They Send Letters . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:26:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

to the wrong people:

Nearly four dozen of the nation's leading health care luminaries [sent] a letter [to House leaders . . .] We have come further than we have ever come before. Only two steps remain. The House must adopt the Senate bill, and the President must sign it. [. . .] Some differences between the bills, such as the scope of the tax on high-cost plans and the allocation of premium subsidies, should be repaired through the reconciliation process[.]"

(Emphasis supplied.) Far be it from me to correct "four dozen health care luminaries," but that is 3 steps, not 2. And the third step is the point now. House Dems will not cross the unions. The third step has to happen with passage of the Senate bill. Unless the "luminaries" have GOTV operations as strong as the unions, they sent their letter to the wrong place. They need to send it to the OTHER side of the Capital - the Senate.

Speaking for me only

< 3 Weeks | Will Foreign Corporate Money Flood Our Elections? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

They Send Letters . . . | 27 comments (27 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The letter is not sternly-worded enough. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Anne on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:16:35 AM EST

Don't these people know anything?

Seriously, that was one gag-inducing letter, so full of BS talking points it made me wonder who, exactly, wrote it.

And what a surprise: I see Jon Gruber is one of the luminaries who signed the letter...

Give me a break.

The anti-Gruber tact is hilarious (none / 0) (#10)
by Socraticsilence on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:20:44 AM EST

seriously, is every single scientist or researcher who recieves a government grant suspect now, or only the ones who come to conclusions you disagree with.


It is an obvious shot though (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:23:56 AM EST

And will be used given Gruber as the poster boy for the excise tax that unions will not accept.

Not well thought out. they should have kept Gruber out of it.


It's not that he received a grant (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:25:59 AM EST

He, personally, was pointed to by the White House as an independent observer.

In any other place besides politics, that's called an obvious conflict of interest and (wait for it) a lie.


Many are suspect now -- at last (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Cream City on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:28:04 AM EST

as we find out, through good media investigations, just how many medical school faculty, for example, are on the take from big pharmaceutical firms.

That does not make me feel better about the safety of my daily meds, believe me.

One medical faculty member alone in my state university rakes in almost a mil a year for things such as jaunts to medical conferences to speechify for big pharmas, for buyouts to not teach -- and for putting his name out there like Gruber on now-suspect studies that turn out to have had hidden sponsors. And media exposes adding up all the medical faculty found doing this -- so far, more to go -- in my state u alone, in just one school on the campus (i.e., not economists, physicists, etc.), it's in the multimillions.

(Btw, historians are so happy to get a few bucks that we delight in publicizing our sponsors.:-)


Another "luminary" who signed? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Anne on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:30:40 AM EST

David Cutler. He's the so-called architect of Obama's health plan, according to WhoRunsGov.com.

And yes, I know he was also on Hillary's original 1993 team, but still - the architect of the Obama plan signs a letter as if he's just some outside wonk?

And Gruber, too?

Might these two - and who knows how many more on that list - have what could be considered a vested interest in seeing that the legislation passes?

Come on.


Just because someone was on (none / 0) (#15)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:37:13 AM EST

team Hillary certainly doesn't saint them. She ran with the same Wall Street bunch that Obama does too. For me the question will always be who could have been more easily pressured to do the right thing :) If I knew that unknown quantity I'd have THE CANDIDATE that definitely should have won :) I believe that Hillary would have been much better on this health care business though.


Wasn't my point. (none / 0) (#16)
by Anne on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:48:24 AM EST

Certainly wsn't looking to saint anyone, but maybe I misunderstand your comment.

Reading through the list of "luminaries" who signed that awful letter, and doing a little Google-work, the collective wattage of the light begins to dim a little, but the likelihood that you will hear about the connections is slim.

These lame attempts to fluff the Senate plan just tick me off; hell, it seems like everything ticks me off these days, lol.


: Actually Anne (none / 0) (#18)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:42:20 PM EST

I think I was saying that as a reminder to myself mostly, in these days I have to pay attention to content and avoid shiny objects.

So many luminaries cannot spell Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Cream City on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:56:54 AM EST

first name correctly? See the cc at the end of the letter.

What am I missing? (none / 0) (#19)
by Inspector Gadget on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:42:28 PM EST

Barack Obama - how should it be spelled?


The name (none / 0) (#20)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:43:50 PM EST

on the cc: is spelled "Barak Obama"


Must be more than one version (none / 0) (#21)
by Inspector Gadget on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:50:00 PM EST

out there. The one I read is correct.


I clicked through the links here. (none / 0) (#22)
by Cream City on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 01:03:43 PM EST

Ha. It has been corrected (none / 0) (#23)
by Cream City on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 01:06:43 PM EST

at that link now. Hmmm, TPM made it look like the original, but maybe not, or how could it correct it? Maybe it was TPM's transcription that had the error.

Now I know to not trust TPM calling these "documents," which ought to mean originals.


That was my thought, too (none / 0) (#24)
by Inspector Gadget on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 01:21:46 PM EST

How real are these documents?

Are we just getting more cynical, or are we really surrounded by liars claiming to be keeping us informed, and working in our best interests?


This question of documents (none / 0) (#25)
by Cream City on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 02:18:30 PM EST

online is a serious issue being debated right now among my departmental colleagues, relevant to a review that one is to write for a new book -- a book by a friend, it turns out, of another of my colleagues. The question we face continually is not just researching but teaching in this brave new world. It's wonderful to have lots of primary sources online now, as students can undertake topics based on documents thousands of miles away rather than only on those nearby. But I hold to only wanting them to use transcriptions if there also are pdf's (or auditapes or etc.) of originals for comparison.

I have seen too many transcripts that are not the same as the originals. To which I say: [expletive deleted]!

Anyway, I do wonder whether any journalism students are being taught the same cautions. I know of some that are so taught, by a j-school prof whom I know. But perhaps that is because he trained as a historian, too -- trained to have all sorts of questions to ask of primary sources.


: It's destined to be a serious problem... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Inspector Gadget on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 02:54:05 PM EST

because people who want to control the message will be actively involved in creating the message.
Much the way spammers and hackers are constantly looking for a way into the systems for their own personal gain. Frauds managed to recreate bank websites and hide the real address...
Good catch, CC, on the change of spelling on the "document." I believe I'll consider it and TPM unreliable sources.

I think with (none / 0) (#1)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:53:41 AM EST

yesterdays decision we can expect them to HAVE GOTV operations.
I see this as a veiled threat.

yup. (none / 0) (#2)
by ruffian on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 09:55:24 AM EST

And all the more reason to keep the unions happy. Though union donations are probably no match for corporate donations. I laugh whenever I see that equivalence made.


True (none / 0) (#3)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:01:31 AM EST

Unions represent the real needs of real people though so I tend to see a union dollar getting a vote that will require corporations twenty or more to "hopefully" get a vote as they polish the turds into something shiny. Thank God the internet is what it is today! Thank all the Gods! But since Unions are about people, nobody mobilizes people better outside of a natural disaster IMO :)


"Thank God the internet is. . ." (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:10:18 AM EST

if we dont pay attention to net neutrality it may not be for long.


Except (none / 0) (#5)
by jbindc on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:06:36 AM EST

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a report out today that shows union membershuip declining once again, and most people who belong to a union work for the government. These aren't UAW members or Teamsters.

In 2009, the union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of a union--was 12.3 percent, essentially
unchanged from 12.4 percent a year earlier, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The number of wage and salary workers belonging to unions declined by 771,000 to 15.3 million, largely reflecting the overall drop in employment due to the recession. In 1983, the first year for which comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent, and there were 17.7 million union workers.

SNIP

Some highlights from the 2009 data are:
--More public sector employees (7.9 million) belonged to a union than did private sector employees (7.4 million),despite there being 5 times more wage and salary workers in the private sector.
--Workers in education, training, and library occupations had the highest unionization rate at 38.1 percent.
--Black workers were more likely to be union members than were white, Asian, or Hispanic workers.
--Among states, New York had the highest union membership rate (25.2 percent) and North Carolina had the lowest rate (3.1 percent).

: Economic times like these (none / 0) (#7)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:10:42 AM EST

tend to quickly strengthen Unions. I expect a turnaround in the decline.

Sad letter (none / 0) (#4)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:03:21 AM EST

Very poorly thoughout in a time when we must have legal contracts beforehand to make good on any political promises.

: Oops, poorly thought out (none / 0) (#8)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 10:14:30 AM EST

Bart Stupak's 10-12 votes: How to make them up? (none / 0) (#26)
by debcoop on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 02:50:15 PM EST

My comment to Paul Krugman and TPM

Preface..We need to pass health care this year...I see it as a moral imperative, an economic necessity and politcally mandatory. We could see 1994 again without it.

The bill passed the House by 210-215. We have lost 2 of those votes off the top. Robert Wexler has resigned. Cao said Nelson's abortion amendment is not enough. Bart Stupak says that he provided 10 votes to pass the last bill. I know the Democratic whipping operation thought that was correct.

Bart Stupak has said he is perfectly happy to let health care die because he thinks the Nelson amendment is not stringent enough. So he and his 10 or so votes refuse to vote for the Senate bill.

He is wrong. Nelson's amendment will kill access to abortion but just a little more slowly than his amendment. Pride of authorship I guess.

That brings us down to 204-208 votes.

40(mostly conservative ) Democrats voted against the bill the last go around. Since Stupak's 10 provided the winning margin last time....where do we find the additional votes?. There are a few progressives maybe like Kucinich, or Massa who voted against Stupak but against the bill..

But even if the progressives heed your call and everyone else's where are the votes to be made up?

So when you are both assessing blame and urging members of the Democratic caucus to pass the Seante bill, it is not only fair but more effective in changing their vote if you make it clear who the actual Members who have told Nancy Pelosi they will vote against the Senate bill.