TPMDC Morning Roundup
Senate GOPers Ask Sotomayor For More Information
The Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have sent Sonia Sotomayor a letter complaining that her questionnaire is incomplete, asking her to submit another supplement: "If you believe that your questionnaire is fully responsive, we would appreciate an explanation to that effect." They also ask her for copies of materials she edited for the Yale Law Review, and to explain why an all-female organization that she belongs to does not violate the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Obama's Day Ahead
President Obama will hold a town hall meeting at 1:10 p.m. ET today in Green Bay, Wisconsin. The subject of the event will be to discuss the need for health-care reform. He will arrive back at the White House at 5:10 p.m. ET.
Biden's Day Ahead
Vice President Biden will be going on a "Road to Recovery" tour to promote infrastructure jobs in the stimulus program. At 10:45 a.m. ET, he will attend the groundbreaking for the Route 34 bridge project in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, joined by Sec. of Transportation Ray LaHood, Gov. Ed Rendell, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and others. At 3:45 p.m. ET, he will attend the groundbreaking for the US Highway 69 project in Overland Park, Kansas, joined by LaHood, Sec. of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, Gov. Mark Parkinson and others.
WaPo: Top House Members Disclose Investments In Bailed-Out Firms
The Washington Post reports that numerous members of Congress hold financial interests in the Wall Street firms that have been bailed out. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and her husband lost hundreds of thousands of dollars investing in AIG, while House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) and his wife held stock and other assets in firms that included Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
Rep. Peterson (D-MN): More Members To Vote Against Climate Bill
Rep. Colin Peterson (D-MN) told The Hill that up to 45 House Democrats are prepared to vote against the Waxman-Markey climate change bill, due in part to the impact it would have on agriculture. "I'm just estimating the number of votes that will be against this," Peterson said. "I suspect that the list has grown as more members have gotten a chance to look at this. I mean, my list has grown."
American Medical Association Opposes Public Option
The American Medical Association is gearing up to oppose any creation of a government-sponsored health insurance plan. The AMA says that it "cannot support any plan design that mandates physician participation," and that "many physicians and providers may not have the capability to accept the influx of new patients that could result from such a mandate."
Pelosi Making Personal Pitch To Left-Wing Dems On War Bill
CQ reports that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has stepped up her pitch to Democrats planning to vote against the Iraq and Afghanistan supplemental bills from the left. But some of them could be a hard sell. "I don't agree with her analysis that we're cleaning up for Bush," said Rep. Kaptur (D-OH). "This is Obama's first chance. This is his first wave."
Josh
Matt
Eric
This is the AMA reverting to its usual obstructionist self, but the one thing it's not doing is accurately representing the views of doctors. Most doctors I know would rather deal with the government as payer than with the collection of private insurance companies they have to deal with now, each with their own set of rules, each with their own set of forms, and each with their own quota system they impose on claims processors, requiring them to reject a certain percentage of claims regardless of merit.
Even if government payments are less than private insurers -- a dubious premise -- the net to doctors would still be greater because of the ease of administration.
June 11, 2009 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Big second on that. I get the same vibes from doctors I know - they'd rather have single payer and not spend half their time doing paper/computer work.
June 11, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ag subsidy reform is tricky between the legitimate interest of farmers and the special interest lobbies.
This almost needs some kind of base closing commission format so that the work can be done without anyone having to own up to the tough decisions.
Subsidies, especially for corn, are not in the long term interest for taxpayers, the planet or low income country farmers.
June 11, 2009 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, so the AMA is actually saying that insuring Americans is bad because doctors would be too busy if 50 million Americans weren't shit out of luck? Nice, way to look out for #1 there AMA.
And why is it not illegal for elected officials to own stock? Talk about an outrageous conflict of interest. I think when you are elected to office, at least at the national level, you should have to switch your retirement funds to bonds. And if people want to whine that it would make it so no one would want to run for public office because it might hurt their stock portfolio (although in this case it would have saved their asses), too damn bad. Greed shouldn't be a motivator of public service.
June 11, 2009 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of public statements, like the one from the AMA, make me wonder who writes the talking points for these people. As someone who works in communications, I know that before you release any statement to the public you take time to think about all the possible criticism you could get from said public statement and then revise accordingly. Maybe they have some valid reasons for opposing public option insurance, but a message of F*ck the Uninsured is just not good PR.
June 11, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, it looks like the AMA has already had to backtrack on their comments:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/11/obama-reasserts-support-f_n_214392.html.
June 11, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
My goodness this climate bill will be a tough sell. It will be watered down to the point of ridiculousness to get passed. I understand looking out for your constituents but let's look out for the entire planet at the same time.
June 11, 2009 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
If they had to count on the votes of the entire planet that might work.
June 11, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or at least balance how global warming is going to hit the next generation of farmers against how ethanol subsidies are going to hit next year. But I guess that would take a long-term view and a willingness to educate your constituents instead of pander to them.
June 11, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
i see everyone is still trying to make sense of things.
what the answer to all these issues?
these politicians are totally CORRUPT.
they are not interested in what is best for the people.
period.
June 11, 2009 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice try with the dealy tactic assholes. And by the way its perfectly legal to have all womens organizations
June 11, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I congratulate the Republicans on their ongoing efforts to add women to the list of people they've alienated in this nomination fight. Their bigotry was getting so much play I wasn't sure misogyny was going to come into the picture.
June 11, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, let me get this straight. On the one hand, GOP senators are complaining that they don't have enough time to sort through Sotomayor's cases and then on the other hand they are asking her to supply even more information. Hmmm. Does anyone else smell some obstructionist poo? Additionally, I have serious doubts that these senators would ask about the ethics of a man belonging to an all male organization. Hello, I'm your GOP senator and I'll be your server. I highly recommend today's special of a big platter of sexism served with a piquant side of ridiculous bullshit.
June 11, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take the fermented hypocrisy for desert, drizzled with a nice racist sauce.
June 11, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Smile. Pat them on the head. Answer their questions. Smile again. Ram through the nomination.
June 11, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, now I get it. Dealing with Republicans is similar to how I am training my puppy. If they pee on my carpet can I swat them with a newspaper? (Quick note to all you animal lovers out there, I'm being sarcastic; I don't really hit my dog with a newspaper).
June 11, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to suggest that they have good intentions here, but I think it is pretty low to accuse someone of sexism because of a hypothetical scenario in which you have imagined their response to be different.
June 11, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please expound, Karl. You admit that the GOP senators could actually have bad intentions in pointing out Sotomayor's membership in a women's group, but believe I am "low" for pointing out that they could have bad intention for pointing out Sotomayor's membership in a women's group. Hmm. Interesting logic.
June 11, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You hypothesise that they would have no problem with a man in an all-male organisation. Questioning her membership is, based on the CoC, valid (if not too consequential), so the only sexism would be if men and women did not get treated the same -- which you did not cite proof for.
June 11, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't hypothesize, I merely posited. I don't ever remember it being raised what professional networking groups Alito or Roberts belonged to. Yet, suddenly when it's a woman nominee, there's concerns that it's a potential Code of Conduct violation for belonging to a women's group? (and by the by, I asked my friend who is the Lead Bar Counsel for a state Bar and he told me that her assosciation does not cross any CoC lines). You are telling me you don't see anything disingenuous about that concern? You are telling me that there's no possibility of underlying sexism in that concern? Pardon me, but I don't think there's much of a leap in faith to take to draw that conclusion; certainly not to the point of being "low" as you "hypothesise."
June 11, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ops. To address their actual claim, the CoC does specify that judges should limit their associations more strictly than regular citizens, and applies to -- for example -- such gender-discriminating organisations*.
Notably, the CoC is advisory, insofar as I understand it, so membership is not a disqualifying factor.
It might not be a bad idea to relinquish it when seated, though?
I am also rather surprised they omitted the YLR publishings, someone should have known better. Neither of these is a big problem or, really, one at all, but diligence, diligence...
* This one in particular seems to be pretty positively oriented, a support network more than exclusionary as most men's clubs are, but it is still discriminatory in the neutral sense of the word.
June 11, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are members of the AMA bound by the Hippocratic Oath, or do they take the Hypocritic Oath? What happened to first do no harm?
Just asking.
And what do Senate Republicans need more time for? July 13th is plenty of time to vote NO.
Well I don't agree with your analysis Rep. Kaptur. Obama has to clean up after Bush first, and this is where it starts.
June 11, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the angle is that being required to admit an untold number of people would do harm by lengthening waits, stressing doctors and so on.
It is unequivocally not a valid criticism of single-payer, or a "public option," but it is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed when the transition happens.
I suspect the reason the AMA is tying it to the "public option," though, is that it sees it beneficial to allow offices to only accept certain insurance providers to make the "networks" and so on. There may be some valid concerns there (such as transferring information between providers, but that is supposed to be addressed by the reform anyway), but overall this part of it does seem fishy.
June 11, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except that the AMA's statement is based on a lie. Being required to accept payment by the plan doesn't mean being required to accept every patient that walks in the door if you don't have time.
What I don't understand is why nobody is calling them out on the BS that having a public option will "limit choice", when actually it will *give* choice to most people (like me) who get insurance through their employer with a take-it-or-leave-it plan.
June 11, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. When they accept a particular insurance plan, does that allow the insurance company to dictate how many patients they have to see?
This is nothing more than "ooh, government, be afraid!" The AMA is the original source of the "socialized medicine" canard; this is no different.
June 11, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're against the public option because they expect it will be like Medicare in that they'll get paid less. If they can't turn away people in the public plan (the way they do now with the uninsured) and only accept patients with private insurance that pays them more, then they might have to take more patients to make as much as they do now. (Of course, it may well cost them less in paperwork, but they can't be sure of that.)
It's their income vs. your health, guess which wins. There are plenty of caring, devoted doctors, but there are also plenty of money-grubbing ones, which are part of what's driving up our health care costs. In deciding who speaks for the AMA, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the ones with more money win.
June 11, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink