Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

How to support the public option

By

It’s like everything else.  Show them the money.  The good folks at FireDogLake have taken the trouble of setting up an ActBlue page listing every member of Congress who has promised not to support a health care bill that lacks a public option.  The ActBlue page is a nice way of thanking them.

I’m pleased to report that the Massachusetts delegation is well represented.  Congressmen Capuano, Delahunt, Frank, McGovern, Olver, and Tierney are on the list.  If your congressperson isn’t there, let him or her hear from you!

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Nice to see carrots used instead of sticks.

    <

    p>Six out of 10 Mass. reps — that’s telling, I think, in this deep blue state.  

  2. There has been a few bills (House, Senate) being pushed for Healthcare reform. The Republicans have been against these bills and are pushing their own ideas. The Left and many on BMG have said that simply because the Republicans are against these Democratic bills they are the party of “NO” and are for the “status quo”. I have never heard a Republican say that our Healthcare system today is just perfect… never. But now that there is the possibility of the public option coming off Healthcare reform, some Democrats (see the link above) are saying they will NOT SUPPORT THE HEALTHCARE BILL.

    <

    p>Have the Democrats become the party of NO? Are the Democrats happy with the STATUS QUO? Are the Democrats going to leave 45-50 million Americans with NO MEDICAL INSURANCE because of their insistence on a “public option”? What about my aunt Lucy who went bankrupt due to medical bills? What about my great Grandmother whose preexisting condition kept her off medical insurance? Are we all going to have to “pull our own teeth out”? Let’s get those pictures of 4,000 people waiting in line for basic medical care an ask Barney Fwank if he is leaving these people stranded…

    <

    p>Do any of these points sound familiar????? HYPOCRITES!!!

    • essentially equals the status quo, i.e., a health care insurance industry run by insurance companies whose sole purpose is to reap profits and shut out patients who are too expensive to cover.  We are trying to improve access to actual health care by providing a mechanism by which providers will be paid.  That’s the bottom line.

      <

      p>Republican plan (whatever THAT is) equals status quo, your protestations notwithstanding.  

    • Look, the GOP held the Senate, House, and POTUS simultaneously during this decade.  They had an opportunity.  What did they do with it?  I’m all ears.

      <

      p>People don’t want medical insurance.  People want health care.  If there’s no public option, how would you suggest the Democrats provide the “45-50 million Americans with MEDICAL INSURANCE?”

      • What are the Republican ideas?  I honestly have not heard their proposals and I’m fairly certain no Republican has put a bill into the hopper on this subject during this session.

        • It seems as well thought out as the accusations of hypocrisy above.

          <

          p>

          Sec. 101. Refundable tax credit for health insurance costs of low-income individuals.
          Sec. 102. Advance payment of credit as premium payment for qualified health insurance.
          Sec. 103. Election of tax credit instead of alternative government or group plan benefits.
          Sec. 104. Deduction for qualified health insurance costs of individuals.
          Sec. 105. Limitation on abortion funding.
          Sec. 106. Non-discrimination on abortion and respect for rights of conscience.
          Sec. 107. Equal employer contribution rule to promote choice.
          Sec. 108. Limitations on State restrictions on employer auto-enrollment.
          Sec. 109. Credit for small employers adopting auto-enrollment and defined contribution options.
          Sec. 110. Require employers to disclose amounts paid for employer-provided health plan coverage.

        • This bill may not be perfect but I think it has merit.

          <

          p>

          U.S. Senators Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) and Richard Burr (R-NC) and U.S. Representatives Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Devin Nunes (R-CA) introduced health care reform legislation that delivers on the shared principles of promoting universal access to quality, affordable health care, and does so without adding billions of dollars in new debt or taxes.

          “The Patients’ Choice Act of 2009,” transforms health care in America by strengthening the relationship between the patient and the doctor; using choice and competition rather than rationing and restrictions to contain costs; and ensuring universal, affordable health care for all Americans. “The Patients’ Choice Act” promotes innovative, State-based solutions, along with fundamental reforms in the tax code, to give every American, regardless of employment status, age, or health condition, the ability and the resources to purchase health insurance. The comprehensive legislation includes concrete prevention and transparency initiatives, long overdue reforms to Medicare and Medicaid, investments in wellness programs and health IT, and more.

    • Have the Democrats become the party of NO? Are the Democrats happy with the STATUS QUO? Are the Democrats going to leave 45-50 million Americans with NO MEDICAL INSURANCE because of their insistence on a “public option”?

      <

      p>There are those of us who argue that any bill that lacks the so-called ‘public option’ is merely window-dressing on the slowly decaying ‘status quo’… So it’s possible to say NO to this bill without being in favor of the status quo.

      <

      p>In fact, saying no to ‘health care reform’ that isn’t either about ‘health care’ or ‘reform’ is requisite for those of us who want real reform… ’cause the only thing worse than not solving a problem is not solving a problem whilst simultaneously giving the impression that you did solve the problem.

      <

      p>Orval Faubus, now he was a man completely and totally in favor of the status quo. Barney Frank?  Not so much.  

  3. is where the pressure points are.  Is it within the House or the Senate?  Which legislators?  You don’t compete against Goliath by spreading yourself thin, but that’s what this is doing.  FDL, DKos, et al need to set tighter constraints.  One example might be
    (a) sign that pledge, and either
    (b) represent a district with a PVI +/- 5
    – or –
    (c) represent a district within a state with PVI +/- 5*

    <

    p>I’m glad that Congress(wo)men Barney Frank and Mel Watt and John Conyers, Jr and Mazie Hirono are supporting the public option, but they’re not at risk of losing a re-election, so why throw money their way when it can be far more useful in districts where the Congressmen really do need to consider the direction the wind is blowing when making a choice if they are to be re-elected?

    <

    p>

    <

    p> * Includes FL, MO, NC, IN, OH, MT

      • I’m not sure what you’re responding to, or asking exactly.  My concern is that this spreads money too thin because it donates money to Congressmen and Congresswomen who, frankly, aren’t going to face a competitive race in 2010.  Why not instead take that money and “double down” on the Congressmen and Congresswomen who will require extra support?

        • If Rep. Frank has a big campaign chest, he is able to send money to other Congressional races. This enhances his influence and makes it easier to persuade others to do the right thing. I’m not sure whether this is what we want, but it could be.

          <

          p>Apologies for being so elliptical.

          • I don’t think so.  Frank can send small amounts of money to each candidate (I thought the $2k-something limit) and much larger amounts to DCCC, etc.

            <

            p>Besides, Rep Frank has lots of influences to donate money in many different directions… why use him as a proxy when the gifts can be made to the deserving, needing candidates directly?

            • (I’m not sure I agree with what I’m proposing at all.)

              <

              p>One might argue that Rep. Frank has a keener sense of who would be moved by campaign contributions than you or I possibly could since he is more likely to know the fellow Congresscritters personally.

              <

              p>In saying that, I plead ignorance on contribution limits.

  4. Are there no improvements over the status quo without a public option?  I would hope any amendment to get rid of it is voted down.  However, If I were a member of Congress and it came to the vote on final passage the question I would ask is not is this what I wanted, but rather is this better than the status quo.  If the answer to the latter question is yes, I would vote for it.  I do not want to fall into the trap of making the perfect the enemy of the good.  In case anybody’s wondering I have contacted Niki Tsongas to ask her to vote for HR 3200 in its current form, or better yet HR 676.

  5. than to the recent round of DNC fund-raising calls.

    <

    p>I got a call this weekend asking me to send money to the DNC for health-care advocacy ads.

    <

    p>I asked “Will the ads call for a public option?”

    <

    p>The caller said “Huh?  I don’t understand what you mean.”

    <

    p>I said “I mean a federally funded health insurance option open to all Americans.”

    <

    p>The caller said “I really don’t know what you’re talking about.”

    <

    p>And I’m supposed to pledge money to this clown?

    • Most likely the fundraising calls were outsourced so some people who don’t particularly understand the issues or what the DNC is doing, and were given a very simple script designed to work well across large numbers of people.  This was your opportunity to explain to the caller what this is really about.  Did you take it?

      • I did explain what the public option is and why it was the only plausible way to control health care costs, but this should be the DNC’s job, outsource or no.  If they just plop a person down with a script and no background on the issue, they’re doing it wrong.

  6. It is just about sophmoric delphi technique “debate” for me.  Left right politics is a useless and dead rotting corpse in this country.  Government rationed eugenics programs will rule the day.  Remote survivalist acreage not currently affordable but doctor avoidance certainly is.

  7. Even more importantly, once you’ve made a donation, call them and thank them.  On that phone call, say that you just made a donation and say why you just made that donation.

    <

    p>At Netroots Nation last week I ran into Darcy Burner talking to a few folks about what’s going on in Congress and got to ask her a few questions about it too.  She’s currently organizing the Congressional Progressive Caucus.  She pleaded for some thank-you calls to these Reps who signed that letter, and was eloquent about how much it means to them to hear from us when they do something like this … and how rarely they hear from us about it (in contrast, if they do something professional lobbyists like, they always get money and thank you visits).

    <

    p>That bit about making a donation and then calling and saying why you made the donation is my addition to her plea.  I did that with Capuano on Monday.

  8. ….as usual.

    <

    p>God forbid the representative actually takes a position on an important issue and fights for it to be included in the bill rather than waiting to see what happens.

    <

    p>Enjoy your seat on the sidelines, Rep. Lynch.

Archives