Maria Shriver on Meet the Press: Says Teddy Could Bring Momentum to Health Care

California First Lady Maria Schriver, whom I like a lot, will be on Meet the Press today. She will say that her uncle Teddy Kennedy's death could spur action on health care.

Maria Shriver says the death of her uncle Sen. Edward Kennedy could provide momentum to the senator's lifetime effort to overhaul the nation's health care system.

Shriver says in an interview set to air Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that she thinks his passing may reinvigorate people's efforts to get it done.

I hope she's right.

< Two Syrian Detainees at Guantanamo Freed in Portugal | The Last Word >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well, before we have Shriver tells us whats next (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by masslib on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 06:48:47 AM EST
    on health care, maybe she could tell her husband that gutting the state safety net in the middle of an economic collapse is immoral.

    Seriously, when do we stop letting rich elites, left or right, tell us how to proceed with policy that is supposed to help the 80% of us who make 13% of the income? They are not very good at it.  What we need is basic coverage for all Americans paid for by tax dollars.  That should be the floor in a rich country.

    Because in general (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 11:20:59 AM EST
    this country worships rich elites.

    "Politicizing" Ted Kennedy's death? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Spamlet on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 11:24:24 AM EST
    Shriver says in an interview set to air Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that she thinks his passing may reinvigorate people's efforts to get it done.

    Good idea--let's politicize Ted Kennedy's death, especially now that the Republicans have started howling about "the Wellstone effect." Their reaction shows their fear of what progressive Democrats can do if we politicize Ted Kennedy's death.

    Nomentum (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:08:57 PM EST
    "Sen. John Kerry says Kennedy would have fought for a public option in President Barack Obama's attempt to reform the health care system, but would opt for compromise if and when Democrats got to that point."

    - ABC's "This Week."

    John Kerry makes my skin crawl...n/t (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 04:28:18 PM EST
    Kennedy strongly supported a public option (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by BernieO on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 07:50:06 PM EST
    when Clinton was attempting reform, according to Joe Conason of Salon.com.

    So says (none / 0) (#18)
    by Spamlet on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 06:05:46 PM EST
    the now senior senator from Massachusetts. Ugh. He is unworthy to take up Teddy's mantle.

    True enough (none / 0) (#35)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 08:41:19 PM EST
    Was it Kerry or Hatch who said Teddy had said his greatest legislative mistake was not supporting the Reagan health care reform plan?

    Maybe (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 05:18:43 PM EST
    Shriver is simply a person entitled to her point of view like you...like me.

    If either of us had the maiden name of Kennedy, a career in 'broadcast journalism' or were today the First Lady of California maybe MTP would want to have us on to opine.

    Instead, thanks to Jerilyn, we get to come here.

    Maria Shriver's (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 08:51:45 PM EST
    maiden name is Maria Shriver, daughter of Sargent Shriver, and I agree 100% with you that she wasn't invited on because her opinion is more valid than any of the rest of ours are.

    They were looking to put an emotional and personal underscore to the push on congress, "do something for Teddy's legacy".


    Hmmm. I think the active word is (none / 0) (#21)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 06:32:36 PM EST

    I agree, and I wish (don't we all) that (none / 0) (#32)
    by sallywally on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 08:37:17 PM EST
    this would bring Dems together for Teddy's plan, the one with the public option.

    I think she did, by saying Teddy's death could basically jump-start the legislation, indirectly admit Obama had lost the momentum....not that he ever had it.

    I wonder what Teddy thought of Obama as the time passed with no leadership from the WH.


    I thought Teddy's dream plan was (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 08:45:04 PM EST
    Medicare for all.

    In all honesty, I don't believe there is anyone in the Senate who can accurately state what would make Ted happy outside of genuine universal coverage at an affordable price.


    Your wondering reminds me (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 08:49:06 PM EST
    that I wonder why, with 2 Democratic presidents/congresses to make it happen, Teddy couldn't pass 'the goal of his legislative lifetime?'

    Honestly.  It puzzles me.  Two major opportunities with Clinton and Obama.  What he learned from the Clinton attempt should have had a deal cut with Obama and the congress the day after the election was certified.  Otherwise, what the Hell was the point of the torch passing festival and his endorsement of O?


    It's Monday (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 08:49:08 AM EST
    Let's see who comes out swinging?  I think that Maria hopes for a dynamic that may have existed 20 years ago, but I don't think that dynamic exists in Washington today.  It is all about money...period.

    Oh yes...let's take political (3.00 / 2) (#14)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 04:27:25 PM EST
    public policy instruction from Maria Shriver...the 'sometime journalist' Kennedy with the high-school hairdo and the wierd Republican husband, the Gropenator.

    I'll pass.

    Wow, "...with the high-school hairdo..." (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 06:30:49 PM EST
    You mean if she styled her hair in a more sophisticated 'do, you would 'take public policy instruction' from Shriver?

    "Wow." You need to retake (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 06:52:45 PM EST
    that class in Logic l01.  You know, the one about inductive and deductive reasoning...

    Oh, There Was Reasoning (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 08:09:52 PM EST
    behind the hairdo comment.

    You're right. I missed that.

    I was trying to understand the relevance of commenting on a woman's appearance while disagreeing with her political comments.


    I meant your reasoning...not mine! (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 08:25:14 PM EST
    The relevance for women my age (the age of Maria's mother) is that we understand that it is difficult for the opinions of women to be taken seriously EVER...much less to take seriously the opinions of people whose personas present them as so totally out of date...out of time and place.  For women, that includes women who don't dress appropriately for their age, behave appropriately for their age.  'Dress' includes hairdos, whether it's the beehive of the 60s or the highschool tresses of many young women of many years.  Few serious women in their 50s have teenage hairdos.  No professional women do unless they are actresses.

    Maybe It Is A Generational Thing (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 08:38:42 PM EST
    Since I am a woman closer to Maria Shriver's age.

    Look, just for the record, I don't really care about Shriver's opinion one way or the other.

    I feel irritation when people comment on the appearance of women who aren't actresses or models earning a living based on their appearance. You don't see it as much with men and I think there's a reason for that.

    Last year with Clinton and Palin...heck, I still carry a grudge for the nasty comments that were made about Abzug and Friedan and Roosevelt (Eleanor).

    Maybe it's a hair trigger reflex with me, and you set it off with the hairdo comment.

    Thanks for the longer explanation of your POV.



    I'm older than Shriver (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by sallywally on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 08:56:54 PM EST
    but as a short person with thin hair that I've only been able to wear short all my life, if I were tall and slender and had her thick, full-bodied hair, I'd be wearing it long and wavy too!

    So what if anyone categorizes it - at this age, we can take pleasure in appearing any d@mn way we want (wear more purple and all that)...

    No longer feel we're "under the male gaze," if we're lucky.


    P.S. Shriver's hairdo (none / 0) (#31)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 08:33:34 PM EST
    was not the only thing I mentioned which called into question her judgment...and her judgment is the issue raised when she shares her opinions.  I also mentioned her odd choice of husband.

    You know, there really are only two ways to judge people, whether we know them or not:  how they look and how they act.  It's not always fair, of course...but it is a well-known psychological phenomena.  It's why we try to teach our kids good manners and the complexities of appropriateness, as in "when in Rome!"


    Have you read any of her books? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 09:02:00 PM EST
    I actually find her to be very honest and admirable in many ways. She has the Kennedy kindness and drive in many ways. If you've ever noticed, she's always the one who can't hold back the tears when the Kennedy's gather in memory of those who have passed.

    That said, she has no more insider information on what Teddy would want or agree to than 90% of the family. My guess is that particular distinction would belong to Patrick, Joseph, or Teddy, Jr.

    Maria didn't have to rely on Teddy to step in as replacement for her dad. She was his niece, and she's lived on the opposite coast for all her married days. I always keep those facts in mind and analyze what's said within that truth.


    You know, I haven't read any of (none / 0) (#43)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 09:58:04 PM EST
    her books...thanks for the reminder.  I've heard they are quite good, the children's books, and are a solid plus in the substantive department of human achievement...particularly the book about Alzheimers written to explain to her children what was happening to her father.

    Both parents were certainly admirable people and few with achievements to match Sargent Shriver's.  I've always thought him underrated and underappreciated as a public citizen...very creative programs, successful in promoting peace and volunteerism worldwide.  The gossip says he wasn't treated very well by the Kennedy family...


    I was thinking the same thing but in the spirit of (none / 0) (#16)
    by Angel on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 04:41:29 PM EST
    giving the woman a pass because she just lost her uncle I was not going to say anything.  But since the cat's out of the bag tell me this:  since when is Maria Shriver a political analyst or a political strategist? And since when is she someone who should be listened to (and taken seriously)regarding health care reform?    

    I'm not 'in the spirit...' (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 06:27:26 PM EST
    Watching Cheney's daughter mix it up with Sam Donaldson while George S tried to intervene and herd the cats this morning reminded me of exactly what Republicans have become...and I have no patience with those who coddle them, befriend them, marry them and explain them away while jettisoning and compromising basic principles.

    The rest of the panel tried to (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by sallywally on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 08:28:56 PM EST
    shout her down too, I thought.

    You thought Stephanopoulos tried to herd them?? (none / 0) (#23)
    by BernieO on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 07:35:09 PM EST
    I thought he pretty much let Liz Cheney talk over the others. IMO he is far too concerned about seeming above the fray.

    Mild, ineffectual attempts... (none / 0) (#33)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 08:37:40 PM EST
    ...it was very revealing, I thought.  Sam is NOT used to being outshouted!

    Also lost her mother 2 wks ago.n/t. (none / 0) (#29)
    by sallywally on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 08:27:06 PM EST
    Can we have a reality check (none / 0) (#2)
    by suzieg on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 02:38:26 AM EST
    How soon we forget:

    From counterpunch, not exactly a bastion of conservative thinking:


    and an enlightning article as to maybe why he was pushing for the MA health care model:



    Lobbyist ties remain

    Despite a pledge by congressional leaders to sever ties between lawmakers and special interests, the reports show lobbyists often give to non-profits associated with the lawmakers who regulate their industries.

    Health care groups, for instance, give millions to the planned Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate in Boston. Pharmaceutical giant Amgen wrote the biggest check -- $5 million in December -- to the institute, which will honor Kennedy's more than four decades in Congress and promote the study of the U.S. Senate.

    Aetna insurance company donated $50,000.

    Kennedy, who is battling brain cancer, chairs the Senate's health and education committee and is at work on comprehensive health care legislation. Aetna has engaged in private talks with Kennedy aides on the bill, Aetna spokesman Mohit Ghose says.

    Ghose says the donation was unrelated to those negotiations and instead "advances our goal of continuing to take a leadership role in public policy."

    Kelley Davenport, a spokeswoman for Amgen, says the donation reflected the company's interest in lauding Kennedy's long career and in helping "young people to become engaged in public service and public policy."

    Kennedy, the records show, was the most honored member of Congress, with a total of nearly $6 million. Most of the money went to the Kennedy institute.

    Kennedy spokeswoman Melissa Wagoner and institute trustee Paul Kirk say the Democratic senator has steered clear of potential conflicts of interest with his official duties by not soliciting donations. In total, the organization has collected more than $20 million, according to a January institute news release.

    "The principal reason fundraising is going so well is that there is an enormous outpouring of appreciation for Sen. Kennedy's public service," Kirk says

    The Kennedy's (none / 0) (#3)
    by cajungirl985 on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 04:18:31 AM EST
    I remember reading long ago that the Kennedy's did not collect/use their public service salaries since they were/are wealthy on their own.  If only other public officials would do the same...can you imagine the monies we would save?

    As far as this health care bill...I'm not for any of the ones that I've read.  We don't need another thousand page bill that will hit us with any surprises in it at the last minute.  Everyone agrees to insurance reform, that pre-existing diseases and conditions should be covered, etc.  A bill should be passed on what everyone agrees to.  The parts of it that are in dispute should be held out to be negotiated over until an agreement can be made.  But why make everyone else suffer?  Pass the bill at least on the parts that are in agreement.  It would be a step in the right direction.  A public option at this time is something that we can't afford.  We already can't afford the entitlements we offer as it is. We have to come up with another solution.  One that won't diminish our standard and quality of care.

    The parts that everyone agrees on (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 09:13:30 AM EST
    pre-existing diseases and conditions should be covered, etc.
    will not happen without mandating that everyone purchase insurance.

    How would you like to be forced to purchase high priced "junk insurance" that you can't afford to either buy or use?

    How would you like it if the health insurance premiums in the next few become so expensive that your employer decides either to drop employer paid insurance or only offer you "junk insurance."

    The Senate finance committee is currently considering allowing the insurance industry to drop its coverage to a 65/35 split. Please consider what that would cost you if you had any serious illness.

    Our standard of care is twice as expensive as our European counterparts and we lag behind them in most outcomes.


    As for better outcomes in other countries (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by BernieO on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 07:41:22 PM EST
    My first grandchild will be born in the Czech Republic in a few months. Most people I know seem to find that a scary thought. They have no clue that even a country like the Czech Republic has a significantly lower infant and early chilhood mortality rate (8th in the world) than we do (33rd in the world). Not to mention, if my son and his wife were to return now to the US she would not have insurance because of her pre-existing condition (pregnancy). So if anything were to go wrong they would be financially ruined.

    Isn't it great to live in the country with the world's best health care system?


    Well she could have had insurance (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 09:02:05 PM EST
    here in the states and still not be covered.

    - WELLPOINT POLICIES: In March 2007, the state's Department of Managed Health Care fined Blue Cross of California and its parent company, WellPoint, $1 million after an investigation revealed that the insurer routinely canceled individual health policies of pregnant women and chronically ill patients. Earlier this summer, despite promises by their lobbyists to the public, WellPoint refused to end the controversial practice of rescinding coverage after an applicant files a medical claim. link

    Everyone? (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by waldenpond on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 10:52:42 AM EST
    Republicans will vote for NO portion of ANY bill.  There is already rationing.  The insurance industry is between me and my doctor.  My insurer will not cover my medicine ($700) so I don't get it.  We cannot afford our health care system.  Your premiums will go up.  Mine have gone up $2000 in the last two years.  Healthcare has been debated in this country for decades. This is the solution.

    EVERYONE pays now and will continue to have increases that outpace income.  This country is going broke because of health care.

    The Republican solution would be to wait for GDP to grow so it looks like healthcare as a percent of GDP is lower.  We can't afford not to have a profitless public option.


    Are you joking? (none / 0) (#8)
    by kenosharick on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 10:51:58 AM EST
    Add up all the money paid out to wealthy senators and congresspeople and you would have waaaay less than a drop in the bucket. As for not doing any real health care reform unless everyone agrees-- to hell with "bi-partisanship," WE WON THE ELECTION; lets start acting like it!

    You are right, and I agree. But, (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 11:33:51 AM EST
    we won, both primary and general, with the candidate whose attractiveness to so many, in large part, was his bipartisan, post-partisan, Republicans have a lot of good ideas, "we have to stop all that Washington bickering and get things done", pledge.  Now, this is one campaign pledge that could be safely jettisoned and relegated to the dustbin of bad experiences--unless, of course,  it was more than that.

    Most people thought they were voting (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by sallywally on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 08:46:19 PM EST
    for a liberal. I'm sure Teddy Kennedy thought he was endorsing a liberal. They thought, I guess, that the end of the bickering would come because the Repubs would lie on their backs wagging their tails at Obama's wondrousness.

    My liberal friends who supported him didn't assume he would to the tail-wagging. They acted like people were stupid who said that postpartisanship meant capitulating to the Repubs.

    Oh well.....


    I agree (none / 0) (#5)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 07:43:26 AM EST
    I don't know what kind of bill we're going to end up with, but I do believe Kennedy's death will force Democrat's to pass something, even if it means going it alone.

    I think they'll finally put the bipartisan pony to bed and use the power of their majority to push something through.

    I just hope that the something we end up with is a marked improvement over what we have.

    it will not be better, I can promise you that (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 10:16:28 AM EST
    with Obama making deals with insurance companies and big pharma, what you can expect is to be forced to buy insurance through mandates.  But the companies will charge you anything they like and your deductibles and co-pays will make it impossible to use your insurance.

    What we need is single payer.  Anything less and nothing has changed.


    Single payer is not the only way (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by BernieO on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 07:48:46 PM EST
    The Germans have an excellent system and they have over 200 PRIVATE insurance plans from which to choose!! The key is that these plan are not-for-profit and there is sensible government regulation mandating the same price regardless of pre-existing conditions, age, etc. Switzerland changed from for profit to non profit in the 90's because for profit insurers were discriminating on the basis of pre-exisiting conditions. They also have a very good, affordable, universal system. Ditto for the Netherlands and Japan.

    What I don't understand is why we don't talk about offering non-profit options. Blue Cross used to be non-profit but in many states that is no longer the case. From what I understand even where it is deemed non-profit it has to pay taxes like for-profit companies.