Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Let’s Fight for the Medicare Option

By

We spent most of 2009 fighting for single-payer Medicare for All or, as a compromise, a robust public option. But Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson blocked both, and now demand our surrender. Will we surrender to LieberCare?

I believe we can fight, but with one caveat: for once, the broad progressive movement must work a bit harder to unite. We can only win this relatively brief fight if we’re all working together every day.

I believe the policy that would unite the broadest coalition is a “Medicare Option” – a “public option” that specifically lets Americans under 65 buy into Medicare if they want that choice.

Why “Medicare Option”? For two simple reasons:

  1. An overwhelming 64%-30% majority of Americans support the Medicare Option.

  2. Joe Lieberman himself supported the Medicare Option until he discovered how popular it was.

Of course many progressives have other “bottom lines” we should also fight for as a unified coalition:

  1. Tax the rich, not healthcare – a key issue for unions

  2. Mandate employers, not people – another key issue for unions and civil libertarians

  3. No new restrictions on abortion coverage – a key issue for feminists

  4. Prescription drug importation and negotiated prices – a key issue for patients

To succeed, we must unite as much of the progressive movement as possible:

  1. Across the organizational spectrum – blogs, c3’s, c4’s, unions, PACs, 527’s, for-profits

  2. Across the ideological spectrum, from single-payer to public option to universal coverage

  3. Across the tactical spectrum, from DC insiders to street protesters

  4. Across the technological spectrum – bloggers, emailers, Facebookers, Tweeters, texters

As a coalition, we should fight with all the weapons we have:

  1. Persuasive blogging and press outreach

  2. Direct lobbying of Members by DC insiders

  3. Email and phone lobbying by activists across the country

  4. Hard-hitting video ads for Youtube and broadcast

  5. Protests at district offices

  6. Google ads targeting Members

That’s my proposal in a nutshell – I welcome your thoughts here.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I think the bulk of the constituent lobbying needs to come from the home states of the recalcitrant Senators to be most effective.  I’m also confused about why Lieberman would support something UNTIL he discovered how popular it was.  That seems awfully counterintuitive in politics.  Aren’t politicians generally inclined to jump ONTO the bandwagon of something popular?

    • I think Fertik is trying to coalesce the progressive movement around a single agenda on health care reform, maybe this one maybe a variation on it.  He knows that if progressives (who are willing to work for it) agree on what we’re working for, we have a chance to get it.  Progressives were divided by the Senate bill. Fertik seeks to unite progressives happy with the Senate bill and those displeased with it around a clearly stated agenda to pursue from now until the bill comes out of conference.  

      <

      p>So YES it would home state nationwide advocacy to have an impact and YES you’ve identified the same opportunity Fertik has with regard to Lieberman’s potential “reversal” on Medicare Option.

  2. <

    p>Which points made in this segment ring true to you? Why? Based on the items you identify, what should progressives  focus on between now and when the conference bill is finished?  

      • I liked Markos’ comments too and …

        <

        p>… hold it …. even Joe Scarborough a little.  He’s much less inflammatory on MTP than MJoe. That said, he probably shoots from the hip on MJoe and reveals the real Joe on his own gig.  

  4. By: Jon Walker Monday December 28, 2009 2:14 pm

    Almost all evidence points to the simple conclusion that the new health insurance market places in the Senate bill called “exchanges” will not slow the out-of-control increase in health care costs. Similar exchanges have been tried in this country and have failed to slow the growth rate in health care. The two best examples are the Federal Employee Health Benefit (FEHB) plan and the California Public Employee’s Retirement System (CalPERS).

    The FEHB provides health insurance for roughly 8 million Americans, while CalPERS provides insurance for roughly 1.3 million. Over the long term, both have health care growth rates on par with the average for large employer plans. This was the general conclusion of a GAO report in 2007, and similar study in 2009 by the Kaiser Family Foundation. A GAO study from 2000 found that small employer purchasing cooperatives (very similar to exchanges) also failed to bring down overall costs. If these two public employee exchanges with decades of experience managing health care benefits have failed to control costs, there seems little reason to suspect the smaller exchange in the Senate bill will perform any better.

    read more

Archives