Undecided Republicans on Oral Chemo Drug should be Tossed from Office for Partisan Incompetence.

While I sat and listened to an entire hour of talk radio dealing with the Republican opposition, support, than opposition to the oral chemotherapy bill, I noticed that never once did the Democrats get credit for its unwavering support. That just goes without saying…literally.

And so goes the GOP control over the narrative of these supposed controversial issues.

When something as easy as saving the lives of cancer patients gets all screwed up, imagine if we had a real problem to solve. And that’s the big picture so many are missing here.

Forcing these rabid party purists to do the right thing may need a bit of public shaming, like the Journal Sentinel’s attempt below:

Many Assembly Republicans simply won't say where they stand on a bill to require insurers to cover chemotherapy pills they same way they cover chemotherapy IV treatments. 

The Journal Sentinel sent emails and called all 99 members of the Assembly on Monday and Tuesday. All 39 Democrats said they supported it. Half the 60 Republicans have declined to say what they think of the bill or said they were undecided … here's a sampling of those who wouldn't say if they were for or against the bill. 

Rep. Mike Kuglitsch (R-New Berlin): "I really don't have an opinion."

Rep. Daniel LeMahieu (R-Cascade): "I'm not saying anything about oral chemo."

Rep. Duey Stroebel (R-Saukville): "We're still working that out."

Rep. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green): "We'll talk about it Thursday."

Rep. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield): "I'm still discerning it."

Rep. Mary Williams (R-Medford): "Uh, I'm not going to talk to you."

Rep. Tyler August (R-Lake Geneva): "I have to take a look at it."

Rep. Rob Swearingen (R-Rhinelander): "I'm going to wait for caucus on Thursday."

While the Republicans listed above aren't smart enough to know right from wrong, and should be tossed from office before they do more harm, they also might be stuffing their coffers with campaign contributions from the insurance industry.

Sinking to new depths, Wisconsin Republicans own the most pathetic story of the month.

Did this really happen over something so easy? A real no-brainer...

And then came this final insult from the assembly's top sociopath, Rep. Robin Vos, who's comment below is enough to warrant either a beer poured over his head at every possible opportunity, or whatever would be an appropriate response. WISC:

Vos: "So we can continue the debate, which is all about theater and politics, or we can continue on with today's calender."

Rep. Amy Vruwink: "When I buried my brother less than six months ago, it was not theater. And let me tell you politics was the furthest thing from my families mind. And it should be the furthest thing from your mind today in order to have backbone and stand up and do what is right for people who are dying."

Wisconsin Assembly Democrats failed in their attempt to pull an oral chemotherapy bill onto the floor for a vote Tuesday afternoon, following hours of debate.

Sick!!! Republicans Deny Oral Chemo Therapy because they don't believe in "mandates."

The Republicans casual disregard for people needing oral chemo therapy has now reached a grotesque level of cruelty. Republicans refuse to mandate it for purely ideological reasons, ignoring the relief of pain and the lack of side effects using the oral drug.

Again, they don’t believe in mandates. That’s the actual reason.

jsonline: More than two-thirds of GOP senators and four-fifths of the state Senate now publicly support a bipartisan bill to help cancer patients get critical treatments, but the measure is still being blocked by the head of that house. Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) said … it (is) not because his brother is lobbying on behalf of influential insurers to kill the bill … at least 13 of the 18 Republicans in the state Senate and all 15 Democrats have taken a public stance in support of the legislation.

The Horror of Mandates, the need for Rationing:

Two conservative GOP senators have come out vocally against the bill, Paul Farrow of the Village of Pewaukee and Leah Vukmir of Wauwatosa. "I have a consistent record of opposing insurance mandates," Vukmir said in a statement.

Farrow expressed similar concerns. "It's a mandate," he said. "If we're going to say we're going to mandate this one area, what's the next area we're going to mandate?"

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) opposes the bill … Vos said "In the past, I have not voted for any mandates that would increase the cost of insurance plans in the private sector that's already too expensive.

Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch needed oral chemo therapy once, paid for through hubby Rep. Joel Kleefisch’s taxpayer provided insurance. Rebecca now believes the free market should decide. Excuse me, but isn't it the free market that’s denying patients normal coverage now, requiring the state to step in?

On WKOW's Capitol City Sunday, Greg Neumann talked to Paul Westrick, a cancer survivor who has lobbied the legislature to favor the bill on behalf of the Wisconsin chapter of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society:

GOP suffers loss of ObamaCare Myths already. Get the word out....

It might look like a long post, but it's pivotal in making an ObamaCare opponent look downright stupid, all the while educating them. Wow, what a deal. First things first:

The big myth; employers are cutting hours.

Cutting employees' hours to evade the requirements of the Affordable Care Act, which some call Obamacare, is "not a viable option," Tracy says. "The people in this business are the single most important resource I've got."

-- Disneyland said it recently offered full-time status to 1,000 part-time employees who had worked more than 1,500 hours in the past year -- the number that would make them eligible for medical benefits under the health reform law.

-- Trader Joe's is cutting health benefits for part-timers and sending them, along with $500, to the Obamacare exchanges.

-- UPS is eliminating insurance for employees' spouses who have other options.

-- Walgreen, the giant pharmacy retailer, will give full-time workers a fixed sum to purchase coverage from a smorgasbord of options on a private insurance exchange.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Many local companies -- seeing orders rise as the economy improves -- say they won't cut workers or hours, but instead plan to reduce health benefits in existing coverage (that exceeds ObamaCare coverage). Most companies that offer employee insurance already have plans with benefit levels that exceed the minimum Obamacare requirements, and many of them are "reducing benefits like crazy" to manage their additional costs.

Cutting hours bad: 

Some employers … decided recently to downgrade an undisclosed number of full-time staff members to just 29.5 hours. But the strategy can backfire … one car wash he knew of had decided to limit employees' hours to 25 a week. But it ended up having to hire more people, because its existing workers had to take second jobs and no longer had the flexibility to take shifts that needed filling.

Other companies are going in the opposite direction … they are simply avoiding the hassle by upgrading them to full time.

The employer delay: It’s a minor time out for companies to adjust (attention Jon Stewart).

Nationwide, more than 94 percent of employers with at least 50 employees provide medical insurance, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

ObamaCare a better Deal, Employees may move away from employer coverage:

Another approach is the one followed by Trader Joe's: dropping coverage for part-timers and giving them some cash to help pay for health plans sold through the public insurance exchanges. A Trader Joe's executive suggested that it was acting in the interest of employees who do not make a lot of money and could obtain federal tax credits via the exchange to help pay for coverage. "The law provides those people a pretty good deal for insurance ... a deal that can't be matched by us -- or any company" … Indeed, many observers predict that the exchanges could prove to be better for lower-income working people than coverage offered by their employers.

"If exchanges are successful, it may turn out that employees will want to be in them. They may say, 'Gee, look at those costs. They are much cheaper than what I am getting,'" said Karen Marlo, vice president of the National Business Group on Health, which represents large U.S.employers in the health care arena. "I think in a few years out, things may evolve to a situation where employees are asking their employers to let them go there."

The Obama Mandate is Real and Matters!!

You won't hear it from the Obama administration, but Democrats should not be shy about pushing the election mandate. There's no reason not to talk it up. Check out the compilation of video clips below showing those over confident right wingers declaring a landslide. Republicans weren't shy about claiming a mandate on the mere speculation Romney would win:



But oops, forget all that now that Obama won by 3.3 million votes, he won the electoral college 332 versus Romney's 206 and:

...winning 51 percent of the vote to Romney’s 48 percent. You have to go back to Presidents Reagan, Nixon and Roosevelt to find second term presidents getting 51% or more.

Plus Democrats gained seats in the Senate and the House while key Tea Party candidates were shown the door by voters.

The conservative National Journal tried to set in motion the new campaign to trash any idea of a mandate:



Yet here's a sample of the coverage just before the Obama blowout:

Huffington Post: A whole slate of Obama-hating conservatives who claimed that despite very clear polling evidence to the contrary, Mitt Romney would win the election in a "landslide." Not only would the Republican defeat Obama, but he'd also do it sweeping, historic fashion.

The Hill-by Dick Morris Yup. That’s right. A landslide for Romney approaching the magnitude of Obama’s against McCain. That’s my prediction. let’s celebrate the new president we are about to elect. 

Newsmax: Last Sept. 4, I wrote the story "Why Mitt Romney Will Win Decisively." The shift to Republicans in the last congressional and gubernatorial elections, the intensity favoring Romney, and the early voting results on his side — not to mention the state of the economy — are all signs that point to the landslide I have been predicting.

Examiner: Barring a successful last-minute October surprise, it seems almost certain that Mitt Romney will not only win the presidential election, but that he will do so handily. What was a close race throughout the summer now seems to be trending toward a landslide.

Newsmax: Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh charged that the nation’s pollsters have failed to accurately predict the outcome of the 2012 presidential election. “Common sense tells me this election isn't gonna be close — and it shouldn't be,” He added: “The enthusiasm that got people out in 2010, I'm seeing at every Mitt Romney rally. Romney's drawing crowds of 20,000, 25,000, 30,000, 15,000. “The enthusiasm that we all saw in 2010 is there. The same issues that existed in 2010 exist today. There hasn't been anything that's gotten better.”

Reuters: Romney's hedge-fund backers plan to party on election night