Thursday, October 22, 2009

Republicans For Rape

It has come to this. Unable to support anything that comes from the Democratic side of the aisle, Republicans now support rape.

30 Republican senators voted against Sen. Al Franken's anti-rape amendment to a defense appropriations bill that would prevent the federal government from funding contractors whose employee contracts prevent workers from pursuing allegations of rape against co-workers.

I don't know, but rape to me sounds like something that should be able to garner bipartisan contempt. Guess not. Which brings us to the nicely done web site titled Republicans for Rape. Not a woman among them... Not a person of color among them... Sad... Truly sad...


G said...

From what I was able to find, here is the exact text of the amendment:

"To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims."

Hmmmm. Where exactly does it say "rape"? Taken at face value, it sure looks like (a) a punitive measure against a specific company, and (b) an attempt to eliminate mandatory arbitration agreements.

This is what happens when people base their opinion on talking points and spin rather than actually reading the text itself.


Thanks, g, I can't imagine politicians, even Republicans, having a good deal of success on the campaign trail espousing rapelike activities.

Right Wing Gunner said...


--"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers' "obscene profits."

--"Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants. Their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

--"Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." A ad.


Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better -- drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.

The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.

UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.

Van Hollen is right that premiums have more than doubled in a decade, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase.

But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?

Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry's overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.

The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.


Yeah, those insurance companies are evil incarnate. Until people figure out the only way to make healthcare as affordable as can be is by consumers spending their own resources, instead of using someone else's dime, the costs will keep going up.

I have to think the real reason for the feds big push into this arena is the control thing. These people don't have faith in us, feel they know better than us and it just makes them feel good about themselves to help us little people out against the big bad wolves(and ourselves)of captialism.

Fuck them and their fucking nanny state.

Lou said...

Communication managed 20%? I wouldn't be surprised to see Barrack go after Blackberry and Apple next. I'm sure their CEOs and just making too much money.

Has Reid or Pelosi promised to put themselves on the same insurance plan they plan on pushing on we the people? Then and only then can we believe.

Support Doug Hoffman for NY 23rd district. Reps and Dems are hammering him hard but this Indy still is in the lead. It could be the start of what we need. The defeat of parties.

csm said...

Well, G, do a little more investigation online, then. It was discussed and obvious to all who paid attention what the intent and purpose of this clause was for. Here is a report on the incident that inspired Senator Franken:

Furthermore, if you read past the overview (which is the only thing you posted) then you would see the actual text of the amendment, which goes as follows (with a link for you to see it all your own damn self): SA 2588. Mr. FRANKEN (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3326, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; as follows:

On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

[Page: S10070]

(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply with respect to employment contracts that may not be enforced in a court of the United States.

That is pretty fucking obvious, if you take the time to read the god damn thing. And on this one, you too Bawdy!

csm said...

Bottom line, the fucking Republicans voted in favor of covering up rape.

csm said...

Regarding spending only your funds on health care, are you fucking serious?

I hope you are never in an accident that would require you spend hundred of thousands to recuperate. Or get cancer. You got that kinda money to pay? If not, fuck you, you die. Maybe that is what you are in favor of... not me.

G said...

Thanks for finding that text. I was referring to this:
On the Amendment (Franken Amdt. No. 2588 )

I guess that was only a summary.

However, on the amendment itself, what is "obvious" about it? It might be obvious that the amendment INCLUDES rape, but that doesn't mean it is ABOUT rape.

Let's look at the details.
1 - It refers to arbitration requirements for ANY complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which has nothing to do with rape).
2 - It refers to TORT claims (i.e. NOT criminal complaints, but civil)
3 - The tort claims covered include not only sexual assault, but [sexual] harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision, hiring, or retention.

So when one takes a few moments to parse the text of the amendment (again, rather than relying on the talking points and spin we get from partisan opinions), the one thing that is "obvious" is that this amendment is an attempt to eliminate arbitration clauses in employment contracts.

With that understanding, the following argument on the floor from Senator Sessions shows that the objection had EVERYTHING to do with the broad reach of the amendment (and nothing to do with "covering up rape"):

"Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to speak about the Franken amendment if it is OK with the bill managers.
The amendment would impose the will of Congress on private individuals and companies in a retroactive fashion, invalidating employment contracts without due process of law. It is a political amendment, really at bottom, representing sort of a political attack directed at Halliburton, which is politically a matter of sensitivity.
Notwithstanding, the Congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts. That is just not how we should handle matters in the Senate, certainly without a lot of thought and care, and without the support or at least the opinion of the Department of Defense.
Senator Franken offered this amendment because he apparently does not like the fact there are arbitration agreements in employment contracts. I would suggest that is common all over America today."

He also argued:
"The Department of Defense let me know to oppose this amendment. There are a number of reasons: because it goes far beyond the issue raised by my colleague from Minnesota. It eliminates arbitration for any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act, any claim resulting from negligent hiring, negligent supervision or retention of an employee--virtually any employment dispute that is now resolvable under arbitration, which the U.S. Supreme Court has said is good. Statistics show that employees get final judgment and actually win more cases under arbitration than they do going to the expense of a Federal court trial.
I think we should listen to the Department of Defense and vote no on this amendment."

In fine, the claim that those who voted against this amendment are trying to protect rapists is either ignorant of the facts or totally dishonest on its face.



When talking of consumers using their own resources I was refering to HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS!!! Accounts provided by the consumer themselves(with a tax credit), their employers or the government. We have talkied of this before, but maybe you have forgotten because the powers that be will make this option go away for good and that's too bad.

The government for the time being still allows us to buy the goods and services we use without much interference and for the most part we get along fine. When we don't there is the court system. Our system is set up so the consumer and the provider agree to the good or service and the price paid for said good or service. Consumers have the right to say no and to look for a better deal. When this happens competition and freedom gets to the price point in which the consumer agrees to open their wallet. This and innovation brings prices down. THIS IS THE ONLY SURE FIRE WAY TO BRING DOWN THE PRICES OF HEALTHCARE!!!

And as I have posted before, I would have the government provide the poor with health savings accounts and then we could get rid of Medicaid. That would provide healthcare to all, which if I heard right isn't going to happen with the current legislation from any Congressional committee.

csm said...

OK, got it G. You are for rape, too. Duly noted.

And thanks for the clarification, Bawdy. Still don't agree with you and I still don't see how health care savings accounts would solve catastrophic problems without some form of insurance (either private or public).

G said...

If you actually believed what you said about me (rather than just trying to push buttons), you might have a nice career at MSNBC or the Huffington Post.

On the health care issue, there was a time when one could easily buy an insurance policy that only covered catastrophic injuries and illnesses. They weren't that expensive. The problems arose when state and federal mandates came into the picture, forcing EVERY policy to cover things that some people didn't even want.

More coverage = more financial exposure, which results in higher premiums.

If people were able to pay a reasonable amount for that kind of coverage, I'll bet you'd see a lot of people willing to pay cash for any basic doctor visits.

Xenon said...

Um um um, it is a shame. These are some of the same individuals who crapped all over themselves when they though Bush was listening to their phone calls.

I think it is ironic Barrack has sat on his hands for two months while men and women die in Afghanistan due to his apparent indecision while at the same time telling us how concerned he is for the uninsured Americans.

Simple solution:

TORT reform (never happen trial lawyers big Barrack supporters)

Insurance companies compete across state lines.

Medicare/Medicaid for the poor. Cut the waste as they CALIM they can do.



I have posted before the idea of health savings accounts includes purchasing a catastrophic insurance plan as integral part of the plan, as in the first thing you would do with the money.

And anybody here should know if the feds end up giving us a plan like Medicare for everybody, we had better have a supplemental private insurance plan because beloved Medicare leaves a significant portion of the cost to the patient. It is called co-insurance and it ain't pretty sometimes.

csm said...

The donut hole in Medicare is something I didn't know about until it impacted my Mom.


Well Medicare A & B have donut holes too.