TPMDC

TPMDC Morning Roundup

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Obama: Speech Tonight Will Make It Clear Exactly What is Being Proposed
In an interview aired this morning on ABC's Good Morning America, President Obama said that his speech to Congress tonight will bring "clarity" to the health care debate: "So, the intent of the speech on is to, A, make sure that the American people are clear exactly what it is that we are proposing," said Obama. "B, to make sure that Democrats and Republicans understand that I'm open to new ideas, that we're not being rigid and ideological about this thing, but we do intend to get something done this year."

Obama's Day Ahead
President Obama will address the Walter Cronkite Memorial Service at 10:30 a.m. ET, at Lincoln Center in New York City. He will depart from New York at 1:25 p.m. ET, arriving back at the White House at 2:35 p.m. ET. At 8 p.m. Et, he will address a joint session of Congress, delivering a speech on health care reform.

Biden's Day Ahead
Vice President Biden will travel this morning to Syracuse, New York, to chair a meeting of the White House Task Force on Middle Class Families, focused on college access and affordability. He will be joined by Sec. of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, Sec. of Education Arne Duncan, and other experts on higher education. At 6 p.m. ET, he and his wife Dr. Jill Biden will host a Rosh Hashanah reception at the Naval Observatory. In the evening, he will attend President Obama's address to Congress.

Supreme Court Hearing Today On Anti-Hillary Movie
The Supreme Court today will be rehearing the Citizens United case, involving a conservative group's corporate funding of a movie to attack Hillary Clinton during the 2007/2008 primary season. Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are already on record opposing restrictions on political activity by corporations, so the real question is whether Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito will uphold the governing precedents in the case, or join with the other conservatives in overturning it.

Massachusetts Legislature Holding Hearing On Senate Appointment Bill
The Massachusetts state House will hold a much-anticipated hearing today on a bill to give Gov. Deval Patrick the power to make a temporary appointment to Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. "There's a lot of interest in it," said state Rep. Michael Moran, chairman of the Committee on Election Laws. "I'm expecting a full house."

Pawlenty Campaigning Today With McDonnell
Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), the vice-chairman of the Republican Governors Association and a potential presidential candidate in 2012, is campaigning today in Virginia with GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell.

Opposition To Health Care Reform Revives Christian Right
The Washington Post reports that the fight over health care has re-energized the Christian Right, with its groups taking in money and mobilizing supporters at a very much accelerated rate. "Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Henry Waxman have done more to energize Christian conservatives than any conservative leader could have done with this health-care package," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. "I, who never believed that we were dead, did not believe that it would happen this quickly."

Palin Auctioning Celebrity Dinner For Charity
Sarah Palin is auctioning a dinner for five with herself and her husband Todd on eBay, with the proceeds going to the "Ride 2 Recovery" charity, which provides wounded veterans with bicycles and organized rides. The opening bid started at $25,000.

Comments (50) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (2)

September 9, 2009 9:04 AM   

Don't worry, Don, I've got you covered: http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=8707

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 9:42 AM    in reply to Stroszek

Looks like Don isn't even paying attention. No surprise.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 10:26 AM    in reply to Stroszek

Who's Don?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 11:42 AM    in reply to Stroszek

Thanks very much for the link, but you left out the subject heading. No problem.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 9:08 AM   

Town Hallers Angry Over Obama's Speech to Their Representatives
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=8707

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 9:22 AM   

Did the President say this morning on Good Morning America that he'd veto a bill that didn't cover anyone?

Does that mean he'd veto a bill that didn't include mandates?

Is one of the only lines in the sand the President is willing to make for the part of reform that benefits the Insurance Industry the most?


That's how it sounded to me.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 9:41 AM    in reply to Indie Pro

Of course, that's how it sounded . . . to YOU, despite the fact that he said absolutely nothing like that. The only thing he said he would not support was a bill that was not paid for.

You and Bluebell should get a room.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 10:02 AM    in reply to FreeRider

Shouldn't you be arguing the Insurance Industry's desires somewhere on this site? You're a troll. You suck. Go away.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 10:11 AM    in reply to Indie Pro

FreeRider is a lot of things, but he's no troll. The Kos Corrolary to Godwin's Law means you lose.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 10:15 AM    in reply to Xantar

I've seen freerider troll bluebell, and now they are trolling me.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 10:24 AM    in reply to Indie Pro

I can't stand Bluebell. She's an asshole who has never said one positive thing about anything in her miserable life. She complained about no stem cell funding and Gitmo and no passage of SCHIP. But as soon as Obama reversed those things, she trumped up some reason why he had fucked up and it wasn't good enough.

She loves seeing things go badly even for issues she "claims" to care about just so she can say "I told you so." She would be happy if HCR went down in flames because it would give her something to complain about for the next 10 years.

I ignored you, until you stuck your nose in to defend your twin of misery. After that, I called you on your ridiculous bullshit of saying that $100/month is too much to pay for insurance for a family of 4. Apparently you have no clue that that same family is now paying $1000/month. Nothing is ever good enough for folks like you.

Now, you're fabricating lies about what Obama said during his GMA interview. Like I said, you and Bluebell should get a room!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 10:29 AM    in reply to FreeRider

troll

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 10:32 AM    in reply to FreeRider

secondly, your willful ignorance that not everyone can afford $100 a month (especially those who all ready can not afford insurance, who will be forced to anyway), let alone the $250 the article used, is ridiculous. It'll come back to bite the dems. But you don't care because you cheer like this is football, not legislation that actually touches people's lives.

Thirdly, I didn't make any claim. Check the punctuation, asshole. I asked a question.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 12:28 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

blah, blah, blah! Sorry. In a world where cable is $150/month and cell phones are $100/month, I'm not going to weep for someone who refuses to pay $100/moonth for insurance for a family of four.

Anyone who can't afford $100 already gets Medicaid, dumbass.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 12:54 PM    in reply to FreeRider

you couldn't be more wrong, idiot.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 12:55 PM    in reply to FreeRider

even your assumption that everyone has cell phones and cable sounds like a right winger arguing against welfare. Look at what has become of you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 8:01 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

I never said everybody had those things. I said that's what they cost. Insurance for 4 for less than the cost of cable is a damn good deal.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 4:18 PM    in reply to FreeRider

I know in Minnesota a family of four with gross income over approximately $1750 month cannot get Medicaid for the adult family members.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 10:40 AM    in reply to FreeRider

and let's do bring up that article again:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/experts-without-sufficient-subsidies-health-care-reform-could-burden-millions.php#comments

it is important:

The House's health overhaul proposal would allow Gilbert to obtain family coverage for $250 a month, with the government picking up the rest of the premium costs. While that subsidy would make insurance more affordable for Gilbert, he could still be stuck with huge medical bills if he or his family members got seriously ill. In the worst case scenario, Gilbert could end up paying $4,400 in co-insurance and deductibles on top of $3,000 in annual premiums — adding up to 15 percent of his family's income.

Concern about the legislation's cost has overshadowed a major worry among some policy experts: Whether the Democrats' plans would protect low- and moderate-income earners from excess financial burdens, as backers have promised...

and from the TPM post:

Along the same lines, if subsidy levels are lowered and premiums are higher as a result of a diminished pool then even those who do get government assistance will be required to pay the difference. That scenario is all the more likely in absence of a public option. And for many individuals and families, the difference could amount to hundreds of dollars a month.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 10:42 AM    in reply to Indie Pro

have some more:

The overhaul plan would offer little benefit for some of those families who say they are struggling right now to afford insurance.

To cover her husband, herself and their three children, Liz Stevens, a business manager at a small design firm who lives in Waterbury, Vt., says she currently pays $8,687 in premiums for insurance, and her employer chips in $2,213. In addition, she contributes $2,600 to a health savings account while her employer pays $1,500; the money goes toward her plan's $4,000 annual deductible. All told, the family's share adds up to about 12 percent of the Stevens' income of roughly $91,000 a year.

Those costs are so high, Stevens says, that she and her husband stopped saving for college or retirement, and are discussing dropping out of her employer's plan and enrolling their three children in the state insurance Vermont offers to minors. Stevens and her husband would then go without coverage, as they did during the family's leaner financial years. As it is, she says she already shuns regular check-ups for herself to save money.

"It's the equivalent of what happens with people without health insurance: you avoid going to the doctor," she says. "It definitely changes your mental approach."

Under the House bill, Stevens would have to pay more than $10,000 a year on premiums before the government subsidized the remainder. Even then she would still be on the hook for deductibles and face as much as another $10,000 in out-of-pocket costs should family members fall very ill. “The least expensive option for her would be to keep her current employer coverage,” says Ken Jacobs, chairman of the University of California, Berkeley's Center for Labor Research and Education, who reviewed the case for KHN.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 9:51 AM    in reply to Indie Pro

Mandates for left = death panels for right?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 10:05 AM    in reply to Frog Leg

except that there are mandates.

but hey, your party right or wrong, right?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 10:26 AM    in reply to Indie Pro

They're both apocalyptic predictions dealing with things which the doomsayers don't have the first clue what they are talking about.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 10:34 AM    in reply to Frog Leg

apocalyptic predictions? wee yew wee yew, call the hyperbole police.


go ahead and mock me all you want, but when you actually have an argument, let me know.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 10:51 AM    in reply to Indie Pro

Okay, a specific question.

What would be the difference that a family would have to pay for a public option vs. co-ops?

The answer of course is "It completely depends on how the details are set up."

The public option was never going to be free. There was always going to be a mandate which said that people will have to pay for it.

Public option vs. co-ops is a meaningless distinction. The details are all that matter.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 10:59 AM    in reply to Frog Leg

the CBO, Krugman, and many other people have come out and said that a Coop does very little to give competition to the insurance industry, and it will not bring down the costs of premiums the same way a public option would.

So yes, I can not say exactly the difference, but I can say that the difference will be significant because coops, as proposed, offer little competition due to its limited pool.

So I'm saying coops are not as good as a public option. coops can not offer the savings to consumers (who will be forced to buy something) a public option offers.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 11:04 AM    in reply to Indie Pro

The CBO's calculations were for one specific co-op plan and one specific public option. The models are very dependent on the details. You change the details, the differences can shrink or even disapprear.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 11:10 AM    in reply to Frog Leg

the details are important, no doubt. Absolutely.

Yet, I'll stand by my position that the difference between a coop, as proposed, and a public option is a loss of savings, due to the size of the different pools.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 9:26 AM   

I want to see President Obama use the "M" word tonight -- morality.

He should make the case that it is a moral imperative that we make health care a right, rather than a privilege. A moral imperative that we stop rationing health care by income (as Steven Pearlstein noted in this morning's Post). A moral imperative that we stop allowing families to be bankrupted by illness. A moral imperative that we stop greedy, private, for-profit companies from denying their customers needed care (either directly or indirectly by rejecting claims).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 9:43 AM   

I just realized that Obama is giving this health care speech on the Upside Down Day of the Beast. Do you think any wingnuts are going to try to make hay out of that fact?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 10:28 AM   

What we really need to know is whether Sarah Palin's dinner for five will bring her Powerseller status on Ebay

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 10:51 AM   

So "Christians" are feeling empowered by their efforts to deny care to sick people. I'm sure Jesus would be quite happy with that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 11:06 AM    in reply to Steve LaBonne

I've had this argument with many christians. The right wing christian argument is this:

Jesus does not force people to act a certain way. It is a choice. jesus doesn't force christians to behave in any way. He believes in the free market of choice.

If you're curious, that is usually their argument. A lame one, all in all.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 11:31 AM    in reply to Indie Pro

It's amazing that all those 'pro-life' folks are willing to have about 50 people die every day for lack of access to medical care. And are they saying that Jesus is pro-choice?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 11:40 AM    in reply to Indie Pro

Right Wing Christians believe Jesus is pro-choice?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 11:44 AM    in reply to speck

you'd think that'd be a good line of attack, but unfortunately the 10 commandments and the golden rule trumps the choice thing.


Not to mention, the contortion of ideals and ideas is easy for the devout. Necessary even. No offense meant to believers, of course.


I'd say, don't go looking for consistenacy of logic with these people, but really, that's all humans.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 2:52 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

Not to mention that the "You can do what you want Abe but, next time you see me coming you better run" argument kind of shoots down the whole freedom of choice argument too if Christianity were really true.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 6:55 PM    in reply to midnight rambler

Bravo. +5 for the timely "Highway 61" ref.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 10:53 AM   

Anti-reform reviving the Christian Right? How is that even possible? Getting affordable health care for all is such a Christian thing to do, and denying it is such and un-Christian thing to do. Can you say "hypocrisy?" Or is it backwards year, and I didn't get the memo?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 11:25 AM    in reply to stillidealistic

It's about abortion. What Obama needs to do is ban taxpayer money from paying for abortions as the Hyde law states. That will quiet the religious right and will ensure that Nelson, Landrieu, and Lincoln will vote for it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 11:40 AM    in reply to Maritza

I think the administration, as well as many Democrats in Congress have said that the Hyde Amendment applies in all of the bills but the right keeps insisting that it doesn't. The whole abortion issue with health care reform has become yet another red herring to try to stop reform.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 11:47 AM    in reply to Maritza

Imho it has nothing to do with abortion in the substantive sense. The Christian Right is just an extension of the RNC.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 11:50 AM    in reply to Shrubbit

And this may be slightly OT, but after watching Rachel last night I think there should be a serious investigation into improper or even illegal ties between the RNC and fringe groups like World Nut Daily.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 11:29 AM    in reply to stillidealistic

Not backwards year -- just backwards thinking. I have had this discussion with the more fundamentalist Christians in our family and they have a very difficult time merging their politics with their religion. All I can say is thank god for those years of Catholic school, so I can actually refute their thinking with actual bible quotes. Mostly, I just put a very sad and concerned look on my face and say, "Is that what Jesus would do?"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 11:38 AM    in reply to stillidealistic

Add this to the long list of subjects where the Christian Right ignores the teachings of Christ.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 1:20 PM    in reply to Larry Geater

There is nothing Christian about the right.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 3:40 PM    in reply to Rich in NJ

Sure there is. Any who call themselves Christian are Christian. It just tells us nothing about their beliefs. If a group includes Mr Rodgers, Fred Phelps, Gene Robinson, and Hitler, membership in the group tells us what about you?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 4:06 PM    in reply to Larry Geater

I thought being a Christian meant trying to live in accordance with Christ's teachings, e.g., feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick...oh wait.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 1:42 PM   

Are they the christian right or the old testament right? They are riled up beyond belief but when exactly did Jesus declare that he was for corporate profits and against all people having access to health care? I really just don't get it

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 9, 2009 2:54 PM    in reply to twirling fartknocker

Right next to where he justified evangelists and the Catholic Church taking huge amounts of money from everyone, by holding up a coin and said "render unto God that which is Caesar's".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on