OBAMA GIVES WONDERFUL SPEECH, CITES TED KENNEDY'S LETTER URGING PASSAGE OF UNIVERSAL HEALTH COVERAGE

A wonderful, luminous and moving speech tonight by Pres. Barack Obama. Especially towards the end, when Obama spoke, it seemed to me, directly to the Republican nay-sayers, recounting Ted Kennedy's letter shortly before his death, urging universal health care reform to cover all Americans.

KUDLOW, KERNEN, BARTIROMO AT CNBC - NO PITY FOR AMERICANS WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE

I have a suggestion regarding the constant put-down on CNBC of the public option for health care reform. Take away the health insurance of Larry Kudlow, Joe Kernen, Maria Bartiromo, Michelle Cabruso Cabrera and Dennis Kneale. Have I forgotten any of the CNBC Republican zealots and ideologues?

Then let's see their reaction if and when they get sick. Let's see how Kudlow deals with his doctor when he is asked about insurance. Let's observe what Bartiromo does when she needs to be admitted to the hospital. Let's watch at Dennis Kneale if he needs prescriptions filled at his local pharmacy but he does not have insurance. All these CNBC smart guys and ladies without insurance will surely change their stingy argument against the public option and universal health care.

Joe Kernen is especially obnoxious in his denunciations of the Democratic bill for health care reform. Kernen says the country "cannot afford it." Take away his insurance and see what he does and how he behaves and whether he then thinks that the U.S. can afford universal coverage.

There are some forty million + Americans without health insurance who hope and pray that they never become sick. When some do, they are forced to demean themselves and become beggars at their local hospital's emergency room. No one should have to endure the humiliation and the debasement entailed.

We need a public option and we need universal health care. The meanies like Cabruso and Kneale at CNBC huff and puff right now against the plan because they have CNBC's health coverage. But this might not last, their jobs may disappear, they may become unemployed and thus uncovered by any plan. But don't feel sorry for them, they feel no pity for their fellow citizens who live from day to day right now without insurance.

DON'T TRUST REPUBLICANS ON HEALTH CARE REFORM

Time is running out. I don't approve of the delay asked by the Blue Dogs and the meanie Republicans on the Democrats' health care reform bill. The Republicans were against Social Security retirement income back in 1936. Imagine the devastating effect on retirees and older people if the Congress had not passed that bill back then. The Republicans were against Medicare in 1965. Again without Medicare seniors would have no health insurance and thus be deprived of health care. Today, the U.S. is facing an even more important and critical question: do we want to see every American, man, woman, child, covered by adequate health insurance? The Republicans obviously oppose the program as "too costly." But if we left it to the Republicans, there would be no Social Security, no Medicare, and no universal health insurance coverage.

NEWS HOUR WITH JIM LEHRER THINKS IT NEEDS TO INCLUDE MEAN REPUBLICANS AND BLUE DOGS IN DISCUSSION ABOUT HEALTH CARE REFORM

Why must The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer shown tonight on PBS stations insist on trying to be "neutral" when it comes to health care reform? There are some 40+ million people here in the U.S. who have no health insurance, and thus who remain subject to financial ruin in the event of serious illness. The U.S. faces this enormous health crisis with millions uninsured, and Jim Lehrer abetted by Judy Woodruff decide to extend to the Republicans equal treatment on the program tonight, the same Republicans and Blue Dogs who would deny health coverage to the uninsured.

REPUBLICANS TRY TO DEFEAT OBAMA'S HEALTH PLAN GRANTING COVERAGE TO ALL AMERICANS

The Republicans seem like they are going all out to defeat Obama's reform of health care. They want to delay, amend, discuss, procrastinate, all with the aim of killing the first serious attempt to extend health care coverage to everyone, including the 40+ million Americans without any health insurance.

Think Progress reports today in a story written by Ben Ambruster that the Huffington Post obtained a secret memo put out by the Republican National Committee:

"After following GOP pollster Frank Luntz’s advice to demonize President Obama’s health care plan by distorting it, many conservatives have recently embraced a new obstructionist tactic: delay any reform measure going through Congress for as long as possible. The Republican National Committee is giving the strategy its official stamp of approval. In a 12-page memo obtained by the Huffington Post, the RNC urges Republicans to “engage in every activity we can to slow down” health care reform:

"In particular, the 12-page memo makes the case that it is a Republican priority to slow down the consideration of health care reform before it can become codified.

"“The Republican National Committee will engage in every activity we can to slow down this mad rush while promoting sensible alternatives that address health care costs and preserve quality,” the memo affirmatively declares."

The Republicans hated Social Security Retirement Income when that was passed in 1936; they hated Medicare in 1966; now they hate extending health insurance coverage to the uninsured. The Republicans call it "socialized medicine" when we Democrats insist that everyone has a right to full and competent health care. They would rather keep the 40+ million Americans without health insurance than have the country commit to make sure that everyone is insured.

HOW COULD AMA OPPOSE GOVERNMENT SPONSORED HEALTH PLAN?

How could the American Medical Association come out against a government-sponsored public plan in universal health coverage? Without a public plan, private insurance companies will still make health care unaffordable to millions. Does the AMA's opposition represent the views of most primary care givers?

OBAMA TO PUSH UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN

The New York Times has its main story today a report by Sheryl Gay Stolberg on Obama's intentions to wade into the nuts and bolts of the Democrats' proposals on universal health insurance and push universal health insurance coverage. Many Democrats, including myself, want a universal single-payor health insurance plan run by the government. "Single payor" means that the government, after collecting premiums from enrollees, would negotiate rates and payments to all health providers, such as physicians and hospitals.

Reports Stolberg:

"Mindful of the failures of former President Bill Clinton, whose intricate proposal for universal care collapsed on Capitol Hill 15 years ago, Mr. Obama until now had charted a different course, setting forth broad principles and concentrating on bringing disparate factions — doctors, insurers, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, labor unions — to the negotiating table.

"But Mr. Obama has grown concerned that he is losing the debate over certain policy prescriptions he favors, like a government-run insurance plan to compete with the private sector, said one Democrat familiar with his thinking. With Congress beginning a burst of work on the measure, top advisers say, the president is determined to make certain the final bill bears his stamp."

It is about time. So far, Democratic Senator Max Baucus, head of the Senate Finance committee which is drawing up plans on health care, has refused to entertain a government-run plan featuring single-payor characteristics. Baucus has even ejected groups of physicians and nurses who have protested at senate hearings about the lack of consideration for such an option. There are some 40 million Americans without any health insurance. This is a huge political scandal in a country as rich and productive as the U.S. Many Republicans as well as insurance companies would be happy to leave the situation as it is, or as George Bush once said, allow these uninsured to receive their health needs in the emergency rooms of local hospitals. But this is a cruel and inhumane solution to the problem of health care. Obama needs to get involved and push health insurance coverage for all before it is too late.

CNBC'S DENNIS KNEALE SPOUTS REPUBLICAN SPIN ON TAX INCREASES

I happened to catch CNBC's Dennis Kneale last night railing against the supposed tax increases of the Democrats and Barack Obama. Kneale claimed that Obama was destroying profit motives on Wall Street by raising taxes on those guys making more than $250K. After all, Kneale said, greed is really good. And Obama wants to change that! And as if that were not awful enough, Kneale said that Obama was trying to raise taxes on utilities!

If Kneale wants to defend greed, what does he have to say about the practices of Bernie Madoff or Sir Allen Stanford, about whom CNBC this very evening is running one of its "specials?" I suppose Kneale will try to defend Madoff for wasting over 50 billion of his clients' assets in the interest of buying chateaus in France or mansions in Florida. Perhaps Kneale will even come to Stanford's defense by saying that he was motivated by "greed," greed being "good," so Stanford's alleged stealing of billions from depositors in his banks was merely an innocent pursuit of "greed."

And as to taxes, what does Kneale say about Obama's plan for universal health care? Sure, Kneale himself has health care provided by CNBC, but how about the millions of families living day-to-day with fears of someone getting sick and needing emergency medical care? This is what government is for, and what taxes are for - to take care of citizens who are faced with life's catastrophes and who don't have the means to buy their own medical insurance. So which would Kneale prefer? - low taxes or universal health insurance for all?

WHY DOES ABC'S CHARLES GIBSON PUT DOWN EARLY VOTING?

I saw Charles Gibson of ABC News argue last night that early voting was a bad idea, because early voters would cast their votes without complete information.

Oh, yeah! Gibson's argument sounds to me much like the Republican line that too many Democrats are voting early and therefore the government should prohibit early voting.

This campaign has been going on for the last two years. Why Gibson would ever imagine that voters deprive themselves of essential information by voting two weeks early is beyond me.

I voted for Barach Obama and have a pretty good idea of what Obama means for the political future. Nothing John McCain could say in the last week is going to change my mind.

I want a progressive change where tax policy is built upon sensible foundations. Where the government does something about global warming. Where health care is provided for all Americans. And above all, where the war in Iraq is brought to a speedy close.

Gibson wants to restrain people like me from voting early. I sense a partisan reason behind his argument. Maybe because he knows that most of the early voters favor Obama.

77% REPUBLICAN DELEGATES WANT TAX REDUCTIONS OVER UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

I mentioned the NY Times/CBS poll in an earlier post today. One other point stands out.

The poll asked, which is most important to you: that the government provide adequate health insurance for everyone or that taxes be lowered. A whopping 77% of Republican delegates choose lower taxes. That is shameful! To put reduction of taxes in front of universal health care means that these Republicans don't give a damn about those who cannot afford health care premiums. Let them go to the emergency room! That's the Republican response and it's mean and incredibly selfish.

To be fair, only 53% of Republican voters choose tax reductions over providing universal health coverage, but it is still a majority of Republicans who think this way. How can anyone vote Republican when they would put personal profit over allowing everyone to have adequate health care?

LET'S ADOPT UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL

Paul O'Neill, former Secretary of the Treasury in W's first two years, writes an interesting op-ed in today's The New York Times proposing universal catastrophic medical insurance for all Americans.

Writes O'Neill:

"The two organizing principles would be that the costs of catastrophic care would be spread across the population through insurance, and that while the high costs of serious medical problems would be covered, there would still be large deductibles for most Americans for initial care. (These could be paid out of pocket, or consumers could take out supplemental insurance to cover them.)"

But why can't we as an affluent society provide not only catastrophe insurance but universal health care to all? Instead of wasting billions on the disastrous war in Iraq every month, we could provide not only children, not only seniors, but everyone with both hospital and doctors' care, including universal coverage for prescription drugs.

The only thing stopping such universal health care are the Republicans, like George W. Bush. He has called the S-CHIP program a step towards "socialization of medicine," and "nationalization of health care." The other Republican presidential candidates, like Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, mimic Bush's fear of universal coverage. Heck, they would rather have kids go to the emergency room and wait five hours for care rather than allow universal health care. Of course, Bush, Romney and Giuliani all have super health care, government provided from their times in office.