Meet the opposition to health care reform:

This unidentified man decided he was doing the Tea Party-anti-reform effort a real solid by hanging freshman Maryland Democratic Rep. Frank Kratovil in effigy [note the creepily expert knotted noose] with a placard "Congress Traitors The American [and a word that looks like "idol"].

The event — a rally in Salisbury, Md. on the Eastern Shore — was attended by members of the business-funded Americans for Prosperity, a group that includes James Miller, a Federal Trade Commission chairman and budget director during the Reagan administration.

Americans for Prosperity, a lobbyist-funded tea-bagging front group, is already backpedaling hard:

The rally wasn't officially sanctioned by AFP — but the group's members attended the protest, which coincided with an AFP health care meeting, says a spokeswoman for the group.

"We held an event the previous night, where this man passed out flyers asking people to join him the next day at the office for a protest. That is how some AFP members ended up coming, but they were disgusted by his behavior. I repeat, this gathering WAS NOT an AFP event or sponsored by us in any way," writes AFP's Amy Menefee.

Sure, whatever you say, AFP. The fact remains that the people at this event were people you recruited for your anti-health reform efforts, and they think a fake lynching is a good idea.

Oh, and Salisbury has a history of real lynchings dating back to the 1930s, making this episode even more disturbing:

As it turns out, the dangling of a noose has distant but painful historical resonance on the Eastern Shore.

The Salisbury area was the site of the last two racial lynchings that took place in the state of Maryland — both in the 1930s, according to Polly Stewart. a former Salisbury University professor interviewed by NPR earlier this year.

These are the people against health reform. They're the same people who think Barack Obama is not a citizen. They're the same people who think health reform is going to kill your grandma. They're being led by lobbyists in Maryland, and they're putting their conspiracy theories out there on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.

As Alex Thurston notes:

The "birther movement" is, as Politico says, becoming a headache for the GOP. This issue of "euthanizing seniors" could be an even worse one. Whatever representatives hop on that bandwagon have proved themselves just as crazy as the birthers.

Health care reform is a serious issue. Can Republicans cut the lies and the conspiracy theories and debate Democratic proposals like statesmen, or will they continue pandering to a rightwing fringe that is increasingly out of touch with reality?

I doubt that Republicans are going to "cut the lies and the conspiracy theories." They've already told us point blank that they don't plan to offer a health care plan. They just plan to keep saying no, and feeding their base, a base with violent tendencies. That's their version of bipartisanship.

It's not helping America overcome our problems and fix our broken health care system.

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) believes that under America's Affordable Health Choices Act, seniors will be "put to death by their government."

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), while trading conspiracy theories with 9/11 truther Alex Jones, said the bill "is going to absolutely kill senior citizens."

You'd have to be crazy to believe that. As Rep. Blumenauer's office explains,

"Advance planning consultations are not mandatory; this benefit is completely voluntary. The provision merely provides coverage under Medicare to have a conversation once every five years if – and only if – a patient wants to make his or her wishes known to a doctor. If desired, patients may have consultations more frequently if they are chronically ill or if their health status changes."

Moreover, "There is no mandate in the bill to complete an advance care directive or living will. If a patient chooses to complete an advance directive or order for life sustaining treatment, these documents will help articulate a full range of treatment preferences, from full and aggressive treatment to limited, comfort care only. Patients that choose to have these documents and can customize them so that their wishes are appropriately reflected."

And finally, "There are no government-chosen professionals involved. The legislation simply allows Medicare to pay for a conversation between patient and their doctors if patients wish to talk with their doctor about end of life care preferences."

The provisions are endorsed by AARP, American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, American Hospice Foundation, Consumers Union, Gundersen Lutheran Health System, Medicare Rights Center, National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, and Providence Health System.

So why do Foxx and Gohmert believe this conspiracy theory? Because they are crazy. Need proof? Foxx called the brutal 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard a "hoax" while his mother was watching from the gallery in Congress. Gohmert said that "the whole truth will eventually be public" on the issue of whether or not President Obama is a US citizen, and that he "will continue to closely follow this important legal issue as it works its way through our judicial system."

Ok, maybe you're a birther too…but do you share Gohmert's suspicion that the White House is "putting stuff in the water to sterilize us"? Really? "Stuff"?

The "birther movement" is, as Politico says, becoming a headache for the GOP. This issue of "euthanizing seniors" could be an even worse one. Whatever representatives hop on that bandwagon have proved themselves just as crazy as the birthers.

Health care reform is a serious issue. Can Republicans cut the lies and the conspiracy theories and debate Democratic proposals like statesmen, or will they continue pandering to a rightwing fringe that is increasingly out of touch with reality?

NEWS

On the Hill, Elizabeth Edwards Calls Attention to Medical Bankruptcies - Washington Post

Elizabeth Edwards today lent her political star power to a underlooked element of the ongoing health care debate: the rise in bankruptcies related to health care costs.

Obama on Health Care for Seniors - New York Times

President Obama sought to reassure older Americans on Tuesday that health reform would not disrupt their Medicare coverage or force them to change doctors.

‘Blue Dogs’ Remain Dissatisfied With Health Bill - CQ

The House will not vote on a health care overhaul this week, but lawmakers haven’t stopped talking about it — especially a group of senior Democratic leaders and holdout “Blue Dog” Democrats who have stalled a markup of the measure in the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Birther Congressman Says Health Care Reform Is "Nuts" - Media Matters

Rep. John Campbell (R-CA) took to the House floor this afternoon to slam Democratic plans for health care reform. Standing beside the GOP's favorite colorful chart (here's a chart of their plan, by the way), Campbell ended his speech by saying, "Why would we want to do this? This isn't health care reform. This is just nuts."

Rep. Foxx Says Health Care Reform Will Cause Seniors To Be "Put To Death By Their Government" - Media Matters

On July 28, 2009, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) stated on the floor of the House that the Republicans' health care reform legislation, unlike that of the Democrats, would not put seniors "to death." Besides being a reprehensible accusation, her words are blatantly false.

The centrist alternative on healthcare: Cooperatives - LA Times

A bipartisan group of senators, uneasy with public plan's prospects for passage, endorses cooperatives, which would offer a system of health providers or contract out for members' medical services.

Big Employers Could End Up Paying "Cadillac" Tax - Kaiser Health News

As Congress contemplates taxing insurers for gold-plated health benefits to pay for a health overhaul, it might catch another group in its net: employers who "self-insure"—or pay for their workers' health bills on their own.

Max Baucus and the Republicans he's negotiating with floated a trial balloon yesterday:

After weeks of secretive talks, a bipartisan group in the Senate edged closer Monday to a health care compromise that omits two key Democratic priorities but incorporates provisions to slow the explosive rise in medical costs, officials said.

These officials said participants were on track to exclude a requirement many congressional Democrats seek for large businesses to offer coverage to their workers. Nor would there be a provision for a government insurance option, despite President Barack Obama's support for such a plan.

…

Officials said the legislation under discussion in a series of private meetings would likely cost under $1 trillion, include an expansion of Medicaid, and provide federal subsidies for individuals and families up to 300 percent of poverty to spread health care more broadly.

Individuals would have a mandate to buy affordable insurance.

If true, the policies this group is considering do not meet Health Care for America Now's principles - the ruler by which we use to measure health care bills and decide whether we can support them or not. As has been something of a habit for me, let's check in with these principles and figure out if whether this proposal is supportable and why. At the very least, the process helps me get my thoughts together.

First, we support a strong public health insurance option:

A choice of a private insurance plan, including keeping the insurance you have if you like it, or a public insurance plan without a private insurer middleman that guarantees affordable coverage.

We have defined a public option as one that is available nationally on day one, and that has the clout to set rates with providers and big drug companies. A co-op does not meet those standards, and we do not support the proposal. Unlike a real public health insurance option, a co-op will not lower costs or keep the insurance industry honest. It won't likely do much of anything, to be honest.

Next, employers must share in the responsibility for paying for health care:

Affordable and predictable health costs to businesses and employers. To the extent that employers contribute to the cost of health coverage, those payments should be related to employee wages rather than on a per-employee basis.

It's only fair that individuals, government, and business share in the responsibility of health care costs. Allowing business to get let off the hook for providing benefits to their employees or helping share responsibility is a moral problem, and it also means the cost of health care will be borne more on the backs of the middle class.

Lastly, health care must be affordable to everyone:

Health care coverage with out-of-pocket costs including premiums, co-pays and deductibles that are based on a family’s ability to pay for health care and without limits on payments for covered services.

The House version of health reform offers subsidies up to 400% of the federal poverty level. If this trial balloon is to be believed, this version would only cover folks up to 300%, and there is reason to believe those subsidies would be less generous. This means that a family making $44,000 per year would still be asked to pay $12,000 for insurance - the average cost of a policy - while Members of Congress would still get away with paying a bit over $5,000 - three times less. That is not affordable health care, and again, it shifts the cost of health care onto the backs of the middle class, the very people health reform is designed to help.

This trial balloon is unsupportable for these reasons. Indeed, as Nate Silver points out, the idea as floated will likely do little to solve the health care crisis. It will cover less people and cost more money.

The health reform fight is getting thick, which makes it that much more important to be able to articulate why proposals are good or bad. The principles Health Care for America Now has developed don't pretend to be the final word on judging health reform, but they are useful to measure various proposals, mostly because it is easy to figure out what measures up and what doesn't.

This doesn't.

Today, the Health Care for America Now coalition is having a national call-in day. Our message? The House of Representatives needs to pass reform now, before they go home for vacation.

Can you join us? Call toll free, 1-877-264-HCAN to be connected with your Representative. Or click here to send them a free fax.

You won't be taking action alone. Throughout the country, our field organizers are mobilizing their communities to do the same thing. Our coalition partners are activating their members. We have a goal of 50,000 calls or faxes to Congress in one day. Pick up the phone and help us reach that goal!

Why call Congress?

• Because 50 million in America don't have health insurance
• Because those of us with insurance have seem our premiums rise three times faster than wages
• Because health care costs are crushing small business
• Because our current system of bureaucracy and rationing care needs to change
• Because we need a strong public health insurance option to lower costs and to keep insurance companies honest
• Because thousands of people wait in long lines in parking lots for health care and that's not right
• Because the House bill being proposed would save the average family $2,200 per year
• Because if Congress takes three weeks off, 143,250 people will lose their health insurance coverage [pdf], 53,507 people will file for bankruptcy because they can't pay their medical bills, and 1,265 people will die [pdf] because they lack coverage
• Because this is the change we voted for, and we meant it

Take a minute today. Call 1-877-264-HCAN or click here to send a free fax. Tell your Representative why you want health reform passed, now.

Thank you!

NEWS

Health-Reform Foes Draw Industry Donations - Washington Post

A study out today on health-care contributions provides new evidence for an old saying: Money talks.

White House Trying to Woo Small Businesses on Health Care Reform - ABC News

With opponents of health care reform raising questions about what the impact might be of a federal mandate requiring businesses to cover their employees, the White House has started wielding a new study by its own Council of Economic Advisers to make the case that small business owners and employees will benefit from health care reform.

AP Sources: Senators Near Bipartisan Health Deal - Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A bipartisan group of senators is closing in on a health care compromise that omits key Democratic priorities but seeks to hold down costs, as lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol labor to deliver sweeping health legislation to President Barack Obama.

Remember: Today is National Call-in Day for Health Care - AFL-CIO Now blog

Remember: Today is National Call-in Day for Health Care. We all need to call our representatives in the U.S. House today and tell them to support the House health care reform bill, (H.R. 3200).

Blue Dogs cautious on Waxman offer - Politico

Trying to break a deadlock that has paralyzed his committee, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) made an offer to soften the concerns of seven Blue Dog Democrats on his panel Monday night, but both sides broke without a deal.

RNC To Spend $1 Million In August To Fight Health Care Reform - Talking Points Memo

This is just part of the reason reformers wanted the House and Senate to wrap up their work on health care legislation before recess.

Paul Krugman lays out the case against the Blue Dog's health care demands today:

So what are the objections of the Blue Dogs?

Well, they talk a lot about fiscal responsibility, which basically boils down to worrying about the cost of those subsidies. And it’s tempting to stop right there, and cry foul. After all, where were those concerns about fiscal responsibility back in 2001, when most conservative Democrats voted enthusiastically for that year’s big Bush tax cut — a tax cut that added $1.35 trillion to the deficit?

But it’s actually much worse than that — because even as they complain about the plan’s cost, the Blue Dogs are making demands that would greatly increase that cost.

There has been a lot of publicity about Blue Dog opposition to the public option, and rightly so: a plan without a public option to hold down insurance premiums would cost taxpayers more than a plan with such an option.

But Blue Dogs have also been complaining about the employer mandate, which is even more at odds with their supposed concern about spending. The Congressional Budget Office has already weighed in on this issue: without an employer mandate, health care reform would be undermined as many companies dropped their existing insurance plans, forcing workers to seek federal aid — and causing the cost of subsidies to balloon. It makes no sense at all to complain about the cost of subsidies and at the same time oppose an employer mandate.

That is all correct. The Blue Dogs, while espousing fiscal responsibility, have been doing everything they can to make health care more expensive, both for the federal government and for you.

Health Care for America Now sent a letter to the Blue Dogs [pdf] and to House leadership this weekend, opposing these contradictory demands, one by one [doc]. In particular, Blue Dog demands about subsidies and the public option, if agreed to, would cut the heart out of health reform and make sure health care stayed unaffordable for people like you and me. It's an extension of the status quo, and it's not acceptable.

NEWS

Reach of Subsidies Is Critical Issue for Health Plan - New York Times

The major health care bills moving through Congress would require nearly all Americans to have health insurance. But as lawmakers struggle to achieve the goal of universal coverage, a critical question is whether the plans will be affordable to those who are currently uninsured.

Pelosi Vows Passage of Health-Care Overhaul - Washington Post

Defying skeptics in her party, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowed Sunday to overcome lingering obstacles and pass health-care reform in the House, restoring momentum to President Obama's top domestic priority and order to her own unruly Democratic caucus.

Sen. Grassley Continues His Incoherent Tweet-Streak - Media Matters

On July 24, 2009, Sen. Chuck Grassley tweeted: "PTL BluDogs Keep barkin Pelosie bill is Govt takeovr of healthCare Breaks Obama promise"keep what u hv" Puts Wash Burocrats in chrg MUSTSTOP."

Healthcare: 'Snail's' pace for a reason? - The Swamp

On the criticism that Congress is rushing into healthcare reform, President Barack Obama suggests that they've been working onit for eight months –since he made it clear after his election that he would pursue long-sought reform this year.

Opponents of health overhaul happy as bill drags - Associated Press

August means beaches and barbecues. And for some, a chance to rally the troops for this fall's health care showdown.

This morning ten women members of Congress held a news conference on "how the Democrats' health care legisaltion [sic] will hurt women and affect their day-to-day lives."

The participants were Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA); Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN); Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL); Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN); Rep. Mary Fallin (R-OK); Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC); Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX); Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS); Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY); Rep. Candice Miller, (R-MI); Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL); and Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH).

While NWLC wasn’t invited to attend the press conference, I was interested to get my hands on some of their press statements – after all, NWLC is all about women getting the health care they need. From our perspective, the status quo is untenable: overall, 18 percent of women are uninsured. As we’ve pointed out on this blog many times before, even women who are lucky enough to have health insurance are still more likely than men to have health coverage that has too many gaps, from large deductibles and co-pays to life-time limits, and the exclusion of needed services (like maternity, for example) altogether. Women are also more likely than men to face challenges paying for their medical bills – making them more likely to skip necessary medical care. And then there’s gender rating – the insurance industry practice of charging women more than men for the exact same coverage.

Read more…

Chuck Grassley's two latest tweets over at his rambling Twitter account really show what he's thinking.

First, at around noon, Grassley twittered this:

As Media Matters documents, there are all kinds of things wrong with this, both grammatically and factually. Referring to Grassley's tweet:

Yet just weeks ago, when discussing his work with Sen. Baucus, Sen. Grassley said:

"I think we have a similar idea of what bipartisanship is all about."

…

This tweet shows that Sen. Grassley has decided to cast bipartisanship aside by using standard-issue Frank Luntz talking points to disparage Speaker "Pelosie."*

*Note: I'm fairly sure Sen. Grassley doesn't know how to spell the Speaker's name, given that he misspelled her name "Pelosie" in two separate posts today.

To further drive home the point that Chuck Grassley DOES NOT WANT HEALTH CARE REFORM, he just sent out this gem:

It does not get any more clear than this. He's against "ObamaCare." He thinks it's a government takeover, even though all plans being discussed let you keep the health care you have. He doesn't want this to happen. And this is from the guy who thinks you should get a job with the federal government to get health care like his.

Say it with me: CHUCK GRASSLEY DOES NOT WANT HEALTH CARE REFORM.

He has proven time and time again that he's nothing but an obstructionist who wants President Obama's plans to fail.

UPDATE:

CQ (subscription only) reports:

The top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee said Friday in an interview with Bloomberg Television that “it’s going to be difficult” for the committee to complete a markup of its health overhaul before an August recess.

Yeah. It's "going to be difficult" because you, Chuck Grassley, will never agree to a deal, because you, Chuck Grassley, do not want health reform to pass. Of course it's going to be difficult!