Citizen Strategy Think Tank

This Is Reform?

Ken — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:57:58 EST

A windfall for the health-casino operators maybe, but a boon for the American people? I am not convinced.

Moving the Progressive Agenda in the Democratic Party

Mary Bell from Alpine, TX — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 23:28:29 EST

December 20, 2009

Moving the Progressive Agenda in the Democratic Party

By Mary Bell Lockhart

If we're disappointed in the direction of recent events, progressives should take heart and double down on efforts to bring about change by working within the Democratic Party.

Countdown to JANUARY 15, 2010

korkie — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:15:29 EST

Please read and pass this on to as many people as you can. I also suggest you join "Countdown to JANUARY 15, 2010." This is the FaceBook group
responsible for this great event.
Korkie

On January 15th, 2010, Americans will gather, peacably, on the DC Mall to show our continued support for the progressive agenda our POTUS campaigned on. We voted for President Obama b/c we hoped for more from our government: more compassion, more diplomacy, more honesty, more protection, and more equality.

On January 15th, 2010, we will stand in opposition to the voices of fear, ignorance, and hate that have, thus far, garnered virtually all the attention of the main stream media and skewed the debate over issues that are far too important to ALL Americans. We've written and phoned our Representatives in the House and Senate. We've remained a diligent, anonymous, but silent majority. Now, is the time for America to see our faces and hear our voices.

January 15, 2010 - Supporting the Change We Still Believe In

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsyU0Rzw2LI

Contact Congress: Lower Medicare Age Limit

Pat Hanrahan — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:10:31 EST

Huffington Post reports today that a group of Senators are considering lowering the Medicare age limit as part of health care reform. Only this past weekend, a dear friend of mine who is in great need of a knee replacement told me his insurance company is refusing to authorize the surgery. He is 60 years old and has spent his entire life providing social services, primarily as director of a senior services program. Yet now that he is in need our for-profit, for-greed, private insurance system is failing him. Lowering the Medicare age limit to 60, or even 55, would go a long way towards health care reform. These changes should be part of the broader effort to provide a strong public insurance option.

Contact your Senators to encourage them to support this initiative.

The Way Forward is the Way Out

Ken — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:15:12 EST

Homeward bound, how sweet the sound! The only way forward in Afghanistan is to bring our troops home. Out is the only way forward. Everything else serves some other purpose.

Lost Hope

BookwormBev — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:01:29 EST

President Obama, have you abandoned us?

I knew that politicians tended to listen only to moneyed interests, but I thought you were different.

I knew that politicians only get feedback from an in-crowd of cronies, but I thought you were different.

I knew that politicians tended to act from expediency rather than principle, but I thought you were different.

I knew that inertia was the biggest force in government, but I thought you were different.

President Obama, you have let down the American people.

You have let down the generation to come, including YOUR OWN CHILDREN.

You have let down my enthusiasm, my hopes and dreams for a better America.

You have let down yourself.

With so much enthusiasm at your disposal, how could you walk away from us?

How can you expect people to ever vote for you again? There aren't enough people on Wall Street to get you elected.

I worried about assassination, but you have assassinated yourself without a gun.

This is tragic for the United States - but it is pathetic for you.

What is there to hope for?

First Heritage, Now the Commercial Hucksters - VIGILANCE!

Ken — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:27:12 EST

Now it appears that the commercial hucksters and hustlers are swarming our OFA site trying to sell TVs and laptops. I just received this offensive solicitation in my e-mail box:

[PublicPolicyProfessionalsforObama] Dear!

Mon, November 16, 2009 11:33:28 AMFrom:"picepil@aol.com" <picepil@aol.com>Add to ContactsTo:Public Policy Professionals for Obama <PublicPolicyProfessionalsforObama@groups.barackobama.com> Dear!
How are you doing ?
I found a good website last week: www.tv-laptop.com
One of my friend bought a notebook and he got the product in one week. Its quality is very good and the price is competitive.
They also sell Laptop,TV,Games,Camera,Motorcycles and so on.
By the way, they import product from Korea Japan and sell new and original products. They have good reputation and have many good feedbacks.
Now , the Christmas day is coming, this website will be a good choice for you. I am sure you will get many surprise and benefits.
Greetings!

Our webmasters must be vigilant and take steps to prohibit these kinds of posts that have nothing to do with the historic work before us now.

OFA ===> Statement of President Barack Obama on House Passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Act

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:29:08 EST

Statement of President Barack Obama on House Passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Actby Christopher HassSunday November 8 2009 00:19:14 AM

Shortly after the House of Representatives concluded tonight's vote on health insurance reform, President Obama released the following statement:

Tonight, in an historic vote, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would finally make real the promise of quality, affordable health care for the American people.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act is a piece of legislation that will provide stability and security for Americans who have insurance; quality affordable options for those who don’t; and bring down the cost of health care for families, businesses, and the government while strengthening the financial health of Medicare. And it is legislation that is fully paid for and will reduce our long-term federal deficit.

Thanks to the hard work of the House, we are just two steps away from achieving health insurance reform in America. Now the United States Senate must follow suit and pass its version of the legislation. I am absolutely confident it will, and I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year.

Heritage Foundation Using OFA To Mobilize Opposition

Ken — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:15:10 EDT

The ghosts are in the machine: Has anyone here noticed that the Heritage Foundation (a virulent right-wing organization) is scheduling events to mobilize opposition and win converts from the Obama camp using the OFA website?

Check out their recent postings for events they are scheduling in October in the Twin Cities. Seems we need a strategy to counter. Anyone involved in deriving or applying one?

After a Year-Long Hiatus, It's Great to be Back!

Ken — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 19:59:05 EDT

Thanks to Organizing For America IT personnel. Today was the first time I have been able to gain access to my my.barackobama home page since just after the election last November! Somehow I got locked out and missed all the fun though we went to all the rallies and volunteered a bit around town and throughout the state. Hope my friends are all still around!

The People's Advocate.

Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:52:54 EDT

It's like the Great Wind is pushing/propelling This Strong Leader into Greatness.

He's not afraid to take a chance.

The elected republican officials saw a chance to ridicule and cause mayhem...The American People saw a Leader go to another Country to fight and advocate on their behalf and tell other Countries about the greatness, the persistence, and the diligence of the American People...now tell me...would people rather have a person kicking, marginalizing, ridiculing and downing them when they are going through, sick, jobless, suffering or would they want someone whose fighting for them and trying to better their lives, their children's lives, and their children's children lives.

I wonder if yesterday's episode of the Republican elected officials handclapping, cheering, and glazed-eyed eerily gleefully grinning when the American People lost the Bid for the Olympics, will be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.

Hmmmm...I wonder and I hope SO.

Health Care Reform: Investigate Claim Denials with Huffington Post

Pat Hanrahan — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:38:10 EDT

Invitation to join citizen journalists team at Huffington Post to investigate insurance claim denials follows. Also, do you have any leads to share?

Join Our Investigation: How Often Do Health Insurers Deny Claims?
Posted by Adam Clark Estes
Amid all the loud arguments about the proper role for government and private companies in American health care, one point often seems lost: Exactly how well – or badly – are private insurers handling claims in the existing system? Daniellle Ivory is uncovering some answers. But we also need you to help us investigate...

http://huffpostfund.org/participate/join-our-investigation-how-often-do-health-insurers-deny-claims

Support for Afghan Exit Plan

Elizabeth — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:58:42 EDT

When you go to a lawyer and have a situation where all you need to do is some administrative routine to address your issue, the lawyer, not being able to litigate and therefore collect huge fees for his billable hours, will tell you that there is nothing that can be done to redress the wrong you have suffered.

A military commander is employed to develop winning strategies for winning conflicts/engagements/delivering the results his country is seeking: it is in their interest to continue engagement for this is the 'thrill' of the job. This is why people have an interest in joining the military, to protect and serve and fight and win. We must always be the one to win. Well sometimes we have to lose some to win something more. In the case of Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran coming on the set, we may have to 'lose' by military standards in order to win diplomatically/strategically.

Cutting off the funding source for these deviants and terrorists is the first and most effective step we, as a global community, can take to disarm/dismantle their operations. Let us seek a more peaceful resolution to these issues for the tact we are taking is not sustainable.

CBO to Blue Dogs, Public Option Saves BIG $$$

bob-pol — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:34:46 EDT

1) The Congressional Budget Office dealt Blue Dogs a blow Thursday by notifying House Democrats that tethering a public option to Medicare reimbursement rates would save the government $110 billion more than a public option in which the government has to negotiate rates with doctors and other health care providers.

The initial projections showed the difference between the two was $65 billion. But this shows it would cost the government a lot more money to heed moderate demands. House Democrats need to trim as much as $200 billion from a bill that most estimates peg at $1.1 trillion in order to meet President Obama's $900 billion target.

An actual robust public option saves money, and it's what the majority of constituents in districts like Rep. Mike Ross's district supports. Will Rep. Mike Ross actually listen to what the CBO says, or act like Senator Kent Conrad in dismissing the CBO's projections about the public option?

2) Competition lacking among private health insurers

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR (AP) – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON — One of the most widely accepted arguments against a government medical plan for the middle class is that it would quash competition — just what private insurers seem to be doing themselves in many parts of the U.S.

Several studies show that in lots of places, one or two companies dominate the market. Critics say monopolistic conditions drive up premiums paid by employers and individuals.

For Democrats, the answer is a public plan that would compete with private insurers. Republicans see that as a government power grab. President Barack Obama looks to be trapped in the middle of an argument that could sink his effort to overhaul the health care system.

Even lawmakers opposed to a government plan have problems with the growing clout of the big private companies. "There is a serious problem with the lack of competition among insurers," said Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of the highest-cost states. "The impact on the consumer is significant."

Wellpoint Inc. accounted for 71 percent of the Maine market, while runner-up Aetna had a 12 percent share, according to a 2008 report by the American Medical Association.

Proponents of a government plan say it could restore a competitive balance and lead to lower costs. For one thing, it wouldn't have to turn a profit.

A study by the Urban Institute public policy center estimated that a public plan could save taxpayers from $224 billion to $400 billion over 10 years by lowering the cost of proposed subsidies for the uninsured, while preserving private coverage for most people.

"Right now, there's no incentive for insurers or big hospital groups to negotiate with each other, because they can pass higher payments on through premiums," said economist Linda Blumberg, co-author of the report.

"A public plan would have the leverage to set lower payment rates and get providers to participate at those rates."

"The private plans would come back to the providers and say, 'If you don't negotiate with me, you're going to be left with only the public plan.'" Blumberg continued. "Suddenly, you have a very strong economic incentive for them to negotiate."

Insurers contend their industry is extremely competitive, and a public plan is unnecessary. About 1,300 carriers operate across the country, although many only have a small share of the market in their states.

"You can have a very competitive market and still have companies with a high market share," said Alissa Fox, a top Washington lobbyist for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Fox points to the federal employee health program, which also covers members of Congress. It offers a total of more than 260 options and 10 nationwide plans. Despite all the choices, about 60 percent of federal workers pick a Blue Cross plan. "Insurers need to be of a significant size to best serve their customers and make sure that people get the best value," Fox said.

Nonetheless, lawmakers are concerned. Big insurers are getting bigger. Small businesses in particular have fewer and fewer options for getting coverage.

Congressional investigators this year looked at insurers catering to small employers around the country. The Government Accountability Office found that the median _or midpoint — market share of largest carrier increased to 47 percent in 2008 from 33 percent in 2002.

There's widespread recognition among lawmakers that a health care overhaul should foster more competition among insurers. The debate is over how far to go.

The basic framework lawmakers are looking at would encourage competition, even without a government plan. It calls for setting up a big insurance purchasing pool called an exchange. It would be open, at least initially, to individuals and small businesses. The government would offer subsidies to make premiums more affordable.

Consumers would find it much easier to shop for a plan through the exchange. For one thing, they would be able to readily compare benefits and premiums in different plans. Also, participating insurers would have to take all applicants and not charge higher premiums to those in poor health.

Offering the option of a public plan would supercharge the competition, supporters say.

Blumberg envisions a plan that pays medical providers more than Medicare, but less than private insurance. Her study estimated it could grow to 47 million members, leaving 161 million with private insurance. Even so, that would make the new public plan one of the largest insurers in the country, rivaling Medicare, Medicaid and big private companies such as Wellpoint and UnitedHealthcare.

It's a scenario that gives pause even to traditional adversaries of the insurance companies.

"The fear and concern is that the public plan could become the market-dominant plan," said Dr. James Rohack, president of the American Medical Association. "When you've got the federal government involved, it can infuse money into a plan to keep it solvent even if the premiums are lower than its actual costs."

Snowe, among the few Republican senators still trying to come up with a bipartisan compromise, wants to hold back on creating a public plan for now and give insurers one last chance to show if they can keep costs in check.

That's doesn't go far enough for liberals, who are loath to give the insurance industry tens of millions of new customers supported by taxpayer subsidies.

"It would give the industry a windfall without any countervailing force to require them to lower their costs," said Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager for the advocacy group Health Care for America Now. "The insurance companies could continue to jack up premiums while getting a whole new market."

ref (1) http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/24/cbo-tells-blue-dogs-that-the-public-option-will-save/

ref( 2) http://www.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/3148749.aspx

I cannot rest for the cry of these great agonies. ~ E.A.P.

Caring is the Key to Life - Healthcare for All ... Rob [bob-pol]

Pressure Our Politicians to Support Health Care Reform -

korkie — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:29:15 EDT

This week Congress started the 'marking up' session on the Health Care and Insurance Reform. It is crucial we keep the pressure on them pass the bill.

The Daily Kos has an excellent article about the amendments we should push to support, and those we should push against.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/21/10112/5602

Please take the time to write your politicians and the ones listed demanding they support the Health Care and Insurance Reform.

UNITED AGAINST RACISM

WEBMASTER — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:46:34 EDT

Hi Friend

There is a new group that just started on Facebook that I thought Organizing for America members may be interested in joining. Please see United Against Racism -

http://apps.facebook.com/causes/354956/80588439?m=9dc74a6e

United Against Racism

posted by David Apperson

The Justice Act

mquintus-Mark of Baltimore — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:26:48 EDT

Today, a group of progressive Senate Democrats led by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI, Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution) introduced the Justice Act, to fix the horid Patriot Act, protect your liberty, protect your privacy, and restore Constitutional principles.

A complete copy of their announcement follows. I will keep you posted as developments proceed; you will need to support this legislation with your own Senators and later, Representative.

- Mark Dorlester

-----

Press Release:

SENATORS INTRODUCE PATRIOT ACT FIXES TO SAFEGUARD AMERICANS’ RIGHTS

JUSTICE Act, Introduced on Constitution Day 2009, Would Fix Long Standing Problems with the PATRIOT Act and Other Surveillance Laws

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Jon Tester (D-MT), Tom Udall (D-NM), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) have introduced legislation to fix problems with surveillance laws that threaten the rights and liberties of American citizens. The Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE) Act would reform the USA PATRIOT Act, the FISA Amendments Act and other surveillance authorities to protect Americans’ constitutional rights, while preserving the powers of our government to fight terrorism.

The JUSTICE Act reforms include more effective checks on government searches of Americans’ personal records, the “sneak and peek” search provision of the PATRIOT Act, “John Doe” roving wiretaps and other overbroad authorities. The bill will also reform the FISA Amendments Act, passed last year, by repealing the retroactive immunity provision, preventing “bulk collection” of the contents of Americans’ international communications, and prohibiting “reverse targeting” of innocent Americans. And the bill enables better oversight of the use of National Security Letters (NSLs) after the Department of Justice Inspector General issued reports detailing the misuse and abuse of the NSLs. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Wednesday, September 23rd, on reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act.

“Every single member of Congress wants to give our law enforcement and intelligence officials the tools they need to keep Americans safe,” said Feingold. “But with the PATRIOT Act up for reauthorization, we should take this opportunity to fix the flaws in our surveillance laws once and for all. The JUSTICE Act permits the government to conduct necessary surveillance, but within a framework of accountability and oversight. It ensures both that our government has the tools to keep us safe, and that the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans will be protected. When he was in the Senate, President Obama was a strong ally on these issues, and I look forward to working with his administration to find common ground on commonsense reforms.”

“The Government must use every legal tool available to protect us from the threat of global terrorism. But when those tools override Americans’ fundamental rights and liberties, we run the very real risk of never getting them back,” Durbin said. “As we move toward reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, we’re proposing commonsense changes to better protect our most basic constitutional rights. Our bill strikes a careful balance between the law enforcement powers needed to combat terrorism and the legal protections required to safeguard American liberties.”

"Like a lot of Montanans, I have serious concerns about the PATRIOT Act and how it was implemented,” Tester said. “What this bill will do is add commonsense so we can fight terrorism without ignoring the Constitution and without invading the privacy and civil rights of law-abiding Americans."

“In recent years, I believe our government has failed to protect the constitutional right to privacy for American citizens,” Tom Udall said. “The JUSTICE Act strikes the right balance between respecting the needs of our law enforcement to pursue suspected terrorists and upholding the rights of law-abiding citizens to live free from unnecessary government intrusion in their lives. I firmly believe we can keep our nation secure without infringing on the inherent rights of the American people. ”

“We must provide law enforcement with the tools they need to protect our country, and do so in a way that also safeguards Americans’ rights. This legislation addresses both of these important objectives by ensuring our security and upholding our cherished constitutional protections,” Bingaman said.

“Every American understands that we have got to do every single thing we can to protect the American people from terrorist attacks. There is no debate about that. Some of us believe, however, that we can be successful in doing that while we uphold the rule of law, while we uphold the Constitution of this country, which has made us the envy of the world,” Sanders said.

Senator Akaka said: “The JUSTICE Act will allow intelligence agents to monitor terrorism suspects while putting checks in place to ensure that law-abiding Americans’ privacy and civil liberties are protected.”

“The JUSTICE Act rights some of the basic wrongs of the PATRIOT Act, which became a poster child for the Bush Administration’s lack of respect for Americans’ privacy rights,” said Wyden. “This bill is designed to keep every law-abiding American free from arbitrary government surveillance. At the same time, it gives law enforcement the agility needed to go after actual terrorists and spies who would do our country harm.”

Fact Sheet JUSTICE Act Of 2009

The Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE) Act would reform the USA PATRIOT Act, the FISA Amendments Act and other surveillance authorities to protect the constitutional rights of Americans while ensuring the government has the powers it needs to fight terrorism and collect intelligence.

Title I – Reasonable Safeguards to Protect the Privacy of Americans’ Records

Sections 101-106 – National Security Letters

The bill rewrites the National Security Letter (NSL) statutes to ensure the FBI can obtain basic information without a court order, but also adds reasonable safeguards to ensure NSLs are only used to obtain records of people who have some connection to terrorism or espionage, and to provide meaningful, constitutionally sound judicial review of NSLs and associated gag orders.

Section 107 – Section 215 Orders

The bill would reauthorize the use of Section 215 business records orders under FISA, but with additional checks and balances to ensure these orders are only used to obtain records of people who have some connection to terrorism or espionage, and to provide meaningful, constitutionally sound judicial review of Section 215 orders and associated gag orders.

Title II – Reasonable Safeguards to Protect the Privacy of Americans’ Homes

Section 201 – “Sneak & Peek” Searches

The bill would retain the Patriot Act’s authorization of “sneak and peek” criminal searches but eliminate the overbroad catch-all provision that allows these secret searches in virtually any criminal case. It would shorten the presumptive time limits for notification, and create a statutory exclusionary rule.

Title III – Reasonable Safeguards to Protect the Privacy of Americans’ Communications

Section 301 – FISA Roving Wiretaps

The bill would reauthorize roving FISA wiretaps, but eliminate the possibility of “John Doe” roving wiretaps that identify neither the person nor the phone to be wiretapped. It would require agents to ascertain the presence of the target of a roving wiretap before beginning surveillance.

Section 302 – Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices

The bill would retain the Patriot Act’s expansion of the FISA and criminal pen/trap authorities to cover electronic communications, but would allow pen/traps to be used only to obtain information about people who have some connection to terrorism or espionage. It would impose additional procedural safeguards to serve as a check on these authorities.

Section 303 – Telecommunications Immunity

The bill would repeal the retroactive immunity provision in the FISA Amendments Act.

Section 304 – Bulk Collection

The bill retains the new warrantless authorities in the FISA Amendments Act but would prevent the government from using that law to conduct “bulk collection” of the contents of communications, including all communications between the United States and the rest of the world.

Section 305 – Reverse Targeting

The bill would ensure that the overseas warrantless collection authorities of the FISA Amendments Act are not used as a pretext to target Americans in the U.S.

Section 306 – Use of Unlawfully Obtained Information

The bill would limit the government’s use of information about Americans obtained under FISA Amendments Act procedures that the FISA Court later determines to be unlawful, while giving the court flexibility to allow such information to be used in appropriate cases.

Section 307 – Protections for International Communications of Americans

The bill would amend the FISA Amendments Act to create safeguards for communications not related to terrorism that the government knows have one end in the United States.

Section 308 – Computer Trespass

The bill would guard against abuse of a warrantless surveillance authority in the Patriot Act that allows computer owners who are subject to denial of service attacks or other episodes of hacking to give the government permission to monitor trespassers on their systems.

Title IV – Improvements to Further Congressional and Judicial Oversight

Section 401 – FISA Public Reporting

The bill would require limited additional public reporting on the use of FISA.

Section 402 – Use of FISA Evidence

The bill would apply the Classified Information Procedures Act to the use of FISA evidence in criminal cases, and allow the use of protective orders and other security measures in civil cases, to ensure that courts have discretion to allow litigants access to information where appropriate while still protecting sensitive information.

Section 403 – Nationwide Court Orders

The bill would permit a recipient of a nationwide court order to challenge it either in the district where it was issued or in the district where the recipient is located.

Title V – Improvements to Further Effective, Focused Investigations

Section 501 – Domestic Terrorism

The Patriot Act’s overbroad definition of domestic terrorism could cover acts of civil disobedience by political organizations. The bill would limit the qualifying offenses for domestic terrorism to those that constitute a federal crime of terrorism.

Section 502 – Material Support

The bill would amend the overly broad criminal definition of material support for terrorism by specifying that a person must know or intend the support provided will be used for terrorist activity.

Yes, Jimmy Carter, Racism Exists- A Year in Photos

bob-pol — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:44:14 EDT

Our gracious leader is truly a Man of Peace who turns the other cheek, or he would have a few reasons to get angry.

A few examples over the past year -

Rob [bob-pol] racggg@gmail.com

President Obama: Normalcy Cannot Lead to Complacency

EsquireUK — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:31:22 EDT

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Normalcy-Cannot-Lead-to-Complacency/

While full recovery of the financial system will take a great deal more time and work, the growing stability resulting from these interventions means we're beginning to return to normalcy. But here's what I want to emphasize today: Normalcy cannot lead to complacency.

Unfortunately, there are some in the financial industry who are misreading this moment. Instead of learning the lessons of Lehman and the crisis from which we're still recovering, they're choosing to ignore those lessons. I'm convinced they do so not just at their own peril, but at our nation's. So I want everybody here to hear my words: We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess that was at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses. Those on Wall Street cannot resume taking risks without regard for consequences, and expect that next time, American taxpayers will be there to break their fall.

And that's why we need strong rules of the road to guard against the kind of systemic risks that we've seen. And we have a responsibility to write and enforce these rules to protect consumers of financial products, to protect taxpayers, and to protect our economy as a whole. Yes, there must -- these rules must be developed in a way that doesn't stifle innovation and enterprise. And I want to say very clearly here today, we want to work with the financial industry to achieve that end. But the old ways that led to this crisis cannot stand. And to the extent that some have so readily returned to them underscores the need for change and change now. History cannot be allowed to repeat itself.

So what we're calling for is for the financial industry to join us in a constructive effort to update the rules and regulatory structure to meet the challenges of this new century. That is what my administration seeks to do. We've sought ideas and input from industry leaders and policy experts, academics, consumer advocates, and the broader public. And we've worked closely with leaders in the Senate and the House, including not only Barney, but also Senators Chris Dodd and Richard Shelby, and Barney is already working with his counterpart, Sheldon Bacchus. And we intend to pass regulatory reform through Congress.

And taken together, we're proposing the most ambitious overhaul of the financial regulatory system since the Great Depression. But I want to emphasize that these reforms are rooted in a simple principle: We ought to set clear rules of the road that promote transparency and accountability. That's how we'll make certain that markets foster responsibility, not recklessness. That's how we'll make certain that markets reward those who compete honestly and vigorously within the system, instead of those who are trying to game the system.

The President went on to lay out the specifics of the new regulations and oversight that the largely Wall Street audience would come under. Read the full transcript for the details.

Health Care Corporate America Rules

Al Lococo — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:11:25 EDT

Health Care Corporate America Rules

I support our President and admire his dedication to resolving our Health care problems. But, I am increasingly convinced that Corporate America has framed the debate in a way that they can’t loose, regardless of the outcome.

The problems are many, but principle among them, is that between 15 and 20 percent of the population is without Health Insurance. The solution on the table, which seems to have some appeal from both sides, is a law which takes employer based health care insurance, now the norm, and makes it required by law.

Large employers will have no choice.
Small business will be taxed or fined if they choose not to provide Health Care Insurance.
Individuals who currently do not have insurance will be required by law to purchase insurance at their own cost (subsidized for the poor).

Now who benefits from this? What used to be provided by choice of businesses, large and small, is now required by law. From the Insurance Companies point of view, the population of premium payers has just increased. That combined with point number three, assures them that they will get the premiums of all the currently uninsured.

They would never do this on their own, because large numbers of healthy people would stay out of the premium pool.

We are embroiled in bitter debate about death panels, Illegal residents and The Public Option, all red herrings. The insurance industry is nothing but overhead in our health care system. It can be completely eliminated if we had a single payer system as they have the world round. This is the outcome feared most by insurance companies.

This is not even part of the discussion. If we pass Health Care reform, the insurance companies win because they are now established in law, no longer just tradition. If we don’t, they continue as usual. Either way they are on solid ground.

It is ironic that corporate health Insurance has the rest of corporate America paying their premiums. We should be writing to the rest of corporate America, the only ones powerful enough to defeat corporate insurance. We should remind them that they are less competitive in the world market because they have the unfair burden of health care in the costs of their products and services.

Corporate America has been trying to shed these costs by shifting them to their employees. This is an increasing trend. Instead the cost of health care should be spread across all taxpayers fairly, in a single payer system, as they have in Canada. View this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQFX32Ed7ZQ&feature=channel_page

Write to GE, Alcoa, Dupont, Boeing, Zerox and so. Tell them we are on the verge of legitimizing the concept of Employer based Health Insurance. The burden is being placed squarely on their holders in law. Once this is passed, it will be even more difficult to get single payer. American goods and services will be forever burdened by the unfair costs of Health Care and will continue to be at a competitive disadvantage.

And American citizens will be forever burdened, with our anachronistic employer based health insurance. The cost of which is a drain on what we actually need the money for, Health Care Providers.

Cheers,
Al Lococo

911 Remembered - Great People Make A Great Country

bob-pol — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:16:59 EDT

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/3489/towersa.jpg

SACRED LAND AND SACRED SOULS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snFyt4Kdhl4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdSJFHnbls0

GOD BLESS AMERICA'S BELOVED AND THEIR FAMILIES

President Obama, have you forgotten your promise?

BookwormBev — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:20:49 EDT

President Obama,

You were elected with the greatest wave of hope that I have seen since the election of President Kennedy...

...and now I feel terribly let down.

You have allowed, yes allowed the radical right to capture the emotions of this nation.

Although your negotiating skills are important; although your intelligence is important; although your organizing abilities are important; the most important ability you have is the ability to inspire.

You have not been using that ability lately at all. You have gotten sucked into the endless chess game of power and politics, and you have neglected your constituency, big time!

I listen to the news and the talk shows with dismay. I have been to a town hall meeting on health care with Lynn Woolsey. The passion and fear of the radical right was prominent, although not in the majority. It is hard to believe that so much credence is given to such outrageous lying. The right wing does not approach this subject, or any other, as far as I can tell, with logic or facts; its approach is on a crazy version of faith. It is like people who twist the bible to support their hate and then say, "The bible says it and I believe it." They forget that the people who hated Jesus were the ones who upheld the letter of the law, but not the spirit; the ones who were judgmental and divisive, not the ones who believed in love and community.

The greatness of the United States was NOT achieved by people acting alone, as much as independence is prized here. It was achieved by people acting together. People harvested their crops together, raised barns together. People helped each other. They were good neighbors. We developed a system of free public education, so all children could be educated, not just those of the rich and powerful.

Respect for the United States in the world was not born of military prowess, but of respect for the generosity, caring and fairness of the American people. It was because, at one time, we took the high road, the road less traveled!

Now we have fallen. We take the low road, talking about the necessity for something we don't call torture, but is. We kill, not to protect people from tyranny, but to protect *our* resources, even if they are located in the countries of others.

I find it so hard to believe, President Obama, that you seem to be cooperating with those who are so short-sighted as to believe that the well-being of the United States rests with military domination.

You talk about health care, but you have given away everything important that you might have done for health care. You talk about health care costs, but you are no different than President Bush in your spending our hard-earned wealth on death, on military adventures and military toys. Do you hope to save on health care and give those savings to the military?

Is it time for me to realize that I have been had? That in handing you this election, the American people have been had? Where is the man I voted for?

Yes we can...what? We can sit by while you allow the military-industrial complex and the insurance vipers to destroy America? I don't usually use that term, America - it applies to pretty much the whole western hemisphere, but I use it now, for the idea of American. The idea of people living together in freedom and peace, in community, caring for the well-being of all - not just our families, not just our town, not just our state, but everyone, everywhere. I thought we were nice people! What happened? Tears come to my eyes as I write these words. What happened?

I could understand the trend under President Bush - but you?

I know you cannot single-handedly do it all. But you have ceased to be a leader, because a leader inspires. A leader calls to the best and highest in us. The majority of Americans responded to that call when they voted for you. They were overjoyed at the opportunity to put their energy into positive endeavors at last.

You are gone, it seems. You have gone over to the fraternity of the rich and powerful.

I am dispirited, left behind, holding the (empty) bag of hope, while the mean-spirited rejoice.

We Can Not Afford The Status Quo

EsquireUK — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:28:20 EDT

We Can Afford Reform, We Can’t Afford the Status Quo

Jared Bernstein, Chief Economist for the Vice President and Executive Director of the Middle Class Task Force, debunks the myth that we can’t afford health insurance reform. To the contrary, not only has the President demanded that reform not add to the deficit in the short term, but reform is the only way to get skyrocketing health care costs under control that will be devastating not for families , businesses, and for government deficits in the long term under the status quo.

Watch the Video

Earlier today, it was announced that President Obama will address a joint session of Congress on the issue of health insurance reform next Wednesday, September 9th. CNN reported:

It will be Obama's second speech to the full legislature since he took office in January, and the setting and rarity of such an event highlighted the importance the president places on his top domestic priority: overhauling the nation's ailing health care system.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid formally invited Obama to make the address, as required, in a letter issued Wednesday after news broke of the planned speech.

We'll have more information on this important speech in the days to come.

www.whitehouse.gov

March and Rally for Health Care and Health Insurance Reform, Washington, D.C., September 13, 2009

korkie — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:56:26 EDT

C. Press Release Julie paulsen

AMERICANS UNITED FOR HEALTH CARE AND INSURANCE REFORM

http://www.americansunitedhcr.wordpress.com

Sioux City, Iowa 51108

Phone/Fax (712) 239-0992

Direct Questions to:

americansunitedhcr@cableone.net

Press Release

Contact: Julie Paulsen

americansunitedhcr@cableone.net

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

9 A.M. CDT, August 31, 2009

AMERICANS UNITED FOR HEALTH CARE & INSURANCE REFORM RALLY & March in Washington, D.C. Sept. 13, 2009

Sioux City, August 31, 2009: A rally/march will be held in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 13, 2009 between 12N – 5pm in support of the administrations health care and health insurance reform goals. It is the goal of Americans United for Health Care and Insurance Reform to let congress know that all Americans need health care and insurance. Over 47 million Americans are uninsured and millions more are underinsured or at risk of losing their health insurance

The rally/march will begin at the Lincoln Memorial and march to the steps of the Capitol Building via the National Mall. This rally/march will be peaceful.

Robert Reich has given his support to this rally and march, “….I just want Congress to know how many Americans want universal health care and will settle for no less than complete coverage and no less than a public insurance option, to keep private insurers honest. So I’m happy to lend my support to whatever you are doing.”

Americans have enjoyed the freedom of movement, speech and employment. It is time that American citizens have the freedom that comes from knowing they have affordable health care for themselves and their families. Health care is not just for the privileged but it is a fundamental right.

Other groups marching on September 13, 2009 for health care reform are Congressman Fattah’s “March for Healthcare”, “Medicare for All”, and “March on Washington for Health Care.”

We invite all those who wish to participate visit our web blog at http://www.americansunitedhcr.wordpress.com and register to rally.

For more information please see our web blog (address above)Please direct all questions to our committee at americansunitedhcr@cableone.net.

Americans United for Health Care and Insurance Reform is not affiliated with Organizing for America or the Democratic National Committee or affiliated with any other groups, special interests or lobbying forums.

Dear Mr. President

korkie — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:44:31 EDT

We've worked to hard to get you here and have earned the promises you made to us.
Do you remember 'YES WE CAN.' We certainly remember, 'YES WE DID.'

We did our part, will you do yours? The Health Care Reform is worthless without Public Option. It will still allow insurance companies to control the costs, and continue to make it out of reach for many millions Americans.

There are many reasons our citizens die. One should not be because they can not afford medical insurance.
Will you write a letter to their relatives expressing your condolences and tell 'them next time around maybe we will get this right.'

It's ASSURANCE of Health Care, Not Insurance

Mary Bell from Alpine, TX — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:21:59 EDT

Think of health care ASSURANCE, not insurance. Insurance is when you pay to participate in a risk pool from which you may never need to take a benefit. Homeowner's and vehicle insurance are good examples. And the payment of different insurance rates can be justified based upon the risk of using benefits, i.e, on your behavior, age, or other characteristics. It is "catastrophic" coverage.

We have allowed what should be health ASSURANCE to be forced into the mold of insurance. And thus the capitalists have devised a way to profit off other people's misery. They have made access to health care a privilege, not a right.

With health ASSURANCE, it is virtually guaranteed that sooner or later, those covered have to use benefits from the funding pool. It's not just catastrophic; thus it can't be related to the behavior or nature of the covered person. It must cover all kinds of health care and medicines. Everyone must pay the same controlled rate - no differential premiums for sicker or older or younger. And for those who cannot pay at all, there must be government assistance and that must be paid for by taxation of the wealthy (you can't tax the middle and low income folk in order to in turn give it back to them). This means of paying for health care is incompatible with the profit motive of insurance companies. The profiteers cannot be controlled by regulation because they will always use their money to chisel down that regulation.

Government is the best performer of services that must be democratic and non-profit, because government is the representative of and beholden to the people.

Now, are we going to let these ill-informed, prejudiced, anti-government screamers, funded and motivated by the private insurance industry, win this argument? Are we going to allow our country to abandon the rest of us to their chopping block? Or are we going to demand that our government create health care ASSURANCE (ASSURECARE?) for all Americans?

Nobody home

Withfeeling — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:51:58 EDT

This is really sad. What a vibrant community this was.

If Barack ever wants to get this community really behind him ever again (in 2010 or 2012), he really needs to get a public option through on the healthcare bill. Not a trigger, not any other lame replacement. Yes, the rest of the reforms are important, but the public option is a litmus test.

Anything less will be considered a Republican victory, or at-least they will say it is (and be heard).

If there is to be vigorous Democratic support in 2010 or 2012 there MUST be a public option passed.

Compassion and Health Costs Reconciled by a PUBLIC OPTION

bob-pol — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 02:26:45 EDT

Ted Kennedy- Everyone's Senator.

"We shared about the exciting work the NJ Library for the Blind and Handicapped is doing to help support the independent business owners. Highlights of the day included a visit from NJ Congressman Rush Holt and an impromptu reading by Senator Edward Kennedy." (http://www.flickr.com/photos/thewordblog/650915336/)

Ted Kennedy on HEALTHCARE, "We are going to make healthcare what it should be - a fundamental right for all, rather than an expensive privilege for the few".

Who are the uninsured? http://www.truthout.org/082309Z

Up to 46 million Americans are uninsured, because they are unemployed, or their employer does not provide cover, or because they do not qualify for existing government-funded healthcare. People 65 and older can qualify for Medicare, the poor can qualify for Medicaid, veterans and members of the military can qualify for Veterans Health Administration and Tricare and children can be covered under a programme called SCHIP. Those left out by the system include the young just entering the workforce, the self-employed, the unemployed and people who work for small businesses.

Comparison of Canada's Health Care Plan http://www.truthout.org/082709A

It might be helpful for Americans to know about Canada's program. Here are some essential facts.

1. It is a single-payer system, meaning that the government - federal and provincial - pays the bills. But many providers - clinics, hospitals, diagnostic services, etc. - are privately owned. They are reimbursed for services just as doctors - who are mostly incorporated - submit for fees.

2. You get to choose your doctor.

In 2005, all the provincial government leaders reconfirmed their commitment to The Canada Health Act's key principles: that Canadians have the right to timely, high quality, effective and safe health services on the basis of need, not ability to pay, and regardless of where they live or move in Canada. They also committed to a system that is sustainable and affordable and that will be there for future generations.

Why We Need a Public Health-Care Plan in the Unites States http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124580516633344953.html

Without a public option, the other parties that comprise America's non-system of health care -- private insurers, doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and medical suppliers -- have little or no incentive to supply high-quality care at a lower cost than they do now.

Which is precisely why the public option has become such a lightening rod. The American Medical Association is dead-set against it, Big Pharma rejects it out of hand, and the biggest insurance companies won't consider it. No other issue in the current health-care debate is as fiercely opposed by the medical establishment and their lobbies now swarming over Capitol Hill. Of course, they don't want it. A public option would squeeze their profits and force them to undertake major reforms. That's the whole point.

Critics say the public option is really a Trojan horse for a government takeover of all of health insurance. But nothing could be further from the truth. It's an option. No one has to choose it. Individuals and families will merely be invited to compare costs and outcomes. Presumably they will choose the public plan only if it offers them and their families the best deal -- more and better health care for less.

Private insurers say a public option would have an unfair advantage in achieving this goal. Being the one public plan, it will have large economies of scale that will enable it to negotiate more favorable terms with pharmaceutical companies and other providers. But why, exactly, is this unfair? Isn't the whole point of cost containment to provide the public with health care on more favorable terms? If the public plan negotiates better terms -- thereby demonstrating that drug companies and other providers can meet them -- private plans could seek similar deals.

But, say the critics, the public plan starts off with an unfair advantage because it's likely to have lower administrative costs. That may be true -- Medicare's administrative costs per enrollee are a small fraction of typical private insurance costs -- but here again, why exactly is this unfair? Isn't one of the goals of health-care cost containment to lower administrative costs? If the public option pushes private plans to trim their bureaucracies and become more efficient, that's fine.

Critics complain that a public plan has an inherent advantage over private plans because the public won't have to show profits. But plenty of private plans are already not-for-profit. And if nonprofit plans can offer high-quality health care more cheaply than for-profit plans, why should for-profit plans be coddled? The public plan would merely force profit-making private plans to take whatever steps were necessary to become more competitive. Once again, that's a plus.

Critics charge that the public plan will be subsidized by the government. Here they have their facts wrong. Under every plan that's being discussed on Capitol Hill, subsidies go to individuals and families who need them in order to afford health care, not to a public plan. Individuals and families use the subsidies to shop for the best care they can find. They're free to choose the public plan, but that's only one option. They could take their subsidy and buy a private plan just as easily. Legislation should also make crystal clear that the public plan, for its part, may not dip into general revenues to cover its costs. It must pay for itself. And any government entity that oversees the health-insurance pool or acts as referee in setting ground rules for all plans must not favor the public plan.

Finally, critics say that because of its breadth and national reach, the public plan will be able to collect and analyze patient information on a large scale to discover the best ways to improve care. The public plan might even allow clinicians who form accountable-care organizations to keep a portion of the savings they generate. Those opposed to a public option ask how private plans can ever compete with all this. The answer is they can and should. It's the only way we have a prayer of taming health-care costs. But here's some good news for the private plans. The information gleaned by the public plan about best practices will be made available to the private plans as they try to achieve the same or better outputs.

As a practical matter, the choice people make between private plans and a public one is likely to function as a check on both. Such competition will encourage private plans to do better -- offering more value at less cost. At the same time, it will encourage the public plan to be as flexible as possible. In this way, private and public plans will offer one another benchmarks of what's possible and desirable.

Mr. Obama says he wants a public plan. But the strength of the opposition to it, along with his own commitment to making the emerging bill "bipartisan," is leading toward some oddball compromises. One would substitute nonprofit health insurance cooperatives for a public plan. But such cooperatives would lack the scale and authority to negotiate lower rates with drug companies and other providers, collect wide data on outcomes, or effect major change in the system.

Another emerging compromise is to hold off on a public option altogether unless or until private insurers fail to meet some targets for expanding coverage and lowering health-care costs years from now. But without a public option from the start, private insurers won't have the incentives or system-wide model they need to reach these targets. And in politics, years from now usually means never.

To get health care moving again in Congress, the president will have to be clear about how to deal with its costs and whether and how a public plan is to be included as an option. The two are intimately related. Enough talk. He should come out swinging for the public option.

Mr. Reich, professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, is the author of "Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life" (Alfred A. Knopf, 2007).

Ted Kennedy - Goodbye Camelot

bob-pol — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:11:54 EDT

A few photos I took of TV screen of Funeral services for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy Thursday, August 27.

Ted Kennedy's Final Exit from his famous Hyannis Port house.

Kennedy Family watches as Ted's coffin is loaded into hearse.

Camelot- Caroline's loving "goodbye touch" to uncle Ted.

Tribute to the best Senator who has ever served.

God Bless Ted Kennedy and his Family.

Rob [bob-pol] racggg@gmail.com

"KENNEDY'S DREAM" - HEALTH CARE FOR ALL

bob-pol — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:58:21 EDT

My Idea for a Town Hall Poster: KENNEDY'S DREAM.

Their mother taught them, "To whom much is given, much is required".

"We must care for those who cannot care for themselves", said Ted Kennedy.

47 MILLION AMERICANS have no health insurance. About 80% of them are working but their job provides no insurance and/or they cannot get or afford private insurance.

rob [bob-pol], Caring is the Key to Life.

racggg@gmail.com

Ted Kennedy Made His Mark in Life and Politics

bob-pol — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 02:45:20 EDT

Ted Kennedy, Man of Great Compassion moves on ... to his Heavenly Reward.

http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/3937/obama3kennedysrh7.jpg

from Boston Globe (1):

No senator in history, many now say, was able to be both his party's most forceful spokesman for its causes and the leader who cajoled colleagues of both parties into agreement.

In what once seemed like a premonition, President John F. Kennedy at his inauguration had given his youngest brother a silver cigarette box engraved with the biblical words from Matthew: "And the last shall be first."

Ted Kennedy did not succeed in following his brother's path, either in cultivating a faultless image or in wielding the powers of the presidency. But by the early 21st century, the achievements of the younger brother would be enough to rival those of many presidents.

That day on the Hyannis Port porch, his father-in-law's advice to relax and bask in his hard-won glory was also prescient. A year later, Kennedy would be diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor.

But then, as always in his turbulent life, Kennedy looked to his moorings: the Senate and the sea. He would meet cancer the way he met so many challenges.

He would keep working, and he would keep sailing.

http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/1248/obamakennedylaughca8.jpg

Our Ted, champion for the people, had seen great success, and had reason to Smile,

(1) from Boston Globe, A seven-part series on the Massachusetts senator ,,http://www.boston.com/news/specials/k ennedy/

May God Bless Ted and his Loved Ones,<Rob [bob-pol] racggg@gmail.com

President Obama Nominates Fed Chairman Bernanke to Second Term

EsquireUK — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:28:39 EDT

www.whitehouse.gov

Bernanke Is Nominated for Second Term as Fed Chief President Barack Obama nominated Ben S. Bernanke to a second four-year term starting Jan. 31. "Ben approached a financial system on the verge of collapse with calm and wisdom," Obama said. Bernanke has expanded the bank's power by the most in history to battle the worst economic slump since the Great Depression. His nomination requires Senate approval.

www.whitehouse.gov

Aug. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, who led the biggest expansion of the central bank’s power in its 95-year history to battle the worst economic slump since the Great Depression, was nominated to a second term today by President Barack Obama.

“Ben approached a financial system on the verge of collapse with calm and wisdom, with bold action and out-of-the box thinking that has helped put the brakes on our economic freefall,” Obama said in Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, with Bernanke at his side.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&refer=top_news&sid=a3rutrLT32Jw

Health Reform...Get The Facts

EsquireUK — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:18:03 EDT

Congress did not vote to exempt themselves from reform

Linda Douglass of the White House Office of Health Reform answers a question from outside the recent town hall in New Hampshire on why Congress voted to exempt themselves from reform. This is a myth: there is no exemption and there has not been any such vote. To the contrary, reform gives all Americans access to an insurance exchange much like the one Congress has enjoyed, and just like Congress, Americans will be free to make their own choices.

Watch the Video

Reform will expand your choices, not limit them

Linda Douglass of the White House Office of Health Reform answers a question from outside the recent town hall in New Hampshire on whether any government involvement in health care will end up limiting choices for consumers. This is a myth: even the addition of a public option will be just that – another option –and will not eliminate any choices to the consumer. To the contrary, this would bring down costs and expand choice.

Watch the Video

There is no panel to decide end-of-life care

Linda Douglass of the White House Office of Health Reform answers a question from outside the recent town hall in New Hampshire on why reform will empower a panel to decide end-of-life care for Americans. This is a myth that has unfortunately been spread far and wide by defenders of the status quo. There is no such panel in any of the bills being considered in Congress, period. To the contrary, the House bill gives Americans and their families more choice and access to counseling and information on these most difficult decisions if, and only if, they choose to pursue it.

Watch the Video

No bill puts off care for the disabled for "further study"

Linda Douglass of the White House Office of Health Reform answers a question from outside the recent town hall in New Hampshire on why a specific section of the House legislation (“section 1177”) puts off care for the disable pending "further study." This is a myth: for the disabled or their families, they can keep whatever care and coverage they currently have, but they will have additional options through Medicare for other voluntary programs. To the contrary, reform will make insurance more affordable, provide more options, and eliminate discrimination in purchasing health insurance so families won't be turned down if a parent or child has a pre-existing disability or other health condition.

Watch the Video

==> OFA Time to set the record straight

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:48:23 EDT

Rhonda --

It feels like a new lie about health insurance reform crops up each day. Government taking over all health care? Not true. Euthanasia for seniors? Couldn't be more false. Rationing of care? Reform will stop rationing, not increase it.

These lies create fear and anger, and we're seeing the results around the country. Frightened crowds have flooded town halls, and the office of a Georgia representative was defaced with a swastika.

It's time to set the record straight -- and, more importantly, expose the special interests and partisan attack organizations behind the lies and misinformation.

That's why we created our new "Setting the Record Straight" site. Check out the site today and then spread the word to your friends.

As the site makes clear, these lies are no accident. They're part of a deliberate plot by the special interests who profit from the status quo to kill any reform at all. While Americans watch their paychecks dwindle, their coverage disappear, and their businesses struggle, special interests are trying to scare folks into opposing reform.

Our "Setting the Record Straight" site has all the info you need to fight back, as well as easy ways to get involved in the fight for health insurance reform. We'll be updating it often with new information debunking health care lies, so stop by regularly.

As we learned during the campaign, lies like these can spread like wildfire through viral emails and from friend to friend. The best way to stop them is to arm yourself with the facts -- and make sure your friends and family know the truth.

Check out the site, and share it with everyone you know:

http://my.barackobama.com/record

Thanks,

Mitch

Mitch Stewart
Director
Organizing for America

P.S. -- Reminder: President Obama is holding a live strategy meeting on Thursday at 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time for all Organizing for America supporters. Click here to RSVP and submit a question for President Obama.

Paid for by Organizing for America, a project of the Democratic National Committee -- 430 South Capitol Street SE, Washington, D.C. 20003. This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

Health Insurance Reform

Jane Anne Jeffries Johnson — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:33:09 EDT

I retired from the Los Angeles Unified School District in February. I felt it was my civic duty to give up my job and live on my retirement, since the economy is struggling. I moved to Friday Harbor, Washington, where the economy is doing better than in California. I am able to keep abreast of the changes President Obama is making toward a more viable society and economy. I urge everyone who voted for him to continue to support him now. The sharks are swarming, and there is blood in the water. It's time to come together as a force for change.

Great Debate On Healthcare Reform

Nyagatare — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:38:17 EDT

April 23, 2008 Health Care Reform: Design Principles for a Patient-Centered, Consumer-Based Market by Edmund F. Haislmaier Backgrounder #2128

State and federal lawmakers are focusing increasingly on health care reform, and a growing number are expressing serious interest in "patient-focused" or "consumer-centered" approaches. This is certainly a positive development. Lawmakers of both parties are now more inclined to advocate making the patient the focus of America's health care system.

However, the vocabulary of health care policy is often elastic, and different people use the same terms to express significantly different concepts. This elasticity adds to the general confusion among the public and policymakers that seems to plague this area of public policy and often results in legislators and taxpayers talking at cross-purposes or past one another.

Consequently, clarifying the rationale, objectives, and principles of consumer-centered health care reform is important so that participants in the discussions, particularly the taxpayers, accurately comprehend the concepts and implications of this approach and are better equipped to evaluate the various proposed reforms at the federal and state levels.

Key Principles

The fundamental objective of a patient-centered health care system is to maximize value for individuals and families so that they receive more benefit and better results for their health care dollars, both as patients and as consumers buying health insurance. Only when individuals choose and own their own health insurance will the other actors in the system—health plans and providers—have the right incentives to deliver better value in the form of improved results at lower prices.

If policymakers are serious about real patient-centered, consumer-driven health care reform, they should ensure that their legislative proposals embody six key principles:

Individuals are the key decision makers inthe health care system. This would be a major departure from conventional third-party payment arrangements that dominate today's health care financing in both the public and the private sectors. In a normal market based on personal choice and free-market competition, consumers drive the system.
Individuals buy and own their own health insurance coverage.In a normal market, when individuals exchange money for a good or service, they acquire a property right in that good or service, but in today's system, individuals and families rarely have property rights in their health insurance coverage. The policy is owned and controlled by a third party, either their employers or government officials. In a reformed system, individuals would own their health insurance, just as they own virtually every other type of insurance in virtually every other sector of the economy.
Individuals choose their own health insurance coverage.Individuals, not employers or government officials, would choose the health care coverage and level of coverage that they think best. In a normal market, the primacy of consumer choice is the rule, not the exception.
Individuals have a wide range of coverage choices.Suppliers of medical goods and services, including health plans, could freely enter and exit the health care market.
Prices are transparent.As in a normal market, individuals as consumers would actually know the prices of the health insurance plan or the medical goods and services that they are buying. This would help them to compare the value that they receive for their money.
Individuals have the periodic opportunity to change health coverage.In a consumer-driven health insurance market, individuals would have the ability to pick a new health plan on predictable terms. They would not be locked into past decisions and deprived of the opportunity to make future choices.

The Key Tests of Reform

Notall health care reform legislation that is labeled consumer-oriented is equally effective or significant. The key test is whether or not it puts in place structural changes that maximize the ability of a large number of individuals to make basic choices about their own health insurance coverage and medical care.

Individuals are both consumers and patients. In a consumer-centered health system, individuals directly control the flow of dollars, buy and own their own health plans, pick the kinds of coverage that they want, and determine which plans offer them the best value.

In such a system, consumers expect transparent prices, and consumer choice stimulates competition among plans and providers to offer better value for money. That competition, in turn, drives innovation in both clinical practice and plan design. For individuals as patients and consumers, value for money is judged in terms of results: better medical outcomes, improvements in their health condition or status, cost-effective treatments, and health plans that save them money by helping them stay well and, when they do need care, by identifying the providers that offer the best results at the best price for their particular condition.

Thus, true consumer-centered health reform is system-focused reform, not product-focused reform. Its objective is to improve performance and results by changing the basic structure and incentives of health care markets so as to maximize value for money in health insurance and medical care. It is not simply an exercise in legislating new product designs or trying to plug gaps in coverage by crafting new programs for targeted subpopulations. Instead, true consumer-centered health reform focuses on making fundamental structural changes in the system, as opposed to merely expanding the existing system or micromanaging insurance plan designs or provider reimbursement methodologies.

Policymakers need to step out of the conventional mindset that accepts the basic structure of the present system as a given and attempts only to modify it around the edges. For example, legislative proposals to promote certain product types— e.g., health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and health savings accounts (HSAs)—may well have beneficial effects, but they do not fundamentally change how the system functions as long as someone else picks the health plan for the individual. Similarly, no amount of regulatory tinkering with provider reimbursement rates or payment methodologies can create more than marginal improvements in value as long as the system vests control over key decisions with employer and government "payers" who are not the ones receiving the medical care or using the health insurance policy.

Rather, consumer-centered health reform challenges policymakers to redesign the basic rules of the health care market to create new incentives for all of the actors in the system to put the interests of consumers and patients first.

Properly designed structural reforms will also produce a better framework and new incentives for addressing the current system's failings in cost, access, and quality more effectively. If responding to consumer needs and preferences is made the organizing principle of the system, then insurers and providers will have the right incentives to develop innovative ways to deliver better value to consumers and patients in the form of lower costs and improved outcomes.

In a reformed market, competition will produce new and better plan designs, clinical practices, and provider payment arrangements without lawmakers needing to micromanage the process. At the same time, it will generate new opportunities for lawmakers to focus public assistance more effectively to ensure that all Americans have access to the benefits of a system that offers better value.

The fundamental problem with the current system is that it encourages all participants (payers, insurers, providers, and patients) to engage in a giant game of cost-shifting, with each party trying to stick one or more of the others with a bigger share of the bill. Thus, while there may be plenty of competition in the present system, much of it is a zero-sum competition in which there is a loser for every winner. What America's health care system desperately needs are structural changes that create positive-sum competition in which all participants can "win" by working, often collaboratively, to improve the health care value proposition.[1]

The Consumer As Key Decision Maker

The place to start examining any economic or social system is with its basic organizing principle, which is identified by asking "Who is the key decision maker in the system?" In any economic or social system, the key decision maker is the one who sets the parameters for the other participants in the system. The other participants must act in response to the needs or preferences of the key decision makers.

Political science clarifies this process. For example, in a democratic system of representative government, the organizing principle is popular sovereignty, identified by the fact that voters are the key decision makers. Other participants (e.g., office holders, public employees, lobbyists, and interest groups) operate within the framework of the preferences periodically expressed by voters in elections. To advance his or her interests successfully, another participant must ultimately persuade voters either that they already want what the participant is proposing or that they should want it.

This creates a cascading chain of incentives throughout the system. For example, the most successful way for a lobbyist to persuade a politician to vote for what the lobbyist wants is to show the politician how such a vote would be popular with voters.

Other political systems (e.g., monarchies, aristocracies, and dictatorships) have different organizing principles, each of which can be determined by identifying the key decision makers in these systems.

The same holds true in economics. Most market economic systems are "consumer-driven" because the individual customer is the key decision maker. The other participants (e.g., producers, shippers, wholesalers, and retailers) must operate within the framework of the consumers' preferences as expressed through their purchases. To advance their own interests successfully, the other players must find ways to persuade customers either that they are offering what the customers already want or that the customers should want what they are offering.

Again, the result is a cascading chain of incentives. Thus, the surest way for a shipper to get a producer's business is to demonstrate that it can deliver goods to retailers or consumers more quickly and at less cost.

As in politics, alternative economic system designs can be recognized by identifying the key decision makers and, thus, the systems' organizing principles.

For example, the organizing principle of a monopoly is that the economic sector is "producer-driven." A monopoly exists (whether by accident or by design) when only one producer provides a particular product, thus making that producer the key decision maker. With no alternative producers available, other participants in the sector (e.g., consumers and retailers) are constrained by what the sole producer decides to produce and its quantity, timing, and price.

Likewise, when suppliers collude, such as through a guild or cartel, the resulting market can be described as "supplier-driven," reflecting the fact that suppliers hold the key decision-making power in that particular sector.

The Health Care Sector Anomaly

In health care, on the supply side of the supply and demand equation are physicians, hospitals, and other health care professionals and institutions. Collectively, they are commonly referred to as health care providers. On the demand side are the patients who are seeking or receiving medical treatment. The broader term "consumer" encompasses not only patients, but also individuals who, while not actively seeking or receiving medical care, purchase related products and services, most notably health insurance.

In the U.S. and many other countries, health care differs from most other economic sectors because government policies have sponsored, promoted, and maintained an anomaly in the sector—an additional set of participants known as third-party payers. While individuals always ultimately pay the costs of any health system, governments have instituted policies that effectively divert a portion of their incomes into the hands of others (the payers), who then make the basic or key decisions on how to spend the money on behalf of patients.

The simplest variant of this arrangement is the single-payer system, in which the government taxes its citizens and then pays medical providers for treating them. The U.S. and some other countries have developed multipayer variants of the same basic model.

In multipayer health systems, the government is almost always one of the payers, but its role is more limited than in single-payer systems, typically operating tax-funded medical care payment programs only for certain subgroups of the population. For example, in the U.S., the federal government runs a tax-funded single-payer system for the elderly called Medicare, while the state governments run a similar system for the poor called Medicaid.

However, for the majority of individuals in countries operating multipayer health systems, the relevant third-party payers are private entities such as employers, unions, or associations. These private payers divert a portion of their workers' or members' income either to buy health insurance or to pay medical bills directly on behalf of their employees or members. These arrangements can be either mandatory, as in Germany, or voluntary, as in the U.S.[2]

Yet, in a voluntary third-party payment system, individuals are unlikely to hand over large chunks of their income and the authority to spend it without something that makes the arrangement significantly more advantageous to them than buying the services directly. That is particularly true for something as personal and important as health insurance and medical care.

In the U.S., these arrangements exist largely because employee compensation that is diverted through employers to buy the employees' health insurance is exempt from federal income and payroll taxes. In contrast, if workers wanted their employers to divert part of their compensation for other purposes—such as buying groceries, paying for their housing, or leasing cars for their personal use—they would find that tax law treats such arrangements as income and taxes the workers accordingly. While the law does not prevent employers and workers from entering into third-party payment arrangements for food, housing, transportation, or anything else, such arrangements are uncommon because they offer no clear advantage (tax or otherwise) to workers over receiving their compensation in cash and then paying directly for the goods or services of their choice.

The Evolution of the Health Care System

Current health care systems are a relatively recent phenomenon. They evolved in response to advances in biology, chemistry, and physics since the end of the 19th century that transformed medicine into a scientific discipline and an expanding economic sector. Even though the purpose of medicine is to better the lives and health of patients, the health care financing arrangements that evolved over the past century have never been truly consumer-centered.

Through at least the first half of the 20th century, health systems were essentially provider-centered. Patients were expected to defer to the judgment of medical professionals and to pay what was charged. It was considered highly unprofessional for physicians to engage in explicit price competition. Hospitals granted admitting privileges to physicians, and physicians referred patients to the hospitals where they had such privileges. Thus, a hospital's real customers were the doctors who controlled the flow of paying patients, not the patients themselves.

This basic structure persisted even as third-party payers, whether governments or employers, were introduced into the equation. Third-party payers were expected to pay the usual and customary charges billed by physicians and hospitals for their services, but not to question the benefits, quality, or value of these services. This provider-centered focus can be seen in early health insurance arrangements. For example, in the 1930s, hospitals organized Blue Cross and doctors organized Blue Shield to guarantee providers steady, predictable income streams by having patients—and later, their employers—effectively prepay for medical care on a subscription basis.

However, the resulting growth in the cost of medical care eventually spurred payers to start questioning the bills, beginning in the 1970s. At first, the focus was on the prices charged by providers. Payers, both government programs and private insurers working for the employers who were their customers, imposed payment limits on provider charges. Over time, those initial limits evolved into complex and comprehensive payer-imposed provider fee schedules.

However, as the payers soon discovered, prices constituted only half of the cost equation. Costs were still climbing thanks to steady increases in the volume and intensity of the medical care being provided. In recent decades, payers have tried to tackle this other half of the cost equation with a variety of restrictions on patient access to specific treatments or technologies.

The result is that today's health care financing systems, whether at home or abroad, are functionally payer-centered, with third-party payers having displaced providers as the key decision makers in the system.

In this specific sense, there is no qualitative difference between a single-payer system and a multipayer system. Both systems are payer-centered. Consequently, both systems generate the same incentives for other participants to respond to payers' demands and preferences rather than those of providers or patients. In a single-payer or a multipayer system, the payers decide whether or not to contract out to private insurers all or part of their role in managing the system, and they determine the terms and extent of such contracts. Private insurers therefore first serve the interests of the third-party payers who are their customers.

Thus, the relevant question is "For whom do the private insurers work?" not "Are private insurers part of the system?"

The Alternative: A Patient-Centered, Consumer-Based System

The obvious shortcoming of a provider-centered system is that it distorts the system in the direction of providing more, regardless of cost. The natural tendency of providers is to assume that increasing the volume and intensity of medical services will generate more benefit. Of course, this assumption is not consistently true. Depending on the circumstances, a particular test or therapy can be unnecessary or ineffective. Indeed, many medical interventions entail significant risks to the patient and can cause more harm than good. At other times, the modest benefits are not worth the costs.

In contrast, the shortcoming of a payer-centered system is that it distorts the system in the opposite direction by focusing on the cost side of the equation to the detriment of the benefit side. The most obvious, most effective, and simplest way to limit costs is by not spending money, but simply paying less or refusing to pay at all does not inherently produce more benefit or better value for the patient.

Furthermore, both a provider-centered system and a payer-centered system have an inherent bias to favor short-term considerations over long-term considerations. In a provider-centered system, the incentive is to do more now without adequately considering the possibility that such a course of action could produce a worse result later. In a payer-centered system, the incentive is to save money today without adequately considering the possibility that this could increase future costs.

Neither a provider-centered system nor a payer-centered system has the requisite incentives to maximize value systematically and consistently. Only consumers have a natural interest in a system that reduces costs while simultaneously improving results over the long term.

For any economic system to be value-maximizing, it must consistently and broadly reward consumers with lower cost and greater benefits if they seek the best value and must reward producers and suppliers with more business and higher incomes if they offer a better value than their competitors.

Thus, the foundational insight behind consumer-centered health care reform is that the only way to achieve better value in health care is to make the consumer the key decision maker in the system. Only when users and payers are the same will the incentives in the health care system properly align to seek and generate better value. Since third-party payers are never the users of the system—after all, doctors and hospitals treat people, they don't treat governments or companies—the only way to align the incentives to produce better value is to give those who use the system (patients and consumers) control over the funding and the associated spending decision. No other alternative arrangement can systematically and consistently produce more for less and secure value for the patient.

The Objectives of Patient-Centered, Consumer-Based Reform

The overarching objective of consumer-centered health care reform is to transform the health care market into one that maximizes value, meaning that the system's operational dynamic is competition among participants to produce better results at lower cost for patients and consumers. Once delivering better value to consumers becomes what enables other participants (e.g., doctors, hospitals, insurers, drug makers, and insurance agents) to "win" within the system, many of the current problems start to solve themselves. A consumer-centered system begins to control costs because it creates increased pressure to justify costs better in terms of demonstrated benefit. At the same time, a consumer-centered system generates pressure to improve results by demanding data showing that anticipated benefits are commensurate with expected costs.

Consumer choice also creates stronger incentives for measuring and reporting quality and performance because consumers need that information to make better decisions, thus producing improvements in those areas as well. Even a portion of the access problem begins to solve itself. When health insurance attaches to the person instead of to the job, fewer people encounter circumstances in which they lose their health insurance coverage, and the size of the uninsured population is commensurately reduced.

A secondary objective is to provide lawmakers with a better foundation on which to build complementary public policies that more effectively address those access issues that competitive markets alone cannot solve. For example, the existence of a consumer-centered market for food makes it easier for policymakers to assist those who need help beyond what the market can provide through such means as subsidies in the form of food stamps or targeted incentives for grocery stores to operate in economically or geographically marginal, underserved areas. In a similar fashion, the presence of a consumer-centered, value-maximizing health system would allow lawmakers to focus tax dollars on helping those individuals who are financially or geographically disadvantaged to "buy into" a well-functioning system.

Another secondary objective is to encourage greater innovation. In this regard, health system innovation encompasses not only medical innovation to produce new and better treatments and therapies, but also innovation in organization and financing such as developing better clinical practices for treating patients, better provider payment arrangements, and better insurance plan designs.

This last point is particularly important. By putting the interests of patients and consumers first, a consumer-centered system forces other participants, particularly insurers and providers, to rethink their relationships and interactions. The current confrontational dynamic, in which providers try to force payers to spend more and payers try to force providers to charge less and do less, becomes an unproductive strategy for both sides because it does not produce the better value that consumers want. Instead, in a consumer-centered market, providers and insurers would find that they can both win (gain market share and increase income) if they collaborate to deliver better value (more benefits for less costs) to patients and consumers. This forces them to think more creatively and urgently about how providers can improve their quality, results, and efficiency and how insurers can restructure provider payment and contracting arrangements to capture newly created value and pass the savings and benefits on to their customers.[3]

The Key Principles of Real Reform

Lawmakers looking to design the right policy framework for enabling a consumer-centered, value-maximizing health system need to start with six key principles.

PRINCIPLE #1: Individual consumers are the key decision makers in the system.

In a consumer-centered health care system, individuals are the key decision makers with respect to medical treatments and health insurance. The current payers in the system (governments and employers) will still play an important role, but in a different fashion. They will no longer manage the details of the system, but will instead play supporting roles in assisting consumers, who become the system's primary decision makers. The role of employer will center on providing their employees as consumers with financial engineering and decision-support services.

The financial engineering aspect encompasses various employer strategies to help workers participate in the system more efficiently. For example, the workplace is a convenient location for distributing information and handling administrative tasks, such as workers choosing coverage from a menu of options during an annual open season. Similarly, employer participation in an automatic payroll deduction system for insurance premiums is an administrative efficiency that benefits workers at very little cost to employers.

Most important, as long as federal tax policy treats worker compensation for health care as tax-free to the worker if it is passed through the employer's hands, employers can leverage the tax code to ensure that their employees' spending on health insurance and medical care takes advantage of that favorable tax treatment. Doing so effectively lowers the cost of health insurance and medical care to workers by 15 percent to 50 percent because workers do not pay taxes on this compensation.[4]

Employers can also play a decision-support role by assisting their employees with information and guidance in making health care choices. Most often, this will take the form of the employer or an insurance broker under contract with the employer helping individual workers pick the insurance plans that best suit their personal circumstances and preferences. Employers can also offer their employees a range of related services, such as workplace clinics; health promotion programs; information on the costs, risks, and benefits of common treatments; and comparative data on the quality and results of health care providers. Employers inclined in this direction will find that numerous vendors already exist who are willing and able to bring these and similar programs into the workplace.

For governments, their role in a consumer-centered system shifts to financial assistance. Ultimately, the goal should be for the government to stop trying to design and operate public health insurance plans and instead focus on providing disadvantaged individuals with the necessary funds to buy into the same consumer-centered system that everyone else uses.

This will primarily take the form of steps to shift public assistance from a defined-benefit model to a premium-support model. In the current defined-benefit model, the government operates separate public health insurance plans for specified subsets of the population—something that government is poorly equipped to do competently. In a premium-support model, the government would operate programs to supplement the incomes of those who do not have sufficient funds to buy adequate health insurance and medical care in the market, just as the government now does with food stamps to help the poor buy groceries.

In some places, such as rural areas or economically distressed locations, governments might also provide assistance in the form of targeted subsidies or incentives to ensure that essential health services are available—for example, by funding clinics or offering inducements to health professionals to practice in those areas.

PRINCIPLE #2: Individuals buy and own their own health insurance coverage.

For a health system to be consumer-driven, health insurance coverage must be purchased and owned by individual consumers. In other words, the coverage contract must be an agreement between the insurer and the individual consumer. If the contract is between the insurer and some other party, such as an employer or a government, then the other party, not the individual consumer, is the insurer's real customer.

While at one level a coverage contract is a legal arrangement, it is primarily an economic arrangement. The legal aspects of the contract simply define the specifics of the underlying economic arrangement between the insurer as the supplier and the counterparty as the customer. As a supplier, the insurer is legally obligated and economically motivated to work in the interest of its customers. However, when the counterparty is an employer or government, that entity becomes the insurer's customer, and the counterparty's interests may differ from or be contrary to the individual's interests, even if the coverage is ostensibly purchased for the individual.

A simple analogy illustrates this key point. When a parent purchases breakfast cereal for a child, the customer is the parent, not the child. The parent and the child may have different opinions as to the best cereal to purchase. Indeed, these different opinions likely result from differences between the interests and preferences of the parent and the child. For example, the child likely prefers flavor over nutrition, while the parent will likely view nutrition as more important than flavor. Of course, the child's preferences likely influence, at least partially, the parent's decision, and cereal makers may even try to exploit this by pitching advertising to the child in the hope that he will influence his parents.

Ultimately, the buying decision rests with the parent, who is therefore the cereal maker's true customer. For the child to be the customer, the child must make the purchasing decision, using either his own money or money given him by a parent. Absent such a shift in decision-making authority, to sell more cereal, the cereal maker must first make its products attractive to the parents who will buy them, regardless of how attractive it makes the cereals to the children who will eat them. This means that the cereal maker must focus on the aspects that matter most to parents, such as nutritional content or pricing that gives them good value for their money.

While parents letting their children choose which breakfast cereal to buy is probably not a good idea, having individual consumers—not their employers or the government—choose their own health insurance plans is a good idea.

PRINCIPLE #3: Individual consumers choose their own health insurance coverage.

Individual ownership of coverage is an essential criterion for a consumer-driven market, but it is not the only criterion. A market characterized by individuals purchasing the product is still not a consumer-driven market if only one product is available, if there is only one supplier, or if the suppliers are organized in a cartel.

In such monopolistic circumstances, the lack of meaningful choice for consumers means that the key decision-making power still resides on the supply side of the economic equation. For the market-shaping power of the key decision maker to shift from the supply side to the demand side, consumers must have a choice of competing products and suppliers. Only then must suppliers respond to consumers instead of the other way around.

The linchpin of a consumer-centered health care market is the opportunity for individuals to choose the health insurance coverage that best suits their own preferences. While choice of health care providers is certainly essential to a well-functioning, consumer-centered market, the ability to choose among a diverse array of competing health insurance plans is the most important feature. This is true for two reasons.

First,health insurance is the principal mechanism for financing medical care. Indeed, this is true even when consumers opt for high-deductible plans and purchase much of their routine medical care directly from providers. For a health system to be truly consumer-centered, individual consumers must ultimately decide how the money in the system is spent. Thus, the first and most basic decision that consumers must be allowed to make is which health insurance plan to purchase.

Second,the choice of a health insurance plan of necessity incorporates a whole set of other implicit choices, such as what the plan will pay for versus what the consumer will purchase directly from providers, how and from whom the consumer will receive care, and how the plan will assist consumers in deciding among competing providers and treatment options. This last consideration is particularly important. Even the most sophisticated consumer may not have all of the relevant information available or have sufficient time to gather and analyze it when deciding among providers and treatments. However, health plans have—or should have—the information and expertise to assist consumers in making these decisions.

What consumers want is good value—meaning the best medical care at the best price. In a competitive market in which consumers choose their own health insurance, insurers succeed and prosper by offering consumers a better value proposition than their competitors offer. In other words, they apply their data and expertise to finding their customers the best medical care at the best price or, better yet, to finding ways to help their customers minimize their medical spending by staying or becoming healthy.

Thus, when individual consumers decide which insurance plan to purchase, insurers become the consumers' expert agents, helping them to navigate the health care system and obtain the best results at the lowest cost.

PRINCIPLE #4: Individuals have a wide range of coverage choices.

In any truly consumer-centered market, multiple suppliers compete to offer consumers better products at better prices. Yet for market competition to produce better value consistently—that is, by simultaneously increasing benefits while decreasing costs—consumers must be free to choose from a range of different options, and suppliers must have wide latitude to innovate in meeting consumer demands and preferences with new and better products. Thus, a precondition to any well-functioning, consumer-centered market is that lawmakers avoid unduly restricting either the options available to consumers or the scope for supplier innovation.

Government does need to set some basic rules for any well-functioning market. Much like establishing product safety standards or a uniform system of weights and measures, government can establish rules that facilitate well-functioning markets without unduly restricting supplier innovation or consumer choice. However, for a competitive market to function optimally, the basic rules need to permit wide scope for suppliers to innovate in developing new and better products and features to meet consumer needs and preferences.

Furthermore, lawmakers need to recognize that not all consumers have the same needs, preferences, or priorities. Suppliers must be free to innovate in offering different products to different subsets of consumers, targeting their different needs and preferences. This is particularly important in the health care sector where constantly expanding scientific knowledge and the resulting innovations in medical treatment force continual reassessment of what is "best" for individual patients and specific medical conditions.

For example, in health care, it is appropriate for government to limit the practice of medicine to those who demonstrate adequate knowledge and skill, but lawmakers should avoid inappropriately restricting provider competition with rules beyond those necessary to ensure basic provider competence and patient safety. Likewise, lawmakers should also take care to avoid imposing regulations that needlessly micromanage providers, stifle innovation in clinical practices, or favor one set of providers over another.[5]

In the same fashion, lawmakers need to set basic standards and rules for health insurance products and the companies that offer them. Yet they need to resist the temptation to substitute their judgment for the consumers' judgment.

In setting health insurance market rules, lawmakers should focus on establishing the broad market parameters and allow market competition to work out the details. For example, in setting coverage standards, lawmakers should limit themselves to specifying basic coverage categories, such as physician services, hospital services, and prescription drugs. They should avoid micromanaging the market by, among other things, imposing coverage mandates for specific conditions or treatments or by stipulating how plans must contract with providers.

Similarly, lawmakers should not enact measures that favor one particular plan design over others. Government policy should treat all plan designs (e.g., HMO, preferred provider organization (PPO), indemnity insurance, and HSA with high-deductible insurance) equally. Such an approach not only permits beneficial competition and innovation, but just as importantly respects and accommodates differing personal preferences among consumers.

PRINCIPLE #5: Prices are transparent to consumers.

The same holds true in establishing rules for the price side of the price/benefit equation. In all cases, lawmakers should avoid direct "price setting" because such interventions inevitably distort the market in ways that end up harming both suppliers and consumers.

Yet government does play a legitimate role in ensuring that a market functions fairly and smoothly by establishing basic pricing rules, which enable consumers to comparison shop effectively by clearly informing them up front about the price of each option. For example, government requires grocers to include the unit price on the label of products sold by weight or volume and requires lenders to disclose the effective annual percentage rate (APR) of a loan when offering financing to prospective borrowers.

In a similar fashion, lawmakers will need to reach agreement with stakeholders on the appropriate standards for calculating and communicating prices to consumers in the health system. While enhanced price transparency at the provider level will certainly improve the functioning of the health system, the bigger issue will be the rules for how insurers price their health plan offerings.

Because insurance premiums can be calculated in a number of different ways, lawmakers need to establish rules for reporting those prices so that consumers can comparison shop among the different offerings. In other words, which factors and parameters will be used in reporting prices? Will prices (premiums) be reported on an age-adjusted basis? If so, will the competing plans produce rate tables priced in one-year age increments, or will five-year age increments be sufficient for insurers and simpler for consumers? Lawmakers will need to address similar questions about other possible rating factors, such as geography and family status.

Regardless of the specifics, lawmakers need to establish some set of basic rules on reporting premiums. Otherwise, if competing insurers priced their plans in different ways, or if insurers customized the premium charged to each individual customer, it would be difficult or even impossible for consumers to comparison shop among plans. Without some agreed convention on reporting prices, the balance of power in the market shifts back to the supplier because the answer to the consumer's question "What is the price?" becomes "It depends." This makes it difficult for consumers to weigh the relative costs and benefits of competing options accurately and makes the market supplier-driven instead of consumer-driven.

The specifics of the pricing convention are less important than making certain that some standard pricing convention is used. For example, for many years the standard convention on the New York Stock Exchange was to price stocks in eighths of a U.S. dollar, while the London Stock Exchange used hundredths of a British pound. Although they used different pricing conventions, both markets worked equally smoothly. Indeed, when U.S. stock markets switched to using hundredths of a U.S. dollar, some market participants fared marginally better or worse than they had fared under the previous convention, but the markets continued to function smoothly. In contrast, a stock market would become less transparent and less efficient if each company was listed using its own choice of currency and fractional system.

In setting these and other market parameters, lawmakers should focus on ensuring that the resulting rules are transparent and equitable to consumers and that they provide insurers with a level playing field while accommodating their legitimate business concerns.

PRINCIPLE #6: Consumers have regular opportunities to make coverage choices on predictable terms.

For a market to be truly consumer-centered, individuals must be able, at least periodically, to reconsider past purchasing decisions and make different ones. A market that restricts consumer choice by unreasonably locking consumers into past decisions also has the effect of shifting the balance of power in the market back to suppliers.

For example, if a market rule locked consumers into buying new cars only from the manufacturers of their first cars, this would clearly shift market power from consumers back to suppliers and reduce producer competition and its resulting benefits. With much of its customer base locked into its product line, each producer would have significantly less incentive to respond to consumer demands for better products, more innovative features, and lower prices.

For the health insurance market to be truly consumer-driven, a clear set of rules must establish when and under what terms consumers can choose among competing options. Otherwise, adverse selection or constant churning could undermine the stability and viability of these markets. Nonetheless, these rules need to ensure that the market puts the interests of consumers firmly ahead of the interests of suppliers (the insurers) while still accommodating the legitimate business concerns of the suppliers.

This feature of consumer-centered health reform will likely be the most unsettling to many insurers because it will require them to adjust their business practices to accommodate a new market dynamic in which the customer picks the supplier. In the current dynamic, the supplier picks its customers through various strategies that focus on selling to some potential customers but not to others.

In setting this portion of the market rules for a consumer-centered system, lawmakers need to start from a clear understanding of both the product in question and the needs and behavior of consumers.

A significant portion of any health insurance plan is not insurance in the classic sense of financial protection against unpredictable risks or costs. All health insurance plans still retain some element of this protection, but it is no longer their primary feature. Rather, a large share of health insurance today consists of prepayment for medical care of varying cost and predictability. While the concept of using health insurance to pay for a full range of possible medical care was originally developed decades ago to serve the providers' interest in having more predictable income, that concept has since superseded its original intent.

Today, health insurance plans are a way for consumers to manage their need to finance medical care of varying predictability. In recent decades, advances in medical science have steadily made more medical services more predictable for more patients. Furthermore, the current trends in scientific discoveries and their practical applications in the clinical setting will make even more medical care more predictable for more patients in the future. This is an irreversible dynamic that is driven by steadily expanding knowledge in the basic sciences of biology, chemistry, and physics, closely followed by constant practical innovation in applying that knowledge to the development of new tests and therapies.

This ongoing scientific evolution has several practical implications for health insurance and health insurance markets.

First,it is no longer practical or desirable for policymakers to attempt to fight the rising tide of scientific knowledge by trying to restrict health insurance plans to paying only for the limited and ever-shrinking share of medical care that is genuinely unpredictable. Even the more consumer-directed plan designs that limit coverage by requiring subscribers to pay directly for more of their routine care will need to evolve to accommodate this new reality—for example, through mechanisms to ensure that incentives are properly aligned between the care that subscribers purchase directly and the care paid for by the plan—so that the totality of treatment is integrated and produces optimal results. While such plans will continue to attract a share of consumers, they will need to demonstrate in a competitive market that the total proposition offered—the combination of services paid directly by the consumer and services reimbursed by the plan—is a good value compared to other plan designs and produces a combined outcome for the consumer that is as good as or better than that offered by alternative, competing arrangements.

Second,plans will need to become more of the consumer's "expert agent" who works to identify for customers the best providers and treatment options available at the best prices. Some current business practices, such as negotiating provider contracts based mainly on price and then steering patients to those providers, will not compete adequately in a value-maximizing market.[6] Instead, plans will need to develop new strategies. For example, they might cover all providers in a given market but vary patient co-pays according to an analysis, which the plan makes available to its subscribers, of which providers offer the best results at the best prices. Pharmacy benefit managers have already pioneered such a business strategy in the form of tiered co-pays for different competing drugs.

Third,a consumer-centered system will need to curtail some current insurer underwriting practices that exclude, limit, or charge above-standard rates for coverage for certain individuals or certain medical conditions. While these traditional practices will need to be retained in a limited form as penalties against those who wait until they are sick to buy coverage, they cannot be applied when individuals with coverage choose a different plan if the new market is truly consumer-centered. One of the important incentives for purchasing health insurance when an individual is healthy must be the assurance that future changes in health status will not disadvantage the individual when retaining existing coverage or choosing new coverage.[7]

Fourth,as science increasingly makes more medical care more predictable, health plans must recognize that they are increasingly less in the business of cross-subsidizing unpredictable risks and more in the business of cross-subsidizing health status. In this regard, cross-subsidizing health status is not only a horizontal exercise—commonly understood as the healthy paying for the sick—but also a longitudinal one in which a healthy person today will probably be in poorer health at some point in the future or even vice versa.

A competitive, consumer-centered system will force insurers to rethink some of their business practices in this area as well. For example, insurers might experiment with offering features such as multi-year contracting, premium discounts for participation in wellness or disease management programs, or cash rebates to subscribers who successfully meet agreed-upon health improvement goals. These and other novel plan designs can create powerful new incentives for consumers, providers, and insurers to work together to achieve better value by keeping or making consumers healthier at a lower cost.

Fifth,lawmakers must ensure that the market rules in this regard are fair to consumers, while also accommodating the legitimate business concerns of insurers. For example, if consumers are to be able to choose coverage at standard rates regardless of health status, it will be necessary to limit when consumers can make these choices to avoid confusion in the market. For instance, consumers could be limited to choosing or changing coverage only during an annual open season, or for some other fixed period of time, with exceptions for special circumstances such as loss of employment or loss of coverage under a spouse's plan.

Similarly, lawmakers will need to work closely and cooperatively with insurers to devise risk-adjustment mechanisms to give insurers incentives not to avoid subscribers with health problems, but rather to help them get better outcomes at better prices or even to specialize in identifying and organizing cost-effective treatments for patients with specific conditions, such as diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. The market will need risk-adjustment mechanisms that allow each insurer to accept all customers regardless of their individual health status and that permit all insurers to aggregate a portion of their large claims and equitably redistribute these costs across all consumers in the market.[8]

Conclusion

The current debate over health care reform is usually framed in terms of addressing cost and access problems, accompanied by occasional discussions about the need to improve quality and outcomes in the system. Yet those issues are all manifestations of a more fundamental dissatisfaction with the status quo. Implicitly, both policymakers and the public are motivated by a sense that health care today is not living up to their expectations for value at either the individual level or the societal level.

While America's current health system has clear strengths, it also has significant weaknesses. For all the benefits that it provides in helping people to live longer and healthier lives, America's health care system seems too costly, confusing, inefficient, and uneven in its results, and it leaves too many people without adequate access to its benefits. Fundamentally, Americans as individuals and as a society intuitively recognize that the present health system could do a much better job of delivering value.

Put simply, Americans rightly sense that either they are paying too much for their present health system or the system should be delivering better results given what they are already paying.

The solution and the challenge for policymakers is to undertake the reforms needed to transform the present system into one that does a much better job of rewarding the seeking and creation of better value. As the experience of other economic sectors shows, health care need not be a zero-sum game in which costs can be controlled only by limiting benefits and benefits can be expanded only by increasing costs. Rather, a value-maximizing system will simultaneously demand and reward continuous improvements in benefits while continuously reducing costs.

Such a value-maximizing result can be achieved in health care only if the system is restructured to make the consumer the key decision maker. When individual consumers decide how the money is spent, either directly for medical care or indirectly through their health insurance choices, the incentives will be aligned throughout the system to generate better value—in other words, to produce more for less.

All Americans should be able to agree with the goal of creating a value-maximizing health care system. Consumer-centered health care marketreforms are the only effective means for achieving that goal.

Edmund F. Haislmaier is Senior Research Fellow in the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

[1] For a concise discussion of why structural change is needed and how to refocus competition on value maximization, see Michael E. Porter and Elizabeth Olmsted Teisberg, "Redefining Competition in Health Care," Harvard Business Review, June 2004. For a longer discussion, see Michael E. Porter and Elizabeth Olmsted Teisberg, Redefining Health Care: Creating Value-Based Competition on Results (Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press, 2006). See also Regina E. Herzlinger, Who Killed Health Care? America's $2 Trillion Medical Problem—and the Consumer-Driven Cure (New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill, 2007).

[2] For a concise overview of the German health system, see David G. Green, Ben Irvine, and Ben Cackett, "Health Care in Germany," Civitas, 2005, at www.civitas.org.uk/nhs/germany.php (April 15, 2008).

[3] See Porter and Teisberg, "Redefining Competition in Health Care" and Redefining Health Care: Creating Value-Based Competition on Results.

[4] The value to a worker of the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance is equal to the combined marginal income and payroll tax rates that would be imposed if the compensation were instead paid to the worker as taxable cash income. For a low-wage worker with no federal income tax liability, the tax exclusion is worth 15.3 cents per dollar of health benefits, reflecting the combined employee and employer payroll (FICA) tax rate. Thus, the value of the tax exclusion for that worker is effectively a 15 percent discount on the cost of buying health insurance. For a worker in the 28 percent income tax bracket, the value of the tax exclusion is 43 percent (15 percent payroll tax plus 28 percent federal income tax) and, depending on the applicable state income tax rate, can approach 50 percent when avoidance of state taxes is included.

[5] Examples of such counterproductive regulations include certificate-of-need laws that restrict the availability of medical facilities, technologies, or services; insurance benefit laws that dictate how plans are to pay certain favored health care providers; and laws that unreasonably restrict competition among providers, such as ones that bar the creation of specialty hospitals. For further discussions of these various regulations, see Michael J. New, "The Effect of State Regulations on Health Insurance Premiums: A Revised Analysis," Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. CDA06–04, July 25, 2006, at www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/cda06-04.cfm; Ashok Roy, "How Congress Is Killing Competition: The Future of Specialty Hospitals," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 1740, December 13, 2007, at www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm1740.cfm; U.S. Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice, Improving Health Care: A Dose of Competition, July 2004, at www.justice.gov/atr/public/health_care/204694.htm (April 15, 2008); and Patrick A. Rivers, Myron D. Fottler, and Mustafa Zeedan Younis, "Does Certificate of Need Really Contain Hospital Costs in the United States?" Health Education Journal, Vol. 66, No. 3 (September 2007), pp. 229–244.

[6] See Porter and Teisberg, "Redefining Competition in Health Care" and Redefining Health Care: Creating Value-Based Competition on Results.

This appears to be fake

darlene matthews — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:13:57 EDT

Diagnostic-code: smtp;550 5.1.1 <sdavis@doc.gov>: Recipient address rejected:

User unknown in relay recipient table.

not sure who created the merge

but while there are big problems -the facts don't even check out on snopes as claimed.

AND

the email address is invalid

AND

it looks like a cut and paste of several peoples stuff

AND

there are other places to get deep discount meds like walmart - not mentioned.

Message: 1Original Message: http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/CitizenStrategyThinkTank/listserv-message/TPwgm8SDDate: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 07:47:33 -0400From: Jill Gochanour <yes4obama@yahoo.com>Subject: [CitizenStrategyThinkTank] Fwd: COSTCO - UNBELIEVABLEMessage-ID: <29822.65119.qm@web44803.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: jill gochanourTo:Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 7:38:24 AMSubject: Fwd: COSTCO - UNBELIEVABLE
---- Original Message -----
To: Nathan S Zimmerman Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:26 AM Subject: Fw: COSTCO - UNBELIEVABLE
Costco - Unbelievable! Story verified @http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/generic.aspMake sure you read to the end. You will be amazed.

Let's hear it for Costco! (This is just mind-boggling!)
Make sure you read all the way past the list of the drugs. The woman that signed below is a Budget Analyst out of federal Washington , DC offices.
Did you ever wonder how much it costs a drug company for the active ingredient in prescription medications? Some people think it must cost a lot, since many drugs sell for more than $2.00 per tablet. We did a search of offshore chemical synthesizers that supply the active ingredients found in drugs approved by the FDA. As we have revealed in past issues of Life Extension a significant percentage of drugs sold in the United States contain active ingredients made in other countries. In our independent investigation of how much profit drug co mpanies really make, we obtained the actual price of active ingredients used in some of the most popular drugs sold in America .
Celebrex:100 mgConsumer price (100 tablets): $130.27Cost of general active ingredients: $0.60Percent markup: 21,712%

Claritin:10 mgConsumer Price (100 tablets): $215.17Cost of general active ingredients: $0.71Percent markup: 30,306%

Keflex:250 mgConsumer Price (100 tablets): $157.39Cost of general active ingredients: $1.88Percent markup: 8,372%

Lipitor:20 mgConsumer Price (100 tablets): $272.37Cost of general active ingredients: $5.80Percent markup: 4,696%

Norvasc: 10 mgConsumer price (100 tablets): $188.29Cost of general active ingredients: $0.14Percent markup: 134,493%

Paxil:20 mgConsumer price (100 tablets): $220.27Cost of general active ingredients: $7.60Percent markup: 2,898%

Prevacid:30 mgConsumer price (100 tablets): $44.77Cost of general active ingredients: $1.01Percent markup: 34,136%

Prilosec: 20 mgConsumer price (100 tablets): $360.97Cost of general active ingredients $0.52Percent markup: 69,417%

Prozac:20 mgConsumer price (100 tablets) : $247.47Cost of general active ingredients: $0.11Percent markup: 224,973%

Tenormin:50 mgConsumer price (100 tablets): $104.47Cost of general active ingredients: $0.13Percent markup: 80,362%

Vasotec:10 mgConsumer price (100 tablets): $102.37Cost of general active ingredients: $0.20Percent markup: 51,185%

Xanax:1 mgConsumer price (100 tablets) : $136.79Cost of general active ingredients: $0.024Percent markup: 569,958%

Zestril:20 mgConsumer price (100 tablets) $89.89Cost of general active ingredients $3.20Percent markup: 2,809%

Zithromax:600 mgConsumer price (100 tablets): $1,482.19Cost of general active ingredients: $18.78Percent markup: 7,892%

Zocor:40 mgConsumer price (100 tablets): $350.27Cost of general active ingredients: $8.63Percent markup: 4,059%

Zoloft:50 mgConsumer price: $206.87Cost of general active ingredients: $1.75Percent markup: 11,821%

Since the cost of prescription drugs is so outrageous, I thought everyone should know about this.It pays to shop around! This helps to solve the mystery as to why they can afford to put a Walgreen's on every corner. On Monday night, Steve Wilson, an investigative reporter for Channel 7 News in Detroit , did a story on generic drug prices gouging by pharmacies. He found in his investigation that some of these generic drugs were marked up as much as 3,000% or more. So often we blame the drug companies for the high cost of drugs, and usually rightfully so. But in this case, the fault clearly lies with the pharmacies themselves. For example if you had to buy a prescription drug, and bought the name brand, you might pay $100 for 100 pills.The pharmacist might tell you that if you get the generic equivalent, they would only cost $80, making you think you are saving $20. What the pharmacist is not telling you is that those 100 generic pills may have only cost him $10!
At the end of the report, one of the anchors asked Mr. Wilson whether or not there were any pharmacies that did not adhere to this practice, and he said that Costco consistently charged little over their cost for the generic drugs.

I went to the Costco site, where you can look up any drug, and get its online price. It says that the in-store prices are consistent with the online prices. I was appalled. Just to give you one example from my own experience I had to use the drug Compazine which helps prevent nausea in chemo patients.

I used the generic equivalent, which cost $54.99 for 60 pills at CVS. I checked the price at Costco, and I could have bought 100 pills for $19.89. For 145 of my pain pills, I paid $72.57. I could have got 150 at Costco for $28.08.
I would like to mention, that although Costco is a 'membership' type store, you do NOT have to be a member to buy prescriptions there as it is a federally regulated substance. You just tell them at the door that you wish to use the pharmacy, and they will let you in.

I am asking each of you to please help me by copying this letter, and passing it into your own e-mail, and send it to everyone you know with an e-mail address.
Sharon L. Davis Budget Analyst U.S. Department of Commerce Room 6839Office Ph: 202-482-4458Office Fax: 202-482-5480E-mail Address:sdavis@doc.gov

DON'T THINK . DON'T SPEAK . MOVE!

The American Graduation Initiative

Jill 4 Obama — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:58:23 EDT

TUESDAY, JULY 14TH, 2009 AT 5:52 PM

Investing in Education: The American Graduation Initiative Posted by Katherine Brandon

As part of his effort to build a stronger foundation that will allow us to lead in the global economy, the President announced today a historic initiative to strengthen our nation’s community colleges, and called for five million additional graduates by 2020. Speaking at Macomb Community College in Michigan, the President stressed the importance of education to America’s prosperity: But we also have to ensure that we're educating and preparing our people for the new jobs of the 21st century. We've got to prepare our people with the skills they need to compete in this global economy. (Applause.) Time and again, when we placed our bet for the future on education, we have prospered as a result -- by tapping the incredible innovative and generative potential of a skilled American workforce. That's what happened when President Lincoln signed into law legislation creating the land grant colleges, which not only transformed higher education, but also our entire economy. That's what took place when President Roosevelt signed the GI Bill which helped educate a generation, and ushered in an era of unprecedented prosperity. That was the foundation for the American middle class.
(President Barack Obama greets the crowd at Macomb Community College in Warren, Mich.,
Tuesday, July 14, 2009. Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson) Yesterday, we told you about the Council of Economic Advisers’ report about the future of the U.S. labor market. The report described a shift towards jobs that require greater analytical and interactive skills, and the benefits of higher education. It is expected that jobs requiring at least an associate degree will grow twice as fast as jobs requiring only a high school education. The President understands that education is fundamental to reviving our economy and strengthening our workforce, which is why he is committed to increasing graduation rates, and has asked every American to commit to at least one year of higher education: But today I'm announcing the most significant down payment yet on reaching the goal of having the highest college graduation rate of any nation in the world. We're going to achieve this in the next 10 years. (Applause.) And it's called the American Graduation Initiative. It will reform and strengthen community colleges like this one from coast to coast so they get the resources that students and schools need -- and the results workers and businesses demand. Through this plan, we seek to help an additional 5 million Americans earn degrees and certificates in the next decade -- 5 million. (Applause.) You may remember Dr. Biden recently spoke about the critical role of community colleges in our higher education system. Community colleges are rapidly growing, and are needed now more than ever to keep America competitive. The American Graduation Initiative will build on the strengths of community colleges and launch new initiatives and reforms that will increase their effectiveness and impact by figuring out what works and what doesn't, modernize facilities, increase graduation rates, and expand and create new online learning opportunities.

Read the White House fact sheet on the American Graduation Initiative.

The Initiative is estimated to cost $12 billion over the next decade, but the President has outlined a plan to pay for it by cutting waste, while increasing Pell Grant scholarships and reducing the deficit: Not since the passage of the original GI Bill and the work of President Truman's Commission on Higher Education -- which helped to double the number of community colleges and increase by seven-fold enrollment in those colleges -- have we taken such a historic step on behalf of community colleges in America. And let me be clear: We pay for this plan -- this isn't adding to the deficit; we're paying for this plan -- by ending the wasteful subsidies we currently provide to banks and private lenders for student loans. (Applause.) That will save tens of billions of dollars over the next 10 years. Instead of lining the pockets of special interests, it's time this money went towards the interests of higher education in America. (Applause.) That's what my administration is committed to doing.

Take Action: Tell Secretary Salazar to Maintain a Strong ESA

Silvia from Boca Raton, FL — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:37:33 EDT

I am writing to express support for a strong Endangered Species Act and to oppose any changes to the consultation regulations that would reduce consultation, narrow the circumstances under which consultation occurs, or creates exemptions for greenhouse gas emissions or other pollutants. The requirement that federal agencies consult with scientific experts in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Services to ensure that their actions don't jeopardize endangered species or adversely modify their habitat is critical to the survival and recovery of endangered species. As such, I oppose any regulations that weaken or relax the standards by which federal agencies carry out their duty to consult. In particular, I oppose any changes to the regulations that would allow federal agencies to evade consultation through self-consultation; that limit the scope of consultation by excluding off-site effects, such as emission of pollutants into the atmosphere; or that limit consideration of cumulative effects. It is my belief that the existing regulations, when properly implemented, do an adequate job of protecting endangered species and thus I would be satisfied if no new regulations were proposed. Thank you for considering these comments.

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2167/t/5243/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27584

Take Action: Remind Congress that Public Waters Are Not For Sale!

Silvia from Boca Raton, FL — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:44:24 EDT

While the Great Lakes Compact protects this magnificent international treasure, it fails to apply the Public Trust doctrine affirming that water belongs to the people and not to corporations; that is, water is a public resource that must be managed by the state governments in trust for the benefit of citizens. Publicly owned natural resources are essential to meet the basic needs of all citizens and communities, regardless of economic status!

Further, the Compact contains dangerous exceptions that allow bottling water for profit and establish a precedent that water can be grabbed by profit-hungry corporations. It can be argued by those wanting to exploit the Great Lakes that its waters can be converted into a "product,” exempted from the ban on diversions and falling within the claws of international trade laws. Act now to ensure the following conditions to the Compact:

- Delete the "product" exception to the definition of "diversion" in the diversion ban.
- Delete the bottled water provision! Bottling Great Lakes water must be banned unless it is in the public interest, without harm, and for fair consideration to the public.
- All water should be protected by the public trust doctrine! Great
Lakes waters must not be subjected to private ownership. Reasonable use of a public water resource is allowable - privatization is not.

Join Food & Water Watch as we fight for clean, affordable, and public water as a human right! If youtake action today, we will continue to keep you updated on this and other issues that impact the right to water.

Act now.

Take Action: Uphold and Defend the 2001 Roadless Rule

Silvia from Boca Raton, FL — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:26:41 EDT

Letter to President Obama:

Thank you for your support of the 2001 National Forest Roadless Area Conservation Rule. As a senator you cosponsored the National Forest Roadless Area Conservation Act. As a presidential candidate you pledged to uphold and defend the 2001 Roadless Rule and supported protecting all 58.5 million acres of wild forests covered by that rule. I also appreciate your administration's one-year interim directive requiring Secretary Vilsack's personal review of any road construction projects or timber sales in roadless forests that were protected under the rule. However, it is time to finish the job. Please fulfill your pledge to uphold and defend the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. In order to uphold and defend the 2001 rule, its protections need to be returned to all national forests. In doing so, I urge you to instruct your lawyers at the Department of Justice to stop defending the flawed 2005 Bush roadless rule in the 9th Circuit and immediately appeal the recent decision in the Wyoming district court, eliminate the Bush administration's 2003 "temporary" exemption of the Tongass, and restore the rule's protections to all of Idaho's roadless forests. In particular, the Bush administration's approval of the expansion of the Smoky Canyon mine into roadless areas of the Caribou-Targhee National Forest must be revoked. The 2001 Roadless Rule is the most widely supported forest conservation measure in history. Hundreds of hearings were held, millions of comments gathered, and Americans support roadless protection by a margin of 10 to 1. Supporters include hunters and anglers, religious leaders, scientists, backpackers, and many elected officials such as yourself. Count me among them. Mr. President, please finish the job of restoring the protections of the 2001 Roadless Rule to all 58.5 million acres of wild forests.

Thank you.

1000 Election Blogs

WEBMASTER — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:01:33 EDT

As President Obama recently related to me regarding local service; "Now is our time to work together, reaffirm our enduring spirit, and choose our better history."

It is our responsibility as Americans to vote, and vote we must. And now is the time to plan, prepare and promote our principles. I invite all citizens of of this great country of ours to post a message on one of 1000 election blogs.

1000 Election Blogs
election-blogs.blogspot.com

Take Action: Time to repeal DOMA

Silvia from Boca Raton, FL — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:53:57 EDT

Dear President Obama, Majority Leader Reid, and Speaker Pelosi:

It's time to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). At this moment of change and progress, it's time to undo a serious mistake made by Congress 13 years ago. The federal government has no business discriminating against loving families by selectively withholding the 1,300 or so legal protections that only legal civil marriage affords.

It's time for the President to fulfill his promise to the American people to eliminate DOMA. And it's time for Congress to show leadership on this issue and send him long overdue legislation to repeal this relic of hatred.

https://secure.pfaw.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=dump_doma&autologin=true&JServSessionIdr011=p8n4xah9j2.app304a

Take Action: Tell Congress to Follow President Obama’s Lead

Silvia from Boca Raton, FL — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:51:27 EDT

No More Money for Failed Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs; Invest in Comprehensive Sex Education Instead

Tell Congress to Follow President Obama’s Lead
No More Money for Failed Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs We applaud the Obama administration's leadership and its efforts to end abstinence-only-until marriage programs. He has taken an important first step. Now it's time for Congress to implement that recommendation. We need you to contact your Representative and ask him or her to ensure that No More Money is spent on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. The House is in the midst of writing its Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies (Labor-HHS-Education) spending bills. One of these is the spending bill that decides funding levels for, among other things, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. We need your Representative to weigh in with Appropriations Chairman David Obey to ensure that Congress follows the President's lead and that No More Money is spent on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.

Tell Congress to Follow President Obama's Lead: No More Money for Failed Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs; Invest in Comprehensive Sex Education Instead.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=837

Take Action: Help Protect Pikas from Global Warming

Silvia from Boca Raton, FL — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:40:53 EDT

When it comes to global warming in the lower 48 states, theAmerican pika is the canary in the coal mine. This adorable rabbit relative, which lives near mountain peaks in the American West, cannot tolerate exposure to warming temperatures from climate change. As temperatures rise, pikas at lower elevations are rapidly disappearing. Already, more than a third of studied pika populations in the Great Basin mountains of Nevada and Oregon have gone extinct, and lower-elevation pika populations have disappeared from portions of California's Sierra Nevada mountains.

Fortunately, there's still time left to protect pikas and their mountain homes -- but only if we act quickly. In response to the Center for Biological Diversity's scientific petition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is conducting a review to determine whether the American pika should be protected under the Endangered Species Act. The public has until July 6 to subit comments. This is the first important step toward listing the pika under the Act in order to protect the species and its alpine habitat from climate change.

Rapidly reducing global greenhouse gas pollution to safe levels is critical to preventing the extinction of the pika. Please, write today to support protection for the pika and to urge the government to reducegreenhouse gas pollution to levels that will protect pikas and other wildlife species from extinction.

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2167/t/5243/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27538

Take Action: Write to Secretary Salazar and tell him to permanently remove Bristol Bay from the OCS Leasing Program.

Silvia from Boca Raton, FL — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:37:08 EDT

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar is currently reviewing existing and new Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leasing programs that call for a massive expansion of drilling leasing in our nation’s Arctic waters, including the fish-rich Bristol Bay and southeast Bering Sea.

Now is the height of the salmon season and millions of sockeye and red salmon are returning to their home streams to spawn. These fish recently swam through waters that are currently slated for leasing, which threatens the multi-million dollar fishing industry and the thousands of people that rely on the salmon runs. https://secure2.convio.net/sierra/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2503&autologin=true

Take Action: No Loopholes for Hazardous Waste - Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0315

Silvia from Boca Raton, FL — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:34:35 EDT

The costs of deregulating hazardous waste to my family and my community are too high. This plan will damage public health and the environment by increasing exposure to toxins and carcinogens due to improper storage and disposal. Increased taxpayer burden for cleanup of toxic sites is not fair to our citizens. Plus, there will be disproportionate impact on poor and minority communities. https://secure2.convio.net/sierra/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2497&autologin=true

Take Action: Help President Obama See the Truth About Mountaintop Removal

Silvia from Boca Raton, FL — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:30:54 EDT

Please Visit Appalachia and See the Truth About Mountaintop Removal

I'm sure you have seen the horrifying pictures, read the staggering numbers and I'm sure you believe that you know enough about the consequences of mountaintop removal. Sir--and I say this with all the respect you certainly deserve--you don't. At least not as well as you should. The scale of this tragedy can't be expressed in a table of statistics, no matter how frightening. This is a tragedy you must see for yourself. Mr. President the people of West Virginia who are forced to drink toxic water every day for a tiny amount of the country's coal deserve at least that much. Please, take a trip to see first-hand what mountaintop removal does both to the environment and to the communities of Appalachia. I know you care as deeply as possible about the future of this country. That's something you and I have in common. And that's why I hope you will take just a few short hours to see for yourself that the time has come to end the tragedy that is mountaintop removal.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/

Take Action: Tell Secretary of State Clinton to Stop Tar Sands Pipelines.

Silvia from Boca Raton, FL — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:28:09 EDT

Right now, while many Americans are working together to build a clean energy economy, the most destructive oil project on Earth is sneaking across our border. This project, the Canadian tar sands -- a massive plan executed by Big Oil and their allies in Canada's government -- is coming into the United States pipeline by pipeline, refinery by refinery, permit by permit. This project is so huge that it will undermine our climate leadership, perpetuate our addiction to oil, pollute our air and water, violate Indigenous land rights in both Canada and the U.S., and lock us in to a dirty energy infrastructure for decades just when we are finally trying to move to a new clean energy economy. In the words of President Obama: I believe in the new clean energy economy. I believe in green jobs, energy independence and tackling our climate, energy and economic challenges all at once. Tar sands do not fit into our new clean energy economy. Secretary Clinton, I urge you not to grant any State Department permits for the Alberta Clipper pipeline, or any other dirty tar sands pipelines.

http://ga3.org/campaign/statetarsands/exdw7uw44jx55mw5?

Take Action: Tell Congress to Close the Gun Show Loophole Now

Silvia from Boca Raton, FL — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:24:17 EDT

A loophole in the Brady Law allows private dealers to make sales without conducting Brady criminal background checks. That leads to illegal gun trafficking and senseless deaths.

Follow up with your Senators and Representative to urge them and their colleagues to close the gun show loophole now.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/action/gunshowloophole/?bro_issue=jun&bro_year=2009#getactive

Take Action: Reinstate Congress’s moratorium on drilling in the OCS

Silvia from Boca Raton, FL — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:19:32 EDT

American ingenuity and determination can certainly develop energy alternatives rather than develop more offshore oil platforms. Congress wavered in 2008, but we can get back on track toward protecting our oceans and ending climate change if you let your representatives know that you believe offshore drilling is not the answer. Drill home that point, by asking your representative to reinstate the drilling moratoria!

http://takeaction.oceana.org/t/6438/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=25198

Take Action: Ask your Senators to Co-Sponsor the forthcoming Senate version of the Mercury Pollution Reduction Act

Silvia from Boca Raton, FL — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:13:58 EDT

The Mercury Pollution Reduction Act, H.R. 2190, would make the outdated "Foul Four" chlorine plants update their equipment to modern technology that doesn't utilize or release mercury.

Recently, the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection moved the bill to the full House Energy and Commerce Committee for their consideration. And soon, a Senate version of the bill will be introduced.

Even though 95 percent of US chlorine is made without the use of mercury, four outdated plants continue to use old technology and collectively release hundreds of pounds of mercury into our air and water every year. When released to the environment, mercury ends up in our oceans, contaminating seafood.

http://takeaction.oceana.org/t/6438/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=11

Barack Obama Campaign Claims Prizes

EsquireUK — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:45:30 EDT

www.whitehouse.gov

The campaign that drove Barack Obama to victory in the US presidential election has claimed two top awards at the Cannes Lions International Advertising Awards.

The campaign, submitted by Obama for America, has been hailed as a masterful combination of new media, door-to-door and community grass roots campaigning with a clever tactical use of traditional TV advertising.

The campaign won two grands prix in the Titanium and Integrated Lions categories.

To win the Titanium grand prix, a campaign must involve a breakthrough idea that is "provocative, challenges assumptions and points to a new direction".

"Titanium celebrates work that causes the industry to stop in its tracks and reconsider the way forward," according to the rules set out by the Cannes organisers.

The integrated prize is awarded to a campaign using three or more media – such as TV, press and the internet - that is "high standard and state-of-the-art".

Earlier in the week, Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, gave a seminar about how the different facets of media were used to deliver the campaign.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jun/29/barack-obama-cannes-lions

Let's Start Calling.

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:14:08 EDT

This Admistration is really working on behalf of the American People.

WoW...There are So many Americans without Health Insurance. It is a shame that some elected officials are not insterested in the plight of the Uninsured.I just spent a few hours reading ( I made it to page 363, of course I had to take a break in between pages) some of the American people health challenges, storys/life challenges on the health blog and It was very heart rendering to hear/read about their horrendous plights/experiences.

If these Great Americans Life Stores don't change the minds and hearts of some fo the "fence stragglers" in office, then I don't know what will?

Thank the Lord that we finally have an Administration in Office That Undestands and Gets its.

Take Action: Tell the Obama Administration to Create Strict Rules for Regulating Genetically Engineered Crops!

Silvia from Boca Raton, FL — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:16:34 EDT

In the last months of the Bush Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture proposed some bad rules that significantly weaken the oversight of genetically engineered crops. These rules are bad for consumers, the environment, and would allow the biotechnology industry to regulate itself. Can you demand that the Obama Administration ditch the Bush rules, and make rules that will adequately regulate genetically engineered crops?

USDA APHIS CommentsDocket No. APHIS-2008-0023

Take Action: Support Nuclear Cleanup, Not Obsolete Fighter Jets

Silvia from Boca Raton, FL — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:20:47 EDT

Fund Nuclear Cleanup, Not Obsolete Fighter Jets This week, the House Armed Services Committee made a decision that might seem commonplace in our highly-militarized nation: they shifted money around in the budget to fund the purchase of F-22 fighter jets. However, this is no ordinary decision. They want to take $322 million away from the fund to cleanup dangerous nuclear waste in order to pay Lockheed Martin for these planes. It gets worse. The Pentagon doesn't even want these fighter jets because they were designed for use in a conflict with the Soviet Union. The US military already has 187 F-22s, which are viewed by many inside and outside of the military as obsolete and wasteful. Taking money away from the cleanup process underway at some of the nation's nuclear weapons sites is inexcusable. Radioactive waste continues to cause harm to the environment and people in the surrounding communities. For example, in Hanford, Washington, barrels of highly radioactive waste are leaking into the ground and the water table. We as a nation cannot afford to continue ignoring the urgent need to clean up the mess left behind by nuclear weapons production. The US military budget is already at the highest level in history. To pad this bloated budget, especially at the expense of vital environmental cleanup, is shameful.
Call or write your Representative today to demand that this foolish misallocation of funds be reversed. To call your Representative, dial (202) 224-3121. http://capwiz.com/wagingpeace/issues/alert/?alertid=13604796

Take Action: H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009

Silvia from Boca Raton, FL — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:18:29 EDT

Latest Sell-Out: Dems Moving to Gut Chemical Security Bill, Risking Millions of Lives

I'm calling to urge the Representative to support a strong chemical security bill by voting against dangerous loopholes proposed for H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009. We need a law that protects the 110 million Americans who are still at risk due to the fact that the existing law ties the hands of Homeland Security, and these amendments would only continue to do so.

For true reform, public plan needed

RetiredEngineer — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:14:45 EDT

As published in print version of Cincinnati Enquirer Sunday 21-Jun-2009

For true reform, public plan needed

We need a public health insurance option to improve availability, increase choice, and control costs, which are an unbearable burden on our businesses, families, and economy. Opponents claiming that a public option is "socialized medicine" or "puts the government between you and your doctor" are ignoring two facts. A public option (1) is being proposed in addition to existing insurance options and (2) is no different than private insurance companies that have been getting between you and your doctor for decades. For true reform, we need a public plan that rewards disease prevention rather than revenue generation from disease treatment.

- Mark McCarty

Mount Lookout

WEEKLY ADDRESS: President Obama Highlights Tough New Consumer Protections

N. Julio Barthson - E-Campaign Leader — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:54:10 EDT

THE WHITE HOUSEOffice of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________________________
EMBARGOED UNTIL 6:00 AM ET, SATURDAY, June 20, 2009

On Father's Day: Remembering What Makes a Good Father

Jill 4 Obama — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:44:14 EDT

Remembering What Makes a Good Father

Words from Barack Obama

Father's Day 2007:

"Let's admit to ourselves that there are a lot of men out there that need to stop acting like boys;

who need to realize that responsibility does not end at conception;

who need to know that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise a child."

Father's Day 2008:

"Any fool can have a child. That doesn't make you a father.

It's the courage to raise a child that makes you a father."

Father's Day 2009:

"We need to step out of our own heads and tune in.

We need to turn off the television and start talking with our kids, and listening to them, and understanding what's going on in their lives."

Racial Politics- Two Tennessee GOP Mailings

bob-pol — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:51:06 EDT

1) Racist GOP mailer: Ex-Rep. Vaughn (D) calls it racially charged, a factor in losing seat.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/nov/17/dem-denounces-gop-mailer/

Democrat Nathan Vaughn says this piece of campaign literature mailed by the Tennessee Republican Party contributed to his loss in the 2nd District House race.

The mailer depicts the bodies of three black birds, perhaps crows, with the heads of Vaughn, Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi under a headline reading, "Nathan Vaughn - part of the liberal, big government flock."

The black bird depiction, Vaughn said, was apparently used only against him. "That indicates either a large degree of insensitivity, at best, or just racial hatred," he said. "I think they were just trying to spread hate to win an election. "The intent of those mailers was to put me with Barack Obama and say, 'They're both black, and we need to be against both of them,' " he said, adding that Pelosi's picture was added "as cover."

Vaughn lost to Republican Tony Shipley in the House's 2nd District race by 326 votes, according to unofficial returns.

2) Racist Email from Sherri Goforth, an aide to Tennessee State Senator Diane Black (R), depicted all 44 Presidents.

http://newscoma.com/2009/06/15/racist-and-ridiculous/

Email titled, “Historical Keepsake Photo.”, but Where's President Obama?

Spooky - funny? NOT!!!

Ms Goforth, who has 20 years of service, apologized only for sending it to the wrong people.

CNN Story, Video http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/06/16/nr.racist.email.cnn

Obama Addresses the AMA

Jill 4 Obama — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 06:31:14 EDT

THE BRIEFING ROOM • THE BLOG
SUBSCRIBE

MONDAY, JUNE 15TH, 2009 AT 4:19 PM

Why Reform, Why Now Posted by Jesse Lee

This afternoon the President gave a landmark, sweeping speech on health care reform to the American Medical Association in Chicago. More so than at any time before, he explained his vision for comprehensive reform that addresses every weak point in our health care system. It is a vision that implements best practices that have allowed some towns and companies to cut costs by as much as half compared to others. It is a vision that makes sure everybody has access to quality, affordable coverage, whether your family hits a rough patch or you have a pre-existing condition. It is a vision in which patients’ and doctors’ interests are aligned. And it is a vision where Americans’ choices of doctors and coverage are maintained, and they also have a choice of a public option that can help keep private insurers honest. It is a vision that focuses on prevention, making sure Americans stay healthy throughout their lives. It is well worth the while to read through the entire speech, but here are a few key excerpts, including some key points you may not have heard before:

On the costs of inaction: If we fail to act -- (applause) -- if we fail to act -- and you know this because you see it in your own individual practices -- if we fail to act, premiums will climb higher, benefits will erode further, the rolls of the uninsured will swell to include millions more Americans -- all of which will affect your practice.

If we fail to act, one out of every five dollars we earn will be spent on health care within a decade. And in 30 years, it will be about one out of every three -- a trend that will mean lost jobs, lower take-home pay, shuttered businesses, and a lower standard of living for all Americans. And if we fail to act, federal spending on Medicaid and Medicare will grow over the coming decades by an amount almost equal to the amount our government currently spends on our nation's defense. It will, in fact, eventually grow larger than what our government spends on anything else today. It's a scenario that will swamp our federal and state budgets, and impose a vicious choice of either unprecedented tax hikes, or overwhelming deficits, or drastic cuts in our federal and state budgets. So to say it as plainly as I can, health care is the single most important thing we can do for America's long-term fiscal health. That is a fact. That's a fact. (Applause.)

On incentives for doctors: There are two main reasons for this. The first is a system of incentives where the more tests and services are provided, the more money we pay. And a lot of people in this room know what I'm talking about. It's a model that rewards the quantity of care rather than the quality of care; that pushes you, the doctor, to see more and more patients even if you can't spend much time with each, and gives you every incentive to order that extra MRI or EKG, even if it's not necessary. It's a model that has taken the pursuit of medicine from a profession -- a calling -- to a business. That's not why you became doctors. That's not why you put in all those hours in the Anatomy Suite or the O.R. That's not what brings you back to a patient's bedside to check in, or makes you call a loved one of a patient to say it will be fine. You didn't enter this profession to be bean-counters and paper-pushers. You entered this profession to be healers. (Applause.) And that's what our health care system should let you be. That's what this health care system should let you be. (Applause.) Now, that starts with reforming the way we compensate our providers -- doctors and hospitals. We need to bundle payments so you aren't paid for every single treatment you offer a patient with a chronic condition like diabetes, but instead paid well for how you treat the overall disease. We need to create incentives for physicians to team up, because we know that when that happens, it results in a healthier patient. We need to give doctors bonuses for good health outcomes, so we're not promoting just more treatment, but better care.

On making sure doctors and patients have all the right information: A recent study, for example, found that only half of all cardiac guidelines are based on scientific evidence -- half. That means doctors may be doing a bypass operation when placing a stent is equally effective; or placing a stent when adjusting a patient's drug and medical management is equally effective -- all of which drives up costs without improving a patient's health. So one thing we need to do is to figure out what works, and encourage rapid implementation of what works into your practices. That's why we're making a major investment in research to identify the best treatments for a variety of ailments and conditions. (Applause.)

On America’s relationship with doctors: But my signature on a bill is not enough. I need your help, doctors, because to most Americans you are the health care system. The fact is Americans -- and I include myself and Michelle and our kids in this -- we just do what you tell us to do. (Laughter.) That's what we do. We listen to you, we trust you. And that's why I will listen to you and work with you to pursue reform that works for you. (Applause.) Together, if we take all these steps, I am convinced we can bring spending down, bring quality up; we can save hundreds of billions of dollars on health care costs while making our health care system work better for patients and doctors alike. And when we align the interests of patients and doctors, then we're going to be in a good place.

On the Health Insurance Exchange and a public option: Now, if you don't like your health care coverage or you don't have any insurance at all, you'll have a chance, under what we've proposed, to take part in what we're calling a Health Insurance Exchange. This exchange will allow you to one-stop shop for a health care plan, compare benefits and prices, and choose a plan that's best for you and your family -- the same way, by the way, that federal employees can do, from a postal worker to a member of Congress. (Applause.) You will have your choice of a number of plans that offer a few different packages, but every plan would offer an affordable, basic package. Again, this is for people who aren't happy with their current plan. If you like what you're getting, keep it. Nobody is forcing you to shift. But if you're not, this gives you some new options. And I believe one of these options needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices -- (applause) -- and inject competition into the health care market so that force -- so that we can force waste out of the system and keep the insurance companies honest. (Applause.)

Now, I know that there's some concern about a public option. Even within this organization there's healthy debate about it. In particular, I understand that you're concerned that today's Medicare rates, which many of you already feel are too low, will be applied broadly in a way that means our cost savings are coming off your backs. And these are legitimate concerns, but they're ones, I believe, that can be overcome. As I stated earlier, the reforms we propose to reimbursement are to reward best practices, focus on patient care, not on the current piecework reimbursements. What we seek is more stability and a health care system that's on a sounder financial footing. And the fact is these reforms need to take place regardless of whether there's a public option or not. With reform, we will ensure that you are being reimbursed in a thoughtful way that's tied to patient outcomes, instead of relying on yearly negotiations about the Sustainable Growth Rate formula that's based on politics and the immediate state of the federal budget in any given year. (Applause.)

And I just want to point out the alternative to such reform is a world where health care costs grow at an unsustainable rate. And if you don't think that's going to threaten your reimbursements and the stability of our health care system, you haven't been paying attention. So the public option is not your enemy; it is your friend, I believe. Perhaps the most rousing moment of the speech came about half way through, as he stated the underlying moral basis for health reform: We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women and children. (Applause.) We are not a nation that lets hardworking families go without coverage, or turns its back on those in need. We're a nation that cares for its citizens. We look out for one another. That's what makes us the United States of America. We need to get this done. (Applause.)

Paying for Health Care Reform

N. Julio Barthson - E-Campaign Leader — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:57:05 EDT

$313 Billion in Additional Savings to Create a Deficit Neutral Plan...

UN.Security Council Toughens N.Korea Sanctions

bob-pol — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:21:26 EDT

Tightening the screws on N. Korea. Will it back them down, or make them more defiant?

U.S. soldiers take part in a joint military drill with South Korean soldiers north of Seoul in early June

U.N. Security Council agrees on tougher N. Korea sanctions

NEW YORK (CNN) -- The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council have agreed on a resolution that would expand and tighten sanctions on North Korea, two senior Western diplomats at the United Nations said Wednesday.

The permanent members -- China, France, Russia, Britain and the United States -- reached the agreement in consultation with Japan and South Korea.

The council began discussions late Wednesday morning. A vote is possible Thursday or Friday, according to several diplomats, including French Ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert.

The agreement comes amid rising tension with North Korea, which recently conducted a nuclear test, fired test rockets, and threatened U.S. and South Korean ships near its territorial waters. The nuclear test and the firing of six short-range rockets same in late May.

Pyongyang's actions violated U.N. resolutions.

Adding another wrinkle to the situation, two American journalists arrested in North Korea were convicted Monday of illegal entry to the country and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

Late last month, two Defense Department officials said U.S. satellite imagery spotted "vehicle activity" at a North Korean ballistic missile facility. The officials said the images showed vehicles used to transport Taepodong-2 missiles, but no missile parts. The Taepodong-2 is a long-range missile that was tested earlier this year by North Korea.

That test, in April, showed a significant improvement in range from North Korea's initial long-range missile test in 2006.

President Obama's special envoy to the secretive communist state, Stephen Bosworth, called "simply groundless" accusations by Pyongyang that its nuclear and missile tests were in response to American aggression.

Washington officials have said the United States' goal is for North Korea to return to nuclear negotiations with the United States, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia, known as the "six-party talks."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/06/10/un.north.korea/index.html?eref=time_world

111th Congress / House / 1st session / Votes

darlene matthews — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 04:42:53 EDT

111th Congress / House / 1st session / VotesDateResultVote6/4/09PassedSession 1, roll call 310: On Passage
Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act6/4/09FailedSession 1, roll call 309: On Motion to Recommit With Instructions
Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act6/4/09FailedSession 1, roll call 308: On Agreeing to the Amendment
6/4/09PassedSession 1, roll call 307: On Passage
Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act6/4/09PassedSession 1, roll call 306: On Agreeing to the Amendment
Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act6/4/09Agreed toSession 1, roll call 305: On Agreeing to the Amendment
6/4/09Agreed toSession 1, roll call 304: On Agreeing to the Amendment
6/4/09PassedSession 1, roll call 303: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree
Congratulating the University of Tennessee Women’S Basketball Team (the Lady Vols) and Head Coach Pat Summitt on Her 1,000th Victory6/4/09PassedSession 1, roll call 302: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
John S. Wilder Post Office Building6/4/09PassedSession 1, roll call 301: On Agreeing to the Resolution
Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2200, Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act6/3/09PassedSession 1, roll call 300: Motion to Refer
Hoyer Resolution6/3/09PassedSession 1, roll call 299: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, As Amended
Expressing Sympathy to the Victims, Families, and Friends of the Tragic Act of Violence at the Combat Stress Clinic at Camp Liberty, Iraq, on May 11, 20096/3/09PassedSession 1, roll call 298: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree
Honoring the 20th Anniversary of the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure in the Nation’S Capital and Its Transition to the Susan G. Komen Global Race for the Cure on June 6, 2009, and for Other Purposes6/3/09PassedSession 1, roll call 297: On Passage
To Provide for the Recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, and for Other Purposes6/3/09FailedSession 1, roll call 296: On Motion to Recommit With Instructions
To Provide for the Recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, and for Other Purposes6/3/09PassedSession 1, roll call 295: On Agreeing to the Resolution
Providing for Consideration of H.R. 31, Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina Recognition, and H.R. 1385, Extend Federal Recognition to Chickahominy Indian Tribe, Chickahominy Indian Tribe-Eastern Division, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., the Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian Tribe.6/2/09PassedSession 1, roll call 294: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree
Recognizing the 20th Anniversary of the Suppression of Protesters and Citizens in and Around Tiananmen Square6/2/09PassedSession 1, roll call 293: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, As Amended
To Honor the Achievements and Contributions of Native Americans to the United States, and for Other Purposes6/2/09PassedSession 1, roll call 292: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree
Recognizing and Commending the Great Smoky Mountains National Park on Its 75th Year Anniversary

Health care reform is an economic necessity

N. Julio Barthson - E-Campaign Leader — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:01:02 EDT

In this excellent op-ed piece, super-economist Christina Romer (one of President Obama's most trusted advisors) makes an impassionate plea for health care reform. She expalins the different options that could lead to the President's goal of universal health care, and helps the reader get a really goodunderstanding of what is really at stake. Too often, we hear that universal health care would be too costly and force the economy to suffer. That is a far right Republican talking point which has been discredited several times over, but which still survives and lives on because of the ignorance of many. This piece by Prof. Romer dispels all misunderstandings and makes the choice clear: health care reform would strengthen America's economy for the future, not hurt it...

Diebold admits voting machine flaw

Mon, 01 Jun 2009 23:12:55 EDT

Diebold subsidiary Premier Election Solutions admitted in a California state hearing on Tuesday that its voting machine software can lose votes and fail to log the fact that the votes were lost.

The admission, reported on Wired's Threat Level blog, is significant. For years, the company has touted the quality of its electronic voting machines amidst mounting criticism that they were prone to errors and tampering.

Prediction: 10,000 apps for Google Android Market by Oct. 2009?

The hearing related to last November's election in Humboldt County, California. Nearly 200 votes disappeared from a tally handled by Premier's Global Election Management System (GEMS) software.

Mitch Trachtenberg was one of the volunteer auditors who discovered that the GEMS system had eliminated the votes. Writing as a guest blogger in The Brad Blog, Trachtenberg said that Premier's voting systems, which are used in 34 states, could not effectively handle audits. "An election system's audit logs are meant to record all activity during the system's actual counting of ballots," he wrote. "Diebold's software fails to do that."

According to Threat Level, "the company acknowledged that the problem exists with every version of its tabulation software." California officials examined Humbolt's GEMS-created audit logs and could find no record of when 197 absentee ballots were removed from the system, which apparently prompted California's secretary of state to call the audit logs "useless."

Trachtenberg also mentioned the "disturbing revelation that Diebold had been aware of the problem for years." According to an earlier Brad Blog post, dated December 8, 2008, the tendency to delete ballots "was part of a bug [Diebold had] known about for at least four years." The blog reproduced an internal Diebold email about the problem dated 2004.

Reported problems with Diebold products are nothing new. The company was sued by Ohio last year for voting machines that allegedly dropped votes. Earlier this week, the company was forced to admit that criminals have successfully hacked Diebold ATMs.

Diebold Machines are rigged, and it is time for America to rid us of these cheating raging machines.

http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/03/18/diebold-admits-voting-machine-flaw-had-been-aware-problem-years

N. Korea to Test Long-Range Missile ...

bob-pol — Sun, 31 May 2009 01:12:50 EDT

North Korea has previously launched a long range missile, and also a space satellite, so its ICBM capability is worrisome. Rob [bob-pol]

North Korea seen preparing to test long-range missile. US issues harshest warning yet as spy satellites spot signs of rocket being moved from weapons factory

Sunday, 31 May 2009, by Eric Talmadge in Panmunjom, Korea

Spy satellites have picked up signs that North Korea may be preparing to transport another long-range missile to a launch site, South Korean officials said yesterday. The development came as the US issued its harshest warning to the North since the recent nuclear test. "We will not stand idly by as North Korea builds the capability to wreak destruction on any target in Asia – or on us," US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates told a regional defence meeting in Singapore. He said the North's nuclear programme was a "harbinger of a dark future", but wasn't yet a direct threat.

Impoverished North Korea has earned billions of dollars from exporting missile technology to Pakistan and the Middle East, and the fear is that it could do the same with its new nuclear know-how. Mr Gates did not elaborate on how the United States might respond to North Korea, but he had earlier said no additional troops were being deployed to the peninsula, where 28,000 US soldiers are stationed.

Britain announced yesterday that it has sent a military aircraft to help verify the strength of the nuclear device detonated by North Korea last week. The Ministry of Defence said a VC10 tanker plane had been sent to Japan to assist with examinations determining the strength of the blast and the type of nuclear material used.

Since last Monday's nuclear blast, North Korea has test-launched six short-range missiles in a show of force and announced it won't honour a 1953 truce that ended fighting in the Korean War.

The reclusive communist state appears to be preparing to move a long-range missile by train from a weapons factory near Pyongyang to its northeastern Musudan-ni launch pad. Images of the movements were captured by US satellites. Experts have said the three-stage rocket has a potential range of more than 4,100 miles (6,700 kilometres), putting Alaska within its striking distance.

Yang Moo-jin, a professor at Seoul's University of North Korean Studies, said the North is likely to fire the missile shortly after the UN Security Council adopts a resolution criticising its recent nuclear test.

more, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/north-korea-seen-preparing-to-test-longrange-missile-1693517.html

Obama’s Speech on National Security

N. Julio Barthson - E-Campaign Leader — Fri, 22 May 2009 18:07:17 EDT

Following is a text of President Obama’s speech on Thursday on national security issues, as released by the White House.

what did congress know?

darlene matthews — Thu, 21 May 2009 12:20:26 EDT

DOESN'T THE MINORITY SPEAKER GET BRIEFED ATT HE SAME TIME?

http://www.gop.gov/media/features/09/05/19/what-did-speaker-pelosi-know

"Torture Photos Are Torture" to Proud Arabs

bob-pol — Mon, 18 May 2009 22:01:47 EDT

We don't need more prisoner abuse (or torture) photos. This is one of the milder ones released last year.

Humiliation of people (treated as dogs) demonstrates to the Arab World an uncivilized nature,

and demonizes the U.S. in their eyes. No wonder they call us the Great Satan!!!

However, that is not fair, since the American people are not inhumane.

We just elected ruthless men, Cheney and Bush, who should be tried for crimes against humanity.

..... Rule of Law, or RULE OF MEN

Rob [bob-pol] racggg@gmail.com

Health Care

Eric Lykins — Mon, 18 May 2009 03:16:17 EDT

My letter to "share your health care story" here and at HealthReform.gov

Show your support, share your story, then if you want to start making some phone calls, there is contact information for relevant committee members and some helpful links starting here.http://www.knoxviews.com/node/11209#comment-76258

President Barack Obama
HHS Director Kathleen Sebelius
U.S. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus
Senator Ben Nelson
Representative Marsha Blackburn
Representative Bart Gordon
Senator Lamar Alexander
Billy Tauzin
Frank Luntz

The system that is responsible for the physical strength of our nation can not be beholden to the interests of the nation's health while it is beholden to protecting the profits of the shareholders of insurance and pharmaceutical companies, etc. The U.S. no longer makes the top ten lists of health or happiness. We have some large systems that are not doing a very good job. When someone is not doing a good job, the most productive option in the long run is to do a better job beside them until they are irrelevant.

I'm not asking for the government to step into the business of insurance and pharmaceutical companies. I'm asking government to compete with these companies to protect the interests of the shareholders of our nation, the taxpayers. I hear that members of Congress enjoy health coverage with unlimited doctor visits, no deductibles and no co-pays -- all for $35 a month. Allow 50-100 million Americans to buy into a government plan (similar to joining a credit union formerly reserved for farmers or nuclear physicists) and start throwing around some purchasing power. Create a system worth buying into that will give us a return on our investment in our health, and we will buy in.

Eric Lykins
Knoxville, TN
<a href="http://www.tndp.org/profile/EricScottLykins">http://www.tndp.org/profile/EricScottLykins</a>

Health Care Reform: “Urgency and Determination”

N. Julio Barthson - E-Campaign Leader — Fri, 15 May 2009 14:59:52 EDT

The White House: Wednesday, May 13th, 2009

Rush Limbaugh was the 20th Hijacker on 9-11 (Wanda Sikes)

N. Julio Barthson - E-Campaign Leader — Sun, 10 May 2009 05:07:26 EDT

What a funny way to tell the truth. Except it's so true it's no longer funny...

President Obama's Job Training Plan for the Unemployed

N. Julio Barthson - E-Campaign Leader — Sat, 09 May 2009 22:21:52 EDT

President Obama is doing the right thing to take care of people who have lost their jobs and still need an opportunity to update their skills for the new economy. Education and appropriate job training are essential elements of the future modern, global economy which we must embrace. The President's plan makes dreams possible for many Americans and their families...

Thinking Strategically

Ailene — Sat, 02 May 2009 13:50:28 EDT

Before Disaster Strikes: Employers Should Think Strategically Before a Public Health Emergency Occurs

In the past few days, United States health officials have declared a public health emergency over the steadily increasing number of humans affected by Swine Influenza. This declaration, and the intensive media coverage that followed, has sparked nationwide concern as the government and its various health agencies hasten to contain the outbreak. While Swine Influenza has yet to be declared a pandemic, the prospect that it could become more widespread raises an important question: does your business have sufficient mechanisms in place to deal with a public health emergency or other disaster?

Businesses play a significant role in protecting employees’ health and ensuring employees’ safety in the event of a pandemic or other crisis. As such, advance, strategic planning is crucial. Employers should take time now to educate themselves about available resources in an effort to minimize an emergency’s impact and, in the case of a pandemic, to reduce the spread of disease. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have formulated guidelines to help employers plan for a pandemic and other comparable disasters. These guidelines, along with comprehensive checklists for employers, are compiled on the CDC’s “Workplace Planning” webpage. The United States Chamber of Commerce has similarly developed a list of issues employers should consider now given the potential for a Swine Influenza pandemic.

Let's truly "Move On"

Ailene — Sat, 02 May 2009 13:06:20 EDT

This post is by no means justifying the use of controversial 'enhanced interrogation techniques'. Its purpose is to communicate simple directive: LET IT GO!!!

Follow President Obama's lead/example. The continual insistence on public hearings, investigations, and/or commissions will only accomplish the following:

1. Set negative precedent. Future presidential administrations investigating predecessors ad nauseum.

2. The entire situation has the potential to dominate President Obama's administration; impede progress on issues such as healthcare reform, energy/environmental policies.

3. Increase political polarization and un-necessary division/rancor. Therein President Obama makes same mistake as predecessor.

4. Adversely affect foreign policy and relationship w/ allies specifically regarding their cooperation with the U.S. Recently on Meet the Press, King Abdullah, (Jordan) addressed the issue tactfully by stating, it will be opening Pandora's Box.

5. Incite retaliation from Islamic extremists. It happened once before resulting in the abductions and beheadings of American civilians.

6. Inevitably broaden scope. Congressional Democrats (e.g. Nancy Pelosi) must also be held accountable for their knowledge pursuant to their (oversight) duties.

7. Hindsight is always 20/20. Decisions are not as simple as they may seem.

************

Remember, the difference between a rut and a grave is depth....The ditch dug for another may be the one you fall in.

Post 9/11 - New G.I. Bill

bob-pol — Fri, 01 May 2009 21:45:52 EDT

Starting today, veterans can apply online to receive education benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill.

Apply now: http://www.gibill.va.gov/

04/30/2009. Tammy Duckworth Gets to Work

VA Assistant Secretary Tammy Duckworth speaks Tuesday at George Washington University. (Photo courtesy of VA)

It's Day 101 for President Obama, but it's only day four for Tammy Duckworth, one of the administration's most visible faces on veterans issues. The former Illinois director of veterans' affairs and Democratic congressional candidate won Senate confirmation last Friday to serve as assistant secretary of public and intergovernmental affairs at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Today she joins President Obama and Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki at the "White House to Light House" event with wounded service members.

Her first big project launches tomorrow, when the VA starts accepting applications for the Post 9/11 G.I. Bill, the next-generation educational assistance program for military veterans that will provide payments for tuition, fees, housing, books and supplies. Interested veterans can apply on the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill Web site, a process that should take roughly 15 minutes.

The VA will provide financial benefits to veterans based on the highest tuition at a public university in each state, meaning the benefits may not cover full costs at private universities.

The department's Yellow Ribbon Program allows private institutions to commit up to 50 percent of the difference between the maximum allotted amounts and VA will match the difference. Duckworth's alma matter, George Washington University, announced its participation in the program on Tuesday, committing funds to assist 176 veterans per year.

The VA starts distributing the funds on August 1 and Duckworth will spend the next few weeks on the road raising awareness about the program.

“It’s not just reaching the veterans. We need to reach their families, we need to reach their spouses," she said during an interview earlier this week.

The new job makes her the administration's public liaison to the veteran community, but also to state and local agencies working on veterans issues.

“I don’t see the VA as having a monopoly on serving vets," she said. "As someone who was a state director in Illinois, I was frustrated that I had resources and was on the front lines, yet I often had a difficult time accessing partnerships with the VA.” She hopes to eliminate those difficulties during her tenure.

The Eye on Twitter! | Track Obama nominees with Head Count

Posted by washingtonpost.com

Attention, Twitter Bugs

Ailene — Fri, 01 May 2009 17:44:59 EDT

From Govloop: Social Network for Government 2.0

The Official White House Twitter Has Been Launched! The Whitehouse has official taken the plunge into microblogging and launched their official twitter account @whitehouse today. Another milestone in government 2.0 and social media has been reached.

The Official White House Twitter URL: http://twitter.com/whitehouse

The account was set up and first tweet posted about 2 hours ago putting the time of official release at around 12:20 AM EST on Friday May 1st 2009. I checked the page 5 minutes ago and it had 585 followers, refreshed it and there was 731 followers. So the velocity is there and the potential for this account to reach massive twitter influencer is there, who knows it might hit a million followers even faster then Opera or Aston. :)

The first three friends of the whitehouse are all CDC Focused:

@CDC_eHealth
@CDCFlu
@CDCemergency

So it would appear that one of the initial strategic objectives of the twitter account could be to raise awareness of the CDC, most likely because to the hysteria about swine flu that is happening currently in the US.

U.S. Supreme Court: Obama's Test of Judgement

Ailene — Fri, 01 May 2009 06:48:19 EDT

HEADLINE: "Source: Liberal-leaning Justice Souter to Retire"

AP – FILE - In this Dec. 5, 2003 file photo, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice David Souter By MARK SHERMAN and JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writers Mark Sherman And Jennifer Loven, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON – Justice David Souter is planning to retire after nearly two decades on the Supreme Court, but his departure is unlikely to change its conservative-liberal split.

President Barack Obama's first pick for the high court is likely to be a liberal-leaning nominee, much like Souter.

The White House has been told that Souter will retire in June, when the court finishes its work for the summer, a source familiar with his plans said Thursday night. The retirement is likely to take effect only once a successor is confirmed.

The source spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for Souter.

Souter had no comment Thursday night, a Supreme Court spokeswoman said.

The vacancy could lead to another woman on the bench to join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, currently the court's only female justice.

At 69, Souter is much younger than either Ginsburg, 76, or Justice John Paul Stevens, 89, the other two liberal justices whose names have been mentioned as possible retirees. Yet those justices have given no indication they intend to retire soon and Ginsburg said she plans to serve into her 80s, despite her recent surgery for pancreatic cancer.

Souter, a regular jogger, is thought to be in excellent health.

Interest groups immediately began gearing up.

"We're looking for President Obama to choose an eminently qualified candidate who is committed to the core constitutional values, who is committed to justice for all and not just a few," said Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice.

Some of the names that have been circulating include recently confirmed Solicitor General Elena Kagan; U.S. Appeals Court Judges Sonya Sotomayor, Kim McLane Wardlaw, Sandra Lea Lynch and Diane Pamela Wood; and Leah Ward Sears, chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court. Men who have been mentioned as potential nominees include Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Harvard Law professor Cass Sunstein and U.S. District Judge Ruben Castillo of Chicago.

The Obama White House began from almost its first days in office preparing for the possibility of a retirement by thinking about and vetting potential high court nominees. Those efforts only accelerated with Ginsburg's cancer surgery.

The timing may have been unexpected, but Souter has long yearned for a life outside Washington.

He has never made any secret of his dislike for the capital, once telling acquaintances he had "the world's best job in the world's worst city." When the court finishes its work for the summer, he quickly departs for his beloved New Hampshire.

He has been on the court since 1990, when he was an obscure federal appeals court judge until President George H.W. Bush tapped him for the Supreme Court.

Bush White House aide John Sununu, the former conservative governor of New Hampshire, hailed his choice as a "home run." And early in his time in Washington, Souter was called a moderate conservative.

But he soon joined in a ruling reaffirming woman's right to an abortion, a decision from 1992 that remains still perhaps his most noted work on the court.

Souter became a reliable liberal vote on the court and was one of the four dissenters in the 2000 decision in Bush v. Gore that sealed the presidential election for George W. Bush.

Yet as Souter biographer Tinsley Yarbrough noted, "he doesn't take extreme positions." Indeed, in June, Souter sided with Exxon Mobil Corp. and broke with his liberal colleagues in slashing the punitive damages the company owed Alaskan victims of the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

Souter is the court's 105th justice, only its sixth bachelor. He works seven days a week through most of the court's October-to-July terms, a pace that he says leaves time for little else. He told an audience this year that he undergoes "an annual intellectual lobotomy" each fall.

Souter earned his bachelor's and law degrees from Harvard sandwiched around a stay at Oxford University as a Rhodes scholar.

He became New Hampshire's attorney general in 1976 and a state court judge two years later. By 1990, he was on the federal appeals court in Boston for only a few months when Bush picked him to replace Justice William Brennan on the Supreme Court.

National Public Radio first reported Souter's plans Thursday night.

Cybercrime

Ailene — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:39:14 EDT

From recent Blog entry....

MUST READ!!!

Are you tired of our site being attacked?By sduncan - Apr 29th, 2009 at 6:17 pm EDT

This is a crime THESE LINKS CONTAIN COMPUTER BUGS

REPORT THIS CRIME TO IC3 I did and you should also

http://www.ic3.gov/about/default.aspx

Welcome to IC3

The Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) is a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C),
and the Bureau of Justice Assistance
(BJA).

IC3's mission is to serve as a vehicle to receive, develop, and refer criminal complaints
regarding the rapidly expanding arena of cyber crime. The IC3 gives the victims
of cyber crime a convenient and easy-to-use reporting mechanism that alerts authorities
of suspected criminal or civil violations. For law enforcement and regulatory agencies
at the federal, state, local and international level, IC3 provides a central referral
mechanism for complaints involving Internet related crimes.
read more >>

Filing a Complaint with IC3

IC3 accepts online Internet crime complaints from either the person who believes
they were defrauded or from a third party to the complainant. We can best process
your complaint if we receive accurate and complete information from you. Therefore,
we request that you provide the following information when filing a complaint:

    * Your name
    * Your mailing address
    * Your telephone number
    * The name, address, telephone number, and Web address, if available, of the individual
      or organization you believe defrauded you.
    * Specific details on how, why, and when you believe you were defrauded.
    * Any other relevant information you believe is necessary to support your complaint.

File a Complaint >>

http://www.ic3.gov/about/default.aspx

Spam

    With improved technology and world-wide Internet access, spam, or unsolicited bulk
    email, is now a widely used medium for committing traditional white collar crimes
    including financial institution fraud, credit card fraud, and identity theft, among
    others. It is usually considered unsolicited because the recipients have not opted
    to receive the email. Generally, this bulk email refers to multiple identical messages
    sent simultaneously. Those sending this spam are violating the Controlling the Assault
    of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing (CAN-SPAM) Act, Title 18, U.S. Code,
    Section 1037.

    Spam can also act as the vehicle for accessing computers and servers without authorization
    and transmitting viruses and botnets. The subjects masterminding this Spam often
    provide hosting services and sell open proxy information, credit card information,
    and email lists illegally.

    If you believe you may have fallen victim to this type of scam and wish to report
    it, please file a complaint
    with us.

http://www.ic3.gov/about/default.aspx

IC3 Mission Statement

IC3's mission is to serve as a vehicle to receive, develop, and refer criminal complaints
regarding the rapidly expanding arena of cyber crime. The IC3 gives the victims
of cyber crime a convenient and easy-to-use reporting mechanism that alerts authorities
of suspected criminal or civil violations. For law enforcement and regulatory agencies
at the federal, state, local, and international level, IC3 provides a central referral
mechanism for complaints involving Internet related crimes.

Significant and supplemental to partnering with law enforcement and regulatory agencies,
it will remain a priority objective of the IC3 to establish effective alliances
with industry. Such alliances will enable the IC3 to leverage both intelligence
and subject matter expert resources, pivotal in identifying and in crafting an aggressive,
proactive approach to combating cyber crime.

http://www.ic3.gov/about/default.aspx

Obama's First Business Report Card

N. Julio Barthson - E-Campaign Leader — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:26:04 EDT

President Obama gets a passing grade for his handling of the economy in his first 100 days...

National Dialogue

Ailene — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:41:44 EDT

Check out the USA.gov Home Page on USA.gov ( http://www.usa.gov ).

This page has been updated with a new link to National Dialogue on Recovery.gov. Join a week-long online discussion to engage leading information technology vendors, thinkers, and consumers in answering the question:

What ideas, tools, and approaches can make Recovery.gov a place where all citizens can transparently monitor the expenditure and use of recovery funds?

This national dialogue--open from April 27 through May 3--is being offered by the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board and the Office of Management and Budget in partnership with the National Academy of Public Administration.

Look for the link in the "Features" box on the right side of the USA.gov Home Page.

Travel Affected by Raised Global Pandemic Alert

bob-pol — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 02:02:55 EDT

WHO raises Swine Flu Global Pandemic Alert level to 4.

Associated Press Writers, April 27,2009

MEXICO CITY – The swine flu epidemic entered a dangerous new phase Monday as the death toll climbed in Mexico and the number of suspected cases there and in the United States nearly doubled. The World Health Organization raised its alert level but stopped short of declaring a global emergency.

The United States advised Americans against most travel to Mexico and ordered stepped up border checks in neighboring states. U.S. customs officials began checking people entering U.S. territory. "We are proceeding as if we are preparatory to a full pandemic," Napolitano said. She said travel warnings for trips to Mexico would remain in place as long as swine flu is detected.

The WHO raised the alert level to Phase 4, meaning there is sustained human-to-human transmission of the virus causing outbreaks in at least one country. Its alert system was revised after bird flu in Asia began to spread in 2004, and Monday was the first time it was raised above Phase 3.

"At this time, containment is not a feasible option," as the virus has already spread to several other countries, said WHO Assistant Director-General Keiji Fukuda.

Putting an alert at Phases 4 or 5 signals that the virus is becoming increasingly adept at spreading among humans. That move could lead governments to set trade, travel and other restrictions aimed at limiting its spread. Phase 6 is for a full-blown pandemic, characterized by outbreaks in at least two regions of the world.

Mexico canceled school at all levels nationwide until May 6, and the Mexico City government said it was considering a complete shutdown, including all public transportation, if the death toll keeps rising. Labor Secretary Javier Lozano Alarcon said employers should isolate anyone showing up for work with fever, cough, sore throat or other signs of the flu.

WHO spokesman Peter Cordingley singled out air travel as an easy way the virus could spread, noting that the WHO estimates that up to 500,000 people are on planes at any time.

European Union Health Commissioner Androulla Vassiliou advised Europeans to avoid nonessential travel to Mexico and parts of the United States, although Besser said that including the U.S. in the advisory seemed unwarranted at this time.

Germany's leading vacation tour operators were skipping stops in Mexico City as a precaution. The Hannover-based TUI said trips through May 4 to Mexico City were being suspended, including those operated by TUI itself and through companies 1-2 Fly, Airtours, Berge & Meer, Grebeco and L'tur.

Japan's largest tour agency, JTB Corp., suspended tours to Mexico through June 30. Russian travel agencies said about a third of those planning to travel to Mexico in early May had already canceled.

In Malaysia, health workers in face masks took the temperatures of passengers as they arrived on a flight from Los Angeles.

Russia, Hong Kong and Taiwan said they would quarantine visitors showing symptoms of the virus amid global fears of a pandemic, an epidemic spread over a large area, either a region or worldwide.

China said anyone experiencing flu-like symptoms within two weeks of arrival had to report to authorities.

President Barack Obama said the outbreak was reason for concern, but not yet a cause for alarm.

-----------
On the Net:
WHO swine flu page: http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/en/index.html

far right Fred Thompson on OBAMA'S BANANA REPUBLIC

darlene matthews — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 19:06:13 EDT

Fred Thompson: Obama Loosed 'Dogs of War' on CIA

He also warns that Obama and the Democrats are making America look like a "banana republic."

Sunday, April 26, 2009 4:45 PM

By: Jim Meyers

Article Font Size

Former Senator, TV star and presidential candidate Fred Thompson tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama is revealing his “naivete, ineptitude and arrogance” as he deals with matters of national security.

The Tennessee Republican, who now hosts a radio show on Westwood One along with his wife Jeri, also said the “dogs of war have been loosed” over left-wing attempts to single out Bush-era officials for prosecution relating to the treatment of detainees.

Newsmax.TV’s Ashley Martella cited the announcement that the Defense Department is going to release many pictures showing alleged abuse by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked Thompson what purpose that might serve.

“None, other than to serve as propaganda tools for our worst enemies,” Thompson said.

See Video: Fred Thompson Slams Obama's National Security Debacle - Click Here Now

“This was set in motion when the president first decided to release” CIA memos on interrogation techniques used on terrorist suspects, Thompson told Newsmax.

“There was no purpose in doing that except to make him look good internationally and to the left wing here at home,” he said. “It did a lot of damage.

“In one stroke of a pen he declassified top-secret documents that people would otherwise go to jail for releasing. It gave al-Qaida and the Taliban a blueprint as to the outer limits of our interrogation techniques.

“We have to remember that [the techniques were used] in the aftermath of 9/11. Congress was briefed on these techniques. Some of them asked if they were really going far enough to get what they needed to get, and it was approved at high levels in the administration.

“They carefully crafted them as best they could to not go too far, and to provide safeguards when they were carrying out these admittedly rough techniques on these people who had this vital information.

“So now we’re really talking about a war crimes tribunal, which this country has never done. We’ve never brought to criminal court prior administrations in this country.

“Harry Truman could have been accused of war crimes, I suppose, for dropping the bombs. President Obama authorized the killing of those three [pirates] in the Indian Ocean not too long ago. Prosecuting these people under these circumstances is something you hear about in banana republics and third-world countries, not the United States of America.

“The president’s opened up a terrible Pandora’s Box and there’s going to be a price to pay before this thing is ended.”

Martella asked if the Obama administration was acquiescing to its far-left base when it released the CIA memos on interrogation techniques.

“I think in this case, in all probability, they thought that they could cater to their left wing, appease their demands, by releasing these memos and then it might not go any further,” Thompson said.

“Because surely they were able to see that this was bad for them the way it’s going to be bad for the country.

“This is going to have ramifications that are far-reaching. They thought they could put the genie back in the bottle after they opened it, and of course appeasement never works that way.

“There was a firestorm. The attorney general’s received 250 names in a petition to urge the appointment of a special prosecutor for this. The left-wing blogs went nuts. They started running television ads and so forth.

“And then after promising that there would be no prosecutions, [Obama] acquiesced and now opened the door for that. So I think it’s a case of naivete, ineptitude and unbelievable arrogance and lack of experience.

“We elected someone who didn’t have two minutes’ worth of experience with regard to matters concerning national security. Now he’s cast in this position and he’s making decisions that are going to have far-reaching ramifications not only abroad, and not only with our enemies, but in dividing our country even further here at home in ways I don’t think we’ve ever been divided before.

“We’re going to have members of Congress testifying against each other if they go down this road.”

Martella noted that Rep. Peter King of New York has said that if Democrats do go ahead and attempt to prosecute Bush administration CIA interrogation lawyers, the Republicans should “go to war” with them.

“That just gives you an example of the atmosphere on Capitol Hill today,” Thompson observed.

“People are angry. People are upset. You’ve got people on the left, you’ve got the Democrats talking about truth commissions, talking about investigations and Congressional hearings and urging prosecution. They’re fighting among each other on the Democratic side as to just how they should go and how far they should go.”

Some of these Democrats are “the same people who were briefed on these techniques back in 2002,” Thompson said, “including Nancy Pelosi, who’s not telling the truth now, who’s trying to parse words and trying to get around the fact that she knew what was going on, as others did back when this happened.

“That creates a new level of animosity like I’ve never seen before, and I served in the Senate for eight years. The dogs of war have been loosed in this country and I don’t know what is going to happen before we see the end of it. But none of it’s going to be good.”

Thompson’s radio show is heard on weekdays from noon to 2 p.m.

BARACK OBAMA FIRST 100 DAYS

WEBMASTER — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:23:01 EDT

During the first 100 days of the Obama presidency we have seen outstanding leadership in tackling the many issues facing our great nation. And it seems that overwhelming poll numbers indicate that America agrees with President Obama. see THE WHITE HOUSE

The question remains; What can we as fellow Americans do to help our neighbors and countrymen? Included are nine things you can do to help the President celebrate his first 100 Days in office:

1. Donate unused suits to the Salvation Army
2. Donate time to Americorps
3. Donate toys for children at Toys for Tots
4. Donate blood at the Red Cross
5. Donate a can of food each week to a Local Shelter or Food Pantry
6. Donate money to Save the Children
7. Donate time at local a Veterans Hospital
8. Donate an hour a day to your Child
9. Donate to the Make a Wish Foundation

Participation is greatly appreciated. What you do for the least of our brethren, you do for yourself -
http://donate.barackobama.com/page/community/post/president/gGxWJh

Barack Obama First 100 Days posted by David Apperson

ONLINE VETERANS COMMUNITY

WEBMASTER — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:42:47 EDT

President Barack Obama says all Americans have a “sacred trust" with the military personnel who have served this Nation, a responsibility to reward courage and self-sacrifice with all the benefits an open democratic society can provide.

MyVetwork (myvetwork.com) provides the solid foundation for a vibrant network of support in the spirit of that sacred trust to improve the lives of not only our active duty personnel and the 600,000 veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, but all our nation's estimated 23 million living military veterans - and their families, too.

MyVetwork is already operational, with the capability to service the Veterans Community—for the first time—in three intersecting strings, known as a Trident Connection, add up to One Trusted Source for Veterans that anyone connected to the government understands is crucially needed:

Connection: An easy to use—free—means for our service men and women (all branches, all conflicts, whether active duty, veterans or retired) and their extended families to connect and shape their own community where they can interact and exchange information on getting the services and resources they need (replacing current “Needle in a haystack” searches with the badly needed “Bingo. Found it!” laser-like search). Employs a cool Pin View that makes it easy to:
- Locate people you know, like buddies from combat
- Find people you don’t know, the very people—living nearby or half a world away—with whom you most want to connect based on values, interests, concerns, and specific experiences you’ve identified as important
- Find jobs the MyVetwork way: the “job board on steroids” helps find work that matches your interests and skill sets, and helps vet-friendly employers ensure vets get first-look opportunity at available positions.
Information: MyVetwork is building the innovative “Milipedia” with content specifically shaped by and for the military community, continually adapting to the needs of service personnel and their families and updating the information they seek, especially in the areas of healthcare, education, money and finance, and careering. Whether cutting through the red tape to benefits programs available from the VA; differentiating the proliferation of local services and programs; or finding specific people offering advice and support, Milipedia info has the added advantage of being “vetted” by military personnel who can vouch for the value of the proffered service/information (think “Military meets Wikipedia meets Zagat guide”).
Organizational Umbrella: Finally, a place for unwinding the organizational maze, categorizing all the available services, the scores of organizations, the many websites and the hundreds of community programs already providing support for our military and their families, giving them the best possible means to showcase themselves to the military community with the accompanying opportunity to increase membership, even raise needed funds.

Veterans community in one location. All for free.

Founded by decorated veteran John R. Campbell, MyVetwork draws on the “secret sauce” of the military, the “I’ve-walked-in-your-shoes” strength military personnel willingly share with one another, which will be a driving force behind MyVetwork.

Learn more about MyVetwork by visiting myvetwork.com or join the Veterans Community by visiting community.myvetwork.com.

Online Veterans Community: veterans.barackobama.com/page/community/post/president/gGxcKg
Document posted by David Apperson

President Obama's EARTH DAY PROCLAMATION

N. Julio Barthson - E-Campaign Leader — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:07:11 EDT

Let's support the President in his struggle to save our planet.

Re: EARTH DAY - Turning C02 into Methanol

bob-pol — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:49:24 EDT

A NEW CURATIVE PROCESS FOR OUR EARTH - Rob [bob-pol]

http://pda.physorg.com/carbondioxide-carbon-dioxide_news159098987.html

RESEARCHERS TRANSFORM CARBON DIOXIDE INTO METHANOL

Apr 16, Chemistry/Biochemistry

Scientists at Singapore's Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology (IBN) have succeeded in unlocking the potential of carbon dioxide - a common greenhouse gas - by converting it into a more useful product.

In the international chemistry journal Angewandte Chemie, the IBN researchers report that by using organocatalysts, they activated carbon dioxide in a mild and non-toxic process to produce methanol, a widely used industrial feedstock and clean-burning biofuel.

Organocatalysts are catalysts that are comprised of non-metallic elements found in organic compounds. NHCs such as IMes (1,3-bis-(2,4,6 trimethylphenyl)imidazolylidene) are a form of organocatalysts that are stable and easily stored. They do not contain toxic heavy metals and can be produced easily without high costs.

The scientists made carbon dioxide react by using N-heterocyclic carbenes (NHCs), a novel organocatalyst. In contrast to heavy metal catalysts that contain toxic and unstable components, NHCs are stable, even in the presence of oxygen. Hence, the reaction with NHCs and carbon dioxide can take place under mild conditions in dry air.

The IBN scientists showed that only a small amount of NHC is required to induce carbon dioxide activity in a reaction. "NHCs have shown tremendous potential for activating and fixing carbon dioxide. Our work can contribute towards transforming excess carbon dioxide in the environment into useful products such as methanol," said Siti Nurhanna Riduan, IBN Senior Lab Officer, who is also pursuing her Ph.D. under the Scientific Staff Development Award at IBN, one of the research institutes of Singapore's A*STAR (Agency for Science, Technology and Research).

Hydrosilane, a combination of silica and hydrogen, is added to the NHC-activated carbon dioxide, and the product of this reaction is transformed into methanol by adding water through hydrolysis.

Yugen Zhang, Ph.D., IBN Team Leader and Principal Research Scientist, explained, "Hydrosilane provides hydrogen, which bonds with carbon dioxide in a reduction reaction. This carbon dioxide reduction is efficiently catalyzed by NHCs even at room temperature. Methanol can be easily obtained from the product of the carbon dioxide reaction. Our previous research on NHCs has demonstrated their multiple applications as powerful antioxidants to fight degenerative diseases, and as effective catalysts to transform sugars into an alternative energy source. We have now shown that NHCs can also be applied successfully to the conversion of carbon dioxide into methanol, helping to unleash the potential of this highly abundant gas."

Previous attempts to reduce carbon dioxide to more useful products have required more energy input and a much longer reaction time. They also require transition metal catalysts, which are both unstable in oxygen and expensive. Ongoing research at IBN aims to find cheap alternatives for the hydrosilane reagent so that the production of methanol can be even more cost-effective for mass industrial production.

"At IBN, we are innovating effective methods of generating clean energy using green chemistry and nanotechnology. In the face of environmental pollution, global warming and increasing demands on diminishing fossil fuel resources, we hope to provide a viable alternative energy option for industry, and effective sequestration and conversion of carbon dioxide," said IBN Executive Director. Jackie Y. Ying, Ph.D.

More information: The research was published online in the Angewandte Chemie International Edition, at this link: 10.1002/anie.200806058. IBN's report has been designated a "Hot Paper."

Source: Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore

Prayers for the Obama Family - Please, Join Us!

N. Julio Barthson - E-Campaign Leader — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:32:17 EDT

Please, join us to pray for the Obama Family; Barack, Michelle, Sasha and Malia need our prayers...

Americas' Summit - WINNING THE PEACE

bob-pol — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 14:37:27 EDT

President Obama, "We'll extend an open hand if you'll unclench your fist." Rob [bob-pol]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1892432,00.html

Signs of Spring: U.S.-Latin America Relations Thaw

By Tim Padgett Sunday, Apr. 19, 2009

President Barack Obama stands in front of Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez (R) during an official photograph session at the 5th Summit of the Americas, April 18, 2009. Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

When I started covering Latin America 20 years ago, a leftist source asked what books I'd read to help myself understand the region's manera de pensar, or psyche. I fidgeted and mentioned Octavio Paz's Labyrinth of Solitude. He shrugged. José Martí's Our America? Eh. How about everything by Gabriel García Márquez? (Although I had to admit that was to impress women.) He shook his head and handed me Eduardo Galeano's The Open Veins of Latin America — the same book Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez made a show of giving Barack Obama on Saturday before Obama's meeting with South American leaders at the Summit of the Americas in Port of Spain, Trinidad.

Read the subtitle of Galeano's 1971 work — Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent — and you know why the left-wing, anti-U.S. Chavez would present it to a U.S. President. The book's thesis is that Spain, then Britain, the U.S. and Latin oligarchs ransacked Latin American resources, from copper to crude, bleeding the region of its natural wealth and its sovereign dignity. But even if you don't subscribe to its Marxist-tinged polemic, The Open Veins is one of the best introductions to the longstanding Latin grievances that keep producing populist leaders like Chávez. It was an appropriate gift for Obama — not because he's clueless about that manera de pensar, but because he proved at the Trinidad summit to be the first U.S. President to get it. "We have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms," to Latin America, he told the gathering. "But I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations." (See TIME's photos of the guerrilla armies of Colombia)

If it's genuine, it's hard to overestimate how important that promise is to Latin Americans, who've experienced a lot more heavy-handed interventionism and condescending disregard than they have partnership from either Republicans or Democrats in Washington. It not only heartened Latin leaders in Trinidad, it disarmed them. The summit could have easily deteriorated into another yanqui-bashing fest over the U.S.'s role in the global economic crisis or its antiquated trade embargo against Cuba. But Obama had even Chávez feeling "great optimism" that his nation's icy relations with the U.S. will thaw, starting with the return of each other's ambassadors, expelled last year, to Washington and Caracas.

That bonhomie was hardly assured beforehand. Obama and Chávez had been critical of each other in recent months, with Obama suggesting that Chávez supported Colombian guerrilla violence and Chávez suggesting, as a result, that Obama was an "ignoramus." To many observers it was a toss-up whether Chávez — who has pledged that he and his leftist allies in the region will not sign the gathering's final declaration, to protest the fact that communist Cuba is still not invited to these summits — would upbraid Obama in Port of Spain or, given Obama's international popularity, reach out to him. But they shared a warm handshake Friday night, during which Obama tried his Spanish (mucho gusto, or "pleased to meet you") and Chávez insisted, according to a Venezuela communiqué, "I want to be your friend."

So, it seems, does the rest of the region after this summit. To most Latin Americans, Obama could not present a starker contrast to his predecessor, George W. Bush, whom Chávez once called "the devil" and whose relations with the hemisphere were strained at best. Even Bill Clinton as President didn't set foot south of the border until five months into his second term. Latin America, according to many experts, has the worst gap between rich and poor of any region in the world — a big reason why the U.S. has so many immigration-policy headaches. And what Obama gave the region this weekend was a reason to think that it could finally set aside its 20th-century resentments — which, admittedly, have too often been exploited by Latin leaders as an excuse for their own epic failings and iron fists — and move on to 21st-century development. To believe, that is, that the U.S. now appreciates what Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva told TIME in a recent interview — that it's not smart policy for the U.S. to be such a rich country "surrounded by so many poor people."

Obama also seems to understand now that he and the hemisphere won't get too far in correcting that situation until they get past the Cuba problem. It turned out to be the summit's marquee issue, largely because other Latin leaders see the embargo as a reflection of how Washington treats them as well. Before leaving for Trinidad, Obama eliminated restrictions on Cuban-American travel and remittances to the island — a gesture that effectively threw the ball, as Obama said, into Havana's court. To everyone's surprise, Cuban President Raul Castro — who is making a serious push to have his country readmitted to hemispheric groups like the Organization of Americans States — responded by saying he was "willing to talk" about matters like the scores of jailed dissidents in Cuba. Obama kept the ball rolling, suggesting in Port of Spain that the U.S. "seeks a new beginning with Cuba" in a speech that Latin presidents like Argentina's Cristina Fernández de Kirchner called a big step toward "re-stabilizing" U.S.-Latin American relations.

Obama needs to follow Trinidad's feel-good rhetoric with more concrete programs, although he and Latin America know he can't do much in the short term thanks to the U.S.'s economic calamity. Many Latin American officials in recent months have told TIME they're not looking for much for now; but they do want to make sure Obama shifts hemispheric priorities away from the U.S. obsession with free trade and the drug war to development concerns like education, alternative energy and democratic institution-building, which the U.S. President did engage in Trinidad.

At the same time, if Chávez and other Latin leftists want Obama to read Galeano, they in turn should read Obama. In his own books, like The Audacity of Hope, Obama lays out the common-sense, post-ideological political philosophy that has led to the U.S. shift on Latin America that so many in the region are now applauding. It's something Latin America's yanqui-bashers, if they want to keep receiving applause from Latin voters themselves, should keep in mind.

Handling an Enemy, Obama's Way

bob-pol — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 11:28:26 EDT

Opposite Approaches to Handling an Adversary

1. Bush's Method- Cold War, No communication- leading to Misunderstanding, Mistrust, and possible WAR.

2. Obama's Method- Extend an Open Hand, Listen, Understand, Negotiate, Come to terms- leading to PEACE.

"If I Make an Enemy my FRIEND, have I not one less Enemy!",... Jesus , Rob [bob-pol], racggg@gmail.com

> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Blacks4Barack ! <Blacks4Barack@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hugo Chavez to President Obama:
'I Want To Be Your Friend'
PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad - Presidents Barack Obama and Hugo Chavez have met for the first time, shaking hands as the Summit of the Americas gets under way in Trinidad and Tobago.
Photos released by the Venezuelan government show the two smiling and Obama touching Chavez on the shoulder.
The Venezuelan presi dency says Obama initiated the handshake. It quotes Chavez as telling Obama he hopes for better relations between their nations.
Chavez also reportedly said Friday: "With this same hand I greeted Bush eight years ago. I want to be your friend."
As recently as last week, Chavez expressed a desire to "reset" relations with Washington.
It's A New Day !
B4B

--
Posted By Blacks4Barack ! to Greg Jones' BLACKS 4 BARACK ! BLOG at 4/18/2009 07:11:00 AM

take a minute to send a petition on pesticides

darlene matthews — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 09:58:03 EDT

Subject: Tell Pesticide Peddlers: We support Michelle Obama's organic garden.

Dear Friend,

The Mid America CropLife Association (MACA) has a bone to pick with Michelle Obama. MACA represents chemical companies that produce pesticides, and they are angry that - wait for it - Michelle Obama isn't using chemicals in her organic garden at the White House.

I am not making this up.

In an email they forwarded to their supporters, a MACA spokesman wrote, "While a garden is a great idea, the thought of it being organic made [us] shudder." MACA went on to publish a letter it had sent to the First Lady asking her to consider using chemicals -- or what they call "crop protection products" -- in her garden.

I just signed a petition telling MACA's board members to stop using Michelle Obama's garden to spread propaganda about produce needing to be sprayed with chemicals. I hope you will, too.

Please have a look and take action.

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/wh_garden/?r_by=-1831079-IJgxknx&rc=paste

Thanks!

We Have to Comment! EPA: Action on Greenhouse Gases, Hearings in May

V, aka VCubed/Virginia V — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:08:40 EDT

We have never had a better chance to impact this critical issue. Our reps are willing to use "budget reconciliation" to overcome filibuster threats and pass health care reform (since private insurers are still at the table), but on climate change and cap-and-trade, the resistance is absolute, from Democratic reps from mining, coal, oil, gas states, not just from Republicans.

Since our representatives are more indebted to their oil, gas, mining and coal lobbyists than to our environment or our President, it's the EPA to the rescue! There will be a 60-day comment period so please write, right now, and get everyone you can to attend 2 public hearings in May, in

Arlington, VA 5/18, and
Seattle WA 5/21.

Support w/your comments to:

GHG-Endangerment-Docket@epa.gov

Subject: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171

Do it please, now! Background at: http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

Post this on Facebook, all your networks, Digg to push story to front page:

http://digg.com/world_news/U_S_says_greenhouse_emissions_endanger_human_health

Send this alert to all your friends, especially in the vicinity of VA and WA!

VFW SUPPORTS OBAMA

WEBMASTER — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:48:27 EDT

VFW Applauds Obama's 21st Century Vision for VA
Advanced funding a key legislative goal

Washington, D.C., April 9, 2009 - The national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. is applauding President Obama for his vision for a 21st century Department of Veterans Affairs that includes support of advanced funding legislation and a single, unified electronic medical record between the Defense Department and VA.

Glen M. Gardner Jr., a Vietnam veteran from Round Rock, Texas, said the president's vision tracks with key VFW legislative goals to ensure that America properly cares for her service members, veterans and their families.

"A nation that creates veterans has a sacred responsibility to care for those veterans," said Gardner, who added that the VA has only started a new fiscal year with a fully funded budget once in the past 12 years.

"Advance funding does not diminish congressional oversight or the nature by which the discretionary process works. It just means Congress will prepare and appropriate the VA's health care budget a full year in advance, which is clearly a smarter and more efficient way for the nation's largest integrated health care system to conduct business," he said.

Senate VA Committee Chairman Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) and House VA Committee Chairman Bob Filner (D-Calif.) reintroduced advanced funding legislation into the 111th Congress – S. 423 and H.R. 1016, respectively. Now that the president also supports the legislation, the VFW national commander is urging his total membership of 2.2 million to contact their elected officials and urge them to sign on as co-sponsors, and to vote accordingly when the bills come up on the floor.

With regards to a single, unified electronic medical record, it will help ease the transition of millions of servicemen and women from DOD's rolls into the VA system, which will increase their access to care and benefits, while protecting personal privacy data.

"Money is not the answer to every problem," said Gardner, "but a budget that isn't sufficient, timely or predictable creates huge problems for a federal agency that essentially operates in the service industry. With advanced funding and a 21st century focus to improve electronic medical records, access to care and veteran homelessness issues, America's veterans of past, present and future will be properly cared for by a grateful nation.

"We look forward to working with the administration and Congress to make this vision a reality."

Contact your congressional members today and urge them to support S. 423 and H.R. 1016.

See VFW post @ http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=4988
Posted by David Apperson, VFW Life Member

REACHING OUT TO THE CUBAN PEOPLE

WEBMASTER — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:59:23 EDT

Today Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was joined by Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the National Security Council Dan Restrepo -- who spoke in Spanish -- in announcing a change in US policy towards Cuba at the Daily Press Briefing:

MR. GIBBS: Good. Before we do our regularly scheduled program, I’ve got a short announcement. And I am joined for the bilingual portion of this announcement by Dan Restrepo, a Special Assistant to the President and a Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the National Security Council.

Today, President Obama has directed that a series of steps be taken to reach out to the Cuban people to support their desire to enjoy basic human rights and to freely determine their country’s future. The President has directed the Secretaries of State, Treasury and Commerce to carry out the actions necessary to lift all restrictions on the ability of individuals to visit family members in Cuba, and to send them remittances. He’s further directed that steps be taken to enable the freer flow of information among the Cuban people and between those in Cuba and the rest of the world, as well as to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian items directly to the Cuban people.

In taking these steps to help bridge the gap among divided Cuban families and to promote the increased flow of information and humanitarian items to the Cuban people, President Obama is working to fulfill the goals he identified both during his presidential campaign and since taking office.

All who embrace core democratic values long for a Cuba that respects the basic human, political and economic rights of all of its citizens. President Obama believes the measure he has taken today will help make that goal a reality. He encourages all who share it to continue their steadfast support for the Cuban people.

MR. RESTREPO: Thanks, Robert.

Buenas tardes.

Hoy, el Presidente Obama ha ordenado que se tomen ciertas medidas, ciertos pasos, para extender la mano al pueblo cubano, para apoyar su deseo de vivir con respeto a los derechos humanos y para poder determinar su destino propio y el destino de su país.

El Presidente ha dado instrucciones a los secretarios de Estado, Comercio y Tesoro para que pongan en marcha las acciones necesarias para eliminar todas las restricciones a individuos para que puedan visitar a sus familiares en la isla y mandar remesas. Además ha dado instrucciones para que se tomen pasos para permitir el flujo libre de información entre el pueblo cubano y entre quienes están en Cuba y el resto del mundo, y para facilitar la entrega de recursos humanitarios enviados directamente al pueblo cubano.

Al tomar estas medidas para ayudar a -- cerrar la brecha -- la brecha entre familias cubanas divididas y promover el flujo libre de información y artículos de ayuda humanitaria para el pueblo cubano, el Presidente Obama está esforzándo por cumplir los objetivos que fijó durante la campaña y desde el asumio del cargo.

Todos aquellos que creen en los valores democráticos básicos anhelan una Cuba que respeta los derechos humanos, políticos, económicos, básicos de todo su pueblo. El Presidente Obama considera que estas medidas ayudarán a hacer realidad ese objetivo. El Presidente - El Presidente alenta a todos quienes comparten este deseo, que sigan cometidos a su firme apoyo para el pueblo cubano.

See http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/13/Reaching-Out-to-the-Cuban-People/

FIRST FAMILY DOG

WEBMASTER — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 00:31:41 EDT

Guessing is over: It's Bo!

First Family Dog - In a long-awaited and guessed-about move, the Obama family has opened the White House to the new first pet -- a Portuguese water dog named Bo.

APRIL 12: In this handout image released by the White House on April 12, 2009, the first family dog, Bo, a six-month old Portuguese water dog sits in the White House in Washington, DC. Bo is a gift from Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and and his wife Victoria to the President's daughters, Sasha and Malia. PETE SOUZA / GETTY IMAGES BY PHILIP ELLIOTT ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- Bo? No jest.

The first family dag has settled by the first family -- a 6-month-old Portuguese water dog that the Obama girls are naming Bo.

The selection was one of the White House's most tightly kept secrets.

The first pooch is a gift from Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass, who owns three so-called porties and wanted the Obamas to follow suit.

''We couldn't be happier to see the joy that Bo is bringing to Malia and Sasha,'' Kennedy said in a statement. ``We love our Portuguese water dogs and know that the girls -- and their parents -- will love theirs, too.''

The housebroken puppy, which has been undergoing extensive training in recent weeks, was named ''Charlie'' by his original owners, but first daughters Malia and Sasha rechristened him Bo.

The Washington Post reported in its online editions that Obama's daughters chose the name Bo for the pup because first lady Michelle Obama's father was nicknamed Diddley. The name for the dog was an apparent reference to the singer ''Bo'' Diddley.

Throughout the day Saturday, celebrity websites and bloggers were abuzz with rumors of the first family's selection of a Portuguese water dog; one site even claimed it had pictures of the future first pet.

Obama promised his daughters a puppy during the campaign.

''This is Washington. That was a campaign promise,'' Obama said when he appeared on Jay Leno's talk show last month, as the audience roared with laughter. ``No, I'm teasing. The dog will be there shortly.''

The president and first lady had said their choice was down to either a Portuguese water dog or a Labradoodle because they were considered good pets for children who have allergies, as Malia does.

First Family Dog supplemented with material from the Chicago Tribune. Article pulled from Miami Herald.

First Family Dog posted by David Apperson
http://kids.barackobama.com/page/community/tag/first-family-dog

Hear the tribute of Bo Diddley performed by Buddy Holly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUEKu2nOLCw

Listen to the President's Message of Renewal from the White House -
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/11/Weekly-Address-Passover-and-Easter

The Silencing of the Naysayers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:53:20 EDT

The Dow is Up!!!!

The Nasdaq is Up!!!

The S & P is Up!!!!!

Now the silly talking heads are up in arms about a simple greeting...how pathetic can the media really be?

The king’s heart is the hand of the lord, as the rivers of water, he turneth it whithersoever he will,” who is the Originator of change, the power behind change, the organ of change and the outcome of change. In others word it will empower you to overcome the employer’s no, the banker’s no, the lender’s no, the government’s no, and the judge’s no! And experience God’s yes, in his timing and according to his will. How? One principle, one precept and one prayer at a time!

- Dr. Ralph A. Martino.

Defending Obama on Twitter - from @chucklasker

Chuck — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:59:53 EDT

I'm not sure if anyone reads these posts anymore. But, if you're a fan of my Obama campaign efforts, and if you're on Twitter, follow me at http://www.twitter.com/chucklasker. I am defending Obama on a regular basis and I could use the help. The Republicans are using Twitter to a high level, even having their own group called TCOT (True Conservatives on Twitter). It's the most ignorant group of people I've ever met, so let's get in there and fight the good fight! It's not over!