to call their Reps and tell them to vote no.

I did: our TV is inundated with COC ads telling lies and directing people to call Dennis Cardoza and tell him not to vote for HCR. (Cardoza is, as of last checking, on the fence.) Tell the COC that their lies are offensive and DISHONEST, that if they want to raise legitimate, factually based claims they should but LYING IS BAD.

I did this today and a) it was fun and b) the COC was startled and bothered and claimed they had nothing to do with it (and I said, "Well, you are the COC aren't you? etc" -- I said it was fun, right?). Do it. Please. Now. Or first thing tomorrow. Many thanks.

"What's the deal with recissions?" flubber @ 6:27 PM.

Because evidence of a "contradiction or falsehood" is not necessarily evidence of fraud. Mistakes are made, people don't always remember every little detail of their health history accurately. Until now, the onus has been on the patient to prove that no fraud was intended. This bill reverses that and will require the insurance company to prove that the person filled out their application intending to commit fraud.
At present HC insurance companies have been known to treat inaccuracies and mistakes as deliberate fraud in order to save money by denying a policy-holder treatment. If the policy-holder sues, the staff lawyers at the insurance companies then toss as many roadblocks into the legal process as they are able and if medical costs don't bankrupt the policy-holder, the legal costs may.
Then there are the cases where the plaintiff doesn't live long enough to reach a trial...

If inadvertant errors of commission or omission on documents were grounds for fraud litigation, I doubt the Insurance companies could stay in business. I am cursed/blessed with an eye for typos & grammatical errors, and I have witnessed dozens of such errors on legal documents, official websites and any number of other documents that are used in daily commerce. Most humans are prone to making errors from time to time, and if we were held to the same standards the insurance companies use to deny coverage, everything would stop.

I have even made errors on this blog...hard to believe. Living in glass houses, etc.

So, show me the perfect insurance language, and I will die a happy man, knowing that we are in good hands...to coin a phrase.

peace & love,
st john

...the new complaint is that it's morally wrong to ask Congress to vote on health care reform on a Sunday because, as Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), it's "the Sabbath." Glenn Beck called the legislative schedule "an affront to God."

Uh, I know some very very conservative people (this is Arizona remember) who I think are kind of nuts. And even they THEY will, I would venture to guess, think this is over-the-top weird.

" And in the deranged wing of the Republican Party..."

I did not know the derangement was limited to a "wing" of that party, seems it's pretty much the whole enchilada these days.

The Google won't help them, Steve!!

Maybe this will:

Let me Google that for you!

While we are talking about the un-employed, I saw a democratic rep from Texas on TV, she said that in Texas, the mega millions they received in the stimulus bill for teachers and schools was put in a 'rainy day fund' (would that be a slush fund for Texas legislators?)
And of course they fixed up the governor's mansion.
No wonder the stimulus (according to repubs is not producing the number of jobs Obama said it would)

If I Were a Democratic Congressional Leader, Episode 327:

Call a press conference, note that you've heard Republicans are apoplectic about doing work on a Sunday, that it is an "affront to God." And then offer this deal:

"And so in the spirit of Christian fellowship, I say to my Republican colleagues, I will make you this deal to respect your religious obligations: I will hold over the vote on protecting the health care of 30 million Americans until Monday morning at 9:00 AM if, and only if, you in fact use that time to honor the Sabbath and you commit that not one of you, not a single Republican elected official, staffer, analyst or spokesperson, goes on a Sunday morning show. Because if you can do the work of going on TV and bad-mouthing our efforts to help American families, you can go cast a vote like you were elected to do. Let me know if we have a deal. If not, I'll see you at 9:00 am Sunday to move toward the good works of real health care reform, cost reduction, and deficit reduction. And when it happens Sunday morning, I'll be first in line to make a joyful noise unto the Lord."

Zeitgeist, I have accepted you as My Personal Savior.

"* When an insurance company targets HIV patients to drop their health coverage, it tells you quite a bit about the industry."

Apparently what it tells you is that these guys deserve tens of billions more dollars every year.

"Until now, the onus has been on the patient to prove that no fraud was intended. This bill reverses that and will require the insurance company to prove that the person filled out their application intending to commit fraud. "

No, it doesn't. It doesn't do anything even remotely like that, which you would know if you read the bill.

"I do not understand what is so odious about voting for a Senate bill that is almost immediately rendered inoperative by the Reconciliation bill vote."

Let's just say the odds of the senate passing the reconciliation bill are significantly less than 1. In fact they're probably significantly less than .1

House members should vote on the senate bill as is because there's not even the slightest guarantee that the senate will modify jack shit. If house members can really vote for this abomination then so be it and I hope they're decimated come November. I prefer to be stabbed in the *front*.

...the deranged wing of the Republican Party...

As a grammar pedant, Steve, I have to chide and criticize you for the sin of being redundant and repetitive.

I really don't give a damn about people's sabbaths at this point. What annoys me is that now someone who cares more than I do will have to go look up how many freaking times the GOP has called votes on Sundays, patiently trot out the number and have it ignored everywhere but on the liberal blogs.

The GOP is really starting to remind me of post-bedtime kids who've sat through six storybook readings, been given four glasses of water and had their closets de-monstered multiple times, and are still yelling, "Moooooom! Daaaaaaaad!" in a vain effort to stall the inevitable.

"For almost a full year, scores of progressive House members vowed -- publicly and unequivocally -- that they would never support a health care bill without a robust public option. They collectively accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars based on this pledge. Up until a few weeks ago, many progressive opinion leaders -- such as Moulitsas, Howard Dean, Keith Olbermann and many others -- were insisting that the Senate bill was worse than the status quo and should be defeated. But now? All of those progressives House members are doing exactly what they swore they would never do -- vote for a health care bill with no public option -- and virtually every progressive opinion leader is not only now supportive of the bill, but vehemently so. In other words, exactly what Rahm said would happen -- ignore the progressives, we don't need to give them anything because they'll get into line -- is exactly what happened. How is that not vindication?"

from Glenn Greenwald's latest column:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/18/progressives/index.html

Zeitgeist nails it again!

Could someone please direct me to the un-deranged wing of the Republican Party? Surely, you jest!

Brilliance nonpareil

Speaking of great videos, Amanda Terkel has the gem of the day...

Did you see Colbert fill out his Census form Steve? Only one thing could have made it better: If some wag in the audience had shouted out "You Lie!" when he fills in the year he was born...

Don't make Me come down there, Mr. Beck.

Another little step forward in

energy.

You wouldn't want to just read bad news, would you?

Zeitgeist, I salute you!

"Recissions: [...] until now, the onus has been on the patient to prove that no fraud was intended. This bill reverses that and will require the insurance company to prove that the person filled out their application intending to commit fraud."

Thanks for the answer Doug. I have been wondering for a while, and the google didn't give me anything more than an superficial answer. I wonder how it will be implemented in practice. A commenter above disagrees with your interpretation, I should read the relevant language.

But if the HCR bill DOEs set a higher standard for "intent" to constitute fraud, it seems like a step ahead, but ALSO rather less than what is implied by a simplistic claim that HCR ends the practice of "recissions", which we've been hearing.

well, it's one thing to eschew old rhetoric about the 'war on drugs', it's another thing to put new practices into being, which they demonstrably have not done. I'm sick of talk & no action on these kinds of issues. show me some results, not pretty talk.

the question about recission in the bill isn't so much addressed by insurance co's now having to demonstrate fraud rather than patients having to disprove it - that just means they take whatever paperwork they were using and send it to whoever. it's the 'whoever' that counts. who are the people who will either accept or reject the ins. co's claims? who do they work for, and what's their agenda?

Aren't Democrats tacking towards avoiding offense to religious types these days?

For those who do respect the Sabbath, equating congress' work and that of Jesus might be a stretch and I'm not sure it's productive for Democrats to rub their faces in it.

OTOH, Saturday is the Sabbath for Jews and Friday is the Sabbath for Muslims. Does this require a four day work week for Congress if we;re going to be properly devout? I ask this in all sincerity, snark-free.

Enlighten me, Brother Beck.

If I Were a Democratic Congressional Leader, Episode 327:
Posted by: zeitgeist on March 18, 2010 at 8:33 PM

Absolutely brilliant! And I bet not one of them would take the deal.