Click here to find out more!
Your request is being processed...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/26/d...e_n_334438.html



Ryan Grim
Durbin: Progressives Forced Our Hand On Public Option


Democratic leaders were forced to include a national public health insurance option as part of health care reform by progressive Democratic senators who refused to support anything less, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said on Monday.

Durbin's assessment was made to a handful of reporters following the announcement by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that after weeks of talks with his colleagues he had determined that including a public option that states could opt out of was the best way to go.

For many years, it's been centrist and conservative-leaning senators who have been scoring legislative victories by digging in their heels, so this represented a quite dramatic turnabout. It is difficult to remember the last time that progressives won a legislative victory by laying down firm demands and sticking to them. In the House, the Congressional Progressive Caucus has found its feet, too, and is locked in a final battle with conservative Democrats over the shape of a public option.

At the end of last week, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, the lone Republican that Democrats are still trying to woo, said that she couldn't support a bill that had a public option with an opt-out provision. Snowe preferred a public option that would be "triggered" into being by a failure by the insurance industry to meet certain benchmarks.

But Reid and the leadership faced this basic math: There is only one Snowe and there are 60 members of the Democratic caucus. If just a few Democrats abandoned the bill, it would fall short even with Snowe's support.

"It's a zero-sum situation," said Durbin, who is in charge of counting votes in the Senate. "If we thought that just putting the trigger in meant that we'd end with 61 votes," he explained, then that's what leadership would have done.

"But there were some [senators] that felt that that just didn't go far enough moving toward a public option," said Durbin, who is himself a backer.

"We have 60 people in the caucus," Reid said. "We'll all hang together and see where we come out."

Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) had insisted he would oppose any bill without a public option and rejected the trigger as a compromise. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent and self-described democratic socialist who caucuses with Democrats, had come close to making such a threat but said he was "playing it day to day." Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) said over the weekend that the lack of a public option was a "good reason" to vote against it.

Durbin said that he is confident the progressive wing in the Senate is satisfied with the opt-out compromise.

Snowe called Reid's decision "deeply disappointing", but the majority leader said he still hopes to win her support for the overall package.

"I spoke to Olympia on Friday. I've talked to her on a number of occasions. And at this stage she does not like a public option of any kind. And so we'll have to move forward on this, and there [will] come a time, I hope, where she sees the wisdom of supporting a health care bill after having had an opportunity, her and others, to offer amendments," said Reid. "We hope that Olympia will come back. She's worked hard. She's a very good legislator. I'm disappointed that the one issue, the public option, has been something that's frightened her."


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/26/d...e_n_334438.html

Hope they don't cave on stripping the insurance industry of their McCarrin Ferguson antitrust exemptions.

If there is no "public option", then this bill should be called "The 2009 Insurance Industry Welfare Act"

If there is no public option, this bill should be KILLED...

This is fair and factual. WATCH THIS!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/
FULL VIDEO (10:10): BIG ASTERISK ON REID'S PUBLIC OPTION

So David Letterman actually may have sexually harrassed his staff as I thought...

David Letterman should be fired, and Bill Clinton should have been made to quit

Progressives should see that this abuse stops

Sex with underlings should be illegal, with immediate castration to the older men who abuse these woman, who's jobs depend on not making the boss
mad
men old enough to be grandfathers, like Bill Clinton

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/featur...etterman-200910

Letterman and Me
One of the few women ever to write for Late Night with David Letterman, the author (a longtime V.F. contributor) remembers a hostile, sexually charged atmosphere. What’s to be done? Start by breaking late night’s all-male gag order.
By Nell Scovell
WEB EXCLUSIVE October 27, 2009 At this moment, there are more females serving on the United States Supreme Court than there are writing for Late Show with David Letterman, The Jay Leno Show, and The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien combined. Out of the 50 or so comedy writers working on these programs, exactly zero are women. It would be funny if it weren’t true.

Late-night talk shows have long snubbed female writers. (“Blaaaaame Johnny!”) Now old charges of sexism have joined new concerns about sexual harassment, triggered by an alleged extortion plot that prompted David Letterman to admit on-air, “I have had sex with women who work for me on this show.”

Most media stars responded by defending one of their own. On The View, Barbara Walters remarked that Dave “is a very attractive man” and offered a blanket excuse for his in-house affairs: “Where do you meet people? In the workplace.” Joy Behar took a tougher stance and argued that his behavior might have created an atmosphere that’s uncomfortable for other female employees, especially “if you’re one of the girls who works there and [are] just doing your job.” But Walters had little sympathy for the working girls. “Maybe you’re annoyed today, but that’s not necessarily sexual harassment,” Walters said. “It isn’t sexual harassment,” she added.

Actually, it may be. There’s a subset of sexual harassment called sexual favoritism that, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, can lead to a “hostile work environment,” often “creating an atmosphere that is demeaning to women.”

And that pretty much sums up my experience at Late Night with David Letterman.

I was the second female writer ever hired at Late Night. When I applied for the job in 1988, I had no way of knowing how much the odds were stacked against me. In 27 years, Late Night and Late Show have hired only seven female writers. These seven women have spent a total of 17 years on staff combined. By extrapolation, male writers have racked up a collective 378 years writing jokes for Dave (based on an average writing room of 14 men, the size of the current Late Show staff).

Two years after they received my submission packet, I got the call: Dave wanted to meet me. By then, I was living in L.A. and had already written an episode for The Simpsons and served as story editor on Newhart during its final season. Still, Late Night was my dream job, so when I got the offer, I left the sitcom I’d just started on and moved back East. Walking into 30 Rockefeller Center on my first day as a Letterman writer was one of the happiest moments of my life—right up there with the births of my two kids. But it was all downhill after that. (I’m talking about Late Night, not my kids. They’re great.)

Without naming names or digging up decades-old dirt, let’s address the pertinent questions. Did Dave hit on me? No. Did he pay me enough extra attention that it was noted by another writer? Yes. Was I aware of rumors that Dave was having sexual relationships with female staffers? Yes. Was I aware that other high-level male employees were having sexual relationships with female staffers? Yes. Did these female staffers have access to information and wield power disproportionate to their job titles? Yes. Did that create a hostile work environment? Yes. Did I believe these female staffers were benefiting professionally from their personal relationships? Yes. Did that make me feel demeaned? Completely. Did I say anything at the time? Sadly, no.

Here’s what I did: I walked away from my dream job. The show picked up my option after 13 weeks; then, about two months later, while looking for a nicer apartment, I realized I didn’t want to commit to a yearlong lease. I’d seen enough to know that I was not going to thrive professionally in that workplace. And although there were various reasons for that, sexual politics did play a major part.

On my last day at Late Night, Dave summoned me to his office and pressed me on why I was quitting the show. I considered telling him the truth, but with Dave’s rumored mistress within earshot, I balked. Instead, I told him I missed L.A. Dave said, “You’re welcome back anytime.”

Within months, I was working on the sitcom Coach. I was still the only female in the writers’ room, but the atmosphere was respectful and I stayed for several seasons. Since then, I’ve racked up a long list of credits as a TV writer, series creator, producer, and director. In short, I moved on. Until this story broke.

I decided to speak up now for three reasons: 1. People who have no knowledge of the situation are voicing opinions, so why not me? 2. Letterman himself opened this up to a public discussion. 3. I’d like to pivot the discussion away from the bedroom and toward the writers’ room, because it pains me that almost 20 years later, the situation for female writers in late-night-TV hasn’t improved.

Now, I don’t want a lawsuit. I don’t want compensation. I don’t want revenge. I don’t want Dave to go down (oh, grow up, people). I just want Dave to hire some qualified female writers and then treat them with respect. And that goes for Jay and Conan, too.

I realize that “hire qualified women!” is the sort of outraged demand that’s often met with a sigh. No one disagrees and yet gender inequality in high-paying positions extends into all professions. A friend of mine who temps at an investment bank once remarked to her male boss, “You know, I don’t see a lot of female bankers”—but he cut her off. “Don’t even,” he warned, as if the problem were simply unsolvable. But, of course, that’s not true.

One frequent excuse you hear from late-night-TV executives is that “women just don’t apply for these jobs.” And they certainly don’t in the same numbers as men. But that’s partly because the shows often rely on current (white male) writers to recommend their funny (white male) friends to be future (white male) writers. Targeted outreach to talented bloggers, improv performers, and stand-ups would help widen the field of applicants. I’m also aware of several worthy females who have submitted material and never heard back. In fact, I’m one of them. Back in June, I heard Late Show was considering hiring a contributing monologue writer who could work from home, so I submitted six single-spaced pages of jokes. I’ve yet to receive any response. (I’ve since signed on to two other TV projects, so I’m no longer available.)


A prop from a Viewer Mail segment that Scovell wrote in 1990. The letter asked Dave to explain the “sense of giddiness in the air,” and the response was a plug for Dave’s new celebrity fragrance: David Letterman’s Giddiness. Image courtesy of Nell Scovell.



Late-night shows shouldn’t relax their standards for women, but why not give feedback and encouragement if it’s warranted? Maybe a writer will nail the tone on her second try. I’d also like to see each show post submission-packet requirements on its Web site so everyone has equal access. Obvious, right? Unless the shows would rather complain about the dearth of female applicants than do anything to encourage them.

I have a theory. An executive producer with an all-male writing staff once inadvertently revealed his deep, dark fear. While discussing a full-time position for me, he mused out loud, “I wonder if having a woman in the room will change everything.” Of course, what he really meant was: “I wonder if having a woman in the room will change me.” Male writers don’t want to be judged in the room. They want to be able to scarf an entire bag of potato chips while cracking fart jokes and making lewd comments without fear of feminine disapproval. But we’re your co-workers, not your wives. Crack a decent fart joke and, as professionals, we will laugh. And while writers do need to feel comfortable in order to make comedy, denying an entire class of people certain opportunities in order to preserve a way of life seems a tad antebellum. Plus, it’s been my experience that a room with a fairer sampling of humanity will always produce funnier material.

I know it might seem awkward at first. Men might feel they have to censor themselves once females crash the party. But I have a dream—that one day a late-night writers’ room will be filled with poop jokes and fart jokes and jerking-off-to-Angelina-Jolie’s-face-on-a-magazine jokes, and everyone will laugh, including men and women of all creeds and colors.

Nell Scovell has been a member of the Writers Guild of America since 1987 and the Directors Guild of America since 1997. She has written for Murphy Brown, Monk, and N.C.I.S., and she created the TV series Sabrina, the Teenage Witch.

Had progressives not liked to cheat so much that they salivated when Bill Clinton abused little girls, then maybe if he had quit

nothing the last 28 years would have happened.

Why didn't Hillary do anything about health care when she had the chance?
BECAUSE SHE GOT FAT LIKE CHRIS CHRISTIE taking BIG MONEY from the pharmas and medical pacs of course

Where was Michael Moore in the impeachment fight? He should have told Clinton just to leave

had that happened Bush would not have gotten 3 wars and a bankrupt nation

yes, it is all Clinton's fault.

Letterman? Bill Clinton? Any chance that folks could try to stay on-topic?

G4A, I don't presume to be able to read your mind to identify your intentions...In my opinion, this type of response
serves the purpose of deflecting attention away reom the issue under consideration...Is it not in the common interest for voters to consider the major ways that a, "Public Option" may vary in order to provide enlightened input to their representatives?

Graham .... what the hell does Bill Clinton and Letterman have to do with health care and a "Public Option" ?
And if your going to talk about sex with young girls you shouldn't leave the Pedophile Roman Polanski out of the conversation.


Now to get back on topic .... What exactly is a "Public Option" ?
I want to know specifics .... like what's in it for me.
I want to read the actual bill that they are trying to pass because for some reason I don't think there's anything specific written as of yet.
Details please.

More information here, especially downthread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...ess=102x4120135
Durbin: Progressives Forced Our Hand On Public Option
Mon Oct-26-09 09:39 PM

It is all tied together...Thanks to Bill Clinton, from 1992 to 2009, my insurance rose from say indianhead's level at $300 a month, to $2750 a month which over another ten years in 2019, will be over $5000 a month MONTH.


a public option will only work if everyone in the country pays the same price

those with cheapie insurance now need to be upped say from $300 to $750 a month and anyone over should drop to $750 a month
Probably $1000.00 a month is fair for all, completely frozen for say 20 years so it can't rise.

but those who now have it good, need to give a little

And people like me, who have $2750 a month, need to be allowed to DITCH my current insurance

People in America need to know they are going to have some who will have to be charged more...lots more

If people are not allowed to flee the high price one, for one exactly the same for a cheaper price, what worth is it?

If I still have to pay mine, what is the difference? Those paying alot need to be subsidized by those paying nothing(like Indianhead for instance for an example, his needs to be upped and mine dropped to the same level...

say his is around $300 as he advertises
and mine is around $2750
that is $3050 divide by two and say each should now be 1525.00
Do that across the nation

that is how older people nationwide have it, and that is what a great system will be.


as for Roman Polanski- I don't think anyone can say something against him, without being in his shoes having had their mother incinerated in the ovens of Aushwitz, or had their pregnant wife murdered by a cabal of the evilest people in the history of the world.
Let alone what happened in the 1970s should remain in the 1970s. And the fact he served the amount of days already the judge had said, so he actually
did his time as the orignal judges sentencing said before the judge welched (as corrupt cops normally do).
I would jail her mother though. Her mother knew exactly what she was doing.


as the public option won't even costs out, then as long as people can have insurance of some type no matter they lose their job, or
have pre-existing conditions then it will be a major success without being public.

I can't afford $1500 a month! Your idea does me no good!
I thought the issue was AFFORDABLE coverage...

but mine is not affordable now

so it will only work if I am allowed to ditch mine and get something new

which is why it should all be public no private at all

There ya go watching out for the poor, under privileged (read: me, me me).

But in this economy nobody else wants to pay for you, you, you. Ahhh, the result of the "ascent" of man...



(He's typing: "Where's my check?")

you don't want new insurance plan, because you already are gaming the system

most conservatives don't want change, because the system already benefits them(the rich)

Why should I pay 9.2 times what you do?
All are equal in America

therefore one for all, all for one

I would be okay paying what I do, if you have to pay the same

fair=fair

You misspelled that, IH. Should be "ass end" of man.

Pegatha: agree.

G4A: Move from New Jersey and it will cost a lot less.

But, like the guys in Detroit...who won't move to
get away from 30% unemployment...they wait at the mailbox
for their checks. MA and NY have similar problems...
why do you think the tax base is moving out?

Sometimes I just can't understand why pumkin-heads
sit on their steps and wait to get sick, expecting others to pay.
In fact, expect other areas to change to their system!

why would I want to move?

you gets what you pay for

there is a reason property values are higher up here

(and probably my insurance is better than yours as again, you get what you pay for)

the thingydingy though is equality

all should be equal

So, by that logic, and like at gunpoint they made the blacks in the dead of night move north so should everyone else

YEP! I totally agree with that!

Thanks Peg for the good news! Maybe our form of government has at least a tad bit of life in it yet.

Now there! I REALLY LOVE RACHEL MADDOW! So, we agree!

She is soooo smart! She always gets to the heart of the issues, she doesn't get distracted or waste/mince words! I wish I were as smart as her. She would be an excellent judge.

ARGGGGGH! Here comes this guy again!




Ryan Grim

Lieberman Willing To Sink Health Care Reform... But He Would Really Hate To Do It (AUDIO)


Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut, emerged Tuesday afternoon from a meeting with his caucus as the center of attention -- again.

On his way in, he told reporters that if a public health insurance option was in the final health care bill, he would join a GOP filibuster to prevent it from getting an up or down vote. HuffPost asked him if there'd been much reaction from his colleagues in the Democratic caucus.

"Not really," he said, "because I think my colleagues know for a long time that I've been opposed to a government-created, government-run insurance company."

Lieberman stressed that he was not opposing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) effort to get a bill on to the floor -- one that includes a public health insurance option. Rather, said Lieberman, he would oppose a final vote on the bill by supporting a GOP filibuster if the public option remained in the bill. The difference is crucial, in that it allows the process to move forward. But it does present backers of a public option with the problem of getting 60 votes for a final vote to cut off a GOP filibuster.

Lieberman will face tremendous pressure from his caucus and the Democratic base to break with the Republican Party and allow a final vote on health care to go forward. Lieberman may be bluffing. Asked by HuffPost if he expects that he would have to cast the vote that he is currently threatening, he demurred. "That depends," he said.

But for now, he's drawing a bright line. "I do want to make clear, because at least one publication got this wrong," he said. "What I said this morning and what I've said to Senator Reid is that I'm inclined to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed to a debate on health care reform, because I believe we need to have a debate on health care reform and I hope to be in a position to vote yes on health care reform. But, I've also said that if the current proposal remains as it is unamended, before the final vote on the floor, that I will not vote for cloture."

Lieberman added that he would not support a compromise put forward by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) for a public option that would be triggered into effect.

The Connecticut senator, who was nearly booted from the caucus less than a year ago for supporting the GOP's presidential candidate, said he wasn't concerned about retribution. Asked by HuffPost as he left the meeting if he was willing to give up his gavel -- his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee that he fought so hard to keep following the presidential election -- he dismissed the concern. "Oh, God no," he said. "Nobody's asking me that."
Story continues below

Asked the same question in a separate huddle by another reporter, he said he'd leave his fate in his colleague's hands. "I'm at a point in my public service career that I'm just going to do what I think is right and makes sense. Nobody has said anything to that effect, and I leave it to my colleagues to decide.

Would Lieberman really be the vote that sinks health care reform? "I'd hate to. I really want to get to yes," he said.

Then why not vote to end the filibuster but vote no on the final package?

"Because that is not using the rights that I have as a senator under the rules of the Senate to stop something from happening that I think will be bad," he offered.

Is the heavy concentration of the insurance industry in Connecticut influencing his vote?

"It has nothing to do with it," he said.

Lieberman spoke with a scrum of reporters just off the Senate floor, took questions, and explained his reasoning -- which, as Marcy Wheeler notes, is not coherent. The audio of that conversation begins immediately after HuffPost asked him what reaction there had been from his colleague


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/27/l...k_n_335748.html

the answer is simple

tomorrow Obama should remove all troops from all areas

Except that the states that have tried it have taxed themselves into the hinderlands:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...emEditorialPage

REVIEW & OUTLOOK OCTOBER 28, 2009

Escape From New York
A new study says taxes are driving people away.

An old saying goes that the time to live in New York is when you're young and poor, or old and rich
—otherwise, you're better off somewhere else. That wisdom is getting an update this week from a
study by the Empire Center for New York State Policy that shows middle-class people leaving the state in droves.

Between 2000 and 2008, the Empire State had a net domestic outflow of more than 1.5 million,
the biggest exodus of any state, with most hailing from New York City. The departures also have
perilous budget consequences, since they tend to include residents who are better off than those
arriving. Statewide, departing families have income levels 13% higher than those moving in, while
in New York County (home of Manhattan) the differential was even more severe. Those moving
elsewhere had an average income of $93,264, some 28% higher than the $72,726 earned by those coming in.

In 2006 alone, that swap meant the state lost $4.3 billion in taxpayer income. Add that up from
2001 through 2008, and it translates into annual net income losses somewhere near $30 billion.
That trend is part of a larger march for New York: In 1950 the state accounted for 19% of all
Americans, but by 2000 that number had fallen to 7%. The city's main saving grace has been
its welcome mat for foreign immigrants, who have helped to replace some of those who flee.
...

So, the middle class flees and you have poor, rich and immigrants (usually in the "poor" catagory).
Then you up taxes on corporations and the rich, and you are left with the poor and a loud sucking
sound where the Treasury is drawn into the vortex of poverty...redistributing the wealth...can you see it coming?
Didn't Russia try this?...and collapse to be taken over by The Mob? Oh well...trash the cities under the mantle
of sharing the wealth or redistributing the wealth or seeking social justice...call it what you will.

Who in the world today could pull Obama's chain sufficiently to get him to do that?

Just last week's NY Times had a major article how a ton of for the rich brownstones went for 150% of what was thought, meaning this above article is bogus.