To be fair, she had mentioned earlier that universal health care is a tough political nut to crack, citing President Truman’s first efforts back in 1945 and the country’s failure to address it going forward as an example – but what President Truman’s bill had to do with this question is anyone’s guess. She then mentions the Massachusetts health care mandate, calling it a success, but is it really all that successful? Many people are now finding out their options and enrolling for coverage, but my understanding is that at the end of the year we will still have a lot of uninsured or under-insured people in the commonwealth. Furthermore, the situation in Massachusetts is markedly different here than it is nationally, and it’s doubtful that our program could be effective on a national scale. The Massachusetts model is also fueled by private insurance with its 30% overhead – certainly no substantive answer to the question here either. But again, we “need to provide for those going forward” – hhhmmm, a second mention of “forward”?
Next she begins to discuss the cost of care and its linkage to premiums – again, this does not address the question. Yes, the cost of care is linked to the cost of premiums, but if a private insurer needs a 30% margin for administrative overhead, doesn’t that drive premiums higher still? It seems that next she’d like to get everyone enrolled in coverage so that economies of scale take over and we use wellness programs and crime/disease management (huh?) to bring down costs and REALLY MOVE FORWARD – did the word “forward” test well in a focus group or something? She concludes with, it’s a reality and we have an opportunity, let’s elect a Democratic president and she’s looking forward (again?) to creating a plan that will do just that.
Wow. Am I missing something here, or was that answer just a slew of focus group tested phrases with an emphasis on the word “forward”? Does it make any sense to you, did it make any sense at all? In the room I was in, it sounded like that old t-shirt: if you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit. Come to think of it, there was a fair bit of bamboozlement in “Blazing Saddles” as well – perhaps it’s a case of life imitating art? I remember another scene from that movie, when Governor LePetomayne hears the letter from Rock Ridge and shouts “Women murdered? Cattle raped?? Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen, we’ve got to protect our phony-baloney jobs here!”
Mrs. Tsongas, do you really want to represent the people of the fifth district of Massachusetts, or do you want a phony-baloney job in Washington, DC? If I were you, I’d start giving straight answers to the honest questions asked of you during this campaign – lip-service and equivocation like we see above just won’t cut it.
The author is an unpaid volunteer and fund raiser for Jamie Eldridge.
Exactly. Where’s the tsubstance?
John T’s selective use of a single response from Niki Tsongas in a two hour debate is typical of the bias and self righteousness displayed by some of Rep. Eldridge’s admitted supporters. The fact is (and it’s posted right here on BMG), there was significant content about health care from Niki Tsongas. She supported and detailed aspects of a specific plan (Edwards) and other initiatives (safety, additional nurse training, preventive care, etc.).
<
p>
With regard to a market role, four of the five candidates present supported plans with private (market) elements. Senator Kennedy’s newest plan has private options too. So does Medicaid. Why not condemn these parties for plans with boht a government and private role?
<
p>
I understand that Rep. Eldridge has changed campaign managers. Perhaps this will change the tone of the campaign here on the blogs.
<
p>
John T, not suprisingly, identifies himself as an “unpaid volunteer and fund raiser” for Jamie Eldridge. I identify myself as a Niki Tsongas supporter and one who would argue for a debate with civility and fairness. The lack of civility and harsh personal comments seen earlier in the campaign do not reflect well on your candidate.
<
p>
Will
<
p>
What’s debatable, Will, is whether your candidate can or should be elected when she can’t give a straight answer to an honest question. This is certainly not the first time this criticism has been levelled at her, nor will it be the last, if past performance is any indicator of future trends.
<
p>
Why did I not address the private insurance aspects of Sen. Kennedy’s plan, or Medicaid? Because my post was about Niki’s habit of giving non-answers to honest questions, and it could very well have been any topic on which she’s answered a question – you should ask yourself why you are supporting her.
I was at this debate as well and it was obvious that Niki Tsongas was conceding the point that administrative costs in the private insurance sector tend to be higher than in the Medicare and Medicaid programs and she was making the obvious point that it’s been more than 60 years since many prominent people and policymakers, including several presidents, have been pointing out the potential benefits of moving to a better, universal health insurance system, but that we haven’t made much progress, So, Niki (and many others) argue that, with little prospect at the moment of a single payor system being passed in congress and signed into law by the president, we need to look at solutions that will get people the health care coverage and access that they need. That’s what the Massachusetts experiment is about, same in Vermont, Maine and other states. This is not an evasive argument. It IS straight talk and real action.
<
p>
By the way, Niki Tsongas’s positions on health care match up almost exactly with Barack Obama’s. They both are arguing from the perspective that we have to deal with peoples’ needs now as we fight for a better system. That’s progressive.
<
p>
I am co-chair of the Niki efforts Wayland, where I chair the DTC.
Jamie Eldridge made that point in his closing remarks in Lowell at the MA AFL-CIO forum Monday night. Niki has attacked the Conyers bill (HR 676) at the Hudson health care debate and in Lowell that night as needing 15 years to implement coverage for all, which isn’t true. Eldridge stated that, according to Rep. Conyers’ office, once that single payer bill is passed that all Americans would be guaranteed health care coverage and that the 15-year period Niki brought up was the timeframe for fully assimilating private insurance into the new system.
<
p>
The reason why single payer doesn’t have as much traction as market-oriented plans like the new MA law is that too many politicians owe their careers to political contributions from the insurance industry and Big Pharma. Niki sits on the board of Fallon, an HMO. Is it any wonder why she’s hesitant to embrace single payer?
If she meant to concede the point about administrative costs, then why didn’t she say so? You’re certainly putting words into her mouth that I don’t see in the quote.
<
p>
I could never support a candidate that would treat me like that – she shows no respect for her audience’s inteliigence, or perhaps she counting on a lack thereof, I don’t know. If I were you, I’d reconsider my support for her.
My friend, you should look over your comments as well, before criticizing the tone and opinions of others as “self-righteous” and implying that Eldridge supporters don’t argue “with civility and fairness”. Your own remarks above seem a bit harsh and heated themselves, as was your comment in response to an opinion I made on this post.
<
p>
It’s civil and fair to make comments which compare and contrast candidates. I saw no personal attacks in John’s post here. He opted to get into detail about a part of the health care issue he felt was important and strongly disagreed with where Niki stands. You may not like the opinions and observations others make about the candidate you support, but it’s going to happen. Simply because somebody disagrees with you doesn’t make them self-righteous, nasty, or underhanded in their tactics.
<
p>
On a side note, you wrote above that:
<
p>
<
p>
which supports my earlier argument in the other post that:
<
p>
<
p>
Civil. Fair.