If the two Republican campaigns for federal office in Vermont have shown over the last few days that they have any one thing in common, it would seem to be questionable competence.

First let’s take the Tarrant campaign. Over the months he has been caught secretly running a fake blog, filing shady tax returns and creating a question over his Vermont residency, and encouraging schoolkids to do his campaign work for him while seeming to bribe their parents with gifts. While it boggles the mind, the latest example is just pathetic.

More after the link…

Tarrant is seemingly getting frustrated that his series of expensive, fluffy, utterly forgettable biopic-style ads combined with his apparent distaste for engaging the press to get any earned media to go along with the stuff he so readily pays for, have not closed the polling chasm between him and Bernie. He’s therefore decided it’s time to get nasty, and has been trying to do so by going after Bernie’s wife (brilliant), among other things. His latest assault, though, was just comical. From the news wires via in progressiveamerica.us, Bernie’s official campaign blog:

U.S. Rep. Sanders wants the federal government to run your health care,” Tarrant says in the ad. “I want all Americans to have health care coverage. Yet I want you to be able to choose your doctor and ensure that you get the highest quality care no matter how old you are.”

Weaver disputed that statement on three levels: He said Sanders wants states, not the federal government, to administer single-payer health care systems. He said Sanders has always supported giving patients choice of doctors and other providers. And he said Sanders was trying to protect senior health programs against Republican-backed cuts.

Lennon was sticking to his campaign’s guns Thursday evening. “To claim he doesn’t want a national, government-run, federal-government-created and run system is inaccurate

Putting aside for a moment that pointing at Bernie and yelling “Socialist! Run!” never works, Tarrant’s people went on to show themselves to be the Keystone Kops of the political scene:

But an Internet link Lennon provided to back up his assertion, to a Sanders biography on a site called Jewish Virtual Library, indicated Sanders had long supported a system administered by states.

The site says, “A longtime supporter of a Canadian-style single payer health care plan, in 1990 he (Sanders) introduced legislation to establish such a plan for the U.S. on a state-by-state basis.

So they attack Bernie and provide the press with Bernie’s counter argument all in one press session! Nice of them to take out the middleman. I said a few months ago that Bernie might have to consider counting Rich’s campaign as an “in kind donation,” but I think the amount would exceed the contribution limit…

And Rainville. Good lord. This is someone who has barely been running a campaign, despite her high profile hiring of the legendary “swift boat” national GOP media attack team.

But while she can’t seem to clearly articulate her views on any real issues of the day, she does seem to be quite competent at taking a single matter that should be easily finessed by any run of the mill campaign team, pull out her metaphorical M-16, commence shooting her self repeatedly in the foot, then changing clips to gleefully continue firing.

First it was her penchant for accepting sleazy contributions from the Republican power structure after distancing herself from them. Hey, Republicans take money from Republicans, right? An issue that should have been easily swept under the radar screen — that is until Rainville herself got a hold of it. She proceeded to do so many flip flops that she nearly single-handedly made it into a full-blown scandal, causing people to take notice when she flipped on her promise to avoid contributions from tobacco companies and vascillated over accepting money from a purported spouse-abuser.

Well, she didn’t seem to learn a thing from that ridiculous display, and has promptly returned to her now-familiar M.O. over her flip-flop on whether Donald Rumsfeld should keep his job. She seem pathologically unable to let such fumbles fall quietly from public view, insisting on returning for more verbal gymnastics, and in the process sounding more and more like — well — like a sleazy politician.

She finally pushed it so far that the press couldn’t take it anymore, which was a BIG mistake. From the Times Argus:

Martha Rainville is taking double talk to the level of an art form. It is no longer possible to dismiss Rainville’s inconsistencies and shifting positions as the mistakes of a neophyte politician. Instead, it appears she intends to run her campaign for the U.S. House without concern for whether she is making sense.

Rainville’s recent statements contradict the image that she has tried to convey as the former adjutant general of the Vermont National Guard. In that position, she came across as strong and articulate. As a politician running in the Republican House primary, her bizarre statements border on the offensive.

Ouch. And those were the lead in paragraphs to the piece. Guess who’s not getting an endorsement this year.

When you look so bad that the press starts doing your opponent’s work for them (especially given Republicans usually get treated with kid gloves by the press who are chronically terrified of being called “liberal” by the right-wingnuts), you’re in danger of entering the realm of self-parody.

Rich, Martha…its only May. You might wanna pace yourselves a bit…

The Washington Post guest op-ed by Daily Kos founder and lefty blogging all-father Markos Moulitsas “calls the question” on the netroots well-known but poorly crystallized concerns around the Hillary Clinton (see the GMD Vermont poll here) presidential candidacy (emphasis added):

Our crashing of Washington’s gates wasn’t about ideology, it was about pragmatism. Democrats haven’t won more than 50 percent of the vote in a presidential election since 1976…

…Afraid to offend, [Clinton] has limited her policy proposals to minor, symbolic issues — such as co-sponsoring legislation to ban flag burning. She doesn’t have a single memorable policy or legislative accomplishment to her name. Meanwhile, she remains behind the curve or downright incoherent on pressing issues such as the war in Iraq…

…[Clinton is] surrounded by the very people who ground down the activist base in the 1990s and have continued to hold the party’s grassroots in utter contempt. The operation is rudderless, without any sign of significant leadership. And to top it off, a sizable number of Democrats don’t think she could win a general election, anyway.

This article may mark a turning point – formally pitting the netroots against Clinton in the Democratic primary. But it also calls a question with relevance across political races top to bottom: Is “running to the center” really the “pragmatic” strategy to win over so-called swing voters?

It sure looks like the answer is both “yes” (for Republicans) and “no” (for Democrats). Getting many Democratic operatives to accept that however, is problematic for a very simple reason.

More below the fold…

Richard Nixon famously advised Republican candidates to run to the right during the primaries and run back to the center in general elections. Good advice to his Party when you consider the observations of observers like Washington Watch’s James Zogby’s in 1999:

image of rigidity and mean-spiritedness that came to characterize Republicans after their 1994 congressional victory and the prolonged impeachment drama

Or the Right’s own Mona Charen back in 1996:

At a recent gathering of conservative journalists, the proposition was widely accepted that Republicans must guard against seeming hard-hearted. Don’t withhold schooling from the children of illegal immigrants, a leading Republican politician was counseled. Don’t be seen as uncaring or cruel.

Or how about closer to today, and from a site we all know so well? From freerepublic.com in 2002:

With such emotional issues as children, families, health care, hunger, homelessness, poverty, and gun control, anyone who argues against liberal proposals risks being seen as uncaring, the first step to losing the hearts and minds

Spot a common theme over the years? Good. Now hold that thought and see if you can catch another. From a recent Pew analysis of attitudes towards the Parties and Congress:

The Democrats are seen as “weak,” disorganized,” and “confused,” with a few mentions of “slow” and “struggling” tossed in.

(I won’t inundate you with multiple examples of the views towards Democrats, as it has been roundly discussed in virtually every blog there is.)

Now, set aside for a moment the die hards on the left and right who see the other side as closet fascists or godless abortionists and focus on these swing voters. Notice the terms used on both sides are not terms of policy. “Hard-hearted,” “rigid,” “weak,” “confused.” There is no “hard-hearted” lobby, no “confused” caucus — these are judgements of character. Ever scratch your head reading accounts like this one from CNN correspondent Dick Uliano?

Yes. I talked to a few people who saw the debate and the people that I spoke with liked what they saw. These were people, by the way, for the most part, who had a candidate in mind, were supporters of either President Bush or Senator Kerry going in. And coming out they felt that what their candidate said simply affirmed their position.

There was one woman I talked to from Phoenix, Arizona, a woman in public relations, by the way, who is an undecided voter, undecided going in. And, Carol, after 90 minutes of debate and watching two previous debates, she’s still undecided and not sure who’s she’s going to vote for. When will she make up her mind? She said probably on election day.

How could such people still be undecided when the two candidates were nowhere near each other on virtually every conceivable policy? Because they weren’t intending to cast their votes based on policy. They often didn’t know policy, felt confused by it, even suggesting in interviews that this deficit in understanding was some sort of virtue:

I’m an independent small “l” libertarian who does not agree with the LP or Mr. Badnarik. Yet I see both Kerry and Bush (in that order for national security reasons only) as really terrible choices for President.

If it weren’t for the fact that I live in California where Kerry, without a doubt, will take the electoral vote with a projected 18% lead, I would be really hard-pressed to make a decision.

No, as Stephen Colbert might say, these swing voters always — always — go with their “gut.” And that translates into a cursory judgement on the candidates’ characters. Now both “teams” start off with the built in character deficits outlined above. These define the hueristics swing voters use to begin their judgements on.

So, the obvious question is: how do you “pleasantly surprise” the cynical swing voter who starts his or her judgement of you in the crapper if they see you as, say, rigid and hard-hearted? Obviously, you show them you’re not rigid. That you can compromise. That you are capable of moderation. A “compassionate conservative.” “Kinder and gentler.”

So the next question is, how do you impress the swing voter who sees you as weak and confused?

Stand firm and strong Dig in and show some backbone.

So obviously, the running to the center strategy is a winner for Republicans to this swing voter demographic, but it only confirms to the same voters every negative impression they already have of Democrats.

Of course the question is, was Bill Clinton an anomoly? Al From and the centrist Democratic Ledership Council would have us believe that his “moderation” was the key to his victory among swing voters, but as Markos so eloquently demonstrates above, the Clinton approach has hardly been beneficial, and in fact he did not win a majority in eaither election. Where did the swing voters go? Well, many obviously went to Ross Perot, but some obviously went to Clinton. Was that because he was a moderate?

Although this sort of judgement is difficult to objectively quantify, I would say absolutely not. Bill Clinton is an extraordinary communicator with an uncanny ability to connect to an audience. Despite all the jokes, people did sense that he “felt their pain,” and therefore judged him with their “guts” to be a man of “character.” In other words, they did exactly what they always do.

Furthermore, when Clinton turned out to be a manof extraordinarily weak character, he only served to further solidify the negative impression of Democrats, even causing that judgement to creep beyond the swing voters into the Democratic base itself, causing a grim sort of self-loathing. Wonder why Dean struck such a chord with Democrats and Independents alike? SImple: he was the antidote to Bill Clinton.

So why dont many of the Democratic consultants and power brokers get this? Are they stupid?

Not at all. They feel Democrats should move to the center because that’s where they are. And like all of us, they think they are right and if everybody thought like them everything would work out. Rather than come out and admit such an ideologically based motivation (remember — these are folks who see themselves as strategists and above ideology), they cling to their oft-repeated Bill Clinton narrative and tell themselves (and us) that it’s not about ideology, it’s about winning elections.

In a memo to Democratic leaders last week, Mr. From and DLC President Bruce Reed attacked the party’s liberal, activist base, which they said was “defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home.”

“That’s the wing that lost 49 states in two elections [in 1972 and 1984], and transformed Democrats from a strong national party into a much weaker regional one,” they said.

[…and yes, isn’t this nice that this quote is from a Republican website? With friends like Al…]

But this assertion is demonstrably untrue. Those well outside the fray looking in objectively could see it easily (from the Indian press):

The Republicans’ success with this message was borne out in interviews with voters towards the end of the campaign and in exit polls, where even those critical of Mr. Bush on a host of issues from Iraq to the economy were persuaded that Mr. Kerry was an unreliable alternative. Better to be consistently wrong than indecisively right, they seemed to be saying.

As we all know, the run to the center often loses us elections, inasmuch as it’s seen as vascillating (a genuine centrist who spoke with calrity and committment would do fine, I’m sure). But that’s where these DLC-type folks want to be.

In my time working for the Vermont Democratic Party, I’ve seen the range. There are folks currently in positions of campaign decision making who have shared shockingly conservative viewpoints those times when they’ve “slipped” and let their feelings known (there’s one I remember whose only opinions I ever heard were complaints about choice and Democratic Party “class warfare” — imagine my surprise at hearing RNC talking points in the Democratic Party office). On the other hand, I know of folks who quietly admitted to me voting for Nader!

But it’s these conservatives who are always the ones who insist candidates have to run to the center to win, and their fingerprints are in tricky places. Many grumbling voices in the Statehouse of late fear that State Senator Peter Welch, who truly is a solid liberal and good lawmaker, has been putting entirely too much stock in the opinions of this crowd (most recently by quickly ceding ground to the NRA on legislation regulating shooting ranges), and in the process may be seriously jeopardizing his chances to hold the US House seat being vacated by Bernie Sanders.

It’s tough to watch good people cede their judgement to such a clearly self-serving and fatally flawed electioneering strategy. But we have to be loud and persistent to our candidates that the DLCers are wrong. The evidence is there and the tide is turning, but it remains difficult to be louder from a distance than the person whispering directly into their ears…

( – promoted by odum)

You’ve probably already seen the now-legendary Colbert “roast” (read: “assault”) on President Bush at the Correspondents’ Dinner that has been the source of so much discussion for being ignored by the press at first, and then retroactively demonized as unfunny and tacky. Check it out yourself at Crooks and Liars if you haven’t yet.

A man later identified as CIA veteran Ray McGovern confronts Donald Rumsfeld over his record of outright lying in this Think Progress clip. Rumsfeld tries to engage with him. Big mistake. Check it out.

…and this movie from Renew US is a somewhat corny, but mostly VERY encouraging (and very well done) futuristic “look back” on how humanity pulled together and solved the climate change crisis in the mid-21st century. It really does make you hopeful if you’re feeling hopeless (well, except for the goony Presidential, unity “independent” ticket they envision…bleh…you’ll just have to see it)

Unruly O’Reilly 2: More Bill O’Reilly! This time he said: “visit [Vermont] at your discretion,” because it is a “hopeless, hopeless state” that refuses to “protect the kids” from child molesters. As always, it’s not just a nasty viewpoint, it’s accompanied by outright lies. Check the coverage and clip at Media Matters

Vermont Daily Bloodying: Baruth is on fire this week. Check out this piece skewering Martha Rainville for her shameless flip flop on whether or not Rumsfeld should continue his employment. He’s also got a great piece taking Rich Tarrant to task for his lavish “campaign kickoff” (which virtually emptied the statehouse of Republicans during arguably the busiest week of the entire session) by entertainingly juxtaposing the affair against the lyrics of his campaign song “Taking Care of Business.” Fun stuff.

Graff Gaffe: If you haven’t heard, Chris Graff got fired for precisely the reason everybody thought he did. 802 online got it first.

Whatever: Laura Bush is coming to Vermont. Yawn.

…meanwhile the Dems had a massive Vermont lit drop as part of Chairman Dean’s 50-state canvass. Thankfully, folks are kicking in earlier than usual this time around!

Here’s the best blog entry ever (well for this week). It’s a take-no-prisoners impeachment piece. Should give the most extreme naysayers pause.

Taking the poll down. Only 17 votes, but nobody picked “impeachment” as a more problematic election stance than a gas tax increase (76% picked gas tax, “both equally” problematic 6%, “neither” problematic 18%). Just running the poll made my point, I suppose…

That’s all I have time for now. I may try to do another of these tomorrow, ‘cuz there’s more.

This is breaking, and significant news. How this plays over the next few days could go a long way to determine which party has the upper hand in local elections this year.

Whether the Governor vetoes it or not, this will be a controversial piece of legislation. Single-payer advocates such as Deb Richter are opposed to any non-radical fix as they fear it will continue to prop up a bad system and soften public support for a drastic overhaul. They fear it will negatively impact future hopes for more systemic reform.

While I can’t help but sympathize with this fear as a gung ho single-payer advocate myself, for my part I see a bill that — warts and all — will help many people, and I am loathe to make “strategic” long-term decisions that eschew bringing needed help to some now in the hopes that it will lead to bringing help to everyone later. That strikes me as dangerously close to offering up those this bill will help now as “acceptable casualties” in the quest for a more comprehensive solution. As such, I therefore encourage folks to call the Governor’s office in support. I realize by taking this stance, I (and others like me) take on an added burden of responsibility to push for a true systemic overhaul over the coming years if this bill passes, as Richter’s concerns (particularly about the long-term financial viability of the proposal) are very serious.

I am also concerned that the long-term viability of health care as an issue (at least for the next 4-6 years) may rise and fall on at least the appearence of progress on the issue. And I take the legislators on their word that this is only the beginning. This is from the summation on the press release I received from the Speaker’s office:

This is the beginning, not the end, of health care reform in Vermont. It sets a foundation for future reforms. We remain determined to make health care progress that moves us steadily toward affordable health care for all Vermonters. This bill focuses our first step where costs are greatest the care of Vermonters with chronic conditions and where the need is greatest the uninsured

The full press release contains details on the plan. It is a quite comprehensive piece, and rather than try to sum it at this point, I encourage you to click on the link below and read the whole thing (minus the last paragraph excepted above):

(The) Bill reins in health care costs by offering affordable coverage to uninsured Vermonters and establishing an outstanding chronic care system

Montpelier (VT)-House and Senate conferees have come together to sign the 2006 Health Care Affordability Act, a bill that is a first step toward achieving the goal of quality, affordable health care for all Vermonters.  This legislation has one overriding goal: controlling the steeply rising costs of health care.  It accomplishes this in two ways: by better managing chronic care and making health care affordable and accessible for all Vermonters. 

This bill is the culmination of two years of intense work by the House and Senate.  We listened carefully to the concerns and hopes of Vermonters through last year’s public engagement process, and we worked hard to address the concerns of the Douglas administration.  The final bill maintains the principles established last year * a commitment to universal access, comprehensive coverage, and a fair system of financing where everybody pays.  It builds on these principles by creating Catamount Health and an outstanding system of chronic care management.  This is a bill that Governor Douglas should be proud to sign. 

THE HEALTH CARE AFFORDABILITY ACT WILL CONTAIN COSTS BY:

MAKING HEALTH INSURANCE AFFORDABLE AND ACCESSIBLE TO THE UNINSURED
*  The bill establishes a health insurance program called Catamount Health.  Under this plan, everyone who is uninsured for 12 months will have access to – and will help pay for – a comprehensive health insurance package. The benefits will be administered through the private market and premiums will be based on income. Under the plan, everyone pays their fair share through an affordable premium structure. In addition, employers will pay an assessment based on the number of their employees who are uninsured. We estimate that at least 25,000 Vermonters who are now uninsured will obtain health coverage. 

*  Benefits of Catamount Health include:
  o  Primary care, preventive and chronic care, acute episodic care, and hospital services.
  o  Reimbursement for medical services equal to ten percent above cost.
  o  25,000 estimated to enroll, including new Medicaid enrollment.
  o  Chronic care management.

*  The financing of Catamount Health is fair and fiscally responsible. 
  o  Based on the principle that everybody is covered and everybody pays
  o  Individuals pay sliding scale premiums based on income
  o  Employers pay an assessment based on the number of their employees (measured as full  time equivalents) who are uninsured, exempting the first four FTEs
  o  Other revenues from increases in tobacco taxes and through matching federal dollars
  o  State fiscal obligations protected through caps on enrollment

IMPROVING HOW WE DELIVER HEALTH CARE
*  H.861 helps deliver the right care at the right time to the most expensive health care consumers * those with chronic conditions.  It makes chronic care management available to every Vermonter, whether privately insured, covered under a public program, or currently uninsured.  Chronic conditions consume 70 percent of the cost of health care in Vermont. Chronic conditions are what Vermonters worry about most.
*  The plan will establish an outstanding system of chronic care management.  This system – available to all Vermonters – will provide:
  o  Early and coordinated screening for chronic conditions like diabetes or asthma.
  o  Better management of chronic care.
  o  Emphasis on patient self-management.
  o  Payment to providers that rewards quality and disease management, not just quantity. The system will reimburse providers for doing what we want them to do for those with chronic conditions — manage their care.  For example, calling patients and reminding them to come in for regular check-ups, visiting patients in their home, and doing the necessary follow up.
*  Codifying the Vermont “Blueprint for Health” prevention and chronic disease management plan and directs chronic care management in Medicaid and Catamount Health that will save an estimated 5-10 percent in health care costs.
###

(if you have formating proplems please let us know)

DETAILS ABOUT THE 2006 HEALTH CARE AFFORDABILITY ACT

Who is eligible for Catamount Health?
*  Only uninsured Vermonters are eligible for Catamount Health.  An uninsured person is defined as someone who:
Ø Does not qualify for Medicare, Medicaid, VHAP, Dr. Dynasaur
Ø Has not had private or employer-sponsored insurance that includes both hospital and physician services for the last 12 months
§ If a person has only catastrophic coverage for hospital care, for example, s/he is defined as uninsured for purposes of Catamount Health and does not need to wait 12 months
Ø Has lost private or employer-sponsored coverage during the last 12 months because of: loss of employment, death of the principal insurance policyholder, divorce or dissolution of a civil union, no longer qualifying as a dependent under the plan of a parent or caretaker relative, no longer qualifying for COBRA, VIPER or other state continuation coverage.
Ø Lost college or university-sponsored health insurance because of graduation, leave of absence or otherwise termination of studies.
* An individual 18 or older who is claimed on a tax return as a dependent of a resident of another state is not eligible for Catamount Health. 

Why are the enrollment figures not higher?  What about requiring that everyone have insurance?
* Catamount Health is voluntary.  It offers an affordable and comprehensive benefit plan to every uninsured Vermonter.  However, we know that only a portion of uninsured will actually enroll in the plan.  Based on data from other states and Dr. Thorpe’s economic modeling, we estimate that approximately 25,000 currently uninsured Vermonters will sign up.
* This bill takes a step-by-step approach to increasing enrollments, preferring to establish a successful track record before adding more people over time.
* A number of possible expansions will be evaluated by January 2009 (18 months after initial implementation), including:
Ø eliminating some or all of the 12-month waiting period
Ø allowing the underinsured to buy into the plan
Ø allowing employers to buy into the plan
* Mandatory insurance will be considered if the goal of 96 percent coverage is not achieved by 2010. 

How is Catamount Health financed?
* The financing of Catamount Health is fair and fiscally responsible and is based on the principle that everybody is covered and everybody pays.
* Individuals pay sliding scale premiums based on income.
* Employers pay an assessment based on the number of their employees who are uninsured, exempting four employees.
* Other new revenues come from increases in tobacco taxes and through matching federal dollars
Ø Increase of $0.60 per pack on July 1, 2006
Ø Increased $0.20 for a total addition of $0.80 per pack on July 1, 2008
Ø Little cigars, roll-your-own tobacco will be taxed as cigarettes
Ø Snuff * changing tax to a per-ounce tax
* State fiscal obligations protected through caps on enrollment.

How will the employer assessment work?
* Assessment is on three groups of employees:
o All employees of employers who do not offer insurance to anyone.
o Employees of employers who offer insurance to some employees, but who are not eligible themselves.
o Employees who are eligible for coverage through their employer plans, but choose not to enroll, and are uninsured.
* The assessment is calculated quarterly, and is based on Full Time Equivalents (FTEs).  An FTE is an employee who works 40 hours a week for 13 weeks. Employees who work part time, or not for the entire quarter, are converted by dividing their actual hours worked by 520 (40 hours X 13 weeks.)
* The first four FTEs are excluded from the calculation of the assessment.  For example, if a firm has 10 FTEs who are not covered coverage, the assessment is based on 6 employee
* The assessment is $365 per FTE in the first year, and will increase at the same rate as the premiums in Catamount Health (estimated at 5% per year). 

How will the new chronic condition management system work?
* This year’s bill will re-engineer our health care delivery system to better deliver the right care at the right time.  More people with diabetes, for example, will receive their eye and extremity exams and fewer will end up blind or with leg amputations.  We also will focus more on prevention and early treatment.  Dr. Kenneth Thorpe, our health care consultant, estimates that these system changes will result in system-wide savings of $550 million over the next ten years relative to what we would otherwise experience.
* Key to the success of such a system is working closely with primary care providers and paying them to coordinate care for those with chronic conditions.  We have to change the focus from treating episodic illness to managing chronic conditions.  For example, a successful system will make sure that cancer survivors get the periodic tests they need to make sure their cancer has not recurred.
* The new chronic care model will be available to every Vermonter with any type of health plan, not just to people in Catamount Health and Medicaid.

How is a chronic condition defined?
* A chronic condition is defined as an established clinical condition that is expected to last a year or more and that requires ongoing clinical management. 
* Examples include: diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, cancer, asthma, pulmonary disease, substance abuse, mental illness, hyperlipidemia, and spinal cord injury.

What’s wrong with chronic care now?
*  Our current health care system was designed decades ago to treat acute health situations.  We would go to the doctor only when we were sick and doctors would treat or prescribe or operate, and then send us home.  Except for children and pregnant women, our health care system rarely focused on prevention or actively promoting and managing health. 
*  Approximately 75% of all health care spending today is for people with chronic conditions.  In general, our medical system does a poor job with these people.  Well documented and accepted national studies indicate that people with chronic conditions receive the right care at the right time only about 55% of the time.  These people are suffering for it and we are all paying for it. 

What about people who currently have insurance?  What does this bill do for them?
*  People who have insurance currently pay extra in their premiums to cover the health care costs for the uninsured.  This bill will begin to reduce this cost shift. 
* Through H.861, health care premiums will grow more slowly:
  Ø A significantly improved chronic care management program for all Vermonters will reduce spending by $550 million over 10 years.
  Ø  By covering the uninsured, we will cut into the current 7% added costs that are built into private insurance premiums to cover the health care costs of the uninsured.
  Ø Administrative simplifications will save money.
* Reimbursements for hospitals will increase, reducing the effect of the cost shift.

How can we be sure savings will pass through to our premiums?
*  BISHCA has significant authority to review and approve both hospital budgets and insurance rates.
*  H.861 directs BISHCA to set up a task force to report on the best ways to ensure that savings due to reductions in the cost shift will be reflected in hospital budgets and insurance rates.
*  Increased payments to doctors are needed to strengthen primary care practices and are not expected to reduce premiums by very much.

How will H.861 strengthen primary care?
*  We have learned that Vermont’s primary care system is in distress.  Doctors are working harder and harder to make ends meet, some regions of the state have shortages, recruitment and retention are problems everywhere, and medical students are choosing specialty areas over primary care.
*  Stable and expanded primary care capacity will be needed for chronic care services
*  The bill includes several provisions that will strengthen our primary care practices:
  Øincreases Medicaid reimbursements for primary care services * increased to Medicare rates
  Ø pays in new, innovative, and more appropriate ways for chronic care services
  Ø expanded loan repayment program (included in the budget)

What about the Medicaid deficit?  Will passing this bill make it worse?
*  H.861 will not make the looming Medicaid deficit worse.  In fact, it will reduce the deficit by:
  o Delivering chronic care in a better and more cost-effective manner
  o Raising funds for items currently in the Governor’s budget request, such as the Vermont blueprint for health
*  All of the state costs related to H.861 will be paid for with new revenues.
*  The new “global commitment” Medicaid waiver specifically allows for new federal matching dollars for programs for the uninsured, though a waiver amendment will be required. 
*  There is sufficient room within the global commitment “cap” to pay for H.861, with about $100 million left over.

How is H.861 different from last year’s bill?
* Last year’s health care reform bill set out a staged plan for affordable health care for all Vermonters, focusing in the first step on primary and preventive care for the uninsured.  This year, we are offering a bill that covers the uninsured with both in-hospital and out-of-hospital care, a more comprehensive first step than last year’s bill.  The bill also establishes a high-quality system for delivering care to all Vermonters with chronic conditions.

( – promoted by odum)

The Vermont Guardian has a good piece covering the presentation in Washington of the Vermont town impeachment resolutions to House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Their coverage was inaccurate in one significant way, though:

An effort that began in March culminated Monday when three Vermont communities delivered a message to House Speaker Dennis Hastert: Start the process to impeach Pres. George Bush.

“Culminated?”

Not by a long shot…

Click on “theres more” for the “Statement from Dan DeWalt on the delivery of Vermont’s petitions to impeach Pres. George W. Bush”

Mrs. Tenney went to Washington, and the speaker of the House ran for cover

By Dan DeWalt

Three years ago, Pres. George W. Bush stuffed some padding in his pants, flew dramatically onto an aircraft carrier anchored a few hundred yards offshore, and declared “mission accomplished.”

Today, in memory of the thousands who have since died in Iraq, and fulfilling their obligations as citizens to protect the U.S. Constitution, Ellen Tenney and Julia DeWalt presented the first three Vermont town resolutions calling for Congress to impeach the president to the U.S. speaker of the House. Except the speaker was afraid to meet them.

He was afraid to face the naked truth that Congress will now have to be dealing with the wrath and determination of forthright U.S. citizens who are calling their government to accountability. Congress now has to answer to a public that does not rely on timid political advisors, repeating the same outdated and losing conventional wisdom, worrying about potential “backlash” to ideas that are true and to demands that are just.

The night before her scheduled meeting with the speaker, Tenney went to the Jefferson Memorial and laid the petitions at his feet. It is, after all, section 603 of Jefferson’s manual that gives towns the right to bring impeachment resolutions to Congress. From the memorial, Jefferson looks directly at the White House, and we can be assured that he doesn’t like what he sees. Section 603 is a natural outcome of his distrust of an all-powerful executive branch of government. America had just freed itself from the tyranny of King George, and Mr. Jefferson was determined to prevent another one from taking his place.

We see that the so-called opposition politicians, as well as their supporters in the popular and news media, are unwilling to take seriously their duty to uphold the Constitution.

Therefore, we must step into the breach and take action before the nation sinks under the weight of corruption, corporate domination and creeping fascism. Some nations have proud histories of “peoples’ revolutions” wresting power from corrupt governments from the Philippines to South America to Eastern Europe. Tens of thousands would take to the streets and stay there. Or most of the nation would go on strike, or as www.therudeguy.com puts it, they all call in “well,” saying I’m not sick, but I’m not working until you and your lousy government are out of here.

For whatever reason, America today is not ready for those sorts of mass actions. When massive protests greeted the Iraq war, they were met with a collective yawn and a few dismissive jokes by the government and the media. Protests just aren’t seen as part of the process.

Impeachment however, is absolutely part of the process. Correctly worded impeachment resolutions must be passed from the speaker to the Judiciary Committee. If only one member of the House brings one of these resolutions to the floor, the House must debate it. Thanks to Jefferson we have the power to force this conversation. The time for a constitutional People’s Revolution is at hand.

The March town meetings followed by The May 1 delivery of the petitions/resolutions are our declaration of independence and battle of Bunker Hill. If the Speaker of the House is on the run, let’s give him something to run from and keep a barrage of resolutions and declarations coming his way.

Now is the time to take your senators and House representatives to task for not upholding their obligations to the country and its Constitution. Now is the time to write letters to the editor demanding that we begin a national conversation about the rule of law. Now is the time that we demand that morality and truth take center stage in our governance.

Thomas Jefferson said that the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants. Charlie Parker said, “Now’s the Time.”

Last year, a non-binding resolution was overwhelmingly passed in the Vermont Senate calling for Vermont to join Illinois, New Jersey and Oregon in divesting it’s state pension funds from corporations doing business with, and therefore economically enabling, the genocidal Sudanese government. Nearly a year later, Vermont still has holdings of nearly $3,000,000 in Schlumberger Ltd, a powerhouse Austrian-based multinational that runs oilfields in Sudan, as well as several other countries.

UVM voted a few days ago to divest it’s holdings in such companies. Other states and universities are joining (or have joined) the divestment movement. The counter argument, as we heard in the debate on divestment from apartheid, is that divestment will economically impact the poor, and bring more suffering to those who are already hurting. It is a reasonable argument that would seem to make the situation ambiguous. However, as with apartheid, when the correct next step is ambiguous, rather than paternalistically attempt to judge from afar what is best for the victims in Sudan’s Darfur province, we should instead turn to the survivors and activists from that region to ask how they would have us aid in their plight.

And they say divest.

For some background, if you’re not aware (from Salon):

For more than three years, the Janjaweed, backed by the Sudanese government, have waged a brutal war against two rebel groups, the Sudanese Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement. In a vicious campaign, labeled genocide by the U.S. in 2004, they have murdered tens of thousands of civilians who belong to the same ethnic groups as the rebels…

…Yet the U.N., the U.S. and the European Union have consistently failed to take any serious punitive actions against the Sudanese government. The U.S. has pushed for a stronger world response to the crisis, but its diplomatic efforts have continued to flounder…

…The Bush administration may be talking tough on Darfur, but critics say its war on terror has caused it to act with trepidation. Since the ’90s, when it harbored Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, Sudan has been designated a terror state by the U.S., meaning American companies, with few exceptions, have not been allowed to operate there. But in recent years, U.S. intelligence has turned to Sudanese officials, including some considered architects of the Darfur genocide, for information on suspects in the global war on terror. Critics charge that the U.S. has been reluctant to take tough action because of the Sudanese government’s strategic importance in the fight against al-Qaida.

The divestment movement has been assisted in recent weeks by a dramatic ratcheting up of coverage in the popular media. Hollywood stars like George Clooney have become very active on the issue, and his television alma mater ‘ER’ has been showcasing the situation there in it’s current story arc. Last week, five Democratic US Representatives were arrested during a protest of the Sudanese government’s policy of genocide — including the Congress’s lone holocaust survivor, Rep. Tom Lantos.

It is as if something has collectively popped among the general US public, which has offered little recognition and outrage up to this point. As if this was a back page story that was supposed to have passed into history by now, and the amazement that it is still being allowed to continue in the face of 400,000 dead (through the most horrific means) and millions more displaced, is finally giving way to shock and rage.

Reading about a sociopathic corporation like Schlumberger brings up disturbing reminiscences of Syriana, but it is one of several foreign companies on watch lists like this one, which include Royal Dutch Shell — a familiar name not only to US drivers, but for international Human Rights watchdogs. In fact, Schlumberger was one of the companies at the table with Dick Cheney discussing how the spoils of the Iraq War were to be divided (according to this piece from the Wall Street Journal), while all the while the administration was insisting the Iraq invasion had nothing to do with oil.

US companies are currently not legally able to do business in Sudan because it’s on terrorist watch lists at the State Department. This makes the economic card a bit more complicated. China, Russia and India (the former two having UN Security Council veto power) have consistently blocked action against Khartoum (Salon again):

Putting pressure on Chinese companies like PetroChina and Sinopec means that those companies wouldn’t have to actually withdraw from the country for the divestment to have an effect. John Prendergast, senior advisor for theInternational Crisis Group, explains: “The likelihood of the Chinese withdrawing investment in the Sudan is nil. One of the objectives of divestment would be to reduce the share price of publicly traded Chinese oil companies, raising alarm bells in Beijing, and forcing the Chinese in its own interest to go to the Sudanese government and say: ‘Enough is enough.’ There has to be a cost, and the cost has to be reducing their share price, reducing the value of their company, because investors would, in mass, head for the exits.”

Currently, Treasurer Spaulding is (from Seven Days):

participating in a working group with other state treasurers’ offices and public pension funds to try to be “agents of positive change” in Sudan. Their approach appears to be more one of “constructive engagement” with companies that do business in Sudan, rather than blanket divestment,

Spaulding is a very good guy, but this sort of engagement is not what is called for here, and in fact activists have put together a “targeted divestment” strategy that goes after companies supporting the regime, rather than supporting the populace. In fact, the case for divestment is probably stronger than it was for South Africa, given the immediacy of a full-blown, officially sanctioned campaign of human extermination.

And, as Salon again says:

Jerry Fowler, staff director of the Committee on Conscience at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, sees such efforts as important for raising awareness in the U.S., as much as putting economic pressure on the Sudanese government: “It helps alert a wider audience to the issue, and the seriousness of the issue. That is its primary benefit. In terms of an actual effect on the Sudanese government itself, any effect it will have, I think, will be in the long term.” …

…Yet the activists say that the only way to put economic pressure on the country is to take on the companies doing business there. “The U.S. is left without its biggest economic stick now,” says Miller. “What are we going to do? We can’t do anything more from a government standpoint on the economic side. So far, the Sudanese government has felt nada, zip, zero economic pressure.

So, the Treasurer’s office should do the right thing and dump this stock immediately. If Spaulding still feels hesitant, the legislature should return to this issue now – before the session is over. We should in no way shape or form allow ourselves to become even remotely morally complicit in this:

… for a moment.

Here is the contact information for the Treasurer’s office:

Vermont State Treasurer • 109 State Street • Montpelier, Vermont 05609 • 802-828-2301

And you can find your Representative and Senators contact info here.

* When I heard some of “Nuestro Himno” — the Spanish language version of the Star Spangled Banner getting airplay in a few markets, I thought it was an extremely cool, uplifting, patriotic statement from the hispanic community. Apparently a great many feel otherwise (Bush: “I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English. And they ought to learn to sing the national anthem in English.”). Carpetbagger has coverage. Vermont Radio Guy says

Now, I am as liberal as anyone, but this crap has to stop. Where do we draw the line here?

“Liberal as anyone.” Yeah, right. How about you “draw the line” by listening to something else? This upsurge in xenophobic whining really makes we want to learn Spanish. If someone can possibly come up with a reason why Nuestro Himno is in any way disrepectful, unpatriotic, or “crap” to be “stopped,” please share. I dare you.

* Libby Sternberg has left the anti-NEA Vermonters For Better Education, continuing the deterioration of Vermont’s old-guard right-wing internet set. McLaughry produces less and less (and his website looks like it hasn’t been reviewed in years), and Dwinell has been reduced to bizarre rants about Bernie being a secret agent of international communism. Perhaps the new VT right-wing blogosphere (with the likes of Cool Blue and She’s Right) is the next wave. Maybe there won’t be a next wave (a guy can dream, can’t he?)

* Vermont Yankee has once again halted its relentless upward creep to 120% power output. Everytime they restart the creep, little problems pop up. Sorta like seams popping out.

* Peasants With Pitchforks is doing what I wished I could’ve done — giving us a run-down of the media panel at UVM this week that featured (among others) Howard Dean, and his ofttime nemesis Howard Fineman. Very entertaining posts. Here’s part 1 and part 2 with the promise of more to come.

* Finally, at VTGOP.org, the local Bushies are trying to do that Karl-Rove-thing of making your candidate’s weaknesses into strengths just by relentlessly pegging the other team with your own shortcomings, despite any and all evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately for them, they just look a little…confused? Pathetic? Delusional? They’ve launched a Where’s Welch campaign attempting to highlight what they claim is Peter Welch’s unwillingness to be forthcoming on issues (and of course they picked their pet issue of the day, despite the fact that Welch has an established opinion in print on the matter). Now just think about this strategy for a second. Then spend another second trying to think of a single issue that Republican candidate Martha Rainville has clearly stated an actual opinion on. Just one. C’mon…

There are some very different must-see video clips making the rounds that have come to my attention over the last day. They’re as different as they could be, but they all evoke strong emotion.

First, PoliticsTV has footage of five Democratic US Representatives being arrested in DC while protesting the Darfur genocide. Two of the US Reps are from across the border in Massachusetts. Another is Congressman Lantos, a genocide survivor himself. Powerful stuff. (Quicktime / Windows Media)

Second is this animation, called “What Would Jesus Do” juxtaposing the words of Christ against some truly horrific images of children in Iraq. Being dubbed “the video the religious right doesn’t want you to see,” it should only be viewed after serious mental preparation. (Link (html))

Finally, there is the absolute carnage on display from the much-discussed vivisection of leading neo-con pundit and ideological force of nature Bill Kristol by Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report (Colbert, of course, essentially plays a character that is a knock off of Bill O’Reilly on his faux-fox “news” program). It is indescribable. (Quicktime / Windows Media)

A recent statement by Republican Senatorial candidate Richard Tarrant is downright axiomatic. From Freyne in Seven Days:

[Tarrant:] “Everybody has a right to express their views, but I think politicians, it says something about themselves based on who they ask to help them. That’s just the way it is.”

I couldn’t agree more. As we reported, last year Tarrant “made a good impression” looking for support at the Center For American Cultural Renewal/Vermont Renewal (formerly the anti Civil Union Who Would Have Thought, Inc), a homegrown, reactionary, religious right organization. Their president is Stephen Cable, and as reported by the controversial counter-website Blier Watch, Cable is:

a registrant (Officer 5) of a corporation described as “Religious” that went by the name New Hope Ministries, Inc. The corporate status terminated on June 23, 1989.

Similarly, New Hope Ministries was registered as an corporation in California as early as 1981. Today, New Hope Ministries is a so-called “ex-gay” ministry with ties to the discredited groups Exodus International and Love In Action dating back to the 1970’s. The “ex-gay” ministries have been widely rejected by professional organizations such as the American Psychological Association and are considered to be harmful to lesbians, gays and, in particular, youth.

Yup, you sure can tell “something about [politicians] based on who they ask to help them.”

“That’s just the way it is”