Massa Explains Vote Against H.R. 3962

by: robert.harding

Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 14:42:18 PM EST

(1) There are those who believe that while single-payer is ideal, we aren't going to get it anytime soon and that we shouldn't hold out for it. Because of that, there is a belief that Massa held out on voting for this bill because of his desire for single-payer.

(2) Doing something is better than doing nothing. And while the House bill wasn't (and isn't) perfect, it is better than doing nothing. Massa should have voted for the bill, critics say, because at least the legislation would send us in the right direction.

(3) This has been a long fight and few representatives have been as open as Massa has been during the fight. To fight for so long only to have him vote against the bill was disappointing in the eyes of those who have been working long and hard on this.

Those are some of the reasons. Now, here is Massa's explanation as sent out by his press office today:

Today Congressman Eric Massa outlined his reasons for voting against H.R. 3962 on Saturday night. To summarize the specific votes: Rep. Massa voted for the rule of debate, against the Stupak Amendment and against final passage of the bill.

When H.R. 3962 was first introduced on Thursday, October 29th, Rep. Massa canceled his weekend schedule to read and review the legislation. Following seven days of studying the bill, consulting with experts and speaking with constituents, Rep. Massa announced his intention to vote against the bill.

Rep. Massa had several concerns because the legislation did not meet several of his key objectives, including guaranteed universal access for all Americans and an assurance of individual affordability. While this bill does contain a public option, it is far from a "robust" one and Rep. Massa pledged, in a letter months ago, to vote against anything less than that. The public option in this bill is available for only about 2% of the American population and its premium rates will match private health insurance, guaranteeing no effective competition in the marketplace.

Additionally, he thinks that this bill, if signed into law, will not do enough to regulate the private for-profit health insurance industry and will actually empower them further. This is a major problem with the legislation as far as he is concerned. During the months of public debate on this topic, Rep. Massa called for the health insurance industry to be able to write plans across state lines and, while this bill partially addresses this, it does not lift this exemption outright. As such, he views this as a half measure rather than true interstate competition and believes that the goals of interstate competition will not be realized.

Rep. Massa also expressed concerns about the constitutionality of the individual mandate. While the Constitution empowers the Congress to raise and levy taxes, there is no clear indication that it allows for Congress to require the public to purchase insurance plans if they can afford them.

Detailed careful reading and understanding of the bill shows that should this become law, property taxes in New York State must increase by a minimum of 3%. By increasing Medicaid availability to citizens with an income of 150% of the federal poverty level, the federal government passes to New York State and its counties a cost sharing increase of at least 3% at the county level. Rep. Massa views this as being exceptionally counterproductive to our economy at this time.

During the closing hours of the debate, Rep. Massa voted against the Stupak Amendment which he viewed as a significant universal increase of current federal law. For the first time, if passed, the federal government would have prohibited a private citizen from using private funding to buy an insurance policy that covered elements of reproductive rights. The bill as written is clear, no federal funding for abortion procedures is allowed. Rep. Massa agrees with that but does not support an increase in federal law on this matter. This amendment passed and became part of the final legislation.

While there are several provisions that he did like in the bill, such as the elimination of patient rejections on the basis of pre-existing conditions, and the closing of the Medicare Part D Donut hole, members of Congress cannot vote for one part of a bill and against another.

"There are several reasons why I voted 'no' on H.R. 3962," said Congressman Eric Massa. "I have always said that I will vote 'no' on a bad bill to try and get a better one and that's what I did. Reforming our health care system is critical to our economy and our nation, but I had some serious concerns regarding the bill that we voted on Saturday night. If the Senate is able to move forward, I hope we can get a better bill back for a conference version."

Let me make this clear: It is hard to disagree with Massa on the points he made.

I will have more on this in another post. I will let Massa's words fill the space for now.

A Valid Point To Consider Regarding Massa

by: robert.harding

Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 19:17:03 PM EST

Here is his comment:

I challenge everyone to wait and see how they vote on the final bill, the one that comes out of conference, before they cast judgement.

It reminded me of what happened earlier this year when Congressman Eric Massa was one of 24 Democrats to oppose the housing bill. That bill, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, was seen as progressive legislation to address the housing crisis and assist families who were in danger of losing their home. Massa was criticized for his vote, but when the bill went to conference and came back for a vote in the House, he voted for the revised bill.

Could the same thing happen with health care? Definitely.

This was passed along to me as an explanation for Massa's vote coming from Massa himself.

"I believe this bill, for a laundry list of details that all stem from employer-based, unregulated, private, for-profit health insurance, will make our health care system worse.  An impact on Medicare, objections to constitutionality, impacts on rural health care, a lack of true cost control, a tremendous expansion of federal overhead, a lack of a true public option, a lack of expansion of doctors, are all debatable points.

That said, my opposition does not come from Washington, D.C. political talking points, but rather from a decade of study and immersion in this subject.  The constituents of this Congressional District did not hire me to pander to them or tell them what I think they want to hear.  They hired me to fully understand - in detail - the legislation I am asked to consider and only support that which I think will help.  That is what I have done.  That is why I voted no on H.R. 3962."

No one's vote seems to be more scrutinized than Massa regarding this health care bill. His vote against this bill is disappointing. I respect his position and do understand his stance, but I would like to see him say that while it is not perfect, it is better than no reform at all. This bill is not a terrible bill. Could it be better? Yes. But considering all we had to go through to get to this point, it's a solid piece of legislation. It's a great starting point on an issue (health care reform) where we have had no starting point for a century.

That's the bad news for Massa. This was a historic vote and being on the wrong side of the vote isn't helping him, at least among the netroots and progressives. Only two members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus voted against the bill: Dennis Kucinich and Massa. Kucinich's vote, according to an e-mail he sent out today, was because of the bill's continued support of a private insurance industry and the lack of a single payer system. Massa gave other reasons, as listed in the statement above.

The good news for Massa is that this may not be the last vote on health care. If a conference bill comes to the House (getting a bill passed in the Senate will be a long-hard fight, but possible), Massa will have a second chance. And then that will be THE historic vote. If he votes for it, redemption is his and he will have voted for true reform. If he votes against it, the outrage many in the netroots have now won't go away.

A Historic Vote: Health Care Reform Passes House

by: robert.harding

Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 14:05:43 PM EST

The health care reform measure passed the House last night by a slim margin, with every representative casting a vote either in favor or in opposition of reform.

The final tally was 220 to 215, with 219 Democrats voting for reforming our broken health care system and 39 Democrats joining 176 Republicans in opposing the measure. There was one Republican vote, Anh "Joseph" Cao, a representative from Louisiana.

There has been plenty of praise for this bill and plenty of criticism. But what we need to remember is that there have been many attempts at reforming health care with zero success. I know that we want a single-payer system, but you don't get there without baby steps. We just didn't build a spaceship and launch ourselves to the moon. We had to plan it out, test things first and then reach the ultimate goal after years of trying. We will get to a single-payer system, but you don't get there by immediately switching from a for-profit health care system to a single-payer one.

Here is how the roll call played out among our representatives in New York (Republicans in italics):

AYE
Ackerman
Arcuri
Bishop
Clarke
Crowley
Engel
Hall
Higgins
Hinchey
Israel
Lowey
Maffei
Maloney
McCarthy
Meeks
Nadler
Owens
Rangel
Serrano
Slaughter
Tonko
Towns
Velazquez
Weiner

NAY
King
Lee
Massa
McMahon
Murphy

This is a great day for reform. "Yes we can" was the rallying cry for us last year. This proves we can do it. Now, we have a lot of work to do in the Senate.

The reform effort isn't over, but it's as close as it's ever been.