I like Eric Massa. I really do. So I feel a sense of dread and sadness when I see how this story is slowing but surely spiraling out of control. Massa's story is becoming more and more ridiculous, layered, angry, and scorned. This is a classic slash-and-burn tactic and it's very sad to see.
In roughly 12 hours, Massa has changed his narrative from "congressman resigning in disgrace" to angry, Howard Beale-esque truth-teller who'd simply had enough and will take his party to the woodshed. Left unsettled: the incredibly important issue of whether he'll resign today, as he said he would, or he'll try to bring down the health care bill by staying in Congress.
source
Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) says the House ethics committee is investigating him for inappropriate comments he made to a male staffer on New Year's Eve - and that he's the victim of a power play by Democratic leaders who want him out of Congress because he's a "no" vote on health care reform.
"Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill," Massa, who on Friday announced his intention to resign, said during a long monologue on radio station WKPQ. "And this administration and this House leadership have said, quote-unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill. And now they've gotten rid of me, and it will pass. You connect the dots."
In a heated, rambling monologue on his weekly show on Hornell radio station WKPQ-FM, Massa described the conversation that he said led to an investigation. The show is listed on Massa's official schedule, and a link to a recording -- http://drop.io/massa3710 -- was provided by WHAM-TV.
After dancing with a bridesmaid, Massa said, he returned to a table full of male staffers who he said had been drinking heavily.
"A staff member made an intonation that maybe I should be chasing after the bridesmaid," Massa said. He responded by saying, "Well, what I really ought to be doing is frakking you." He said the complaint came not from that staffer, but from another at the table. source
There's really not a whole lot I can add here. I think there's probably a lot of valid things that Massa is saying but the fact that he's decided now to go on the attack and is sitting down for an hour long discussion with Glenn Beck doesn't pass the smell test with me. It smells like conspiracy-paranoia-last ditch attempt to save his skin. And for that, I find the whole situation utterly depressing. When someone who comes across as straight forward, active, and bold as Eric Massa can get caught up in this sort of insanity, it makes me wonder how we can trust those that represent us. If not Eric Massa, then who?
LANGUAGE WARNING: Today's story is uncharacteristically blunt, and from this moment forward we will be using lots of inappropriate language in making our points.
It is by now fairly well known that Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's White House Chief of Staff, had a bit of a blow-up with liberals who were ready to start running ads against "blue dog" Democrats who were working very hard to shut down the health care reform effort.
Now we're not gonna get in the middle of that argument today; instead, since we're finally getting a chance to talk, I figured me and Rahm could get a few other things out of the way that have been on everyone's mind for the past year or so.
I was supposed to begin the long-delayed series of PTSD stories I've been planning, but before we begin, I need to tell y'all about something that just happened in my house.
For us it wasn't a matter of life or death, but it is the kind of story that explains, perfectly, why we need to reform the health care system we have today-and for that matter, it's also a great explanation of why a single-payer system would be a giant step forward for everyone in this country, whether you're insured today or not.
It's also hilarious and sad and frustrating, all at the same time-which makes today's story a pretty good allegory for the current American way of doing health care.
So follow along, have a good laugh...and at the same time, take a minute to consider what could be, and how much less irritating things should be.
The AP is reporting, via Jon Walker at FireDogLake, that Senator Reid has gutted one of the most important consumer protections in the HCR bill, the ban on annual limits.
The fact that this language has found its way back in the bill despite promises on the part of the Democratic leadership that protecting consumers of health care (and those who need it most BTW) was priority number one, is an especially large outrage among a series of outrages.
Here's the language the HELP committee's bill had in it regarding limits:
SEC. 2711. NO LIFETIME OR ANNUAL LIMITS.
`(a) In General- A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish lifetime or annual limits on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary. `(b) Preventing Fraud and Abuse- This section shall not apply until the date on which the Secretary certifies that enacting this section will not result in undue proliferation of fraud and abuse, especially with regard to durable medical equipment.
No equivocation there. Clear and to the point.
Here's the language that is now in the HCR package:
SEC. 2711. NO LIFETIME OR ANNUAL LIMITS.
`(a) In General- A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish-
`(1) lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary; or
`(2) unreasonable annual limits (within the meaning of section 223 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary.
`(b) Per Beneficiary Limits- Subsection (a) shall not be construed to prevent a group health plan or health insurance coverage that is not required to provide essential health benefits under section 1302(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act from placing annual or lifetime per beneficiary limits on specific covered benefits to the extent that such limits are otherwise permitted under Federal or State law.
That one little word, unreasonable, is pointed out by me for obvious reasons. That one word is the loophole that we KNOW insurance companies will use as if it's a a black hole into which billions of our dollars will disappear.
We need to stop this bait and switch NOW.
Please call Senator Schumer and Congressman Rangel now and insist that we go back to the HELP committee's language:
Want to know what we are up against? Jane Hamsher has just pointed out that the Department of Health and Human Services has been pushing for this switch-a-roo all along.
Ensures consumer protections in the insurance market. Insurance companies will no longer be able to place lifetime limits on the coverage they provide, use of annual limits will be restricted, and they will not be able to arbitrarily drop coverage.
In this case, they replaced the word "unreasonable" with "restricted."
Just one little word will mean billions in profits to the Health Insurance Companies, and it seems that there are many in DC who are more than willing to make that happen. That money will come out of the wallets of citizens who need protection the most.
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.
There has been a great wailing and gnashing of teeth over the past day or so as those who follow the healthcare debate react to the Stupak/Some Creepy Republican Guy Amendment.
The Amendment, which is apparently intended to respond to conservative Democrats' concerns that too many women were voting for the Party in recent elections, was attached to the House's version of healthcare reform legislation that was voted out of the House this weekend.
The goal is to limit women's access to reproductive medicine services, particularly abortions; this based on the concept that citizens of good conscience shouldn't have their tax dollars used to fund activities they find morally repugnant.
At first blush, I was on the mild end of the wailing and gnashing spectrum myself...but having taken a day to mull the thing over, I'm starting to think that maybe we should take a look at the thinking behind this...and I'm also starting to think that, properly applied, Stupak's logic deserves a more important place in our own vision of how a progressive government might work.
It's Political Judo Day today, Gentle Reader, and by the time we're done here it's entirely possible that you'll see Stupak's logic in a whole new light.
During the 23rd congressional district race, Bill Owens was questioned about his views on two issues important to progressives: Health care reform and reproductive rights. His stance on health care was questioned because of his position on the public option. He went from saying he did not support a public option to saying that if a bill met his standards and it included a public option, he would vote for it. But that also meant if the bill met his standards and did not have a public option, he would still vote for it. The public option, for Owens, was not a must-have.
The other big vote for Owens came on the Stupak amendment. The Stupak amendment bans funds in the exchange set up by the health care reform bill being used to pay for abortion. Owens, who admitted that he was anti-choice prior to the campaign but has evolved since and believes that protecting Roe versus Wade is a must because it is the law. Owens voted against the Stupak amendment, joining all 27 Democratic representatives from New York in doing so.
Obama's point is a good one. Obama proved that you can win on a change (or reform) platform. Obama singling out Owens and saying Owens won on a change platform is a great point to make. Voters want a leader. Owens showed that NY-23 made a great choice.
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.
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.
Today is D-Day for health care reform and we've still got some waverers here in NY. We already know that Eric Massa is "no" no matter what. (And I'll have more on that later. Short version: Massa is full of sh*t and trying to have it both ways.)
But we need to smoke out the rest of them. The ad on the left side of this page makes calling these Reps easy. Just click it, fill in the info and click the "click to call" button and you'll be automatically connected to the Rep's office.
This is it, folks. It's now or never. Too many of these guys got their seats with netroots support. (Rep Massa, I'm looking at you.) It's time for them to put up or shut up.
Put yourself in Ian Pearl's position. You were diagnosed with muscular dystrophy shortly after your birth and have been confined to a wheelchair since you were six years old. Even though you were physically disabled, your brain is fully functional and you are striving to be the best you can be.
But then it happens. At 19 years old, you have a life-threatening complication that leaves you with one option: If you are to live, you must breathe with the help of a ventilator.
And through it all, through the life-threatening complications you had to endure along the way and through everything you have been through since you were born, who would have thought that it was a health insurance company that could be the thing that kills you.
Ian's story is better told by him, but here's the summary: Guardian decided that they were sick of covering Ian. At first, they pulled the health care plan that covered everyone in his dad's company in New York. That could be seen as a general move not targeted at Ian, but with some digging, Ian found that it was because of him and others with serious medical issues that Guardian made this decision. According to Ian's account on Huffington Post, Guardian created a "hit list" of their insured customers who were costing them the most to cover. These members were referred to by Guardian's top officials as "dogs" and "trainwrecks" because of their health conditions and their cost to insure. Ian was one of many targeted by Guardian, a process that included certain members like Ian having private investigators look for anything to cancel the plan so Guardian could save money.
It's not like Guardian couldn't afford to cover Ian and others in similar situations (from Ian's post):
While all this was going on, Guardian reported $7.5 billion revenue, net income of $437 million, and available capital of $4.3 billion in 2008. Unlike small businesses, Guardian's financial strength remained unscathed by the economic downturn.
What Guardian did was remove a plan they offered from an entire state all because of a select few of their insured who were seen as too costly.
Enter Senator Eric Schneiderman, who introduced S6263 or "Ian's Law" in the New York State Senate. The bill "provides enhanced consumer protections in the event of an insurer's discontinuance of coverage, including requiring approval of the superintendent and notice to policyholders." Specifically, it would prohibit insurance companies from doing what Guardian did: Canceling a whole class of a policy they were offering. With Ian's Law, the insurance company could not cancel this plan unless they received approval from the state Insurance Department.
How is this law different from current law? Currently, it is illegal to cancel someone's insurance because they have chronic health problems like muscular dystrophy. Thus, it would have been (or perhaps IS) illegal for Guardian to cancel Ian's policy. But nothing prevents them from pulling a whole class of insurance. Of course, if they did so because of those who they insure that have chronic health conditions, that IS illegal and should be dealt with and the individuals responsible should not just be held liable via civil action, they should also face criminal charges. Because in the case of Ian Pearl, this is life and death. And when insurance companies are playing games with people's lives, they should face serious punishment.
For more on this story, watch the video below from yesterday's press conference introducing Ian's Law. The full text of the bill is below the fold.
This bill would prevent health insurance companies from doing what Guardian did: Pulling coverage in the name of profit. That was the motive in the case of Ian and others. They were seen as "dogs" and "trainwrecks" because they were actually in need of their insurance and thus costing Guardian. Not that Guardian was hurting for the money. They still have their billions. But they wanted more. So they put Ian in a situation where he is now fighting for his life.
Ian's Law is important and while it would only apply to New York, it should be a law that every state introduces and passes and should become a federal law so that we can prevent insurance companies from deciding who they want to cover and who will be the cheapest to cover.
It was a long hot August for those who would like to see health care reform, as rabid "Town Hall" protesters proffered visions of public options that would lead to death panels and socialism and government tax collectors with special alien mind control powers that would use sex education and child indoctrination and black helicopters as the means for gay people to impose their dangerous agenda on the innocent, God-fearing citizens of someplace in Mississippi that I'm not likely to ever visit.
Part of the reason that opposition was so rabid was because health care interests were spending millions upon millions of dollars doing...well, doing whatever the opposite of giving a distemper shot to the angry mob might be, anyway.
So wouldn't it be great if all the CEOs of all those health care interests were to gather at one time and place so you could, shall we say, gently express your own thoughts regarding the issues of reform and public options?
By an amazing coincidence, that's exactly what's going to happen Thursday in Washington, DC, as the Patient Centered Primary Care Cooperative (PCPCC) holds its Annual Summit.
Follow along, and I'll tell you everything you need to know.
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.
So we are now finding out the answers to some of our questions about which members of Congress actually represent We, the People...and which ones represent, Them, the Corporate Masters.
We have seen a Democratic Senator propose a policy that would put people in jail for not buying health insurance and a Democratic President who has taken numerous public beatings from those on the left side of the fence for his inability to ram something through a group of people...and yes, folks, the entendre was intentional.
But most of all, we've been asking ourselves: "why would Democratic Members of Congress who will eventually want us to vote for them vote against something that nearly all voting Democrats are inclined to vote for?"
Today's conversation attempts to answer that question by looking at exactly how money and influence flow through a key politician, Montana's Senator Max Baucus-and in doing so, we examine some ugly political realities that have to be resolved before we can hope to convince certain Members of Congress to vote for what their constituents actually want when it really counts.
Not even four short weeks ago, I was asked to meet in the living room of one of my neighbors in Rockland County. There were several friends and acquaintances there, and what got us together so early in the morning was our disbelief of all the misinformation and hate mongering associated with health care reform. One person in the room thought that the eight of us and a few friends and family should hold a small rally at a tiny village square in Nyack. But then, we started to dream...what if we had some entertainment...
The resolution might be a little hard to read in the image below, but after the picture I have the full text:
Whereas, The New York State Democratic Committee has numerous resolutions supporting single payer; and
Whereas, any real step toward single payer must include a strong public option (no triggers, no coops, government ability to negotiate with drug companies, rates tied to Medicare rates, and uniformity across the Country); and
Whereas, insurance companies (who seek to retain their profits) are the prime opponents of single payer; and
Whereas, the Baucus Plan will make insurance companies stronger and increase industry profits by forcing everyone to buy insurance from private insurance companies; and
Whereas, it is difficult now to counter insurance companies and pass single payer, making insurance companies stronger will make the passage of single payer impossible;
Therefore be it resolved, That the New York State Democratic Committee urges Senators Schumer and Gillibrand to oppose the Baucus Plan. We must move forward rather than take a step backwards. This bill in its current form will enrich insurance companies and impoverish the American people.
This is an important resolution and a big statement by one of the largest state parties in the country. It states not only support for a public option and health care reform, but also states opposition to the Baucus plan.
It is time for real reform, not bills dressed up as reform that are written by senators like Baucus who was bought and paid for by the insurance companies.
Kudos to the New York State Democrats for taking a clear stand on health care reform.
The first vote came on Senator Jay Rockefeller's (D-WV) amendment. All 10 Republicans and five Democrats voted against it, thus killing the amendment. The five Democrats that voted against it weren't surprises. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT).
The second vote was on Senator Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) amendment. That amendment received Carper and Nelson's support, but Baucus, Conrad and Lincoln still joined the Republicans in opposing the public option amendment.
On a personal level, I don't care what Baucus and Conrad think. They both seem to have it in their head that having a public option in any health care bill would mean that the bill wouldn't pass. They are wrong, but they will continue to believe what they have believed all along.
The big thing is that most of the Democrats on the Finance Committee support some version of the public option, whether it's Rockefeller's or Schumer's. That is good news.
Here are ads that Democracy For America and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee are trying to get out on the air.
Yesterday, I wrote a post with a simple proposal in it: Introduce legislation with the public option (what the progressive Democrats want) and medical liability reform (what the conservative Republicans want).
I received more than a few messages questioning why I would support such a move. So here is an explanation.
By itself, I do not support medical liability reform. I believe it is a way for Republicans to get back at trial lawyers and a way for them to deregulate the medical industry and give doctors a little more wiggle room for error. When you are talking about a doctor-patient relationship, there should be no wiggle room. That doctor should make the smartest decisions and the safest ones for that person.
The reason why I made the suggestion was mostly based on political motives. Out of everything the Republicans are proposing, I find this to be their least dangerous proposal. Allowing people to buy health insurance across state lines? That's not something I'm willing to deal with. The deregulation involved in that and the risks involved in that are too great and not acceptable. Plus, it has been shown that premiums would increase and more people would become uninsured. That isn't our goal here.
So that is why medical liability reform is the way to go. And I don't say that to try and sacrifice key components of our bill.
My goal is to put the Republicans in a position where the biggest piece of reform they are pushing - medical liability (or tort) reform - becomes their biggest detriment. We have Republicans talking about medical liability reform all the time. My congressman discusses it as a way to reform our health care system. The Republicans have candidates doing the same. So if it means that much to them, let's see if they can walk the walk.
Include it in legislation and then see what they say. Make sure that legislation has the key element of our proposal (the public insurance option) and then include medical liability reform. If they then waver because of what we propose, then we have the upper-hand.
I saw the reaction last night when the President mentioned medical liability reform during his speech. The Republicans cheered (and the President knew it would make them do that) while the Democrats sat on their hands. I would have done the same thing in that position. I am not a fan. But instead of us being on our heels about the public option, let's put them on their heels about their prized possession in this debate.
If the Republicans are willing to support health care reform with medical liability reform AND a strong, robust public insurance option, then maybe there is hope yet for decreasing polarization in Washington D.C.
Do I think that's going to happen? No, but it's about time we put them on the defensive instead of us having to defend the public option endlessly when all they have are lies and distortions and all we have are nearly 60 votes in the U.S. Senate and a strong majority in the House.
After President Barack Obama's speech to Congress, Louisiana Congressman Charles Boustany, a cardiothoracic surgeon, gave the Republican rebuttal.
You can read the whole speech here. Let's take a look at it one segment at a time.
"Republicans are pleased that President Obama came to the Capitol tonight. We agree much needs to be done to lower the cost of health care for all Americans. On that goal, Republicans are ready - and we've been ready - to work with the President for common-sense reforms that our nation can afford.
"Afford is an important word. Our country is facing many challenges. The cost of health care is rising. Federal spending is soaring. We're piling huge debt on our children. And families and small businesses are struggling through a jobless recovery, with more than 2.4 million private-sector jobs lost since February.
"It's clear the American people want health care reform, but they want their elected leaders to get it right. Most Americans wanted to hear the President tell Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and the rest of Congress that it's time to start over on a common-sense, bipartisan plan focused on lowering the cost of health care while improving quality. That's what I heard over the past several months in talking to thousands of my constituents.
We all can agree that health care costs are high. It is a fact that the United States spends more on health care than any other nation in the world. Yet, our quality of care does not correspond with the money we are paying for that care and that is without millions of those who are uninsured who do not have access to such care.
Health care reform is about costs. But it is also about improving access to health care and insurance. Not mentioning that shows where the Republican mindset is on this issue. For them, it's all about selective fiscal conservatism. It was okay to spend billions (perhaps into the trillions now) on the war effort in Iraq. But it is not okay to spend that money on your own citizens to make sure they have the best access to health care.
"Replacing your family's current health care with government-run health care is not the answer. In fact, it'll make health care much more expensive. That's not just my personal diagnosis as a doctor or a Republican; it's the conclusion of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office - the neutral scorekeeper that determines the cost of major bills.
Obviously, the Republicans haven't been listening. A single-payer system - which is where we should have started with in this discussion - would create that government-run system they talk about. The public option? Not so much.
The Republicans are trying to scare families into opposing reform. They are trying to say that the government is going to move in and replace your health care. That is not what the public option will do. The public option is there to provide an opportunity for those without insurance to get insurance. That is why the public option will exist and that is why a public option is necessary.
"Let's also talk about letting families and businesses buy insurance across state lines. I and many other Republicans believe that that will provide real choice and competition to lower the cost of health insurance. Unfortunately, the President disagrees.
This was a concept pushed by 2008 Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain. It was dismissed then and it will be dismissed now. The reasons are many. For one, allowing this would create a consumer protection mess. The Republicans wouldn't mind that (see financial crisis) but when you are talking health insurance, it's not a good thing.
Also, as the New America Foundation showed last year, premiums would go up, benefits would decrease and more people would become uninsured over time. So instead of serving as reform, this would create more of a problem.
Altogether, Boustany mentioned lowering the cost of health care five times in his speech. He talked about improving quality. But not once in his speech did he mention increasing access to health care or insuring more Americans. The cost of health care is a problem. The quality is also a problem. But providing more and better access to health care is also a problem and Boustany and the Republicans failed to address that, which was a glaring omission in their poorly constructed rebuttal.
The President's speech was strong. While I would have loved to see him state, unequivocally, that he supports a public option and is a must for any health care legislation, in the end, that's not his job. If a public option is included in health care reform legislation, President Obama will sign it. Period. So it is not his job to make guarantees. It is the job of the Congress to make sure the public option is in the bill.
I am glad Obama highlighted the fact that this is not a new battle. Many presidents before, both Democrats and Republicans, have attempted to reform the health care system in this country. He was smart to address the myths being pushed even if he did get heckled for it. Not the first Democrat to be heckled by a conservative at a town hall meeting or speech. But heckling the President of the United States really means we have reached new lows.
But this was perhaps one of the best points Obama made all night:
We are the only advanced democracy on Earth - the only wealthy nation - that allows such hardships for millions of its people. There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone.
I found it intriguing that during a number of moments during his speech where Obama made points like the one above, the Republicans stood with the Democrats in the chamber and applauded the President. So they realize the problem. They know that we are the only wealthy nation that allows its citizens to get without insurance and without care. Yet, they choose to use this as a political wedge issue. Instead of doing anything about the health care crisis, they choose to stand in the way of reform. That's not what we need.
What I thought was the best part of the speech was when Obama took on the misinformation. This is when he got heckled, but it was a great moment to bring out the truth.
Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.
There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false - the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up - under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.
My health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a "government takeover" of the entire health care system. As proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly-sponsored insurance option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare.
So let me set the record straight. My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly - by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.
There are no death panels. There won't be coverage for illegal immigrants and there won't be federal monies used for abortions. Obama also made it clear what the goal of a public option would be. It is not, as the Republicans say, a government takeover. It is a way to provide competition where there is no competition.
The speech concluded nicely. It would have made Ted Kennedy proud that Obama used the moment to highlight the "Lion of the Senate" and his pursuit for health care reform.
When he mentioned Kennedy, Obama said he received a letter after Kennedy's death. In that letter, Kennedy discussed health care reform.
In it, he spoke about what a happy time his last months were, thanks to the love and support of family and friends, his wife, Vicki, and his children, who are here tonight . And he expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform - "that great unfinished business of our society," he called it - would finally pass. He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that "it concerns more than material things." "What we face," he wrote, "is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."
If that didn't resonate with the folks inside the House, I don't know what will. It is, in fact, a moral issue. It is a critical social justice issue. That is why President Obama believes we need to act. That is why progressives know we need to act.
