The historic vote on health care reform legislation in the House of Representatives was one I will never forget. As a young elementary school student, I remember the battles over the Clinton health care plan and its defeat in the mid-1990s. I did not want to see the first president-elect I voted for, President Barack Obama, to share in the same fate.
The Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) is a good bill for a number of reasons AND a bad bill for just as many reasons. After taking a few days to look over the reasons why one might support the bill and why one might oppose it, I came to this conclusion:
Those (among progressives) who support the bill are right. Those (again, among progressives) who oppose it are right.
Congressman Eric Massa's vote has been scrutinized more than any. Even when he gives his reasons why, people aren't willing to forgive him. Such is life as a representative in D.C.
But here is the reality: Massa is right on a lot of points, at least as they pertain to the public option and expanding access to health care. We fought for months for what has been called a "strong robust public option." After Firedoglake and CREDO Mobile created their public option resolution, I joined them in passing that petition around to the Democratic committees and groups I was familiar with. To my knowledge, every committee and group I submitted the resolution to passed the resolution. And not only did they pass it, they did so unanimously.
The public option in the House bill is a weak public option. This is NOT what we fought for, worked overtime on and told our readers and fellow progressives we needed. Now, there are those among this same group of progressives saying that any public option at all is better than no public option at all. While there is truth in that statement, there is also a misguided definition of what "better" means and what "reform" means.
Let's make this about the Progressive Caucus versus the Blue Dogs for a paragraph. The Progressive Caucus was obviously for the public option. The Blue Dogs were in opposition (some of them were in favor of a watered down public option, but others share the opinion of Senator Joe Lieberman that ANY public option should not be permitted) to the public option. Then came the Stupak Amendment, which was allowed a vote by Speaker Nancy Pelosi apparently as a way to gain supporters for the overall health care reform bill. The Stupak Amendment is worse than the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment applies only to federal funds from the Department of Health and Human Services and prohibits these funds from being used on abortions. What the Stupak Amendment does is expand on those prohibitions and applies them to private health insurance. That is because part of the health care reform package are subsidies for those who can't afford to pay for their insurance. If you are a woman and you receive a subsidy to pay for your private health insurance, you cannot get an abortion because the Stupak Amendment says so and the 221 men (of the 240 votes cast in support of the amendment) said so. This amendment also applies to anyone covered by the public option inside the health insurance exchange.
The fact remains that the conservaDems got their vote on the Stupak Amendment and it passed. Progressives did not get their vote on single-payer - a bill that certainly didn't have enough votes to pass.
Blue Dogs 1 Progressive Caucus 0.
A weak public option (Massa's estimate was that the public option in this bill would only cover two percent of the uninsured) and an amendment that expands anti-choice provisions? That's not very progressive, nor can it be considered true reform.
Like any legislation we see, however, even though there are a tremendous amount of flaws there is a tremendous upside. You cannot build a house without a foundation and this foundation and that's what this bill can be considered. It is a stepping stone or starting point. It's not perfect, but it is something. I believe the individual mandates are a good thing. I do think a stronger public option would help these mandates be less punitive but the mandates will work. Allowing young people to stay on their parents insurance until they turn 27 years old is very important. Ending the exemption from anti-trust laws is no doubt huge. The Prevention and Wellness Trust Fund is important to address in a proactive manner childhood obesity and obesity as a whole in order to make us a healthier society.
The reforms included in the bill are important. And while there is a weak public option and an assault on women's rights we must address, there are many aspects of the bill that are strong and necessary.
I was disappointed by Massa's vote at the time, but his vote was acceptable. I can see how this decision was tough. There are good things about this bill (as Massa has said). But there are also flaws. My problem with the bill is that individual mandates alone aren't a solution to the problems faced by the uninsured. The uninsured need more. Mandates and a weak public option won't do it. The Stupak Amendment needs to go. The Hyde Amendment is bad enough. Having this on the books in a reform bill would be devastating.
In the end, however, we don't vote for perfection. The flaws in this bill are nothing that can't be improved upon in conference. So voting in favor of the bill would have been ideal for anyone, including Massa.
Chris Bowers has done an outstanding job keeping the whip count going on the robust public option (i.e. Medicare plus 5%). The count is now up to 210 and it's more important than ever that we start whipping the undecided and wavering representatives. Here in New York we should expect close to perfect party discipline from our reps, yet a few individuals from the tri-state area are on the fence. Specifically:
Jim Himes: CT-4
Timothy Bishop: NY-1
Scott Murphy: NY-20
Steve Rothman: NJ-9
Albio Sires: NJ-13
These are tangible targets that can be pushed into supporting the public option. While Timothy Bishop and Scott Murphy may be in competitive seats, the public option is strongly supported by non-Southerns in polls and will vastly increase our bargaining power at the table with the Senate. Our New York State reps should stand up for their constituents, even in more competitive seats. If Eric Massa stands for Medicare for All in his district, then Murphy and Bishop can absolutely stand up for the robust public option in their districts.
We all know that a strong robust public option is necessary. It is needed because there are those without insurance who need help. While it is nice to talk about lowering costs, eliminating the ability of insurance companies to use preexisting conditions against you and other priorities, a public option is important. If we are going to achieve real reform, a strong public option needs to be in the final bill.
That's why 30 Democratic senators wrote a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) urging that any health care reform bill in the Senate includes a strong robust public option.
Here's the letter:
Dear Majority Leader Reid:
We have spent the better part of this year fighting for health reform that would provide insurance access and continuity to every American in a fiscally responsible manner. We are concerned that - absent a competitive and continuous public insurance option - health reform legislation will not produce nationwide access and ongoing cost containment. For that reason, we are asking for your leadership on ensuring that the merged health reform bill contains a public insurance option.
As it stands, the health insurance market is dominated by a handful of for-profit health insurers that are exempt from the anti-trust laws that ensure robust competition in other markets across the United States. Without a not-for-profit public insurance alternative that competes with these insurers based on premium rates and quality, insurers will have free rein to increase insurance premiums and drive up the cost of federal subsidies tied to those premiums. This is simply not fiscally sustainable.
We recognize that the two Committees with jurisdiction over health reform - the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee - have taken two very different approaches with respect to this issue. However, a strong public option has resounding support among Senate Democrats - every Democrat on HELP, three quarters of those on Finance, and what we believe is a majority of the caucus.
The Senate Finance Committee included a cooperative approach to insurance market competition. While promoting more co-ops may be a worthy goal, it is not realistic to expect local co-ops to spring up in every corner of this country. There are many areas of the country where the population is simply too small to sustain a local co-op plan. We are also concerned that the administrative costs associated with financing the start-up of multiple co-op plans would far outstrip the seed money required to establish a public health insurance program.
Opponents of health reform argue that a public option presents unfair competition to the private insurance companies. However, it is possible to create a public health insurance option that is modeled after private insurance - rates are negotiated and providers are not required to participate in the plan. As you know, this is the Senate HELP Committee's approach. The major differences between the public option and for-profit plans are that the public plan would report to taxpayers, not to shareholders, and the public plan would be available continuously in all parts of the country. The number one goal of health reform must be to look out for the best interests of the American people - patients and taxpayers alike - not the profit margins of insurance companies.
Health reform is about improving access to health care, containing costs, and giving Americans a real choice in the insurance plan best suited to their needs. We urge you to fight for a sustainable health care system that ensures Americans the option of a public plan in the merged Senate bill.
Among the 30 senators who called for the public option to be included is Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. She was joined by the following senators:
Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH); John D. Rockefeller (D-WV); Russell D. Feingold (D-WI); Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT); Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI); Tom Udall (D-NM); Roland W. Burris (D-IL); Ron Wyden (D-OR); Debbie Stabenow (D-MI); Barbara Boxer (D-CA); Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI); Michael F. Bennet (D-CO); Dianne Feinstein (D-CA); Jack Reed (D-RI); Jeff Merkley (D-OR); Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ); Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD); Al Franken (D-MN); Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D-PA); Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD); Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI); Edward E. Kaufman (D-DE); Arlen Specter (D-PA); Maria Cantwell (D-WA); Robert Menendez (D-NJ); Bernard Sanders (I-VT); John F. Kerry (D-MA); Herb Kohl (D-WI); and Paul Kirk (D-MA).
Gillibrand also made her own statement that reiterated her support for health care reform and the public option.
"Ensuring that every American has access to quality, affordable health care is a national priority," Senator Gillibrand said. "I continue to support a robust public option that can compete with private health insurance and drive down health care costs for everyone. With more than 47 million uninsured Americans and millions of families and businesses struggling with rising health care costs, the time to act is now. We cannot have a system in which the only choice is private plans. Everyone should have the option of buying into a not-for profit public plan at a rate that they can afford. I am proud to join with my colleagues to fight for the inclusion of a public plan option in health care reform."
While Senator Chuck Schumer wasn't in on the letter, we do know where he stands. We also know that there are close to 50 senators that would support the public option. That's a majority of the Democratic caucus. So if there are Democrats that want to vote against a majority of their caucus, so be it.
First, a critique. Keep in mind that because we did not start at single-payer, the public option was the progressive proposal instead of the compromise. So now we are in a position where we need to compromise. That's politics. A strong robust public option can pass both houses and a comprehensive health care reform bill should be passed. Progressives need to stand strong and Democrats need to remember which party they belong to and quit siding with the Republicans/conservatives on this issue.
It's real simple: Either you want reform or you want a primary. Your choice.
The opt-out provision can be the compromise. It should be the compromise solution and it isn't complicated. All the opt-out provision does is it allows states to "opt out" of the public option if they do not wish to take part.
So the new idea seems to be a public option offered at a national level, but with states having the right to opt out - that is, make it not available to their own residents.
At first blush, that sounds good. It's true that the states most likely to opt out will probably be small states that really need the competition. But many states, with probably a majority of the population, would opt in. And if the public option works well, there will soon be pressure on politicians in the others to do the same.
I guess there's a possible issue of principle: if states can opt out of one component of reform, why not all? But I haven't noticed principles playing much role in this process! And the idea of putting red-state governors on the spot, having to decide whether to deny their voters cheaper policies, definitely has some appeal.
I emphasized that last part because that is the key portion of this provision which could be our greatest asset.
The point is that it would be good for the Democrats to put the GOP in this position. If they don't want the public option (or what they call "socialized medicine" and "government-run health care") they can explain that to the citizens of their state instead of disrupting the national debate. States like New York would surely welcome the public option. But the red state governors would be put in a position where they would either have to accept the public option or tell their citizens that the public option won't be offered to them because they would rather put politics above their best interests.
This is not a bad provision. It's a lot better than "triggers" or any other past compromise proposal. Because the reality is that there probably won't be anyone who, as governor, would want to kill the public option in their state out of fear that they would lose re-election as a result.
It is clear in the fight for health care reform that a deal will need to be made. Don't get me wrong, I am still fighting for a strong public option and won't stand down from that position. I believe that without a strong public option, any "deal" is a failure and won't represent true reform. This is why we should should have started with single-payer as the proposal and that way, we could have moved to the middle on a public option. But now we are stuck with the public option being labeled as the "left-wing" proposal and the moderates and conservatives are standing in the way.
According to reports this morning, President Barack Obama will back a strong public option, but he will not make it a mandatory part of legislation. He also will appeal to Republicans who argue that tort reform (or malpractice reform) is needed by saying that there is a problem that is worth addressing.
So here's my proposal: As part of any legislation, a strong public option is included. And included in that legislation will be strong tort reform to address the concerns that doctors engage in "defensive medicine" (to borrow a line from my congressman, Chris Lee) that leads to high costs of providing care. While I see the point the Republicans are making, I don't think any medical liability reform should lead to patients receive less care because doctors are then shielded by such laws.
Put in simpler terms, if we get the public option, then we'll give the Republicans tort reform. That way, we all get a key piece to the puzzle. The public option, after all, is the moderate position here. We could have proposed single-payer, which would certainly have brought out Republicans (and the conservative Democrats) who oppose a single-payer system. Single-payer is a progressive idea. Most progressives I know support it, but realize that the chance of single-payer passing is slim to none.
That makes the public option a moderate concept. It isn't a government-run health care system. It keeps the best of the private health insurance system while giving those an opportunity at better health insurance (for the underinsured) or just health insurance in general (for the uninsured).
So why do I support tort reform, as a progressive? Because I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea. I am opposed to the belief (and position that some Republicans have shared) that it is the main problem with our health care system. It is not. That said, it is a problem. I am willing to work with conservatives on the issue and promote tort reform as long as it is within reason. Any reform that leads to substandard care by doctors who think they can get away with anything is not reform. But if we want to shield doctors from frivolous lawsuits, I am in favor of such reform.
There has to be some give and take, however. This doesn't mean that Democrats and Republicans or progressives and conservatives forfeit their positions in favor of the other side's. What it means is coming to the middle.
Let's take the best of both worlds. We, as progressives, want a public option. We believe it is necessary and required in any health care reform legislation. On the other side, while conservatives and Republicans might oppose a public option, they do support medical liability reform. They have advocated for this over and over again. So we should be strong enough to say that, as part of health care reform legislation, we will include medical liability reform.
The Democrats can't have it their way. The Republicans can't have it their way. So we need to take the best of both plans and push it as bipartisan reform.
Congresswoman Louise Slaughter has made it clear why she won't host health care town hall meetings. She believes that the town halls have been nothing but forums for protesters and those who only want to disrupt and misinform the public.
The powerful Democrat said she held meetings during the health care debate of 1993 but is concerned about public safety this time. During a meeting of the Democrat and Chronicle editorial board, she referred to a town hall meeting with President Barack Obama in New Hampshire in which a man brought a gun.
"I think it's a way to disseminate misinformation," Slaughter said. "They're not debating things that are in the bill."
...
Reform of the system has attracted great public interest and caused rumors about the bill, many of which are not true.
"The idea that any American citizen would believe that their country would line up old people and do away with them is so, it's embarrassing that Americans would believe that," Slaughter said.
Slaughter remembers the debate over health care during the Clinton administration and said that Democrats are no more prepared for the opposition now than they were 14 years ago.
"We simply can't control any message anywhere," she said. "We are so big on transparency, let's write it all down, let's make sure it's all up on the Internet, knowing full well ... that people are going to pick out something that isn't there."
The right-wing is trying to take advantage of everything Democrats say, even safe ones like Slaughter. In a recent radio interview, Slaughter said the following:
The video was posted on Breitbart, a conservative website. Now, Politico has picked up on the misinformation by pushing the claim that Slaughter saying "won't give these people a forum" was a message intended for her constituents, which is far from the truth and distorts reality. The intent was clear: Slaughter will not give a forum to the conservative lunatics whose only goal is to disrupt, not debate.
Yet, this is an outright distortion that is exactly the type of misinformation Slaughter is talking about. The same people that are responsible for this distortion are also the ones distorting the facts on the health care reform bill and on health care reform in general. Coincidence? Definitely not.
Earlier this week, I asked you to get your respective Democratic city, county or town committees, as well as Democratic or progressive groups to support the public option resolution. By adopting the public option resolution, your committee or group will officially endorse the idea of health care reform with a strong public option.
Because without a strong public option, there is no reform.
Since Sunday, the resolution did change a little bit. Changes were made to make it a little easier to pass.
Here is the text of the resolution that your committee can adopt:
Public Option Resolution
WHEREAS, the heath care system of the United States is in crisis, with almost fifty million Americans lacking any health insurance, tens of millions more lacking adequate coverage, and millions more who do have private coverage paying increasingly unaffordable premiums, resulting in inadequate access to care and premature death, illness, or financial ruin for millions of Americans; and
WHEREAS, public polls show that an overwhelming majority of Americans want health care reform to offer the choice of a robust public option similar to Medicare in order to, in the words of President Obama, "keep the insurance companies honest," while co-ops or so-called "triggers" are inadequate in and of themselves to address the health care crisis by creating significant competition for the medical insurance industry; and
WHEREAS, Republicans and their allies in the health insurance industry have organized and funded groups of extremists to disrupt efforts on the part of the Democratic majority and administration to reasonably discuss the issue with the American people, and have demonstrated an utter unwillingness to compromise in any way to pass meaningful health care reform;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that [insert group name here] urges Democratic members of Congress to vote for only such healthcare reform proposals as contain a robust public option at all stages of the legislative process including conference and reconciliation, and encourages Democratic legislators to use any available parliamentary means to pass such reform;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that [insert group name here] shall send a copy of this resolution to all Democratic members of Congress who represent any of our members.
As of today, I have contacted six county committees in my area about putting the resolution on the agenda for their next meeting. It has been confirmed to me that four of these counties will be voting on the resolution. I have also have confirmation from at least one Democratic/progressive group that they will add the resolution to the agenda and put it up for a vote. I will be doing more targeting today to see if I can get more county committees to vote on this measure.
At Netroots Nation, Gov. Howard Dean hosted a town hall. He discussed the public option throughout the question-and-answer session. Here is a video of Dean discussing the public option:
We need real health care reform in this country. While I support a single-payer system, I also believe that the public option offers our greatest chance at reform. We need to get this done and we need to have the support of the Democratic Party - the same party that holds the White House and both houses of Congress.
He supports a public option and believes that without the public option, a health care reform bill won't pass the House.
"If there is no public option, I don't see that bill passing the House," Maffei said Tuesday at a meeting of The Post-Standard's editorial board. "I would not support a bill that doesn't have a strong public option, just as I wouldn't support bills that don't have private options."
It was the first time that Maffei, D-DeWitt, has said that a lack of a public option would be a deal-breaker when it comes to his vote.
...
In the end, Maffei said, both sides should be able to choose to enroll in government or private health insurance programs.
"The key thing is to give the individual the choice," he said. "And I think that's where I'm landing. .. So yes, you have to have a strong public option. I was for that from the beginning. I remain for it -- even more for it now than I was before. But you also have to have strong private options. The public option cannot crowd out private options. That's probably the single biggest thing that I've learned."
I am sure that Maffei has made his position known before, but this is the first clear indication that he supports a public option. He also brings up a valid point about private options. The problem we have now is that there are no strong options (unless you qualify for Medicare or some other government-run system) because employers either provide low quality health insurance or they offer no such benefit. Under the current plan, not only is a strong public option necessary, but a strong private option is needed.
It is good to know where Maffei stands. We need more of these statements from other members of the New York delegation.
The fight for a public option and true health care reform is still very much alive. We have seen the attempts by the Republican Party, conservatives and insurance industry to turn aside reform. They don't propose alternatives or their own version of reform. They just fearmonger and distort reality so they can stand in the way of change.
This is why we must set our own tone and encourage our leaders to support health care reform and most importantly, a public option.
WHEREAS our heath care system is in crisis with almost fifty million Americans lacking any health insurance and hundreds of millions more lacking adequate coverage ; and
WHEREAS both the uninsured and insured alike regularly face the risk of financial ruin from health costs; and
WHEREAS millions of Americans live sicker and die younger due to inadequate access to health care; and
THE NEED FOR A PUBLIC OPTION
WHEREAS insurance companies are driven to maximize profits by reducing benefits while increasing premiums, often without regard for the health of consumers; and
WHEREAS an overwhelming majority of Americans want health reform to offer the choice of a robust public option similar to Medicare in order to, in the words of President Obama, "keep the insurance companies honest;" and
WHEREAS a public option must, by definition, be accountable to Congress and the voters to correctly be called "public" in any meaningful way; and
WHEREAS the establishment of non-profit cooperatives in lieu of a robust public option will not "keep insurance companies honest," and
WHEREAS the proposed co-ops would be accountable only to their membership and not accountable to Congress or the voters, and therefore not "public" in a meaningful sense; and
WHEREAS proposals to delay the implementation of a public option until some contingency is reached (known as a "trigger") are without merit given the need for immediate action to remedy our health care system; and
THE NEED FOR INDEPENDENT ACTION
WHEREAS the Republican members of Congress have demonstrated no desire to reform health care and their leaders will not negotiate in good faith toward the passage of meaningful reform; and
WHEREAS the Republican Party and insurance industry lobbyists have organized extremists to disrupt efforts by Democratic Representatives and Senators to honestly discuss the merits of health care reform, therefore;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Democratic Representatives and Senators in Washington should accept no more delays in passing health reform and must use "any available legislative means," including the reconciliation process in the Senate, to pass by the end of the year health care reform legislation which includes a robust public option; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Democratic Representatives and Senators should vote against health reform that does not include a robust public option; that seeks to substitute inadequate alternatives like the non-profit cooperative scheme in place of a public option; or makes the implementation of a public option contingent upon a trigger; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this expectation covers all votes on this issue, whether procedural or not and regardless of whether they occur before, during or after the reconciliation process.
This resolution allows more than just bloggers to get involved. If you are a member of a local Democratic committee or are a chair of such a committee, show this resolution to other members and make sure your group signs on. If you have your own chapter of DFA or have another progressive group you are a member of, get them to sign on to this resolution.
We have some great representatives in the health care fight on our side. We have plenty of activists who want to get involved. This resolution allows you a way to not only get involved, but to get a group of people involved.
The Republican Party, along with the conservative movement, is united in its opposition to health care reform. Their idea of reform is to keep things the way they are. That's not reform.
The Democratic Party and progressive movement should be united in its support of health care reform and a public option. Anything less than a public option is not reform. The leaders of the Democratic Party and progressive movement at all levels, whether it's in Washington D.C. or Washington County, New York should stand united for a public option.
This week is another crucial week for the public option and the road to reform. Rally your party leaders and progressive groups to get behind this resolution and to support a public option.
This effort led by the fine folks at Firedoglake.com has turned some heads in Congress and the media. For the first time I can remember, the Netroots is using a long time lobbying technique...raising money to entice Congresscritters to actually vote for their agenda.
Nice to see...
I've heard talk of a one million dollar goal, which would REALLY turn some heads.
We have some NY State Reps on the list who have signed on to demand that a public option be part of the final HCR bill. Why not toss some coin their way ($2.00 each will do) and be part of a worthwhile lobbying effort:
Jose Serrano (NY-16), Carolyn Maloney (NY-14), Ed Towns (NY-10), Jerry Nadler (NY-08), Eric Massa (NY-29), Maurice Hinchey (NY-22), Nydia Valezquez (NY-12) and Yvette Clarke (NY-11).
In Wednesday's edition of the Washington Post, business columnist Steven Pearlstein will call for an end to the talk of a public option, arguing that it is a "political litmus test imposed on the debate by left-wing politicians and pundits who don't want to be bothered with the real-life dynamics of the health-care market."
Of course, Mr. Pearlstein is wrong. The public option isn't merely a litmus test, nor is it that we as "left-wing politicians and pundits" are living in a dream world where we can provide a Medicare-style program to those who would choose government coverage over private coverage. This isn't about politics or "real-life dynamics", but rather providing people with a choice: Their own private health insurance or a strong public option.
That is why rewarding those who support a strong public option is necessary. The Republican Party is united in its opposition to health care reform. They would not like to see a public option. Anything other than the current system to them is "socialized medicine."
The support for a public option has been up in the air. There have been indications that while he is supportive of a public option, President Barack Obama is having trouble getting support for it among leaders in the House and Senate. If those leaders think they can pass health care reform without a public option, they have a big shock coming.
The reality is this: Without a public option, any bill that supposedly reforms our health care system won't pass the house. The Republicans will oppose essentially all health care reform with or without a public option. Without a public option, you will lose at least 64 House Democrats, including eight representatives from New York.
With FireDogLake's leadership, we are fundraising for those progressive members who are standing up for real health care reform. The goal is $150,000, but more is welcome and necessary. It is time to recognize those who will stand up for a public option. Without those representatives in the House, real reform won't be realized. We don't need watered down legislation. We need Democrats to start being Democrats. That is why we need to reward those who have stood alongside a public option.
It is time that the progressive members of the Democratic caucus in the House get the same attention as the Blue Dog Coalition. We need to continue recognizing those who stand up for reform instead of those who stand in the way of it. Let's make sure we reward good behavior by helping the Democrats who are standing with the Democratic Party.
Here are the representatives who will stand for nothing but a public option:
Albio Sires (NJ-13) Alcee Hastings (FL-23) Andre Carson (IN-07)
Barbara Lee (CA-09) Barney Frank (MA-14) Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Bill Delahunt (MA-10) Bill Pascrell (NJ-08) Bob Filner (CA-51)
Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13) Carolyn Maloney (NY-14) Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01) Corrine Brown (FL-03) Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Diane Watson (CA-33) Donald Payne (NJ-10) Donna Edwards (MD-04)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03) Ed Towns (NY-10) Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Elijah Cummings (MD-07) Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05) Eric Massa (NY-29) Pete Stark (CA-13) Grace Napolitano (CA-38) Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Jackie Spier (CA-12) Jerry Nadler (NY-08) Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Jim McDermott (WA-07) Jim McGovern (MA-03) John Conyers (MI-14)
John Olver (MA-01) John Tierney (MA-06) John Yarmuth (KY-03)
Jose Serrano (NY-16) Judy Chu (CA-32) Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Laura Richardson (CA-37) Linda Sanchez (CA-39) Lloyd Doggett (TX-25)
Lucille Roybal-Alard (CA-34) Luis Gutierrez (IL-04) Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Marcia Fudge (OH-11) Marcy Kaptur (OH-09) Maurice Hinchey (NY-22) Maxine Waters (CA-35) Mazie Hirono (HI-02) Mel Watts (NC-12)
Michael Honda (CA-15) Mike Capuano (MA-08) Nydia Valezquez (NY-12) Peter DeFazio (OR-04) Phil Hare (IL-17) Raul Grijalva (AZ-07)
Robert Wexler (FL-19) Rush Holt (NJ-12) Sam Farr (CA-17)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18) William Lacy Clay (M0-01) Yvette Clarke (NY-11) Hank Johnson (GA-04)
It should also be mentioned that Congressman Anthony Weiner, who has been an outspoken advocate for a public option, doesn't appear on the list but is someone who is a strong supporter of a public health insurance option.
This is a key fight. We need to make sure those who are with us on that fight are being congratulated.
Congressman Eric Massa has drawn a lot of attention lately for some remarks that were caught on camera and posted by a Washington Times reporter Sunday. The headline of the piece reads "Rep. Massa: I will vote against the interests of my district" and paints a picture that Massa will vote against the interests of district. Period.
But that is not what Massa was talking about. I would know. Some of the other bloggers here would know. We were there.
At Netroots Nation on Saturday, we had a New York caucus scheduled. The caucus, at least how I envisioned it, would focus on the dysfunctional state legislature and what we can do, as progressives, to address the problems.
Those plans changed when we were joined by Congressman Massa. I was surprised to see Massa join us. I knew he had a panel that day, but I didn't expect him to join us for the caucus. Even though we were surprised, we were eager to sit down with him.
The video captured by the Washington Times shows Massa in 96 seconds. Those of us who were in attendance knows that Massa was talking with us for approximately 45 minutes.
Here is what Massa said which is causing the uproar:
MASSA: I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district if I actually think what I am doing is going to be helpful.
That was in response to a question about his support for single-payer health care and whether or not he support a bill for single-payer health care even if the opposition to the legislation in his district was 60-40 or 80-20.
While his statement alone might be confusing to some and might raise questions about the representation he is providing the 29th, there is more to this story.
At his panel, which took place following his meeting with the New York caucus at Netroots Nation, Massa had this to say (quote I cite below starts at about 44 seconds in):
MASSA: There is a great public cacophony that would lead people who watch Fox News to believe that there is a revolution underway against the public option. So many members, myself included - I've been doing nothing but town hall meetings - and every town hall meeting, show of hands it is 90 percent against and 10 percent for. Okay, got it, no problem.
There comes a time when members of Congress, sometimes, must vote against popular opinion because they know that was in the interest of their districts and their countries. I'm not going to vote for something that is both unpopular and suicidal to the people who sign up for it. Why would I vote to lead my district into even more dependence on private health insurance? I won't do that.
During his weekly press call today, Massa compared his hypothetical vote for single-payer health care to Republican Amo Houghton, who used to represent the 29th congressional district, and his vote against authorizing the Iraq War in 2002. Houghton was one of only six Republicans to vote against the war even though the war was tremendously popular in his district, among the Republican Party and throughout the country. It wasn't popular for Houghton to vote against the war, but he did so because he felt it was in the best interest of his district and country do so, even though both his district and country supported the war.
Congressman Massa is taking some heat for his words. I have heard his remarks over and over again and I saw him in person at Netroots Nation. I know what he meant, but when you take one clip and broadcast it to show that, somehow, he won't vote for the best interests of his district, that isn't honest journalism. Could Massa have chosen his words differently? Possibly. But after watching the video over and over again, it is clear what his intent was.
The way of Congress seems to be to engage in public battles, name calling and mud slinging over issues that are not well defined. In health care reform, the battle has now shifted to whether or not there should be a public option and how robust it will be. It's mostly about the politics and not about substantive health care reform.
Side Note Speaker Pelosi has committed to allowing a vote on H.R.676, the single-payer bill.
There is near complete silence on just what the public option will be. Similarly, those who will only support a "robust" public option have not defined what that means. Meanwhile progressive organizations are pleading for activists to lobby our representatives to support the robust public option.
Yesterday, John Hall's The Hall Report arrived in my email inbox. He seems to be chastising other members of Congress, presumably Republicans and Blue Dog Dems, for delaying the health care bill. He quite correctly points out what could happen if Congress does nothing. Then in the next breath, the Congressman advocates for only the most limited change, which would address none of the evils of doing nothing.
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
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.
We owe a lot of our success, as a party and a movement, to Howard Dean. As chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Dean led the way (equipped with a 50 state strategy that he was the main architect of) and helped elect a Democratic majority in the House, Senate and also led to the election of President Barack Obama.
Of course, the discussion about health care is important. But the political aspect of this is huge. Getting Howard Dean's endorsement is something that will hold a lot of weight with a lot of people, including the likes of myself who already support Gillibrand. Dean endorsing Gillibrand is a huge endorsement for Gillibrand and while she has received many endorsements from Democratic Party leaders and elected officials, having the backing of Howard Dean will help rally more and more progressives in support of Gillibrand.
Here is the text of the endorsement:
Well I want to thank Kirsten for the time she gave to do the interview. I asked her to do the interview because I'm considering endorsements in the United States Senate race in New York. So I'll tell you one very quick story about Kirsten Gillibrand.
She was elected in 2006, and I spent four years in Washington - and a lot of people in Washington say a lot of things and usually don't do anything about it. She came in about two and a half year ago when she was a representative and told me when I was chairman of the DNC that she wanted to do something for women through the Women's Leadership Forum. And I thought to myself, this is really great, but I'll bet it'll never happen.
She's the only person in four years that came to me, made a promise, and then brought six of her women colleagues in the House then, to raise money for the Democratic National Committee so we could have this big majority in the House and this big majority in the Senate.
And today, she's satisfied me that she knows how to use that majority in order to get things done. So I'm pleased to endorse Kirsten Gillibrand for the United States Senate for her re-election.
The endorsement is big, but the discussion Dean and Gillibrand had about health care really shows just how progressive Gillibrand is on the issue. For all the criticisms that she has wavered on issues from the past to the present, her support of a public option is something that she had stood by during her time in the Senate. She hasn't backed down from that, which is admirable and, well, progressive.
This is a great night for Gillibrand. Getting Dean's backing could be the most important endorsement she has received to date. Dean is well respected among those in the Democratic Party, the progressive movement and the netroots/grassroots. This endorsement will hold weight among all of those groups.
