Her book is due out next Tuesday. I’ll not buy it, but I know many of you will. Just read it carefully, and, remember, please, John McCain is a good man. He simply chose poorly when he selected Palin as his running mate.

The Washington Post has a piece on the book by Jason Horowitz:

In the book, “Going Rogue: An American Life,” Palin contends that the McCain campaign stuck her with a $50,000 bill for the cost of her own vetting, botched the announcement of her teenage daughter’s pregnancy, outfitted Palin with all those infamous costly ensembles, and shielded her from reporters. Even so, Palin goes on to belittle two famous interlocutors, Katie Couric and Charles Gibson, according to the Associated Press, which found and purchased a copy of the book before its sale date.

There is no way I believe that John McCain stuck Sarah Palin with a $50,000 tab to pay for her own vetting. I don’t know John McCain, but I have friends who do. I respect their opinion. McCain is honorable to the core of his being. He ran for President of the United States and lost, but he ran well.

Palin is way off base.

Yahoo News did a fact check, and all members of GOP even considering the possibility of backing Palin for president should read it — and remember she resigned from her executive position as governor of Alaska. How could we possibly trust her to serve the people of the United States of America when she selfishly abandoned every man, woman and child in Alaska?

Here’s Yahoo News:

Ignoring substantial parts of her record if not the facts, she depicts herself as a frugal traveler on the taxpayer’s dime, a reformer without ties to powerful interests and a politician roguishly indifferent to high ambition.

Palin goes adrift, at times, on more contemporary issues, too. She criticizes President Barack Obama for pushing through a bailout package that actually was achieved by his Republican predecessor George W. Bush — a package she seemed to support at the time.

Here’s a taste of what Yahoo News uncovered:

• Sarah Palin was not frugal or financially responsible when traveling on state business in Alaska;
• Palin did not run her campaign for governor on small donations, unless $500 is pocket change for Alaskans;
• Palin wrongly attributes the taxpayer-financed bank bailouts to President Obama, which instead John McCain voted for and President Bush signed into law;
• The current recession is far worse than anything President Ronald Reagan faced. Palin is wrong to say otherwise;
• Alaska is hardly libertarian. It is one of the states most dependent on federal subsidies.

There are more here.

Palin is no conservative.  She is a Movement Conservative politician, cut from the same cloth as those self-serving and socially malevolent mega-corporations that have torn to shreds the economy of the  United States States of America.

Conservatives need leaders capable of critical thinking, capable of grappling with complex ideas independently,  beyond blind devotion to ideology.

Sarah Palin will forever be about one thing and one thing only: Sarah Palin.

Tonight, in an historic vote, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would finally make real the promise of quality, affordable health care for the American people.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act is a piece of legislation that will provide stability and security for Americans who have insurance; quality affordable options for those who don’t; and bring down the cost of health care for families, businesses, and the government while strengthening the financial health of Medicare. And it is legislation that is fully paid for and will reduce our long-term federal deficit.

Thanks to the hard work of the House, we are just two steps away from achieving health insurance reform in America. Now the United States Senate must follow suit and pass its version of the legislation. I am absolutely confident it will, and I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year.

Source: whitehouse.gov

Only one Republican crossed the aisle. Only one.

We need more conservatives with courage from the United States Senate.

We need Republicans with the courage to cross the aisle. We need Republicans who realize that it is more important to represent the American people than it is to represent insurance companies, no matter how much they pay to campaigns.

I want to make that clear: the debate in this country is about health insurance reform. Our conservative friends in Congress accept incredible amounts of money from the health insurance industry. They are tainted and completely unable to participate in this debate objectively. Personally, I have had enough the whole lot of these ruffians in Congress and in the health insurance industry who are amassing mountains of wealth while this nation’s poor die from a lack of or inadequate health care.

We must support all who live in this country, not just the rich. As long as I have worked in finance, I have had coddle the egos of countless wealthy individuals who were convinced that God gave them their wealth, that God had somehow rewarded them for being rich. I have heard far too many times the rich who believed they were entitled to their wealth.

These are the kind of people I have worked with and for.

From Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois:

This week I had an opportunity most Americans would relish, just as I did. I was able to unload on two top executives of Goldman Sachs who descended from on high to my office because I clearly needed some educating. One was a Vice President and the other their Chief Risk Officer.

I had authored a letter on October 28, along with Congressman Peter Welch, that read, “We understand Goldman Sachs is expected to award its employees $21 billion in bonuses this year…Goldman Sachs is good at what it does, but its profits this year…were supplemented by the generous financial support of American taxpayers. In particular, Goldman Sachs benefited from a taxpayer payment of $12.9 billion from AIG on credit default swaps, insurance lending, and other contractual obligations between the two firms. AIG’s payment to Goldman Sachs was, in fact, a taxpayer payment…Should taxpayers be repaid the $12.9 billion before bonuses are distributed to Goldman employees? We believe they should. We therefore urge Goldman Sachs to repay taxpayers the $12.9 billion it received from them through AIG.”

The letter was signed “Sincerely” and I let them know just how sincerely I felt about it.

Amazingly, these visitors from another planet told me with very straight faces that I must realize that the $21 billion in bonuses were “accrued” bonuses. “Aaaaah,” I nodded. “That will make all the difference in the world to my constituents who are losing their homes as well as their jobs.” That’s when I asked them exactly which planet they were in fact from.

“Forgive me for saying this,” I said disingenuously, “but neither of you, as smart as you surely are, is worth 4,000 of my constituents,” referring to the difference in the average salary of top executives in the financial sector and the average working person.

“Well we can’t compare our employees with minimum wage workers,” they pointed out. “We know that a $10 million salary sounds like a lot of money, but we are trying to get people who can make double that (that would be $20 million, I quickly calculated in my head) elsewhere. It’s what the market demands.”

Rep. Schakowsky represents the 9th Congressional District north of the city of Chicago. The district includes Evanston, Skokia, Morton Grove, and Rosemont, among others. This is hardly an area of “minimum wage workers.” I promise you there is wealth in that district, in spite of the recession.

I regret that I must admit: the current Republican members of Congress serve the likes of these super-wealthy at Goldman Sachs who are without conscience.

Here are the facts: the world’s other Democratic spend less on health care, provide health care for all, and their citizens live longer.

These are the most recent health care statistics from the World Health Organization for the United States and other democratic nations:

Statistics for the United States:

Total population: 302,841,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 44,070

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 75/80

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 67/71

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 8

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 137/80

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 6,714

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 15.3

Statistics from Canada:

Total population: 32,577,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 36,280

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 78/83

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 70/74

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 6

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 89/55

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 3,672

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 10.0

Statistics from France:

Total population: 61,330,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 32,240

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 77/84

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 69/75

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 5

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 124/57

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 3,554

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 11.1

Statistics from the United Kingdom:

Total population: 60,512,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 33,650

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 77/81

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 69/72

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 6

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 98/61

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 2,784

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 8.4

Statistics from Germany:

Total population: 82,641,000

Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 32,680

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years): 77/82

Healthy life expectancy at birth m/f (years, 2003): 70/74

Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 5

Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population): 106/55

Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2006): 3,328

Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2006): 10.4

This must change now. Our Republican colleagues have brought nothing forward that even begins to change the horrible state of the health insurance industry in the United States, and I regret that Republicans have removed themselves from the debate. They should be ashamed. They could have participated. Instead, they gave up.

I urge my the true Conservatives in this country to call their Representatives in Congress and support health care reform.

Government working to keep people alive is not socialism. Government keeps people alive through a strong national defense, with guns and bombs.  A strong military is not socialism.  Keeping people alive is not socialism.

Life is the only entitlement that matters here. Conserving life by working to provide health care for the citizens of this country is the definition of conservatism.

We urge the Republican Party to support health care reform for all Americans.

Instead, we read only jeering from FOX News:

In a clear dig at former President George W. Bush, a State Department spokesman compared President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize to the flying footwear his predecessor faced in Iraq.

“From our standpoint, you know, we think that this gives us a sense of momentum … when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes,” State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters on Friday.

Crowley was referring to a 2008 incident in which an Iraqi reporter hurled his shoe at Bush during a news conference in Baghdad. The act of protest struck a chord with millions in the Arab and Muslim worlds who had been captivated and angered by daily images of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

This is from the only article on the FOX News home page this evening relating to the honor afforded the president today:
State Department Lauds Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize by Making Jab at Bush.

This is not a dig at former President Bush. This is the truth. It was not a long ago that President Bush stood at a podium and dodged shoes thrown at him. Look:

FOX News should be cheering the fact that the United States of America has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Instead, FOX News is still fixated with former President Bush.

We should all cheer America today. This is our day.

We’re finished with FOX News.

Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kans.) told reporters on Wednesday that opposition to the president’s health care package was driven, in part, by knee-jerk partisanship and he urged Congressional Republicans to consider backing a version of reform.

The 1996 Republican presidential candidate also predicted, following a speech at a health care reform summit in Kansas, that “there will be a signing ceremony” for a reform bill sometime this year or early in 2010.

But the comments that seem likely to create the most ripples were those that dealt with Congressional opposition to the White House. Dole, according to reports, framed the pushback to Barack Obama’s reform agenda as almost perfunctory in nature.

“Sometimes people fight you just to fight you,” he said, according to The Kansas City Star. “They don’t want Reagan to get it, they don’t want Obama to get it, so we’ve got to kill it…”

“Health care is one of those things,” he added. “Now we’ve got to do something.”

In a statement to the Huffington Post, an aide to the former majority leader clarified that Dole “believed there is an opportunity to do something on health care” but that he wasn’t urging Republicans to simply get on board a final package.

I have been watching this debate closely, and I’m not pleased with the Republican reaction to the need for reform.  The GOP must realize the need for reform.  I believe Republicans outside of Congress get it.  Those who currently hold seats in Congress have become radicalized.  They are simply incapable of participating in rational debate.

Is there anyone in the GOP who can lead and participate in the crucial discussions we need to have in this country?

Personally, sometimes I can relate more with the Conservative Democrats than with the radical fringe holding power in the GOP.  Is there no one left who can discuss issues?

Bob Dole is right.

Albert

All of it.

We almost cringe to write this, but we must return to the economic philosophy of the New Deal.  Otherwise, America is lost.

And all she holds dear.

The wealth of most conservatives will vanish.  There is a finite amount of money in the world’s economy, and a small percentage of people holding vast amounts of that wealth leads will only result in a few people holding the majority of the wealth.

That is happening now.  And a gilded economy will bring down America.

I must ask, are you married to an ideology, or are you capable of discussing ideas?

Drop your ideology.  Let’s talk IDEAS.

Unbridled capitalism will return us to a gilded age. And, if that happens, most of us will lose our wealth.

The only way conservatism will survive is if enough conservatives have money.  And that means we must be learn to accept and be comfortable with less.

Unbridled capitalism will return us to a gilded age. And, if that happens, most conservatives  will lose their wealth.

By William Herman

Karl Marx was wrong about a lot of things. He was a heavy drinker who rarely worked a day in his life. Instead he opted to hang out at the library and pontificate on issues out of context with his personal reality.

But ‘ol Karl hit one nail on the head….Dialectics. ..The concept of the pendulum swing of social thought and behavior. The notion that social behavior and action tends to move from one extreme to another.

Moving forward to the year of our Lord 2000 A.D., George W. Bush was elected president of the United States by the slimmest of margins. Under the banner of “Compassionate Conservatism”, George W. became our 43rd president.

Early on in his presidency, Bush was faced w/dealing with the worst catastrophe to hit American soil. To his credit, he responded righteously. With megaphone in hand, the former Yale cheerleader rallied America to come together as a nation. He crafted a solid plan to hold those accountable for their horrific acts on 9/11. It was his finest hour.

But beyond 9/11, the Bush presidency was flat and ineffectual. Though necessary, the war in Afghanistan and the amassing of the ginormous Office of Homeland Security, came w/heavy financial burdens. And despite being a nation at war, he pushed forward tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which further exacerbated fiscal concerns.

Bush continued to spend money like a drunken sailor. What has now been proven to be a war entered under false premises, the second combat offensive in Iraq began. While some argued the removal of ‘the Butcher of Bagdad’ justified the means, others countered the lose of life and added fiscal burdens did not.

On the home front, lax banking regulations and even laxer enforcement, opened the doors for Wall St speculators to essentially rape and pillage, amassing unheard of and undeserved fortunes. Wall St. CEO pay continued its meteoric rise, while the standard of living of most everyone else declined.

At the other end of the financial spectrum was Hurricane Katrina. The dismal failure of the FEMA response and the visual images thereof, left little doubt in the minds of most Americans, that “Compassionate Conservatism’ was a sham. It became clear America was broken.

Finally, at the end of Bush’s 2nd term, the 300 lb. gorilla entered the room. Soaring budget deficits, the housing and banking debacles, and rising unemployment created a perfect storm. Bush’s response….give everybody a check for $1000, and a two page plan to rescue banks. Not only was this response woefully inadequate, it exposed the naivety and lack of vision of the Bush administration…..The pendulum of social change had furiously swung, and opened the door for sweeping change.

To date, the verdict is out on who will heed the lessons of historical dialectics. While the Obama administration continues to bring its vision of sweeping change, it is doing so on the thin ice of mounting fiscal deficits. Both, how much Obama’s plans will cost, and how much debt the American taxpayer can stomach is still open for debate.

What is not open for debate, is the need for the Republican party to redefine it’s line of conservatism. Conservatism needs to recognize the falling economic expectations of the middle and lower classes. It needs to be more inclusive to changing American demographics. And while it clearly must grab the mantra of fiscal responsibility, in need do so in a manner consistent to both these new ethnic and economic demographics.

Republicans must move beyond their current path as ‘the party of No’. They must redefine themselves as the party with new conservative ideas. Otherwise, conservatism as we know it, is doomed to extinction. And with its demise, so too will Liberalism come crashing down; because ‘the Left’ simply cannot exist without ‘a Right.’…..Such are the lessons of dialectics.

We fought the term movement conservative the first time we heard it, believing it to be yet another polemical liberal rant.

Online, we find two opposing definitions of movement conservativism.  We disagree with this one, from the so-called Conservapedia:

A movement conservative is one who supports all or nearly all conservative principles with a coherent philosophy, and who advances broad conservative goals both individually and through teamwork. This is contrasted with cafeteria, or single-issue, or self-serving approaches.

Put another way, a movement conservative is a conservative who seeks to help others, and the nation, by explaining, advocating and defending the logical and beneficial conservative approach. A movement conservative is not primarily seeking political gain for himself, but advocates the insights and values of conservatism for the benefit of others.

Prominent movement conservatives, according to Conservapedia, include former President Ronald Reagan, the late Senator Jesse Helms, the late Congressman John Ashbrook, Phyllis Schlafly, Justice Clarence Thomas, John Bolton, and Rush Limbaugh.

We’ve already discussed and dismissed Limbaugh, although we’re pleased to do so again.

Nowhere in the above definition do the words “critical thinking” or “critical thinker” appear.  The people listed in the Conservapedia entry were or are very divisive.  Senator Jesse Helms was no thinker. And, yes, we supported Ronald Reagan, but he exploded the deficit.  We gave in to greed, and we regret it.

Here  is another definition of movement conservatism from Soulfource:

Movement Conservatism is a self-serving and socially malevolent cabal of mega-corporations, right-wing think tanks in Washington, their archconservative foundation benefactors, and an intricate nationwide network of linkages in the communications media, religion, higher education, and law. It has been called the “conservative labyrinth,” and common to all its elements is a theology of “free markets,” an ideology coming to full bloom in the Administration of George W. Bush. Today, the G.O.P. seeks to impose it at every turn.

Yes, we know both of these sources are terribly biased.

But that’s our point.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle.  Washington, D.C. has become polarized, and this needs to stop.  The movement conservatives are running our Grand Old Party into the ground.  If they are permitted to continue their destructive course, they will reduce it to the size where they can “…drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub,” to paraphrase Grover Norquist.

Government is not the problem.  Movement conservatives are the problem, and they’re ruining our party.  The Republican Party must disown them.

We desperately need the leadership and direction from those who still have a spark of moderation, like Senator John McCain.

The Tea Parties must stop.  The Birthers must be silenced.  As it stands now, wise conservative voices are lost in the bedlam of movement conservatism.  The inmates are running the asylum.  We must take our party back and focus once again on ideas, not ideology.

We must ask ourselves, which do we love more: the United States of America, or the noise lunacy our current Republican leaders substitute for leadership?

We are not pleased with Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), who stood up and heckled the President of the United States this evening during the President’s speech.

Beyond that, we’ll add more later.

Washington, D.C.– Below is the full text of President Obama’s address on health care to the Joint Session of Congress:

***

Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, Members of Congress, and the American people:

When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month. Credit was frozen. And our financial system was on the verge of collapse.

As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods. A full and vibrant recovery is many months away. And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them; until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive; until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes. That is our ultimate goal. But thanks to the bold and decisive action we have taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.

I want to thank the members of this body for your efforts and your support in these last several months, and especially those who have taken the difficult votes that have put us on a path to recovery. I also want to thank the American people for their patience and resolve during this trying time for our nation.

But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came to build a future. So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future – and that is the issue of health care.

I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform. And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.

Our collective failure to meet this challenge – year after year, decade after decade – has led us to a breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can’t get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed, and can’t afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer. Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover.

We are the only advanced democracy on Earth – the only wealthy nation – that allows such hardships for millions of its people. There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone.

But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem of the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today. More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you’ll lose your health insurance too. More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won’t pay the full cost of care. It happens every day.

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn’t reported gallstones that he didn’t even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it. Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size. That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.

Then there’s the problem of rising costs. We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages. It’s why so many employers – especially small businesses – are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely. It’s why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete internationally – like our automakers – are at a huge disadvantage. And it’s why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it – about $1000 per year that pays for somebody else’s emergency room and charitable care.

Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close.

These are the facts. Nobody disputes them. We know we must reform this system. The question is how.

There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada’s, where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everyone. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.

I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch. And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the past several months.

During that time, we have seen Washington at its best and its worst.

We have seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform. Of the five committees asked to develop bills, four have completed their work, and the Senate Finance Committee announced today that it will move forward next week. That has never happened before. Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses; hospitals, seniors’ groups and even drug companies – many of whom opposed reform in the past. And there is agreement in this chamber on about eighty percent of what needs to be done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been.

But what we have also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward their own government. Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.

Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on health care.

The plan I’m announcing tonight would meet three basic goals:

It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don’t. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. It’s a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge – not just government and insurance companies, but employers and individuals. And it’s a plan that incorporates ideas from Senators and Congressmen; from Democrats and Republicans – and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election.

Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan:

First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.

What this plan will do is to make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies – because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.

That’s what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan – more security and stability.

Now, if you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans who don’t currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It’s how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it’s time to give every American the same opportunity that we’ve given ourselves.

For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need. And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned. This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who can’t get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill. This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it’s a good idea now, and we should embrace it.

Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those – particularly the young and healthy – who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers. The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don’t sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for those people’s expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don’t provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek – especially requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions – just can’t be achieved.

That’s why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance – just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. Likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers. There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage, and 95% of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements. But we cannot have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees. Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part.

While there remain some significant details to be ironed out, I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance, an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage, and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance.

And I have no doubt that these reforms would greatly benefit Americans from all walks of life, as well as the economy as a whole. Still, given all the misinformation that’s been spread over the past few months, I realize that many Americans have grown nervous about reform. So tonight I’d like to address some of the key controversies that are still out there.

Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.

My health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a "government takeover" of the entire health care system. As proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly-sponsored insurance option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare.

So let me set the record straight. My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly – by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.

Insurance executives don’t do this because they are bad people. They do it because it’s profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill; they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called "Wall Street’s relentless profit expectations."

Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. The insurance reforms that I’ve already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear – it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up.

Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don’t like this idea. They argue that these private companies can’t fairly compete with the government. And they’d be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won’t be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers. It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.

It’s worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I’ve proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn’t be exaggerated – by the left, the right, or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and should not be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end – and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.

For example, some have suggested that that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others propose a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can’t find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.

Finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, to members of this chamber, and to the public – and that is how we pay for this plan.

Here’s what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I’m serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don’t materialize. Part of the reason I faced a trillion dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for – from the Iraq War to tax breaks for the wealthy. I will not make that same mistake with health care.

Second, we’ve estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system – a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care doesn’t make us healthier. That’s not my judgment – it’s the judgment of medical professionals across this country. And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid.

In fact, I want to speak directly to America’s seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that’s been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate.

More than four decades ago, this nation stood up for the principle that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years. That is how Medicare was born. And it remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next. That is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.

The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies – subsidies that do everything to pad their profits and nothing to improve your care. And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead.

These steps will ensure that you – America’s seniors – get the benefits you’ve been promised. They will ensure that Medicare is there for future generations. And we can use some of the savings to fill the gap in coverage that forces too many seniors to pay thousands of dollars a year out of their own pocket for prescription drugs. That’s what this plan will do for you. So don’t pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut – especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past, and just this year supported a budget that would have essentially turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program. That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare.

Now, because Medicare is such a big part of the health care system, making the program more efficient can help usher in changes in the way we deliver health care that can reduce costs for everybody. We have long known that some places, like the Intermountain Healthcare in Utah or the Geisinger Health System in rural Pennsylvania, offer high-quality care at costs below average. The commission can help encourage the adoption of these common-sense best practices by doctors and medical professionals throughout the system – everything from reducing hospital infection rates to encouraging better coordination between teams of doctors.

Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. Much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers. This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money – an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts. And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long-run.

Finally, many in this chamber – particularly on the Republican side of the aisle – have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care. I don’t believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So I am proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know that the Bush Administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues. It’s a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today.

Add it all up, and the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years – less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration. Most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent – but spent badly – in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.

This is the plan I’m proposing. It’s a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight – Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.

But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now.

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true.

That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed – the ones who suffer silently, and the ones who shared their stories with us at town hall meetings, in emails, and in letters.

I received one of those letters a few days ago. It was from our beloved friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy. He had written it back in May, shortly after he was told that his illness was terminal. He asked that it be delivered upon his death.

In it, he spoke about what a happy time his last months were, thanks to the love and support of family and friends, his wife, Vicki, and his children, who are here tonight . And he expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform – "that great unfinished business of our society," he called it – would finally pass. He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that "it concerns more than material things." "What we face," he wrote, "is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."

I’ve thought about that phrase quite a bit in recent days – the character of our country. One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government. And figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always been a source of rigorous and sometimes angry debate.

For some of Ted Kennedy’s critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to American liberty. In their mind, his passion for universal health care was nothing more than a passion for big government.

But those of us who knew Teddy and worked with him here – people of both parties – know that what drove him was something more. His friend, Orrin Hatch, knows that. They worked together to provide children with health insurance. His friend John McCain knows that. They worked together on a Patient’s Bill of Rights. His friend Chuck Grassley knows that. They worked together to provide health care to children with disabilities.

On issues like these, Ted Kennedy’s passion was born not of some rigid ideology, but of his own experience. It was the experience of having two children stricken with cancer. He never forgot the sheer terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly sick; and he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance; what it would be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent – there is something that could make you better, but I just can’t afford it.

That large-heartedness – that concern and regard for the plight of others – is not a partisan feeling. It is not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character. Our ability to stand in other people’s shoes. A recognition that we are all in this together; that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand. A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.

This has always been the history of our progress. In 1933, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism. But the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it. In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down. They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind.

You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter – that at that point we don’t merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.

What was true then remains true today. I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road – to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.

But that’s not what the moment calls for. That’s not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it’s hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history’s test.

Because that is who we are. That is our calling. That is our character. Thank you, God Bless You, and may God Bless the United States of America.

We believe that we Conservatives have lost our souls. We believe that Movement Conservatives have hijacked the Conservative movement, that capitalism is not defined by greed, and that Conservatives want to work for a positive vision of America.

We are not interested in shrinking government “down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub,” as Grover Norquist infamously suggested. Rather, we assert the need for the right amount of government. We as conservatives must accept government as a necessary evil, and want to use it for the benefit of all.

Finally, as we are fearful of losing our immortal souls. We at The Conservative News Digest embrace our Christian roots, the Christ who calls us in Matthew 25:31-46, The Parable of the Last Judgment, to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the sick, etc. etc.

We have had it with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who turned the United States government into a national patronage system to fatten their own wallets. We do not follow their philosophy.

Please stop by often and help us rebuild Conservative America.