Glenn Nye's campaign rep came to the NCDC last night to basically tell us Nye was voting against health care bill........you should have heard the grumbles from the committee, he's alienating his base, hope these moderates he's mysteriously courting come out and canvass for him, because the activist base is staying home.
...maybe Nye could stop worrying more about his re-election and worry more about the people who elected him to serve them. I'm uninsured, health care is currently out of my reach. In my opinion, he's part of the problem we have in Washington, he took $125,000 from the health insurance industry, the Chamber of Commerce makes commercials on his behalf, honestly when it counts the most, he votes the same way Riegel or Drake would vote, its disappointing.
Then his campaign rep is going to turn around and ask people to collect petitions for Nye, practically everybody said that if Nye voted their way on health care they would collect some for him, if not, they could forget it. This is only the start of what his campaign can expects from us good Democrats come election time.
Palmer then receives a message from Jonas Courey of the Nye campaign, asking, "Should I thank you in advance for helping elect Scott (Cuccinelli) Rigell? :):)" Palmer replies:
hey, I'm just being honest with you Jonas, I'm in politics for the issues, not the people, if Nye is more interested in re-election than he is principle, than I'd rather have somebody else. I'm tired of career politicians putting their re-election ahead of personal conviction, its the problem with Washington. At least with Rigell we know what we're getting, its unfortunate about Nye, I thought finally we'd get an ally from the 2nd....that wasn't that case.Yeah, it's getting rough down in the 2nd CD for freshman Rep. Nye. But the thing is, all Glenn Nye has to do in order to turn that situation around is to vote YES on health care reform legislation. If he does, as I've said previously, I will do what I can for his reelection. If he doesn't, well then, let's just say I've got a lot better things to do with my time (dust the house, wash the car, take a nap, etc.).
UPDATE: Palmer adds, "I hope Nye has the courage to do what is right and vote in favor of this legislation, it would mean a lot to me, and thousands of uninsured in the 2nd. Do what's right Glenn, vote for us!" I agree 100%.
UPDATE #2: This sparked a great deal of discussion both on Facebook and here. Later in the discussion, Randy Klear wrote:
He said no such thing, Alex. He said that he couldn't say how Nye was voting at this moment. In November Nye said he voted against the House bill because of insufficient cost controls. Personally I suspect the CBO report today, plus the fact that he'd be committing political suicide with another no vote, will be enough to push him into the yes column.
He's a newly hired field director, and he's not likely to be in the loop when Nye's own chief of staff and campaign manager probably haven't been told yet. You are willfully misinterpreting his remarks.
And Diane Kaufman wrote:
I agree with Randy. I invited Jonas to introduce himself to the committee and speak for about 1 minute and then next he was vilified. I understand that everyone is passionate on this issue, and I am glad that they are vocal, but he is NOT in the loop of how the Congressman may or may not be voting. And, Jonas did NOT come to the committee to tell us how Nye would be voting in the health care bill. What I want to know is what's new? We are all waiting for the vote on the health care bill. That will be news. Letting our congressman know how we feel is not news. We have been doing that for months. On the other hand, Cooch and his decisions are harmful AND news.
And the discussion proceeded from there. Check it all out here, as obviously there are several sides to this story. However, in the end, what I care about - the ONLY thing I care about - is that Glenn Nye votes the right way on health care, and also on other issues important to me like clean energy/climate change and many others. With regard to health care, I guess we'll find out in less than 72 hours, and then we'll go from there.
Rachel Maddow calls out Bob McDonell and Ken Kookinelli for their homophobic bigotry, "birtherism" (in Cooch's case) and overall insanity. According to Maddow, McDonnell and Cooch are turning Virginia into "Jesse Helms-istan." Maddow also slams the national media for reporting McDonnell's and Cooch's bizarre explanations and behaviors without any critical analysis or journalistic skepticism. The more this continues, I'd argue we're looking as much like "Idiocracy" as "Jesse Helms-istan." But then again, I guess those are really flip sides of the same coin anyway.
1. CUTS THE DEFICIT Cuts the deficit by $130 billion in the first ten years (2010 - 2019). Cuts the deficit by $1.2 trillion in the second ten years. 2. REINS IN WASTEFUL MEDICARE COSTS AND EXTENDS THE SOLVENCY OF MEDICARE; CLOSES THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG DONUT HOLE Reduces annual growth in Medicare expenditures by 1.4 percentage points per year-while improving benefits and lowering costs for seniors. Extends Medicare's solvency by at least 9 years. 3. EXPANDS AND IMPROVES HEALTH COVERAGE FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES Expands health insurance coverage to 32 million Americans Helps guarantee that 95 percent of Americans will be covered. 4. IS FULLY PAID FOR Is fully paid for - costs $940 billion over a decade. (Americans spend nearly $2.5 trillion each year on health care now and nearly two-thirds of the bill's cost is paid for by reducing health care costs).So much for the Republican/Tea Party "argument" that this bill "costs too much." In fact, it reduces the budget deficit significantly, according to the non-partisan CBO. Now, on to passage, hopefully in about 72 hours!
1. MCDONNELL FULFILLS TWO CAMPAIGN PROMISES
2. MCDONNELL RE-OPENS EIGHT REST STOPS ACROSS VIRGINIA TODAY
4. MCDONNELL: NO SPECIAL COUNSEL TO ENFORCE DIRECTIVE BANNING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GAYS
5. MCDONNELL SWAPS GAGS, TAKES STUDENTS' QUERIES
8. CUCCINELLI CHALLENGES "DEEM AND PASS" IN LETTER TO PELOSI
14. VIRGINIA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION SPLIT AS HEALTH-CARE VOTE NEARS
15. FIRST AD FOR FIMIAN PLAYS WITH CONNOLLY QUOTE
21. SNOW-REMOVAL COSTS HIT VDOT HARD
26. DOMINION POWER UPGRADING 13 POWER PLANTS FOR EFFICIENCY
30. LEGISLATIVE HITS AND MISSES
32. RATING MCDONNELL'S EARLY SUCCESS
40. BUDGET OUTLOOK BRIGHTER FOR LOCALITIES IN RICHMOND AREA
So much for that argument.
A study published in the latest New England Journal of Medicine shows that abortion rates declined during the first two years that Massachusetts implemented a near-universal health coverage program much like the nationwide plan currently before Congress.In related news, "On Wednesday, a group representing 59,000 Catholic nuns plus more than 50 heads of religious congregations issued a strong statement urging 'a life-affirming 'yes' vote' in support of the Senate bill." In short, the nuns' organization " believes the bill as written guarantees that there will be no federal funding for abortion and does not need to be 'corrected.'"
The study on abortion rates released Wednesday could bolster that argument. It shows that the number of abortions in Massachusetts declined by 1.5 percent during the first two years of the new health care program (2007-2009) and the decline was 7.4 percent among teenagers -- even though the percentage of non-elderly people receiving coverage went up nearly 6 percent.
The study also points out that the abortion decrease occurred "despite public and private funding of abortion that is substantially more liberal than the provisions of the federal legislation currently under consideration by Congress." Massachusetts is one of 17 states where the state government finances abortions under Medicaid that the federal government cannot pay for.
As I said, so much for the "pro-life" argument that there's anything about current health care reform legislation that will result in more abortions. There isn't.
P.S. The New England Journal of Medicine study is here.
One thousand people attended the Gerry Connolly annual St. Patrick's Day event in Fairfax tonight. Congressman Connolly officially announced that he will be running for reelection this November. He also discussed his views on health care reform including being against insurance companies discriminating against people with preexisting conditions, rescinding health care benefits when a member becomes ill, and putting yearly and lifetime caps on peoples' benefits. Connolly believes that he needs to represent the American people and their needs rather than cater to large insurance companies and their profits. I am hopeful that health care reform will be voted on this weekend and will for once and for all get passed. As a clinical social worker I watch on a daily basis people losing their jobs and health care or being discriminated against.
As far as the party is concerned, a fun time was had by all and it was good to once again be with like minded progressive Democrats who believe in doing the right thing for our country.
I am thrilled to be a guest blogger here at Blue Virginia (even more thrilled to be one of the millions who helped turn Virginia Blue)! I love my day job - as a primary care physician, I share in the lives of my patients, and derive great satisfaction in helping improve their lives and health.
I had the privilege of being invited to stand with President Obama on March 3rd in the East Room of the White House as he began to close the deal on the passage of health reform. He was as inspiring as ever, reminding us why passing the bill at hand will improve the lives of Americans that need reform the most.
Since that day, patients have been much more open in asking me why I support reform. And while I am adamant about keeping politics out of my relationships with my patients, I am happy to provide some education about what is in the bill.
For years, I have been fighting insurance companies who try to deny care to patients. For years, I have been volunteering in free clinics, helping those who are denied care or who cannot afford it. For years, I have been frustrated watching patients skip medical care due to skyrocketing costs. This bill will begin to change that for 31 million Americans who will have the opportunity to have health insurance - no longer denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, and - through insurance exchanges and subsidies - will find coverage affordable.
So I can tell my patients I have 31 million reasons to support this bill. I became a physician because medicine is about healing. Somewhere along the way, the health care delivery system went astray - now "medical loss ratios" and "recission" are part of the national dialogue. How did we let this happen, in the richest nation on Earth? I feel there is a moral imperative to extend coverage to all of our fellow Americans, so that their suffering can be alleviated. This bill will begin to stop the greater than 44,000 pre-mature deaths that occur each year in our country due to a lack of health coverage.
This bill will benefit Virginia greatly. I live in Congressional District 1, belonging currently to Congressman Whittman - who I have met with a few times, only to be confounded by the slippery reasons he gives for voting against this reform. In my district alone, the bill will improve coverage for 556,000 people. It will give tax credits to purchase coverage to 138,000 families and 16,000 small businesses. It will close the Medicare drug coverage "donut hole" for 104,000 people. And it will help get coverage for 21,000 district 1 residents.
Tom Perriello deserves great praise for his "yes" vote in district 5 for reform, while Glenn Nye and Rick Boucher need to hear from you! Check out your district at: http://energycommerce.house.go...
I tell my patients I became a doctor to help people. This bill accomplishes exactly that.
If not now, then when?
Happy St. Patrick's Day!
This video is a classic example of why I like and admire Mark Warner, but also why he frustrates me at times.
On the "like and admire" part, obviously Warner is an extremely smart guy, a hard worker, and a leader among leaders. That's all great. I also admire the fact that Warner is working so hard on such an important issue as reforming Wall Street, which as a wealthy businessman, he certainly understands.
So, what's the problem here? No, it's not the mere fact that he's working with a Republican; I'm totally fine with that. Instead, what I'm troubled by is that Sen. Warner seems to be saying that having a more "centrist" and "bipartisan" solution represents an end in and of itself. I simply don't see it that way. In my way of thinking, the goal is to come up with the best - most effective, helps the most people, makes as much progress as possible. etc. - possible legislation, not to have it be "centrist" (even if it's labeled "radical centrist," whatever that is) or "bipartisan" per se.
For instance, let's say that experts - scientists, economists, whatever - determine that the optimal solution to Problem Y is Solution Z, but Solution Z is not considered to be "centrist" ideologically, and also does not have "bipartisan" support. Does that mean we should scrap it? I'd say the answer to that question is "clearly no," but I'm honestly not sure what Sen. Warner's answer would be.
Thus, on health care reform, clearly the public option is a "win-win-win" that helps "bend the cost curve down," reduces the federal budget deficit, and provides people with more choice in health insurance. For the life of me, I can't figure out why anyone would oppose this, yet Mark Warner appears to do just that, in large part because he seems to feel it's not "centrist" or "bipartisan." I really don't understand that line of reasoning; how is the public option - giving people more choice while reducing costs - inherently "left" or "right?" And how is it inherently not "bipartisan," except insofar as Republicans have determined to be monolithically against anything Democrats offer in this area? Got me.
In this case, the issues mainly relate to how tightly regulated Wall Street will be; what those regulations specifically will be, for instance, how free banks will be to own/invest in hedge funds and private-equity funds; how much power shareholders will have over the companies in which they own stock; how strongly the federal government will regulate the financial system; and how much protection consumers will have.
All of these are important issues, and in my way of thinking I care a lot more about whether they're handled right than whether they are politically "right" or "left." All else being equal, certainly bipartisanship would be nice. But, in the end, I simply do not consider bipartisanship to be an end in and of itself. If it is, then remind me again why we have two political parties, one that's supposed to be broadly "conservative" (but in reality has lurched to the far right) and the other that's supposed to be broadly "progressive" (but in reality is more corporatist/centrist)? In sum, I'm all for bipartisanship, and I have nothing against "centrist" solutions, as long as the starting point has each party fighting strongly for the ideas it believes in, and willing to go to the mat because it honestly believes those ideas would bring the most benefit to the most Americans. Is that too much to ask?