About Me

My photo
Nazareth, Pa., United States

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Still No Word From Callahan on Health Care Reform ... or Anything Else

LV Congressman Charlie Dent's NO vote on Pelosi care has drawn the ire of some of his constituents. In the Morning Call letter-to-the-editor, one reader chides Dent for caving in to Big Insurance. And blogger Rylock is convinced Charlie has sold out to Big Insurance because, after all, he ... gasp! ... has accepted contributions from them.

Last election cycle, it was Big Oil. I think some people spotted him driving a tanker one night. He must have been laid off.

Actually, one of the reasons Dent voted against Pelosi care is precisely because it does cater to the insurance industry. In the news release explaining his NO vote, Dent says this. “It’s bad for Americans because it won’t reduce health care costs — in fact many will see increased costs — and it will cause millions of working Americans to lose their current coverage." And this. "We can enact strong insurance market reforms that provide consumer protections and promote transparency."

As explained in The New Yorker, hardly known as a conservative publication, "The White House has reached a deal with the big health insurers, such as Aetna and CIGNA. In return for the industry’s agreeing to cover people with pre-existing health conditions, and making various other more minor concessions, the government will force more than twenty million new customers into its arms."

Our health care system is broken for two reasons. First, too many people are uncovered. Second, it's too costly. Although Pelosi care addresses the lack of coverage, it falls on its face when it comes to addressing our spiralling health care costs. Sure, a C.B.O. analysis promises savings by reducing Medicare payments, but does anyone really believes this? Once again, as explained in The New Yorker, "For decades now, Congress has been promising to reduce the growth of Medicare outlays, and yet every year they continue to go up. The reasons are straightforward: the population is aging; seniors are politically active; and health-care treatments, particularly for the aging, continue to evolve in complex and costly ways."

Pelosi care is nonsense. But instead of responding to bloggers and letter writers, shouldn't we really know how Congressional candidate John Callahan feels about this burning issue? Dent is attacked by Callahan supporters for taking a stand on an issue that will impact our grandchildren, while they have no problem with his silence.

The Callahan Silence Clock started ticking as of August 14, 2009 when he was first approached by a reporter regarding his stand on health care and he bravely responded with a “no comment.”

Now that his mayoral election and Musikfest are over and he’s down to running for just one office instead of two, you’d think he’d start telling the people he means to represent just what he stands for – but no. Callahan either is unwilling or unable to provide a simple answer to the most pressing question before not just the people in the 15th Congressional District but to the entire country.

“Maybe it’s smart politics to avoid controversial issues, but it sure isn’t the kind of leadership people want in Washington,” says Dent campaign manager Shawn Millan. “Once you’re a candidate you owe answers. Pat Toomey, challenger for Senate, talks about issues regularly. Even Siobhan Bennett, in her disastrous run, at least talked about issues while running for Congress from the start. John won’t tell anybody anything about why he wants to be in Congress, let alone why anyone except Nancy Pelosi would want him there.”

48 comments:

Anonymous said...

As a Democrat I have to say that if Callahan doesnt take a pro-healthcare stand, he might as well not bother.

Anonymous said...

Again, as a Democrat I am not interested in Callahans opinion right now since it means no more than mine.

Stop making excuses for Dent. The time is now to stand and deliver, not next years election.

Dent has done nothing but give the Republican line as enunciated by Hannity, Palin and company.

No change is their change.

The Callahan snarks may have meaning if there is a vote scheluded for 2011. Today my congressman, for better or worse, is Charlie Dent and his vote matters, not what the Mayor of Bethlehem thinks.

You see we Dem's live in the real world and in that world, today only Dent gets a vote and on this issue is failing.

Anonymous said...

Conservatives despise Dent for his abortion stand. It's what gets him enough D votes in a D district to solidly hold the seat. A pro-abortion stance is sufficient inoculation against any serious challenge from Ds. Remember, Rs can't get Charlie elected. It takes lots of Ds. And Charlie enjoys the support of lots of Ds.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

Yes! I'm going to have so much fun with this tomorrow.

Thank you for, once again, throwing me a slow, hanging curveball.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

And, hey! I did my best to actually represent what you said in my post. You should try it sometime!

But I guess I understand that not all posts can be as lengthy and long-winded as mine are.

Anonymous said...

Who cares if Callahan has an opinion on health care now? His opinion on the subject has the same weight as mine, which is none.

Callahan has not taken an issue on any position as of now. It is not like he is avoiding one issue.

Dent is the elected Congressman (for now) and needs to be accountable to the people of the 15th for his votes.

Did you go on staff with the Dent Campaign? You sure seem to be backing your boy pretty hard.

Ask Dent how is that support from Bath Mayor Betty Fields going?

Bernie O'Hare said...

Rylock, I did my best, too. I even linked to your post, so that readers can see what you said for themselves. That's something you failed to do in your post discussing me.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

What? You've been linked in the first paragraph since day one -- twice!

Your name links to your profile and "may disagree on the solution, but they see eye-to-eye on the problem" links to your post.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Oh shit. So I am. Sorry about that, dude.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bernie O'Hare said...

I welcome your thoughts and love to argue. Feel free to disagree. But remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right. I will delete personal attacks or off-topic remarks.

Let's keep it above the belt.

Jon Geeting said...

Bernie, your defense of Dent's vote against the 23,000 uninsured in the district is hollow bullshit. Just admit you're wrong and respect your readers' intelligence. If Dent is some sort of anti-insurance industry hero, how do you explain his vote for the rancid GOP Alternative bill that deregulates the insurance industry and only covers 3 million additional people? Go ahead, I double dare you to square that with your previous spin.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Jonathan, I have every intention of posting a separate blog that specifically addresses why Dent's NO vote makes sense. Ryyloc has agreed to post an essay to explain why it does. I will post both of them here and let the readers decide.

I do not agree completely w/ Dent's position, but at least he has one, and it is his typically well-considered and rational approach.

I do think Pelosi care is a big mistake and doubt that anything close to that will pass muster in the Senate. Like the cap-and-trade energy bill, this House initiative will fail.

Our health care crisis does not exist merely bc there are people who have no insurance. I'd argue that a more imprtant question is the rising costs of health care. Pelosi care, in a deal w/ Big Insurance, does nothing to address that very serious problem. In addition, I reject the notion that this package will pay for itself. It will instead increase the defecit and anyone who does not realize this needs mental health care. :-)

I have no lock on the truth and welcome you abd Ryloc telling me why I'm wrong. Too bad your own Congressional candidate lacks your moral conviction.

Jon Geeting said...

Bernie, why can't you just admit that Dent's opposition to health care reform is based on pure politics? I'll put a finer point on my previous comment: Dent could have photocopied Dennis Kucinich's press release, put his own name on it, and released that as his reason for voting against the bill, and the two objections would STILL be different, because Dent would still be lying that he spent even a minute deciding whether he would vote for the Democratic bill. His vote was never gettable because there's no upside for Republicans in voting for health care reform. His position wasn't the result of some well-considered deliberation. It was never going to be Dent and Joseph Cao against the entire Republican caucus. His No vote was a foregone conclusion since Obama was elected in November 2008. I'll put my money where my mouth is: I'll bet you $200 of my meager non-profit salary that Dent doesn't break with the GOP House leadership on a single major issue for the rest of the 111th Congress. My aim is to prove to you that in the GOP rump, there's no daylight between the Tuesday Group and total retards like Michele Bachmann. Dent's moderate reputation doesn't mean shit if he arrives at the GOP line 100% of the time. And by that logic, the decision people have to make about the 2010 race is whether they want a minority party rep in Congress who will just throw bombs from the bench with his thumb up his ass, or if they want a majority party rep who will actually decide to participate in the business of legislating and can have an effect on the process. So what do you say? I've got $200 on Dent voting with the GOP leadership on every major issue for the rest of the 111th Congress.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

"I'll put my money where my mouth is: I'll bet you $200 of my meager non-profit salary that Dent doesn't break with the GOP House leadership on a single major issue for the rest of the 111th Congress."

I straight up love this.

Bernie, as an Obama-voter/Dent-lover, what are you going to do?

Oh, wait! I've got it. You should totally use this as excuse to bash Callahan over the casino! Dent-talking-point-machine: GO GO GO!

Ryan O'Donnell said...

(And I changed the name of my blog.)

http://rrrylock.blogspot.com

Bernie O'Hare said...

"Bernie, why can't you just admit that Dent's opposition to health care reform is based on pure politics?"

Because it's not true. I don't accept that and am more likely to see partisanship on the Democrati side.

"I'll bet you $200 of my meager non-profit salary that Dent doesn't break with the GOP House leadership on a single major issue for the rest of the 111th Congress."

You're on. I'm going to hate taking your money. Dent is already rated the 7th most liberal member in Congress.

Bernie O'Hare said...

And I changed the name of my blog.)

I see. You've gone from the imaginatice "Politics" to "Progressive Process," or PP. You might want to rethink that, but you need pay no attention to someone whose initials are BO.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

What's cooler than alliteration?

Bernie O'Hare said...

haikus

Ryan O'Donnell said...

"Dent is already rated the 7th most liberal member in Congress."

I would also just like to point out that Dent is rated 269 out of 435 on ProgressivePunch.com and holds a 21.1% progressive rating.

Not good.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Ryloc, Trying to paint him as some hard right dude just won't work. Look at a more nonpartisan source like CQ.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

"Trying to paint him as some hard right dude just won't work.

I actually agree with you on that. We've seen campaigns fail to do that time-and-time again. But it's not because he's not more right than his district is (which I believe he is); it's because he (and Shawn) has done such a great job of painting himself as a moderate nice guy that nobody will believe anything but -- even if he continually votes against his constituents' self-interest.

"Look at a more nonpartisan source like CQ."

However, this argument doesn't make any sense. Obviously ProgressivePunch.Org is a partisan website, but how would that affect their rating? They hold everybody to the same standard: progressiveness. Same would be for if a strictly conservative website did the same thing. I bet, on their website, he would be somewhere around 166 of 435, which would be based on conservatism. When you run your rating solely based on votes in a mathematical ranking system, it can't come out skewed.

Jon Geeting said...

So you're saying that you believe Dent has so much principle and integrity that if he really believed in the health care reform bill, he would have joined Joseph Cao as the only other Republican to vote for it? He'd be willing to be one of only two Republicans?

I am thrilled that you have accepted my bet. Let's define our terms so we're clear. I think the major issues are Health Care, Energy, Financial Regulation, Education, and Afghanistan. Can you think of any others that you would consider to be major issues? I originally specified major issues, because the stakes have to be high enough to have meaning - bills that leadership is whipping votes on. The Blue Dog caucus routinely resists the Dem leadership's whip efforts, so if you want to be able to say that Charlie's Tuesday Group "moderate" cred isn't a huge joke, that's probably a fair bar to set. Do you agree? The only issue that I'm not entirely sure how to score is education, since it doesn't cleanly break down along party lines. Because the core of the bet has to do with situations where the GOP leadership is seeking a specific vote from members, and we want to see if Dent has the balls to defy his party, would it make sense to wait until the issue is in the news and the GOP leadership reveals what their angle will be to make that determination? If you think that either of those stipulations are counter to the original phrasing of my challenge, please explain. If you would like to clarify any terms, I'm all ears.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Sure, and to those I will add freedom to choose.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

"Sure, and to those I will add freedom to choose."

How could anyone claiming to be pro-choice vote for the Stupak amendment?

Jon Geeting said...

Alright. I'm inclined to give that to you, but isn't it a little fishy since he calls himself pro-choice? No one is really expecting him to cast anti-choice votes, although he did just vote for the appalling Stupak Coathanger Amendment. I can't wait to watch Callahan tie that around his neck and clean up with women. Anyway, I'll let you decide whether that one's fair, since I really don't anticipate Congress taking up the abortion issue again this session.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/index.ssf/2009/11/bethlehem_mayor_john_callahan_3.html

Bernie O'Hare said...

Yeah, LVCI drew my attention to it on the other Dent post today. It's hilarious. Based on what he said, it's hard for me to tell how he and Dent are all that different.

Anonymous said...

Bernie O'Hare was disbarred in 1986 for sabotaging his own African American client's civil rights litigation w/ "evil intent." See: Part 2: George Usry

When they finally caught up w/ O'Hare he had just successfully finished sabotaging the wrongful death litigation of a grieving widow and her three fatherless children. See: Part 3: Lucille White

Recently, O'Hare publicly threatened (twice) to sabotage the wrongful death litigation of Sheena Villa. See: Why is Bernie O'Hare Defiling Sheena Villa?

In 1986, O'Hare's own lawyer told the PA Supreme Court that O'Hare had a "serious emotional problem."

Obviously, O'Hare has never been rehabilitated.

Anonymous said...

Bernie O'Hare was disbarred in 1986 for sabotaging his own African American client's civil rights litigation w/ "evil intent." See: Part 2: George Usry

When they finally caught up w/ O'Hare he had just successfully finished sabotaging the wrongful death litigation of a grieving widow and her three fatherless children. See: Part 3: Lucille White

Recently, O'Hare publicly threatened (twice) to sabotage the wrongful death litigation of Sheena Villa. See: Why is Bernie O'Hare Defiling Sheena Villa?

In 1986, O'Hare's own lawyer told the PA Supreme Court that O'Hare had a "serious emotional problem."

Obviously, O'Hare has never been rehabilitated.

Anonymous said...

Callahan having no opinion on healthcare is like someone running for PRez in 1940 with no opinion on isolationism and whether or not to get involved in WWII. I can only assume, as a Dem, that he's not very interested in politics. It's not a complicated issue. If he all of a sudden comes out as pro healthcare, I will be very suspicious of the sincerity or the interest.

Anonymous said...

Callahan is going to drop out. I have a premonition. Dent should be ashamed for his anti healthcare stance. What great summer vacation are the Dents taking this year on the insruance lobbyists' money

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

The posts by the young progressives on this blog make no sense to me.

They rip Charlie Dent for not sharing their position on health care reform. That's fine. It makes sense. They're liberals -- Charlie Dent is not.

What's amusing though is that there's not a word -- a peep -- from them about how John Callahan is basically siding with Charlie Dent.

In fact, John Callahan may be hurting health care reform by refusing to embrace the Pelosi Plan. I'm going to try some logic and let the chips fall where they may.

Posited by the Democrat & Progressives: The Pelosi Health Care Bill is a Great Thing. It rises to the level of "saving the world" kind of good. It will heal the sick, make the lame walk and it won't cost you one thin dime. Right? Can I get a "hell yeah" from Rylock?

Question: If it is so good, so scrumptiously good, why isn't Mayor Callahan hiring airplanes to skywrite: "I would vote for Nancy's Bill. Vote Callahan for Congress?" In fact, in this District, with so many more Democrats than Republicans, where President Obama beat Sen. McCain, shouldn't it be offensive to Democrats like Ryclog that the good mayor won't say he that he would have had Nancy's back and voted for the bill?

Circling back to my assertion that John Callahan is hurting health care reform -- how does it help the cause to have Democrat Congressional candidates running from Pelosi's House bill as it goes to the Senate?

Allow me to answer -- it doesn't.

In fact, it looks downright awful. In fact, it makes people think that maybe the Pelosi bill is 2,000 pages of Washington legi-mush.

Callahan has gone out of his way to make certain that no one knows if he would have voted for the very legislation that has these young progressives so, um, aroused. Callahan has lost his revolutionary zeal it seems when it comes to health care. I hope the bloggers with the Peoples' Committe are taking notes like good young socialists.

Oh, don't get me wrong. Callahan shows up in front of the union astro turf groups and hums a pretty good version of "No Health Care, No Peace," but you know his former drug salesman heart just isn't singing along.

So when you read the posts by Rylog don't lose track of which candidate is being honest with the public in this debate. That would be Charlie Dent. Further, don't forget the name of the political coward here -- John Callahan.

Oh, and for the posters who are trying to push the ludicrous notion that since Callahan isn't in Congress right now -- it doesn't matter how he would have voted for health care -- you need to consider one major fact.

No Democrat plan kicks in until after 2013.

(I bet you didn't know that, did you? The Democrats plan to delay the health care we so desparately need until after the 2012 Presidential election.

They're a bunch of chickenshits aren't they, Rydog?

Don't they know that they're speechwriters are saying 1000's die everyday because of no health care? Callous, political bastards. They make Karl Rove look like the Easter Bunny.)

So who's to say that old Yellow John is going to keep his courage up for the next four years on a bill that he can't quite say he supports?

Anonymous said...

Why is every other country in the world able to do healthcare but us? I don't understand. Why is it such a problem?

Sandra Walters Weiss said...

Pro Healthcare HA HA Don't make me laugh. I know far too many folks that have no access to healthcare or that the system has failed miserably..

How do we spell PRIVITAZATION ???
The entire reform is a joke and there needs to be an uprising in our nation like never before if we want to see any change at all. Perfect example is the current flu pandemic. New Jersey was on top of it long before Pa. While it was running amuck and children's death rates are rising daily in our nation, it is only after the fact that now we are providing clinics and Doctor's are receiving the vaccine. The CDC expects the "swine flu" to continue through the winter and well into March. How many children have to Die????
Now talk to me about reform!

Ryan O'Donnell said...

Anonymous 1:34am,

The fact is that John not coming out in full support of the House's legislation has nothing to do with convictions or even the fact that it's a "good" or "bad" bill. It all has to do with political liabilities regarding the bill. Even though Republican's can't draft a non-laughable alternative plan, they did a hell of a good job at painting this plan as a government takeover of health care, that it would kill your grandparents, and that millions of jobs would be lost. This was all a result of the White House not addressing how the reform plan would benefit the majority of Americans that currently have health insurance, but they made the mistake of constantly talking about the 47 million in America that are uninsured, thus leaving the Republicans able to try and push whatever false information about reform to the 261,000,000 unclaimed Americans with health insurance.

If Callahan was in congress and voted against this bill, I would come out hard against him, but honestly, why do you and Bernie care so much about this? He doesn't hold a vote. He's not a congressperson. He's a mayor and a candidate. His opinion has literally nothing to do with us at this point.

And to your point about reforms not kicking in until 2013, I'm well-aware. First off, it's only major reform initiatives like the public option that wouldn't start until 2013, because they need to make sure that everybody can ease in and it's properly set up, so that there aren't any big flaws in the system from setting it up too quickly. I personally think this is bullshit, because they can set it up sooner than that -- I just think they're being overly cautious. However, I completely, 100%, disagree with your claim that the 2013 numbers have anything to do with Presidential politics. If you know anything about history, you'd know that the minute that these reforms are enacted and people start seeing the amount of uninsured dropping, their rates going down, people starting to become covered for pre-existing conditions, etc., there's going to be a big shift in poll numbers in terms of support for the newly adapted law. It happens every time. So I would argue that the Democrats would actually have more to gain from instituting the major pieces of reform before the 2012 elections, rather than having something to lose.

History: it's a bitch. Sorry about that.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

http://rrrylock.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-we-should-support-houses-health.html

Anonymous said...

rylock, all great points. This is a "Full Spin Zone", so don't expect any logic or reason.

Ohare is full on a Dent subsidiary who censors anything he thinks will weaken his guy.

Anonymous said...

Rylock said:

". . . but they made the mistake of constantly talking about the 47 million in America that are uninsured . . ."

Oops better check your dopey liberal talking points. President Obama said there were 30 million uninsured Americans during his speech to Congress -- not the 47 million you mentioned.

Chalk it up to being an inconvenient truth.

Anonymous said...

"If Callahan was in congress and voted against this bill, I would come out hard against him, but honestly, why do you and Bernie care so much about this?"

Yes this poster really is this stupid apparently.

Because this poster feels that it is illegitimate to ask candidates where they would stand on legislation that is occupying the nation's attention.

Rylock do you wonder what Callahan thinks of the Stupak Amendment? Do you wonder how he would have voted. I hear some people telling me that he's going to try and run as a pro-life candidate. Is it okay if he tries to fool voters on this issue as well? I mean he's not in Congress right now and has no vote, so who cares if he's pro-choice, right?

Anonymous said...

No matter what these Progzs try to tell you -- remember this. If there are thirty million people who really are unable to obtain health care coverage -- that means that there are at least 250 million people in America who are currently covered by either a private plan or a government plan. So approximately 80 to 85 percent of the population is at least covered by one plan or another.

Only a truly insane Progz would completely socialize health care to accomodate 15 percent of the population.

At least this recent Gallup poll result is heartening: http://www.gallup.com/video/124256/government-responsibility-healthcare.aspx

The Rylocks in the 15th District are losing -- as they should.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

Because this poster feels that it is illegitimate to ask candidates where they would stand on legislation that is occupying the nation's attention.

I certainly do not think it's illegitimate. I want to know everything possible about my candidate before I support them. My point is simply that, at this point, Callahan's position on health care is of no more importance than mine, so why is this talking point actually building strength? If there was going to be a health care vote in late January or February 2011, I would demand to know all the details of Callahan's positions immediately. But what's this huge unimportant rush? It is smarter politically to not fully come out one-way-or-the-other right now -- not because health care reform is unpopular, but for the reasons I stated in my earlier post -- but it's just as political to call him out on it, when they know damn well that he won't be casting a vote.

I think we all want to know Callahan's specific stance on health care -- and we will -- I just don't see what the rush is. He hasn't even started out-and-out campaigning yet. He's been locked in a room making fundraising calls and, now, has held one rally slamming Dent on his "no" vote on health care.

I wonder which way John would've voted if he's slamming Dent for voting "no." Real tough question.

I'm just saying think for yourself and don't jump on the Dent bandwagon whenever he releases a talking point just because.

Callahan has already stated that he wants a plan with (a) public option (b) expanded coverage (c) no patient-care cuts to Medicare and (d) for the bill to be deficit neutral. The house bill hits all those points.

And if Dent was leading on health care, he wouldn't have voted for the joke Republican alternative plan that Boehner released right before the final vote.

Ryan O'Donnell said...

"Only a truly insane Progz would completely socialize health care to accomodate 15 percent of the population."

I am a single-payer advocate. I think the big part that you're forgetting is the most of those 85% who have health care coverage are getting destroyed by costs, co-pays and deductibles. I do not believe the health care system should be for-profit, so I'm made some heavy compromises to support the House's legislation. And the restrictions are also so tight on HR 3962 that there's no way it would lead to single-payer, despite what Dent says. I wish, but it's not going to happen.

I also like how conservatives can just completely write off 15% of America and say, "it's only 46 million people that don't have health insurance!"

Ryan O'Donnell said...

"Oops better check your dopey liberal talking points. President Obama said there were 30 million uninsured Americans during his speech to Congress -- not the 47 million you mentioned.

If you stop being a dope and actually look at what I wrote, I said there are 46-47 million people in America that don't have insurance. That's a big difference than if I said there are 47 million legal American residents that don't have health insurance. That would be a lie.

There are about 9.7 million illegal immigrants that don't have health insurance. By my math, there are also about 5.2 million of 18-34 year-olds age that can afford health insurance but do not have it.

So, exactly! I'm with you. I'd say the number of legal residents that don't have and can't afford health care is about 31.1 million.

Anonymous said...

Rylock I am with you.

Other points are that of the 80-85%of insured Americans many are under-insured or not covered for certain conditions. Many never realize this until it is to late.

One man who payed for years was not covered when he developed congestive lung disesae, reason- he had rhumatic fever as an infant and didn't list it. He didn't even remember. Too bad he wasn't covered.

Do people realize that Insurance Companies spend millions to do background checks to disqualify and have lawyers to as the industry likes to say,"run out the clock" on the sick individual. Yes "run out the clock" is exactly what it sounds like. An acquaintance in an Insurance Corporate office has confirmed the use of the term in legal discussions.

This is not just about un-insured folks, it affects us all. It is truely sad that sorely needed reforms have been obscured by such ignornace and fear.

The only resonable fear is from those who make great profit in ensuring that people continue to fear for their health.