My name is Judy Deutsch, and I believe that healthcare is a right, not a privilege. On July 11th, I attended a Democratic Town Committee Candidate Forum in Lincoln for candidates running for Congress in the Fifth Congressional District primary. As a proponent of a single-payer health care system, naturally, I asked the candidates where they stand on this issue. And it t was clear that we have only one unequivocal advocate for the single-payer system — Carl Sciortino.
Carl understands that the only way to stop passing the buck for Emergency Room visits for the uninsured to the insured, to finally put an end to health care bankruptcies, and to ensure that everyone has access to quality healthcare is through a single-payer system. He’s always supported this position and has the voting record to prove it.
Unfortunately, his opponents cannot say the same. I asked Peter Koutoujian where he stood at a this candidate forum and he said that he did not support the single payer system. This is in direct contrast to the answer he gave at the PCCC forum on Saturday, August 10th. But his response at the Lincoln DTC forum paints the real picture.
In 2006, Peter Koutoujian (along with fellow MA-05 candidate, Senator Karen Spilka) cast a vote which effectively killed a Constitutional Amendment making healthcare a right for every citizen of the Commonwealth. In 2003, when Koutoujian served as the Chair of the Joint Committee on Health Care, a bill called the Massachusetts Health Care Trust Bill, was introduced. The bill would have established a single payer system—however, the bill never even saw a vote.
I think it’s also worth mentioning that Karen Spilka recently cast a vote against an amendment (S2260) that would have commissioned a study on the efficacy of the single-payer system. Carl voted for the amendment.
The road for a single-payer system is a rocky one—but as Democrats and Progressives, it’s one we must pave. To stand a chance on the House floor in Washington DC, single-payer health care must have a reale champion in Congress. We need Carl Sciortino to stand up for everyone and ensure that quality. affordable health care does, indeed, become recognized as a right, not just a privilege of the wealthy.
Not to speak for Peter, but having been at several of his events, including the one you reference, is that presently he feels the work needs to be on rolling out the ACA. Since we cannot even get that rolled out. The President seems to have caved pulling back on the original timelines and the Republicans seem to want to vote to do away with it several times per week.
In theory, I support a one party payer system, Medicare for all but I have also tried to think about the unintended consequences on the economy. Like it or not, the insurance industry employs lots of people, perhaps someone out there has the figures. The insurance industry plays a cornerstone in our economy in many ways not just in jobs.
So we want a one payer system, how do we get there? Should we reneg on the ACA? How do we build our constiuencies for that? How can we make the ideal the real? For me that is the question.
Holding a view of single payer only position does not seem helpful to the current debate in congress, where everyday a Republican announces a new vote on the ACA or a new strategy to gut it.
I also attended the Lincoln forum. I was so astounded by Peter Koutoujian’s answer to the question regarding single-payer health insurance that I remember the exact words he used. He stated loudly and clearly, “I am opposed to single-payer.” “Opposed” is a very strong word. He knew or should have known that he was speaking before a liberal audience. If he were opposed to single-payer, he could have given a politically nuanced answer, but he didn’t. Instead, he went on to explain that he has seen no evidence that single-payer would save money.
There are only a few substantive differences between the original five candidates on the issues. Clearly, Brownsberger’s positions on Citizens United and his surprising conservatism on economics will likely not fare well with liberal Democratic activists. I like and admire Koutoujian, but his opposition to single-payer must be considered.
We’re supposed to hobble our economy with an inefficient healthcare system in which wide rivers of cash are diverted into administration and profit so that some of the people working in it won’t get laid off.
Does it occur to you that a more efficient healthcare system would (1) save lives, (2) promote innovation because people are less afraid of medical disaster, and (3) increase our global competitiveness?
Well, if Peter Koutouijian said, well, there must be some truth to it! We just have to think long enough until we find a rationalization, er I mean reason, for holding that view.
We aren’t getting it at the federal level anytime soon. Thank Obama, Baucus and the other wimps that let that dream die. If we are lucky we may get a public option after the ACA fails to control costs. That said, the votes with Finneran against the amendment are a big strike against Peter. Spilka voting against something entirely symbolic doesn’t strike me as a disqualifer, just as Brownsbergers esoteric votes on Citizens and the compact arent. It’s also just sad that so many candidates have started going negative so soon. It’s a solid field and a rare chance to pick a real winner and not “least of” the losers.
Carl has a solid record of fighting for single payer at the state level, which is entirely realistic, but I am not sure how this is relevant to a federal position when it’s a DOA policy option (which is entirely unfortunate IMHO).
I understand that if this is your most important issue you want someone who shares your viewpoint, but I totally agree with jconway on this. It’s not even close to happening on the federal level and it makes a boatload more sense to focus on best possible implementation of ACA than spending time championing something that’s got zero chance of going anywhere in the next decade.
If I was going to pick an ACA battle to move things forward I’d go for a public option, which was supported by a majority of Americans and really would have improved the healthcare system.
in that sense, in the short term, unless one of the candidates has an “elect a Democratic House” ray in his or her bag.
I think that gives anyone here the capacity to say, of any particular issue, This is not a deal-breaker for me.
But it’s very relevant if you want to move the country forward someday. So for me, it’s not a deal-breaker but it goes into the mix.
What I do resist is the tendency to say that because all these pressing issues are moot in today’s Congress they don;t signify in this race–that it all can be decided on character affability or affinity or whatever.
Issues matter, let’s hope for an issues-driven campaign.
I agree — I don’t think single payer is happening anytime soon, and in my day job I spend a lot of time promoting all the awesome things that the ACA is already doing for MA right now.
But speaking just for myself, I also recognize that whoever wins this primary will probably win the general, and whoever wins the general is there for a really, really long time. (I’m thinking about Markey, Olver, Neal, Frank, McGovern and Tierney as just a few data points to back that up.) So my question is: who is already speaking in terms of where we want to go in the long term? I actually *agree* with Peter Koutoujian’s position that we should, right now, focus on implementing the ACA. But, that’s not the point. We should do that — and also elect somebody who has a vision for where we ultimately want to end up and is willing to push for it. As Elizabeth Warren points out on other topics, if you don’t fight for it, your chance of winning is 0%.
There’s a larger theme at play here, which is: who is willing to, right now, stand up and say they will take on the BIG fights for the long term, and who is going to talk about where we are right now? I don’t believe pragmatism and idealism are not mutually exclusive — you can work on making sure the ACA works and still support single payer. More importantly, we’re not going to change the conversation on health care — or any other issue for that matter — unless we have people willing to lead. After all, for decades, passing *any* sort of health reform was thought a pipe dream, especially after the failure in the early 1990s.
So, for me, single payer really isn’t my “make or break.” But it is one piece that is indicative of a worldview: who is thinking about the current political moment vs. who wants to help build our movement; who is thinking about what is possible now vs. who wants to redefine what is possible; who is thinking about the situation right in front of them vs. who has a larger vision for why they want to go to Congress?
I meant to say “I don’t believe pragmatism and idealism are mutually exclusive.”
I want someone who will play the long-game but have the right view of where we should be going. No one in this race is a pure idealist who would vote against progress because it falls short of the ideal. I think there is a difference on who will fight hardest for progressive values, though.
When it comes to something like the ACA, the framework of the law is what it is and that’s all that was really on the table. What matters to me is about who will get in there and fight for the smaller parts of a bill and the amendments that can make a bill more progressive. That’s not mindless idealism, that’s progressive leadership. It’s why I love Alan Grayson (even if he can be a blowhard at times). He has the right long-term vision but also works these smaller things well so that he moves the ball down the field.
I’d rather my legislators try to move the bar forward on things like abuses in the financial system or implementing sensible gun control — things that already have broad support among the American people so the fight is primarily with moneyed special interests. The problem of money in politics happens to be one of my big issues, which is why Brownsberger’s well intentioned but hopelessly naive stance on Citizens United is a deal breaker for me.
Single payer happens to also affect a lot of people who are happy with the insurance they get from their employers. This is why I back the public option — it gives people the right to get public insurance without the upheaval of taking away something that millions of people already have and want to keep.
Medicare for all is the best policy option if you are starting from scratch, the transition costs would be enormous though since we have a much stronger and entrenched insurance industry than the UK or Canada did when they adopted their systems. Over time a public option will have the same effect Medicare does now on a wider scale. But to get the public
Option we should fight for single payer. Democrats move to the center, Republicans move the center to where they already are. The candidate that does the latter rather than the former is our best bet.
Ideology is great. Delivery is tough. My hesitation with idealists is the lack of pragmatic solutions.
I have supported single-payer for all since the 90s (I was MIA in the 80s, sorry.)
I supported labeling of GMOs in the 90s with NOFA.
I supported independent research of health impacts of cellular electromagnetic transmissions.
I am still an idealist at heart.
Experience has taught me that there is more needed to make progress – which is the root of Progressive.
Any forum I’ve ever attended where Carl Sciortino attended he always an impressive raft of legislation on which he was working. The impression he has always left me with was of someone both hard-working and fascinated with the detailed workings of government. That certainly doesn’t preclude having larger ideals and values, and he certainly has that too.
In short, it seems more than a bit unfair to cast Mr. Sciortino as some kind of talker only.
My philosophical musing about my political perspectives were not intended to insult your candidate, whom I respect deeply as a person and elected official. I have shared similar thoughts/words before on BMG in other posts. In fact, earlier in the campaign there was a discussion about the need for both pragmatists and idealists. There is more than one idealist in the race and I believe that all 5 have some level idealism in their character. I am more pragmatist leaning than idealist when weighed in the balance, especially given the current petrified status of the US House of Representatives.
It was not personal to you or your candidate.
Since he has been fighting for it here at the state level where it could be implemented. He won’t settle for Romneycare which means he won’t settle for Obamacare. Clearly walking the walk just to be clear.
Good grief. Just how do you think Canada got single-payer? One province at a time. VT is on the road to doing it, and MA should be also. People who were in a position to help or hinder MA getting such a system, and who voted against it, clearly did the wrong thing. For such a person to claim they’ve seen no evidence that single-payer would save money is astounding. Do they not know that the US pays twice as much per capita as the rest of the developed world for health care, and gets mediocre results for that money?
This is not irrelevant. I say that as someone who already has single-payer. The current system, including the lame and half-assed ACA, is a major drag on the economy and on quality of life for many millions of Americans. We should bite the bullet and dump it.
I like single-payer. But this isn’t a game-changer for me.
There is a handful of single-payer-ONLY folks who rooted against Chapter 58 and are rooting for the ACA to fail. If Carl were to say, “The ACA is doomed, and I’m not going to prop up a doomed failure,” I would damn well vote against him in a second.
OTOH, if Koutoujian (or whomever) says he’s flat-out *against* single-payer, I might question his judgment.
The right answer, to my mind is: “Everyone deserves to go to a doctor when they’re sick. Sure, I’ll vote for Medicare For All every time. Medicare is a good system that works. But right now I’m going to support the ACA as hard as I can, and work to make it effective. Right now this is a battle for people’s lives and limbs, not a debate club.”
I asked the question on single payer because it matters to me. Whomever is going to win this seat is going to have it for a very long time, and we need someone who is going to fight every minute of every hour of every day, not just for Single Payer but other Progressive values.
The fact is Karen has voted against single payer, and the bottle bill. Peter outright opposed it. Karen claims she is a fighter, but she a fighter for progressive values? Her record doesn’t show it. In fact, she was the only declared democrat who didn’t even bother to submit a questionnaire to Progressive Massachusetts. If Peter and Karen don’t fight for single payer as they claim to, what other issues will they waffle on when push comes to shove, and corporate lobbyists come knocking on the door? Carl said he is the only candidate to sponsor the Single Payer bill in the MA Statehouse. Being progressive isn’t just about talking the talk, it’s about walking the walk, and Carl has an excellent progressive record, getting things done and even standing against Democratic leadership at times, while Karen and Peter decided to go along to get along.
You want a progressive fighter? Carl’s your guy.
I’m confused. “If Peter and Karen don’t fight for single payer as they claim to?” Have they said they are in favor of single payer? I haven’t heard that from either. What issues have they tried to be on both sides of, which is my definition of waffling?
It’s clear that they have not waffled. Koutoujian is clear that he supports the ACA (good!) but does not support single payer (aww.) Just because Koutoujian isn’t a progressive fighter doesn’t mean he has waffled. He just disagrees with the progressive position on this issue.
It’s one thing to oppose single payer on political grounds. Lets e honest we are going to have to fight tooth and nail just to implement ACA. I think that’s why he made the distinction get ACA right and protect it from the radical right, don’t waste capital and energy on a fight that ain’t gonna happen. If he has said he philosophically opposes it, that is a different matter and would require further explanation. He backed Romneycare, backs Obamacare, and clearly is not taking the Kristol/Moynihan position that their is no healthcare crisis. Seems like he supports the ends of universal coverage but doesn’t favor single payer as the means, as Charley pointed out, that’s a debate club distinction not a significant difference of opinion.
For the moment the ACA is what we’ve got and we need to be on guard against shenanigans that would undermine it. But there is a huge real-world difference between single-payer and private insurance under the hodgepodge of the ACA, still provided mostly through employers and offering all sorts of different coverages, different premiums, different employee contributions, different co-pays and deductibles. Calling both “univeral coverage” does not make them the same or nearly so.
The liberal wing of the Democratic Party has been much less given to purity as of late. Perhaps that comes with a better electoral environment than 1993 or 2004. One would be hard pressed to find liberals who’d favor single payer and who’d not want to get the ACA working this year. (Breitbartbot concern trolls are another matter, of course.)
Even so, I’d expect any progressive with a good understanding of the world to see the need for single payer, stimulus spending in the current economy, carbon reduction, and a restoration of the Voting Rights Act. With the possibility of a continuing Republican majority in the House and the danger of one in the Senate, these things may all be remote as policy but someone who doesn’t understand them is likely to be quite unreliable — either when Democrats do win majorities or when advocating in the public arena.
In the PCCC Debate Karen and Peter said they would support Federal Medicare for all, during the lightning round.
http://youtu.be/gz8imGYYegM?t=1h9m38s
Thanks for the video clip, but unfortunately a lightning round “yes”, “no” or “it’s complicated” isn’t all that helpful to me on discovering a candidate’s position on this. Sheriff Koutoujian has said he supports the public option, as do I. Voters might reasonably interpret the phrase “federal Medicare for all” as “giving anyone the choice to opt into a federal Medicare program instead of being insured privately.” I’m not sure why the debate couldn’t have spent a little more time on this to ask about public option vs. mandatory single payer.
I am always dubious of these types of forums which claim to know how candidates stand on issues and only discuss a small cross section of the candidates. Katherine Clark has always supported single payer, voted for the resolution in the State Senate and will work towards improved health care for all. She indicated her support during the Progressive forum and reiterated it in an email to me just yesterday. I am proud to be supporting this progressive woman for the Congress.