When discussing the eventual primary between Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, Ezra Klein wrote on his Washington Post blog arguing that Gillibrand's support for a public option was reactionary.
But now she's in the Senate, representing all of New York rather than a small, and relatively conservative, slice of it. She's also facing a primary challenge from the liberal Carolyn Maloney. Gillibrand's response, in part, has been to emerge as an unexpectedly aggressive champion of the public option. "I believe that a robust not-for-profit public option must be a part of the health care reform package Congress passes this year," she wrote on the Huffington Post. "I feel that opening up a Medicare For All type system to everyone would lower costs and increase efficiency by injecting some much needed competition into the market." The post's title? "Help me fight for a public option!"
Of course, Ezra's post gives us the impression that support for a public option (a "Medicare for all" system) is something new to Gillibrand that is only a matter of convenience. His argument in the post ties Gillibrand with Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter and his attempt to sway progressive voters in the Democratic Party by doing things like attending Netroots Nation in Pittsburgh.
But what Ezra misses is a long-held belief by Gillibrand that the only way to reform our health care system is by implementing a public option. This isn't something new. This isn't something she wrote in a blog post only to appeal to progressives.
In fact, Gillibrand has been advocating for a public option since her first campaign in 2006.
According to OnTheIssues, Gillibrand's 2006 campaign website featured as her platform on health care all of the following:
- Allow anyone to buy into Medicare
- Increase funding and access to rural health care
- Insure every child in America Prescription Drugs
- Allow the government to negotiate directly with the drug companies for Medicare
- Allow the U.S. to import drugs from Canada
The Times-Union, during the 2006 campaign, compared the candidates on the issues. One of those issues was health care.
Gillibrand favors allowing Americans to buy into the Medicare system; Swee ney denounced her proposal as a move toward universal health care.
Medicare has less overhead than private insurers with high CEO salaries, she said. "I think we need more competition in the system. The whole health-care system is being framed by the health-care industry," Gillibrand said. "What Americans need to do is focus on a preventative care system."
Sweeney dismissed Gillibrand's proposal.
"She's proposing a government-run universal health care system. That's been a disaster. Anywhere it's been applied anywhere in the world, it's done nothing but stifle innovation and made services less available to people who need them," he said. "We have expanded health-care insurance access by virtue of incentivizing it for small businesses in the private sector."
There are those who will argue that Gillibrand has made a shift on some issues from being a moderate (or conservative) to being a progressive. They will point to her stance on guns, her support for marriage equality and other issues simply to paint her as a "flip-flopper."
But if there is one issue you can't do that with it is health care. Gillibrand's support for a public option was evident in 2006 when she was campaigning in the 20th congressional district. She did not change that stance while she was serving in the House of Representatives and is now fighting to make sure that a public option is included in any health care reform that the Congress completes.
The lumping in of Gillibrand with Specter was also something Ezra did (and others have done recently) which isn't quite accurate. For example, since Gillibrand's stance on health care has always been one supportive of a public option, then she has held a progressive stance on that issue. Obviously, that's something she hasn't been given enough credit for because it's easy to paint her as a conservative Democrat from a conservative upstate New York district.
But the comparisons are way off. Gillibrand has shown us a progressive side that was waiting to be unleashed. As we have seen with some Democratic representatives like Congressman Eric Massa, there is only so much you can say or do without putting yourself at risk of being threatened come election time. Gillibrand was in the same position - until she became a U.S. senator.
Now she has reinforced her belief in a public option. She has advocated for a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and has shown support for gun control and gun safety initiatives she was once accused of opposing.
Specter is no comparison. He is a Republican who decided that the Democratic Party was now his party of choice. Maybe the tide in Pennsylvania told him that. Now, he has the Democratic establishment and party leaders in Pennsylvania supporting his re-election efforts. And he has the support from one of New York's "great Democrats": Steve Pigeon.
The Gillibrand-Specter comparisons can quit. Specter isn't even close to being progressive. And while Gillibrand will continue to prove that she is a progressive, keep in mind that her support for a public option was there even when she was a member of the Blue Dog Coalition. And with the opposition from Blue Dog members in the House to health care reform, that is something worth highlighting.
Gillibrand has always supported the right option: The public option. |
