Earlier this week, a number of MA bloggers, including me, criticized MA-05 candidate Niki Tsongas for what seemed to us like a rather credulous, pat stance on how to solve the country’s health care crisis: “free markets.” I offered Mrs. Tsongas the opportunity to respond here, and I thank her for accepting it.
As to the substance of her post … well, there really wasn’t much. She correctly identifies the problem (47 million uninsured, more underinsured, high cost of coverage). But her proposed solution is not that of a leader who understands the issues at hand, but of a blind follower: Just do what Massachusetts did — after all, it’s good enough for Deval Patrick, Obama, and Edwards, and they’re all good people.
Where does one begin to dig into this?
- Does Mrs. Tsongas think that the Massachusetts plan is scalable to the entire US?
- Does she understand that the Massachusetts law actually leaves many folks of moderate income still uninsured — the very people who are at the most financial risk if they get sick?
- Does she understand that Massachusetts actually had it relatively easy, considering that we had relatively few people uninsured?
- Does she have a plan for controlling costs?
- Will she be willing to take on special interests who are making money hand over fist from the status quo? PhRMA, nursing homes, device makers, specialists …
And on and on. I don’t expect that Tsongas will have airtight answers to all these questions. The topic is complex. But MA-05 voters deserve to have a representative who has given it very serious thought. I’m not at all convinced that she has done so.
This is a problem for several reasons:
- There are roughly 47 million uninsured people in America, with easily the highest costs in the world — some 16% of our GDP.
- Medicare and Medicaid take up a vast chunk of the federal budget, and as the baby boomers retire, that will only grow. These programs are subject to many of the same price pressures as the rest of our health care system. While Social Security is not actually in crisis, these programs certainly are.
- The winner of MA-05 is likely to be in office for many years to come. When this issue comes front- and center in the national attention — which may already be happening — Democrats in Congress need to be able to act boldly, courageously and nimbly to seize the moment.
I’ve sent invitations to Barry Finegold, Jamie Eldridge, and Eileen Donoghue to hold forth on health care. I hope Dick Howe is right — that this is the hot issue of MA-05.
I don’t like being disappointed in a Democratic candidate. But health care is a critical issue, and Tsongas has now had a couple of chances to define herself. She hasn’t done so.
This post pretty much sums it up. I would say, though, that while she has not defined herself, she still has some time to do so–if she acts quickly. I imagine her opponents are working hard to form their own health care policies and if they can get them out before hers, it will be a big point for them.
As I’ve said, we shouldn’t be at all surprised by Niki’s poor view of the broader health care issue: she is on the board of an HMO and her recently-named campaign chair is a powerful consultant to the hospital industry. That Niki has this view shouldn’t be shocking to anyone.
<
p>
In my view, her view on health care and subsequent response on BMG illustrates a much larger problem with her campaign. There is no doubt that Niki has been annointed as THE candidate by the Globe and a lot of powerful establishment figures. As a result, her campaign has taken pains to say as little as possible. This was completely evident by anyone who read her last post which basically said ‘health care is good, I want everyone to have it.’ Niki is essentially using the run-out-the-clock strategy in this race.
<
p>
It is in the best interest of the district that we are able to fully debate and examine the views of all the candidates. Because I doubt Niki is going to jump into a lot of detailed policy debates on any issue — no, saying Alberto Gonzales should resign doesn’t count — we need to have these kinds of discussions on forums like BMG and elsewhere. I think Finegold’s call for 20+ debates is a fantastic start.
<
p>
If I may give a plug for the candidate I’m supporting, Jamie Eldridge has a lot of detailed reports on a host of important issues including health care. I think his views and record are more in tune with the voters of the district.
<
p>
http://www.jamieforc…
http://www.jamieforc…
to say that she’s using the “running out the clock strategy,” in my opinion. It’s not that she’s “the” candidate and is therefore trying to lay low, it’s that it’s still very early in the primary and details have yet to be fleshed out. So, I’m gonna give her the benefit of the doubt and hope she’ll come out with a detailed plan soon, since it seems to be the emerging issue in the race.
<
p>
One more thing: I don’t think her response on BMG is reflective of the broad narrative you’re trying to create. I do think, however, it’s an indication that either Ms. Tsongas or her staff (or both) don’t have a full understanding of what blogs can be for.
You may be correct. Perhaps as the campaign develops, Niki’s campaign will in turn become more substantive. In my view, however, I doubt it. I strongly believe her campaign feels that as long as the campaign stays about her last name and none of the important issues, she will obtain the 25-30% needed to win the all-important primary.
<
p>
And while I agree Niki and her campaign might not fully understand how blogs work, I don’t think that was the case here. She made some very troubling statements on health care at a public event and to the Lowell Sun. She had ample opporunity to delve into the substantive reasons for her stated view. Instead, her post was a total joke. It was written in full rhetoric mode.
<
p>
In the end, I think Niki’s campaign will attempt to be about one single issue: her last name. The district, and much of Congress for that matter, is starving for a fresh perspective and new leadership. Niki represents the same tired, stale “leadership” MA has become accustomed to, and candidates like Jamie Eldridge represent the new leadership that would be great for MA-05 and Congress as a whole.
In the end, I think Niki’s campaign will attempt to be about one single issue: her last name.
<
p>
It is highly unlikely that she would be given the time of day if she were running under her maiden name.
<
p>
Has she been elected to much of anything in the past?
<
p>
I don’t live in the 5th (I’m in Barney’s district), so it doesn’t matter much to me, except as a matter of hilarity.
<
p>
Mrs Tsongas has Charles SteelFisher advising her on New Media. I’d say it’s safe to assume that the Tsongas campaign has a pretty good understanding of what blogs can be used for.
<
p>
I am confused by the idea that it’s too early for a candidate’s policy details to be fleshed out. In a special election we have a very compressed timeline. Policies should be thought out before a candidate even announces. Why shouldn’t we expect to know where a candidate stands on issues — now?
<
p>
Here’s the thing: I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Congresscritter is not an entry-level position. Especially in these times. We have some very serious challenges to face. We need a Congressperson who is ready to roll – right now. Not when they get their details fleshed out.
<
p>
You know who my guy is.
3 things: First, I didn’t realize he was advising her on New Media. Knowing that, it’s definitely surprising that she has a tin-ear when it comes to the blogs.
<
p>
Second, I don’t think I said it was too early for a candidate’s policy details to be fleshed out, I said there was still time for her to do so. What I hope I got across in my earlier comment was that Tsongas needs to spell out her health care plan ASAP if she wants to stop the narrative that’s emerging.
<
p>
One final thing. A compressed timeline does not mean no timeline. It’s worth noting that Eldridge has his health care plan under “coming soon.” Congressional campaigns have the double problem of being a federal level position–with the costs associated with that–while at the same time a localized press coverage. Timing when you put out in depth plans is important. That said, this is a major problem and I agree with you when you say, “We have some very serious challenges to face. We need a Congressperson who is ready to roll – right now. Not when they get their details fleshed out.”
“Congresscritter is not an entry-level position. Especially in these times. We have some very serious challenges to face. “
<
p>
Agreed — top-level elected office shouldn’t be a case of learning on the ropes and blowing up the first few months in office. I”ve been consistent saying that for years.
you should blow up on the campaign trail.
<
p>
ducking
why hasnt her being named as “the other woman” in her boy friends divorce come up as an issue?..she is obviously a machine stooge that it a joke
Here is my neophyte take on free markets and health care…
<
p>
Employer sponsored health care is not free market. Most employees can choose from 2 providers, maybe three, some one.
<
p>
The only way to bring free market pressure to bear is to open employees choice up to all health care providers and let them really compete.
<
p>
Why are choices limited within a company (admin costs?) If it were opened up to all companies how many are there to choose from?
<
p>
But, employers figured out long ago that they’d get the best rates if they delivered a large population.
<
p>
That’s why the employer picks one or two plans (just like they do when they deliver a 401k plan. They pick only a few investement choices usually.) and let the large population decide which one of the few they want.
and embarrassingly (for me) obvious.
<
p>
Do you think opening up plan choice to all providers could ultimately lower costs?
<
p>
= more choice = more competition = lower prices. (Allegedly.) Then again, consumers’ buying power would be discrete, therefore less able to bargain. (I’m not using econ language b/c I don’t know it.)
<
p>
Well, I think it wouldn’t hurt. But another problem is that the plans tend to be so complex that we don’t really know what we’re paying for. Knowledge is power …
Which is more likely to save money?
<
p>
Right now all plans compete amongst themsleves for a company’s business and then if choosen in a limited fashion against one or two plans within a company. Perhaps choosing from all plans might have a greater downward effect on pricing.
<
p>
I also wonder if it is possible for a company to offer and subsidize commonwealth choice plans?
From my (albeit brief) conversations with the other Democratic candidates, only Eldridge favored a single-payer system. Both Donoghue and Finegold also favored a Massachusetts-style health insurance system.
<
p>
Read them here.
Niki took a position and when asked to elaborate, she made a post that said absolutely nothing. It would be one thing to argue for a position, even if it is not particularly popular. Personally, I could fully respect that, while at the same time perhaps disagreeing with it. It is quite another to take a position and then refuse to address it and hope that a lot of empty statements will satisfy concerns.
<
p>
I’d love Niki to dive into her reasons for saying: “We need to bring in the public sector, private sector and see what happens with the Massachusetts system.” Why does she feel that way? Does it have anything to do with her membership on the board of an HMO, or her campaign’s chair work on behalf of hospitals?
I’m not one to insist on single-payer, and I’m not insisting on perfection-vs.-good. But I would say that it’s too early in this debate to be saying what’s possible and what’s not. We don’t know what the Zeitgeist will be in 2009 — maybe we’ll have a Democratic landslide and a progressive President with a big mandate. Who knows?
<
p>
All of the candidates should concentrate on talking about what they would want to achieve in Congress — because things happen, and you don’t really know what’s possible until you get right down to the wire at the negotiating table. If you start negotiating with yourself before you even get to Congress, you’re not in a position to push the policy closer to the ideal.
<
p>
sco, in your really excellent interviews, I think Eldridge and Donoghue make the right kind of “getting it” noises; Finegold maybe less so. But Tsongas was given an opportunity to clarify herself and express her views more fully … and her views apparently just aren’t that full.
…does Tsongas have any other issues that differentiate her from the other candidates?
<
p>
I am reminded of the title of the German book Der Mann Ohne Eigenschaften. When they all look alike, just draw straws.
<
p>
The problem with health care financing is that the federal government isn’t going to do anything about it any time soon. So, in the near term, move on to other issues. Are there?
Where is Jamie Eldridge’s detailed health care policy? Here’s what his web page says:
<
p>
More Coming Soon…
Environmental
Protection
Universal Healthcare
<
p>
When you click on Universal Healthcare, nothing happens. It’s a little like Jamie’s rhetoric. Let’s see, he voted for the Massachusetts plan but now he sees flaws. Why did he vote for it? Why didn’t he try to amend it? Now it’s terribly bad. Why? Is it because Ms. Tsongas uses it as an example for a national model? There’s a long way to go here folks. At the first candidates forum in Lowell, Eileen Donoghue was asked her position on the extension of Bush’s tax cuts. She said she needed to do more research and would check up on it. Is she roundly condemned for not even having an answer? Why not? Because her name is Donoghue and not Tsongas?
<
p>
Finally, for those who claim Niki Tsongas only strength is her last name, let me politely say, why don’t you make an effort over the next several months to get to know who she is. I’m from Lowell. I’ve watched her work at Middlesex Community College, on the Creative Economy issue, and know she has worked with immigrant groups, and for many charitable choices. She’s been outspoken on women’s issues. Anyone who needs to better understand her as a person might look to the nature of her relationship with her late husband and her strength when he became ill.
<
p>
One of the reasons she’s stated she’s running is because of the lack of representation of women in government and in the Mass Delegation. Ironically, the comment that she’s just running on her name and has nothing else going for her is dumb and has an element of sexism in it. As if life experiences, employment and community contributions don’t count – only running for something does? Was that really what the Founding Fathers had in mind?
<
p>
Finally, about names… as a previous contributor pointed out…
<
p> “-If your name was Edward Moore instead of Edward Moore Kennedy would you still be a contender in this senatorial race?-“
<
p>
Good line, but Eddie McCormack was obviously very wrong, no? Senator Kennedy has an incredible record of national achievement. Shouldn’t Niki Tsongas be given the same opportunity to prove what’s in a name? At least for the next few months, let’s weigh all the candidates postions and abilities and make a more informed cumulative judgment.
<
p>
Let’s tamp down the name envy thing and get on with the campaign.
So, anyone who questions Niki’s candidacy and why she is leaning so heavily on her name is sexist? Gee, thanks for pointing that out. I guess I must be against Eileen too because she’s a woman and deep down I don’t want MA to have any women in the congressional delegation. What’s next, will I be called a callous widow-hater for raising questions about Niki’s candidacy? What complete nonsense.
<
p>
The fact is that Niki is running heavily on her name. That’s fine, and heck, I guess we can’t completely blame her since Paul Tsongas is such a well known name in the district. But please let’s not pretend it isn’t true.
<
p>
And now we’re comparing Niki to Ted Kennedy? Wow. Another stretch there, to be sure. Teddy has been one of the greatest Senators in American history, but in the context of that race, his opponent was right: Ted was barely 30 years old! The fact that Kennedy proved him wrong doesn’t mean the observation isn’t instructive, especially today. Do we need another member of Congress who gets there based mostly (if not solely) on his/her name, family, money, etc? I don’t think so. Raise your hand if you think if she was running as Niki Smith or Niki Roberts she’d have a shot?
<
p>
Again, Niki made statements on health care and when asked to elaborate, she made that useless post we’re all commenting about. I wish I could glean something from her post, but I’m at a loss. If you can extract any substance from it, I’d love to hear it. As I’ve already noted, perhaps it has something to do with her membership on the board of an HMO?
<
p>
In terms of Jamie’s health care views, those who live in the district who have received Jamie’s literature know there is an entire page on universal single-payer health care. His campaign just hasn’t put it on the web yet. It’s funny how you conveniently only mentioned the issues that aren’t up on Jamie’s site yet. How is that “rhetoric”? Maybe you missed the issues right above: education, the Iraq War and diplomacy, labor, and economic improvement. Rhetoric, my friend, is saying stuff like this:
<
p>
http://www.bluemassg…
<
p>
I don’t know why you have to falsely accuse Jamie of a lack of substance, and compare Niki to Ted Kennedy. The fact is that her campaign has shown a lack of substance or candor. I don’t see this changing much.
First of all, welcome to Blue Mass Group. Another person who creates a profile just to smear a candidate. Nice… and totally see through.
<
p>
Next, Jamie Eldridge has more specifics on policy than all the other candidates combined. For you to suggest otherwise and take a cheap shot at him is total BS — especailly given the fact that he has already stated exactly where he stands on health care (single payer) while Niki Tsongas dedicated a post to NOT saying where she stands.
<
p>
And sorry that the criticisms of her seem mean. She is the front runner and it is absurd to think she would be the front runner were she not a Tsongas.
<
p>
Finally, yeah. She should “be given the same opportunity to prove what’s in a name.” But in case you missed it, that is exactly what most of the BMG community is talking about. She has failed to prove a thing! No amount of sexism or name recognition caused her to screw up this issue.