Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
LIGHTNING ROUND: THIS IS WHAT PROGRESS LOOKS LIKE.
- The Waxman-Markey climate change bill is being debated in the House as we speak, with a vote likely to come around 6 PM EST. Prospect alum Kate Sheppard is following the intense floor debate on her Twitter feed here. In other cap-and-trade legislation news: Henry Waxman has added some more progressive amendments to the bill; Barack Obama's Twitter feed (and its 1.5 million subscribers) has come back to life; the GOP "Manhattan Project" alternative energy bill still uses magic budgeting; John Boehner couldn't make an informative chart to save his life; and Nate Silver takes a first crack at looking at the impact of Waxman-Markey on a state-by-state basis.
- Turning to the health care reform debate, Ezra Klein games out the White House strategy for getting a decent bill passed. Time will tell. Meanwhile, Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) has come out against including a public option, and Arlen Specter is in favor. Amazing what a potential primary challenge can do for you.
- The president hosted German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the White House today, greeting her with a respectful "Willkommen." Spencer Ackerman snarks, "Barack Obama has now converted to German. Just like Andy McCarthy promised, his totalitarian-liberal instincts preordained this moment. Obama’s both a Nazi and a Muslim, an unstoppable Islamofascist Voltron."
- There's definitely something to this Daphne Eviatar post that sees the rise of outside experts on the subject of "preemptive detention" as being enabled by the GOP's continued stonewalling of OLC nominee Dawn Johnsen. Furthermore, as Hilzoy observes, this is just one more piece of evidence that our upper legislative house is essentially broken. Matt Yglesias recommends that progressives get back to their institutional reform roots, which is excellent advice.
- Dan Froomkin's final column for The Washington Post not only encapsulates his unique value as a reporter but near-perfectly reflects how I feel about the Bush years and the transition to Barack Obama. Appropriately, Froomkin urges vigilance in the Obama years, particularly in the areas of government transparency and secrecy, lest it consume any progressive agenda coming from the White House.
- Remainders: Connecticut's governor does away with appointments for Senate vacancies; somehow I don't think the GOP tent is big enough to accommodate pro-choice Republicans; CRS concludes -- gasp -- that Sonia Sotomayor is no liberal judicial activist; and at long last, God, nationalism, and guns can be worshiped simultaneously.
--Mori Dinauer
COMMENTS (2)
Just wanted to say a big huge CONGRATS on the book! I look forward to reading it, and I love your blog and your column. Can't wait for the new blog
Posted by: chi hair straightener | June 26, 2009 8:46 PM
HEALTH CARE AND THE PUBLIC OPTION
Let's hope that President Obama is just delaying action on gay rights and that he is just holding back on strong statements on behalf of the public option as an essential part of health care reform. Will he say "I will veto any bill ....?" Will he realize that getting a couple of Republican votes is not bipartisanship and that 51% can pass the needed legislation?
As the President does say, the public option will tend to keep the insurance companies "honest" and more competitive. But the real value of the public option is for many to choose it. That will lower the cost of health care, just as Medicare does. As we know, Medicare has only a 2% administrative burden as opposed to over 20% for private insurers. And the power of a large public option pool, combined with Medicare, means the ability to negotiate lower charges by providers and medical equipment and pharmaceutical corporations.
Republicans and other opponents of reform charge that it is foolish to want a government option when Medicare is going broke. Well, it is going broke largely because of the funding method, not because of mismanagement or inefficiency. If you compared the Medicare cost and outcomes for any set of health conditions with the same set for private insurers, I would bet that Medicare does better.
Some Republicans also claim that a bureaucrat would come between the patient and the doctor. Untrue of course, but wouldn't it be better to have a government official who wants to help you than an insurance clerk who wants to deny the benefit?
If decent health care is a right for any citizen, isn't it most logical to have the government, or non-profit organizations, provide the access? Although the arrangement arose innocently, it is really foolish to have access to health care depend on where you work.
homer www.altara.blogspot.com
Posted by: altara | June 28, 2009 11:41 AM