I don’t typically start a post by quoting a photo caption, but the Springfield Republican’s story this morning on Congressman Stephen Lynch’s position(s) on the public option included this caption under the photo of Lynch. I think it’s a good jumping off point regarding this issue:
Democratic U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch said Thursday night that he supports a national public option, a government-run health insurance plan. It’s the first time Lynch, who opposed President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act and has a complex history with the issue, has articulated his support for a national public option.
The article further mentioned:
During the heat of debate, in September 2009, Lynch voiced skepticism about the public option. At a town hall in Milton, according to an audio clip posted on the website Open Media Boston by the independent I.B.I.S. Radio, an attendee said she supported a public option that would act like Medicare. Lynch responded that while Medicare does a good job, it “does not reduce health costs in general.” He said while a public plan would ideally force private insurance costs down, there has been no evidence of that happening. “We have no history in our current experience with Medicare or with any other publicly provided program that has exercised downward pressure on private insurers,” Lynch said.
Before noting that “the Boston Globe and the Patriot Ledger of Quincy both reported that Lynch remained undecided on the public option and would not take a position on it,” the article also recalled:
Over Labor Day weekend 2009, the Boston Globe reported that Lynch, then considering a U.S. Senate run, was barred from speaking at a Greater Boston Labor Council breakfast because of “his skeptical stance toward a new government insurance program.”
The same day, at a pro-health care rally organized by Obama’s political organizing group, the Globe reported that Lynch was booed because he expressed skepticism about the plan’s price tag, and labor unions saw him as being opposed to a public option – even though Lynch said at the rally that he favored reform.
“Lynch got booed off the stage,” recalled Richard Kirsch, then national campaign manager of the pro-health care reform advocacy group Health Care for America Now. “The rest of the Massachusetts delegation was cheered and welcomed. He was jeered.”
Health care reform advocate Richard Kirsch also spoke to the Boston Globe, which also ran an article this morning on the same topic of Congressman Lynch’s position(s) on the public option. The Globe article accurately captured the frustration supporters of health care reform had with Lynch’s opposition and seeming double-talk:
Yet supporters of the law found it galling that Lynch not only voted against it but also cited the absence of a public option as one of his reasons, months after saying he harbored doubts about the option, a government-run plan to compete against private insurers.
The Globe article further delved into Lynch’s perceived motive:
Critics said Lynch had another, unstated reason: Scott Brown had just won the Senate race, campaigning against the health care law and carrying Lynch’s district. Some speculated he was hedging, with an eye toward a future run against Brown.
“He was trying to be, ‘I’m Scott Brown, with a D next to my name,’ ” said Mac D’Alessandro, who was regional political director for the Service Employees International Union.
Health care expert John McDonough summed it up:
“This was clearly a momentous and historic moment. There was no space in the middle. It was, Are you in favor of moving forward or are you against it?” said John McDonough, who had helped craft the 2006 Massachusetts health care law, advised US Senate Democrats, and is now a Harvard University professor. “If he had had his way, the law never would have happened.”
Congressman Lynch’s position(s) on the public option have remained (perhaps intentionally) unclear over the years, and that alone warrants skepticism from supporters of health care reform. What is clear is that Lynch ultimately opposed President Obama’s landmark legislation; and, as John McDonough reminded us, “if [Lynch] had had his way, the law never would have happened.” Concepts like “pre-existing condition” would still be in our health care lexicon. And that may warrant not just skepticism but also scorn from supporters of health care reform.
on the fact that Lynch is on the United States House Committee on Financial Services and its sub-committee Capital Markets and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, which, until the current Congress, had oversight of insurance.
Given his lack of a credible explanation for his opposition, I suppose it’s possible that he had pressure from the industry. I don’t have enough knowledge of the working parts here, however, to even suggest that’s the case
On guns, gays, abortion and on whether he was for the public option before he was against it.