Health care reform is unfair to-- Big Medicine?!

So the big talking point of the day from Republicans is that competition for pharmaceudical and insurance companies is bad.

See, if they compete against each other, and refuse to cover those who need care, they win. But if they have to compete against the government-- and not just each other-- they lose. Why is this?

For starters, they don't want to have to cover sick people. Chew on this: most insurance companies won't take on a sick person if they've ever been sick with the same illness before. And why don't they have to? The government doesn't tell them they have to.

Most pharmaceudical companies also have no oversight on price or content. The government doesn't tell them they have to.

Nearly all doctors agree that the system is broken, but they don't want to fix it. The government doesn't tell them they have to.

The vast majority of Americans think of Big Medicine and Big Insurance as evil and undesirable. The government would give them a choice.

Now that the federal government wants to step in, Rebublicans and Big Medicine are all scared. Why? Because the government can provide some much-needed backlash and muscle against these fucking behemoths. Earlier this week, Republican Senator Mitch McConnell sneered that "the public doesn't want the same people who run the Department of Motor Vehicles" to run their health care. I seriously doubt that-- given 38% approval of the current system-- the public wants the status quo either.

Let's hope the bait-and-switch won't work anymore. Since the days of Reagan's cries of socialism, the pharmaceudical companies have taken to lobbying everyone... EVERYONE... in Washington (Hillary Clinton, Newt Gingrich, John McCain, Harry Reid).

So, according to the Republicans, as long as Big Medicine, Big Pharma, and Big Insurance run Washington-- and not the other way around-- everything will be fine. Yeah fucking right.

Proposition 8 and the SCOTUS nominee

Just got word that Proposition 8 has been upheld, but the 18,000 marriages that were performed won't be overturned.

Little consolation to the gay and lesbian couples whose rights have been trampled on because of religious bigotry. Even the LA Times, in their article, cited that the opposition consisted of "many churches and religious organizations". Notably missing was any sort of egalitarian or civil rights group, i.e. Human Rights Watch or the ACLU.

Yes, it looks like churches apparently hold big sway in the Supreme Court. Which is interesting because Mike Huckabee (the entertaining and gaffing one-time presidential candidate of the GOP) issued a statement on nominee Sotomayor saying that she was an "activist" from the "far-left".

So let's pause a moment and clarify something: if a Supreme Court (state or federal) acts in a manner inconsistent with the "word of God", it is an activist stab at the heart of the Constitution and the Bible (two documents that are mostly indistinguishable, it would seem, to a large number of Americans). But if a Supreme Court or judge stamps out equality and human rights with religious fervor and deliberate malice, they aren't being activists, but are in fact upholding the constitution-- or the Bible, y'know, whichever one you like better.

Dick stands up

For once, I am happy with the trajectory of the Republicans.

Can you believe that Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney are now officially being sought after for their ADVICE on what the party should do?! The Republican faithful are apparently behind these fat old men lock-and-step. And even the ones who aren't apparently cannot come up with anything good.

I must assert that while I am not a fan of Dick Cheney, I do approve of his message: "Screw you, I'm preserving my own legacy." C'mon, you have to give this man, who is digging his political grave on Sunday morning talk shows, a little credit. Reagan's days of a "big tent" party are over, and Cheney is just bold-faced and stubborn enough to be out in front talking about it.

When your party has lost ground and relevance (think about the GOP's losing stances on health care, economic recovery, and torture), and you were primarily the one to blame, just OWN IT! What's the point of staying quiet, even though you've said virtually nothing for the last 8 years? What's the point of offering constructive criticism to the party that you just torpedoed? And what the hell is the point of talking about anything relevant, when your administration avoided any and everything relevant from Day One?

How much luckier can we get? Bush finally shuts up and exits the political arena, and his mean-as-fuck Number Two takes over the limelight!

So, Dick, my hat is off to you, and this Nero will fiddle as your party burns.