bandwagon

I’m not entirely on the “kill the bill” bandwagon. There is definitely some good being done in the bill, but it is being overshadowed by the bad.

One issue I haven’t seen addressed is the effect on charitable care. The bill supporters out there seem to either ignore the issue, or just aren’t aware of it. Let me explain.

There are numerous charitable organizations out there that help people with health care. On top of that there are numerous programs that also help, including programs offered by the pharmaceutical companies. Some of these programs are very generous, including the pharma ones that actually give out free medication to people who can’t afford them. Of course there is one big requirement for these programs – having no insurance.

With a lot of these programs their financial guidelines are much more lenient than those of the health care bill. Some even let people qualify at 250% of the federal poverty level. The problem is that once people are mandated to buy insurance, the lower income people will have a tough choice to make. Will it be cheaper to skip insurance, pay the fine and continue using these programs, or will it be better to pay for insurance and fork out the cash for the co-pay. There is no single answer here. It will all depend on each individual case; their finances, current medication and treatments, etc. But given that you can see that there are situations in which this bill can hurt people.

As the House prepares to take up a resolution of disapproval over Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst during last week’s appearance by President Obama to a joint session of Congress, the wingnuts have found what they claim to be “hypocrisy” on the Democrats part.

This video is from 2007 when Rep. Pete Stark was saying how Bush lied:

Now let’s go back to the current event. The Democrats asked Joe Wilson to apologize on the House floor for his outburst and he flat out refused. It was that refusal that led to this motion.

What happened with Pete Stark? Well something the wingnuts aren’t willing to admit, yet I found out on HotAir – a rightwing blog:

Wesley Clark was on Dan Abrams last night standing behind his statement that John McCain being shot down and held prisoner is not a qualification for being President. Good for him. The right is in a frenzy over Clark's statement of truth regarding McCain.

John McCain bases everything in his run on his experience in the military. As MissLaura reminds us at DKos, McCain even tried to link his time as a POW to healthcare. In other words - McCain exploits what happened to him.

What I find most ironic is some of the people complaining the loudest about Clark's statement are some of the same people who jumped on the swift boating bandwagon against John Kerry, and a few who questioned Clark's service to our nation. Let's stop acting like Clark is a nobody. He was shot up pretty badly in Vietnam. Does he use that as a resume builder? No. He uses the fact that he stayed in the military and moved on to become one of the top leaders as a resume builder. Funny how being a general and the commander of NATO doesn't qualify someone to be President, but being shot down and captured does.

If McCain wants to set the record straight and use his military experience as his main qualification for being President then it's time for him to release his military service record. Include in it how many planes he actually lost. Let the people judge on facts, not on assumption or rumors. If McCain doesn't want to do that then we have every right to question his military service and we should. We also should question the mental health of someone who was held prisoner for five years. I'm sure McCain has some hidden issues from his time as a POW and the American people need to be certain those won't interfere with his job as Commander in Chief.

Yesterday CNN ran clips of the same 3 or 4 people saying they support Bush, but the clips of the people against the escalation plan were numerous. One clip they ran for support of the plan came from Iraq, where a member of the military thought it was a good idea. Now we got the WaPo with a story of another soldier, who feels it is not a good plan:

A few hours before another mission into the cauldron of Baghdad, Spec. Daniel Caldwell's wife instant-messaged him Thursday morning. President Bush, Kelly wrote, wanted to send more than 20,000 U.S. troops and extend deployments in Iraq. Eight weeks pregnant, she was worried.

Caldwell, a tall, lean 20-year-old from Montesano, Wash., wondered whether he would miss the birth of his child. He walked outside and joined his comrades of Apache Company, 1st Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, Stryker Brigade. They, too, had heard the news.

Moments before he stepped into his squad's Stryker -- a large, bathtub-shaped vehicle encased in a cage -- Caldwell echoed a sentiment shared by many in his squad: "They're kicking a dead horse here. The Iraqi army can't stand up on their own."

(emphasis mine)

Before people jump on the "well of course there are a couple of soldiers who disagree" bandwagon, stop and think about this. You have a soldier publicly speaking against their commander in chief's new policy. This is something that is relatively unheard of. These soldiers are nearing wits end in Iraq, and Bush is doing nothing to help that.

Here is a little update on my story yesterday regarding the right being pissed Jill Carroll is free. First off I do have to compliment Michelle Malkin on this. When it the right started blasting her for the videotape she made, Michelle actually did give this piece of advice:

In fairness to Carroll, a lot of people would say a lot of things they didn't mean in those circumstances. Let's see whether she defends it now. Assuming, that is, that anyone in the media bothers to ask her.

Of course instead of taking the advice other bloggers on the right still kept up the attacks. The popular right wing blog Little Green Footballs was one of the first to jump on this bandwagon of blaming Jill. Here is what they had to say about her video:

Note that even after her release, Carroll maintained that she had been treated well by her captors—so it would appear that this journalist for the Christian Science Monitor made these anti-American comments voluntarily.

Of course they also sound disappointed there is no Jill Carroll beheading video on the internet for their nightly enjoyment.