<<<Up-Front Disclaimer: I was Alexandra Chandler’s Volunteer Coordinator during the MA-03 primary. And I am a very active member of the TRAG Healthcare Group, working to get Medicare for All passed here in MA. But these facts do not and should not preclude me from having an opinion!>>>
Hi fellow BMGers! (Fun fact about me: my initials are BMG! For realz!) I rarely ever post, so you know that when I do, it’s important. And as I’m ratcheting up my activism for Medicare for All, Ranked Choice Voting, Getting Big Money Out of Politics, and other Progressive causes (as well as candidates), you may be seeing more frequent posts from me! 🙂
This past Saturday, during a Town Hall in Concord, I asked my Congresswoman, Lori Trahan, whether she would commit to supporting H.R. 1384, the Medicare for All bill filed in the House. My dear friend Holly missed recording the first part of my statement (in which I expressed disappointment that she didn’t cosponsor the bill) but thankfuly, she recorded the most important part of what I said, and of course Rep. Trahan’s response. It’s short, so I hope you watch and share widely:
I am dismayed but not at all surprised by Rep. Trahan’s response, during which she seemed nervous and fell back on standard talking points. I don’t understand how she and her staff couldn’t find time to read a 120 page bill before this Town Hall – especially since she must have been expecting this question (and I’m not the only one who brought it up during or after the meeting)! She seemed to try to assure everyone in the room about being a member of the Progressive Caucus, yet I don’t even understand why she is a member – she’s not progressive!
Not part of this video clip, but during/after the meeting, Rep. Trahan also said she might be in favor of a Public Option and shoring up the ACA. While that’s a step in the right direction, we need bold action YESTERDAY, not incrementalism. Rep. Trahan also seems fond of the term “universal coverage”, as if she’s afraid to say “Medicare for All” or even “Single Payer”. That is a definite red flag to me, but again, I’m not surprised, given that she previously stated that “language around single payer should be tempered”.
After the event, she approached me, and kept saying “Just give me a week!” So that gives her until Saturday, March 9th, and I am holding her to that. I have already called her DC office today, and I will be calling EVERY DAY this week – I encourage all BMGers who are her constituents to do the same (contact info is at the bottom of the post)!
Rep. Trahan was already at risk of being primaried next fall, by winning only 21.7% of the vote in the 10-way Democratic primary. I am hearing rumblings in some circles of 2020 primary challenges if she does not wholeheartedly support H.R. 1384. But now she may have bigger things to worry about besides her support (or lack thereof) of M4A!
Rep. Trahan’s contact info:
DC office: 202-225-3411
Lowell office: 978-459-0101
#M4A #HealthcareIsAHumanRight
You’ve always been too much of a purist IMO, looking for key words like a computer scoring an essay rather than the big picture. I wouldn’t commit to a particular bill either if I hadn’t had a chance to read it; that would be irresponsible. She’s always come across to me as progressive, and your definition of that word is too narrow. You go as far as you can, but also do what you can. In short, I am satisfied with the video.
Chris, you’re damn right I’m a purist, and I have every right to be, esp. when it comes to such a life or death issue as healthcare! It was irresponsible of Rep. Trahan to come to the Town Hall unprepared, by not having read the legislation. On what planet is Rep. Trahan progressive?! Your definition is definitely out of whack. I’m not surprised you’re satisfied with the video, you always seem to fall in line with the Establishment. Barf.
My own preference is Medicare for All. It’s just not my style to stomp my feet. She doesn’t have enough of a record yet I suspect to really nail her down, but I strongly suspect given what I have heard from her that if she were to take one of those political ideology quizzes she would fall well left of the center (as do I FWIW). However, I have absolutely no interest in a Democratic equivalent of the Tea Party.
I’d love for Rep. Trahan to take one of those political ideology quizzes, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon. BTW, Democratic socialism is *not* analogous to the Tea Party.
Tea Party was a reference to extreme purity, which it sounds like you are demanding on the left just as they did on the right.
I understand the reference, Christopher. I’m tired of arguing with you.
How is it a matter of life and death that the Medicare for All bill passes, as opposed to alternative universal insurance coverage with expanded ACA subsides and a public option? It is bad enough that you take a “my way of the highway” approach to your politics, but then combining to with life or death consequences is similar to the demagoguery of the right.
People who know me know that I’m not a demagogue. And it *is* life or death, and to say that making our health care system be on par with what almost every other industrialized nation in the world has is not demagoguery. What’s with you and Christopher equating Democratic socialism with the Tea Party?!
I’ve met Betsey. She’s no demagogue.
Thanks, Tom. Normally that kind of smear would really piss me off, but it actually made me laugh, because I (and others here at BMG) know how untrue that is!
She’s no demogogue, but she is a force to be reckoned with. Just ask the voters of Maynard.
I believe Maynard is the only town won by Alexandra Chandler in the CD3 primary – coincidence?
Correction, Christopher. Alexandra Chandler won both the town of Stow and the town of Maynard in the CD3 primary.
It IS a matter of life and death.
I see nothing “similar to the demagoguery of the right” in anything in the thread-starter or the comments. Can you be more specific about what you’re objecting to?
The quoted language from Ms. Trahan was (emphasis mine) “might be in favor of a Public Option and shoring up the ACA”. I see nothing there advocating any alternative. I see, instead, somebody waffling and spinning.
Our health care system is BROKEN. The ACA was a giant step forward, and the GOP has been doing all in its power to dismantle it for the past 10 years. The efforts have done real damage.
I invite you to offer a reference to a legislative proposal comparable to the medicare for all bill. I invite you to offer evidence that Ms. Trahan supports that alternative. In the absence of that, the thread-starter strikes me as accurate and well-written.
Thanks for your last sentence. Part of why I hardly ever post is that I doubt that the quality of my writing would be anywhere near what folks like you roll out on a near daily basis. I know it’s not a competition, but still, there’s just that part of me that’s a perfectionist. So receiving a compliment from you on my writing means a lot, Tom!
There’s nothing wrong with the quality of your writing, and FWIW I have contacted Trahan’s office to say I hope she ultimately supports a single-payer model.
Thanks and thanks! Rep. Trahan herself said she needed a week (and that was 5 days ago), so I hope by “ultimately” you meant within the next 2 days. 😉
Your writing is clear as a bell and refreshingly frank. “Barf”? That’s funny!
I KNOW Betsey and she’s no demagogue. She is a dear friend, a highly respected progressive Democratic activist/organizer, and a beloved member of Team Chandler where she honorably served as our outstanding Volunteer Coordinator where I reported to her as Campaign Manager. 🙂 LOL That’s a joke for those of you who don’t know what a firecracker force of nature she is.
I love you back, Fred. And I love your little joke! Hee hee. In all seriousness, thanks for your support, it means the world to me.
OK all, if she is not using the language of a demagogue, can someone tell me how providing everyone health care insurance via any other means other than Medicare for All would kill people? This kind of language is just plain stupid and intellectually lazy. And given that she has compared me to the Tea Party, it only supports my point. This kind of attack is not healthy for the Democrats.
You wrote (emphasis mine):
While it was Christopher who explicitly invoked the “Tea Party”, your commentary is just as harsh.
Please reread the comment you’re responding to. She asserted that healthcare is a life and death issue. Do you dispute that? She did not write that “providing health care insurance via any other means other than Medicare for All would kill people” — that’s a strawman that you’ve erected.
The only “just plain stupid and intellectually lazy language” I find here is your own. You’re putting words in her mouth and then complaining about them.
That is, quite frankly, precisely the kind of thing the Tea Party has been doing for years. The comparison is fair, given your harsh rhetoric.
While I normally would not even dignify this with a response, exactly where did I compare you to the Tea Party?!
Perhaps he is taking umbrage at this line (emphasis mine):
Seems like weak tea to me, frankly.
Also, Chris, it’s interesting how you have nothing to say about this. Knowing you, you probably think Rep. Trahan did everything aboveboard.
Well, I hit a paywall on the particular article you linked. I have heard a bit about it, but don’t have enough information to comment intelligently. I certainly prefer not to jump to any conclusions.
Here are some key excerpts:
This is from the Boston Globe story cited upthread.
Do contribution limits apply to spouses too? This seems to be mostly a reporting snafu and I’m certainly not going to start chanting lock her up over it.
Perhaps one of our resident experts can clarify the legal issues involved in the above story.
I never said “lock her up”. But it’s definitely fishier than just some reporting snafu. Then again, I’m not surprised you keep defending Rep Trahan.
What’s wrong with giving someone the benefit of the doubt?
In my view, there is significant difference between “benefit of the doubt” and, for instance, characterizing an Andrea Estes piece as a “reporting snafu”. What you’ve been doing is steadfastly defending Ms. Trahan, while dismissing credible reports of significant issues.
I give Ms. Trahan the benefit of the doubt by waiting to see what various federal authorities have to say about the issues raised in the Andrea Estes piece — just as I gave Mr. DiMasi the benefit of the doubt until he was convicted of crimes first reported by Ms. Estes.
OK, but I’m NOT defending her that hard since I really don’t know much about it. I just gave my first gut reaction to the reporting that has been done.
@ I’m NOT defending her that hard:
I’m responding to phrases like:
– “you’ve always been too much of a purist IMO”
– “I have absolutely no interest in a Democratic equivalent of the Tea Party”
– “reporting snafu” about a serious piece from a serious reporter (Andrea Estes is in the same league as Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein)
– “I’m certainly not going to start chanting lock her up over it” (when nobody suggested that)
It appears to me that your first reaction to the reporting that has been done was to dismiss it without even checking basic facts (such as whether a candidate’s spouse is subject to campaign limits).
That strikes me as a vigorous defense, especially for you (since you don’t, as a rule, like to stomp your feet).
I think it’s important that we hold our candidates to a high standard, especially when it comes to campaign finance.
I for one was specifically referring the campaign finance issue, and I don’t think it is foot stomping to try to find the most benign explanation first.
So I guess Trump’s campaign finance violations are benign too then?
I don’t know how benign, but they are the least of my worries when we have the Russian connections and Emoluments Clause violations to deal with.
They should not be the least of our worries when it now appears that they facilitated an illegitimate seizing of the presidency in the final weeks of the election.
I don’t believe an affair with Stormy Daniels and the coverup thereof swung the election. Presidents have had affairs since the beginning of the Republic, including good Presidents and Presidents we like. I don’t understand why he went to such lengths to cover it up, but it’s not why he is President.
I vehemently disagree. If a handful of independents in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio had known that the Porn Star MAGAT had paid off Stormy et al to buy her silence they just might have stayed home.
At least, that’s what the Groper feared two weeks before the election.
Paying off a porn star to silence her two weeks before a close election is not the same as having a discreet affair.
I encourage you to perhaps show a bit more respect for the rest of us.
First, I want to remind you that we’re discussing a piece by Andrea Estes. Ms. Estes is among the best in the business. For example, it was her reporting that broke the story that brought down Salvatore DiMasi.
If Andrea Estes publishes a piece under her byline that identifies serious campaign finance violations, then you owe it to yourself and us to do better than dismiss those revelations as a “reporting snafu”.
I didn’t hear anybody say “lock her up”. It sounds like you want to whitewash what appears to be yet another serious campaign finance violation by a Massachusetts Democrat.
Is that what you intend?
I just want to take a few breaths while you seem to assume the opposite direction. For me it’s innocent until proven guilty, especially on campaign finance stuff which is often arcane and seems designed to trap people, not just as a legal mantra, but an ethical one.
@ arcane:
I don’t think a missing THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS is an “arcane” matter. I think that when a candidate dances around that kind of contribution in the way that Ms. Estes (and others) reported, the candidate creates an ethical issue as well.
Ethical issues aren’t created by laws, they are created by people who attempt to skirt laws they don’t like.
No, this is not a reporting snafu, unless you call lying a “snafu”.
Agreed. The substance of the piece by Ms. Estes is devastating, in my opinion.
it does make me wonder what Ms. Trahan is working so hard to hide.
Thanks for copying and pasting portions of the article, Tom. I had thought about doing that, but my post was long enough. You left out this important part of the article though (bolding is mine):
—
A campaign finance expert says Trahan’s explanations don’t add up. He believes that her campaign donations were improperly reported, and possibly illegally given to her by her husband, David Trahan, a successful home builder.
Federal election laws allow candidates to donate or loan their campaign any amount of money as long as it comes from a personal account or a legitimate bank loan. But if the money comes from anyone else — even a spouse — it is subject to the current contribution limit of $2,700, according to Federal Election Commission rules.
“The discrepancies between the supposed personal loans and her financial disclosures seem unlikely to have an innocent explanation,” said Adav Noti, a Washington, D.C.-based campaign finance expert, who reviewed her filings at the Globe’s request.
—
Christopher, I’m surprised that you don’t have a subscription to the Globe. But all you need to do is clear your cache, and it will reset the number of free articles you have remaining. Just a friendly tip.
Heh. It is a bit ironic that I currently have a Boston Globe subscription because of an earlier exchange with Pogo, who reminded me that I have an obligation to stay somewhat current with a publication if I am going to harshly criticize it.
We may be walking a bit close to a gray line here regarding “fair use” of copyrighted material at BMG. I saw those parts you quoted and wondered about including them. I chose not to because I had already quoted so much.
I think the money quote is this:
I’m not sure what Christopher means by a “reporting snafu”.
Regarding a spousal exception, the Federal Election Commission policy seems pretty clear:
This seems like good reporting (I’m not surprised, Andrea Estes has been a solid political reporter for a very long time).
It appears to me that Ms. Trahan has a real campaign finance issue, and maybe worse.
Andrea Estes excellent Boston Globe journalism at its best was a March 4 FRONT PAGE ABOVE THE FOLD UNDER THE MASTHEAD article entitled : “Funds fueling Trahan’s win raise questions; Lawmaker amends disclosure reports 4 times to account for 11th-hour loan”
Here’s a key point many are overlooking: every economist who has studied our current healthcare/health insurance system says we can’t afford to continue on this path. It’s financially unsustainable, period.
Incremental changes to health care are going to leave us with the same high costs as long as the corporate insurers are in the middle sucking the money out and as long as Big Pharma can charge what they want for drugs.
Only a complete systems change is going to work, and by that I mean real national health: universal and hassle free. Healthcare is a human right, not a privilege.
Coincidentally — because I saw a link to this thread on Facebook — the very next post jumped out at me: “Study: Almost half of new cancer patients lose their entire life savings”
Seriously? This is ACCEPTABLE to rational people? Not to me. Medicare 4 All is where we need to be, and pronto. We’ve been sold a bill of goods if we believe we can’t do it when all the other comparable countries in the world are already there.
As a cancer survivor who is alive and not homeless or bankrupt today because of the ACA and Medicare; if that makes me a liberal, Democratic socialist then I proudly wear that moniker as a badge of honor.
<3 <3 <3
Amen to what you wrote, Diogenes.
I admit I don’t understand the leap from “a major change is needed” to “THIS major change is needed”.
Our health care system is much more expensive that any other advanced nation’s, but a large part of that is due to the America prediliction to spend much more on end-of-life care. Not sure how Medicare for all changes that.
I lived for six years in a single-payer system. There were problems that were different, but also dangerous. I get that Medicare 4 All tests well as a slogan, but I’d prefer to see a public option. If it is truly superior to private insurers, the market will decide quickly. But I don’t want my health care in the hands of government-hating, middle class-hating conservatives.
Pharma & Insurance Gave $43M to the 130 House Democrats Not Backing Medicare for All!
A friend just brought this to my attention, and I wish I had known about this prior to the Town Hall last Saturday – you’d better believe that I would have asked Rep. Trahan about the campaign donations she received from private insurance and Big Pharma!
Scroll down for this gem:
123. Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Massachusetts)
$43,772 since 2017
Hmm.
This comment troubles me. I looked at the list, and frankly I fear you overstate the reality.
I get that Ms. Trahan received $43,772 since 2017. So what? Here are some specific questions I have about that:
1. Is there any evidence of a quid pro quo?
2. Is there any suggestion that the contributions were illegal in any other way?
I note that the above number 2 is a significant difference from the issue we’ve been discussing until now regarding the apparently illegal contributions that appear to have come from her husband.
I fear that you swing far too blunt a blade. The amount for Ms. Trahan pales in comparison to many of the contributions on the list ($43,772 is a very small piece of $43 M). If receiving 44K from Pharma and Insurance is “bad”, then I suggest that the following Representatives are MUCH worse than Ms. Trahan:
– Rep. Antonio Delgado (D-New York): $76,579 (about double)
– Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland): $124,475 since 1995 (note that that is about $6K per year, a tiny number)
– House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) $2,598,432 since 1989 (about $85K/year)
– Rep. Ann Kuster (D-New Hampshire) $309,652 since 2009
– Rep. Richard Neal (D-Massachusetts) $3,200,177 since 1989
–
In short, I find this report closer to “gotcha” journalism than I’m comfortable with.
I prefer more substantive criticism than I see in this piece.
Plus, so often these are donations from people who work in the industry, since corporations themselves can’t donate, and may or may not be relevant. If they were from industry PACs that would mean something.
Is anyone going to tell me how universal health insurance will kill people and that only medicare for all is the solution? You say Betsey’s comments are reasonable, but no one seems to be able to explain why universal health insurance will kill people?
I invite you to show where on this thread anybody but you said that universal health insurance will kill people.
I also note the silence in response to this other invitation, also upthread:
Health care is a life-and-death issue. Access to quality health care should be a right of every American. Do you dispute that?
A specific proposal is on the table, and Ms. Trahan is so far not ready say whether or not she supports it. In the video clip in the thread-starter, Ms. Trahan says that she supports universal health insurance, and simultaneously says that she is not ready to support any specific proposal.
I want to just make a comment about the body language of the above video. I invite the reader to watch the video with the sound turned off and ask yourself whether the subject of the video is supporting or opposing whatever it is she’s talking about. I say that, because I find it interesting that she is shaking her head in disagreement during the entire time that she is saying she supports universal health care. I’ve taken some body language coaching courses in my time, and this dissonance is body-language-101, frequently mentioned in courses. This is, for example, a staple of HR training for how to assess a candidate — if the candidate unconsciously shakes their head while making an assertion, body language experts suggest that it’s a tipoff to at least dissonance in the candidate if not outright deceit. I offer this as an example (randomly chosen from Google hits, emphasis mine):
What I see is an elected Representative appearing at a town hall who doesn’t want to take a stand on a high-profile bill. It appears to me that she’s giving a prepared answer (“We haven’t read the proposal yet”).
Nobody is saying that universal health insurance will kill people. People ARE saying that the current health care system IS killing people. It IS bankrupting families who have health insurance (at great cost).
I’d like to see rather more specifics about what Ms. Trahan (or you!) support, and rather less creative writing exercises about other BMG participants.
His syntax could be more precise, but I don’t think he is saying that other proposals will kill people. I think he’s saying there are other ways to achieve the same goal, and I think he’s also using it as a figure of speech, like “Would it kill you to…?”
@I don’t think he is saying that other proposals will kill people:
I think that’s a stretch. Much of his commentary on this thread has, by my reading, been exactly that.
He began by misquoting Betsey: “How is it a matter of life and death that the Medicare for All bill passes, as opposed to alternative universal insurance coverage with expanded ACA subsides and a public option?”
Later in that same comment, he added this: “…then combining to with life or death consequences… (sic)”
In a subsequent comment, he writes: “can someone tell me how providing everyone health care insurance via any other means other than Medicare for All would kill people?”
I see nothing metaphorical there.
In any case, it doesn’t matter whether he’s being literal or metaphorical — his misquoting Betsey, because she never claimed anything like he’s been writing.
I don’t believe he quoted Betsey. He did not put quotation marks around those lines. Betsey did refer to health care as a matter of life and death, and it is, but Pogo interpreted her comments hyperbolically (as did I) to mean that only exactly the legislation she wants is appropriate here and we must do it now. If people don’t want their comments interpreted extremely, then don’t talk in such extremes.
Perhaps you can get a few more angels on the head of that rhetorical pin. Of course he didn’t put quotation marks around the lines. He mischaracterized her commentary nevertheless.
The extremism I see in this thread is the commentary from you and Pogo. It was you who introduced the tea party metaphor — that surely ratcheted up the exchange. It was you who dismissed serious journalism as a “reporting snafu”.
I stand by my characterization of the commentary of both you and Pogo on this thread.
Thanks and a tip of the hat to all who continue to hold our representatives’ feet to the fire when it comes to health care. Yup, According to a new study published in the American Journal of Public Health, medical expenses are the cause of two-thirds of bankruptcy filings.
My family dodged a bullet only 18 years ago when my wife and I were both in the hospital, both unemployed, at the respective ages of 46 & 44. Prior to that, we had both worked full time since college, paid health insurance, and saved money for a rainy day. If not for the generosity of two family members, we’d have gone bankrupt.
It does not have to be this way and it is not this way in any other developed nation. We’re not going to convince the Trump base, the Republicans, on this. We ought not spend any effort to try. What we must do is convince our our legislators that this, and nothing less, is what we demand. Call it what you will, single payer, universal health care, Medicare for all, I don’t really care.
Oh, and let’s include dentistry, vision care, and other areas that for reasons I will never fully understand, are left out of “medical care”.
I am under the distinct impression that dentistry, vision care, etc, are left out of “medical care” because they are so frequently needed by so many people that the basic paradigm of insurance (spread the cost of those who are paid claims across the premiums of all subscribers) isn’t profitable enough for the various insurance carriers.
Access to quality health care — including dentistry and vision care — should be a right of every American.
I follow the money whenever possible and dentists “donate” to Republicans by a wide margin over Democrats. While physicians are generally split 50/50 between the Democrat and Republican parties, partisanship is less evenly divided when looking at individual specialties
What is also ignored by most is that in the USA, dentists and doctors (and lawyers) are protected from foreign competition. There is no global economy, no free market where their bread is buttered…..but as Republicans, they insist that the rest of us play by different rules. .
Seems to me that being so frequently and commonly needed is exactly why they should be at the top of the list in any coverage package.
Heh. There you go, speaking like a consumer again.
The purpose of media news is to make money for advertisers. Informing the public is an occasional side-effect. Similarly, the purpose of insurance is to make money for the insurer. Actually providing needed benefits — especially at a low cost — is an occasional side-effect.
Sadly, I’m pretty sure that this will always be true for any health care delivery system premised on the insurance model.
It would be sort of like if we made everybody pay into an “education fund” (like signing up for health insurance), and only the cream-of-the-crop actually got an education. The few who went to school might well receive an excellent education. The majority of the population would remain uneducated. That’s pretty much the way we do health care today. Only the “sick” get health care, and then only if there aren’t too many of them.
We need to provide single-payer government-sponsored health care. Health care services that are most commonly needed should, as your comment suggests, be the most easily obtained.
Funny, since I usually say we should run public health like public schools – you get it by signing up and that’s it.
Does this mean I’m a socialist?
I just had successful cataract surgery to restore 20/20 vision in my left eye. Between my primary Medicare and secondary GIC, it was covered.
Can anyone tell me why Sarah Palin was not called a “socialist” as the governor or Alaska, where they have the Alaska Permanent Fund: a state-owned investment fund established using oil revenues. It has, since 1982, paid out an annual dividend to every man, woman, and child living in Alaska. In 2015, with oil prices high, the dividend totaled $2,072 per person, or $8,288 for a family of four. That’s over $2K per person FREE without any labor requirement, all from the government.
… Because “Republican” is a Tlingit word that means “Shameless Hypocrisy on two legs.”
petr, your comment wins the internet today! 🙂
FYI: Congresswoman Trahan will be hosting a town hall meeting on Saturday, March 23rd at 10AM at the Parker Middle School in Chelmsford.
Thanks, Christopher. I’m not 100% sure I can make it, but in the meantime, I and many other folks have been continuing to contact her DC office to implore her to support H.R. 1384.
It’s now been changed to 9AM, and I just sent you a FB invitation.
Thanks Christopher. I am 99.9% sure that I’ll be able to attend.
We don’t know yet where Rep. Trahan will come down on this issue, but thanks to people like Betsey Gardstein who not only trapse down to meetings like this but also insist on more than boilerplate answers, we have a chance of finding out.
Aw, thanks Terry. If she still hasn’t announced her decision by her next town hall (on the 23rd), you’d better believe I (along with other M4A supporters) will be in the front row to ask her about it!