It has been clear from the beginning of this debate that a public option is absolutely necessary to provide consumers with more choice, hold insurance companies accountable and keep costs down.
Senator Reid made the right decision to include this critical component in the merged legislation. [emph mine]
Jeff Merkley, today:
Today, we have taken a long stride forward in our decades-long effort to provide affordable, accessible, quality health care to every single American. Thirty million Americans will gain access to affordable health care. Millions more will benefit from insurance reforms that end the insurance practice of rejecting citizens with pre-existing conditions and of dumping citizens off policies after they become sick or injured. And virtually every citizen will benefit from the investment in health clinics, disease prevention, and disease management.
This legislation is not all I want it to be. It does not contain a national public option to increase choice and competition. It is imperfect in many other ways as well. But this bill brings peace of mind to Americans struggling to secure affordable health care. This bill attacks runaway health care inflation. This bill establishes that in the United States of America, health care is no longer a privilege, it is a right. [emph mine]
How do you define "critical" or "essential?" How about, as the President has been madly backpedaling on all week, "must have?" If there were similar statements of decision-rule rhetoric from Senator Wyden I'd print those too--but the best he ever did was "urge" its inclusion to Reid, which he actually did. At least from that standpoint, Wyden's vote to pass this doesn't really violate any lines in the sand that he has drawn. Also, I don't have a statement from Wyden at this point.
The scene now shifts, however artificially, to the House--where 60 members including Oregon's Earl Blumenauer have said any such proposal that has no Medicare-based reimbursement for a public option, is "unacceptable." Of course, they said that before the House passed a negotiated rate bill--but surely a bill that even lacks any kind of national option is even more unacceptable, and thus finally a line that must be drawn to protect the public. Louise Slaughter and two others have made noise about seeing their committments through, but they are not exacting drawing hails of approval.
This is what many people are defending, often against their better judgement. You can blame the GOP all you like--they don't have the votes. You can blame the centrists, but they did the exact same thing progressives did, but one thing more: they didn't fold before the negotiation even began. Jane Hamsher is taking an extraordinary amount of heat for daring to suggest that even socialist Senator Bernie Sanders--who I think is awesome--should be careful about his vote, lest he find himself negatively held accountable for it. It doesn't have to be a knock on the guy's ideology or principles or good heart, to say that if he won't fight for those principles when they are needed most, you're left with pretty speeches. Heard that one before?
The change wasn't indentured health care. "The change" was no more passing craptastic bills written and designed for the plutocracy, that manifestly ignore and deride programs that are broadly popular and actually good policy. No more "getting a win" for political victories and dollars. And no more rolling over so that next election season doesn't have any hard votes. If y'all aren't going to change what you're doing, I will.
National Nurses United, the nation's largest registered nurses union and professional organization, declared on Tuesday that the Senate health care bill gives away too much to insurance companies and "fails to meet the test of true health care reform."
"It is tragic to see the promise from Washington this year for genuine, comprehensive reform ground down to a seriously flawed bill that could actually exacerbate the health care crisis and financial insecurity for American families, and that cedes far too much additional power to the tyranny of a callous insurance industry," said co-president Karen Higgins in a statement.
"Sadly, we have ended up with legislation that fails to meet the test of true health care reform, guaranteeing high quality, cost effective care for all Americans, and instead are further locking into place a system that entrenches the chokehold of the profit-making insurance giants on our health. If this bill passes, the industry will become more powerful and could be beyond the reach of reform for generations," she added.
I hadn't heard of NNU, but the largest nursing union in the country? Here's their PR bio, for what it's worth. For some reason I immediately thought of Amanda Fritz, RN, the Portland Commissioner, and whether she was a member and took as strong a line against the Senate bill. I got a quick reply:
I am not a member of NNU. I don't support their position. Any of the versions of national health care reform currently under consideration is not all I hope for, however I believe any improvement is better than no improvement. Both ONA and the Portland City Council passed resolutions supporting single payer health care in 2009. I believe our nation must continue to work towards the goal of universal coverage with adequate controls on costs and profits.
I am still a member of the Oregon Nurses Association. ONA is not a member of National Nurses United - the latter is California, Massachusetts, and United American Nurses. ONA left UAN a year or so ago and with five other state organizations formed the National Federation of Nurses.
For the record I also believe that any improvement is better than no improvement--but the question is really whether the Senate bill represents net improvement. I gather we differ on that, fair enough. Fritz certainly has a reputation for a populist mindset and skepticism of plutocracy, so her support of the Senate bill as it stands, no matter how odious to me, is worth noting. (ONA, as far as I can tell, has offered no official statement on the Senate bill.)
Hey, just got a little note from my friends at Organizing for America! They want you to act, and act now:
Your senators are fighting hard for health reform. Please call today, thank them for their work, and let them know we need them to keep fighting.
According to our records, you live in Oregon. Please call: Sen. Ron Wyden at 202-224-5244 Sen. Jeff Merkley at 202-224-3753 Just dial the numbers above, then tell the staffers who answer where you live -- so that they know you are a constituent -- and that you support reform.
All well and good--except there's the little problem of the bill itself, which after serial dessication by Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson and--let's face it--Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel, has become a rotting carcass whose primary function will be to force 30 million people to buy crappy insurance from private companies, at unaffordable rates that have been pre-guaranteed by the insurance companies to double in the next decade (and will because there are no cost containments in the bill except those designed to reduce covered benefits), with annual benefit caps and prices 3x for seniors what younger people will pay, and no substantive attempt to prevent recisision from continuing apace. Howard Dean explains why, and Darcy Burner goes into more detail.
So thank you to OFA for providing the numbers and getting me off my duff and onto my phone for a few minutes. I've called both Merkley and Wyden, expressed a firm desire to see them both vote NO on any bill looking remotely like this Liebercare monstrosity--and promised them neither will see my vote or support again if they vote to foist it on us.
And yes, I am serious. Deadly so. A yes vote on this bill, as it stands, will be a significant disaster for the Democratic Party--and I can guarantee the death knell of my support for Oregon's Senators, regardless of what other good they might do. It's that important. Please join me in telling Merkley and Wyden No, No, HELL No.
We all know what's happened to the health care reform bill in the Senate...so far. Think whale carcass, serendipitously beached in a village of starving Aleutians. If the word "near-total gutting" comes to mind, you win a prize.
Haven't seen this come up in the OR blogosphere, although HuffingtonPost had a pretty up-front treatment of it and the Register Guard repeated the comments in a piece actually more about Ron Wyden--but while Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson discuss the new reform mashup bill to be unacceptable from the right, our own Jeff Merkley has some problems with the new deal, specifically the Medicare buy-in, from the left:
"The basic challenge for Oregon is that a program that expands Medicare using existing Medicare rates would be of very little use in our state," the senator told the Huffington Post. "And the reason why is because the reimbursement rates are so low in the state of Oregon that doctors aren't taking additional Medicare patients... They can fill their agenda and their schedules with higher-paying patients."
One of the leading young progressive voices in the party, Merkley would not discuss how the Medicare buy-in provision will ultimately affect his position on reform, saying he had to wait for more details before making up his mind. But his objections complicate the notion that Senate Democrats now stand on the doorstep of historic legislation. The Oregon Democrat said he is going to work to make sure his state and others aren't disadvantaged by the newest wave of health care reform compromises. Medicare expenditures by the federal government, he noted, are 25 percent more (per person) in California and 38 percent more (per person) in Florida than they are in Oregon.
"We must succeed in repairing this broken system. But it doesn't get repaired by creating a major program that does not help states like Oregon," Merkley said.
Merkley complained about other aspects of reform negotiations, adding that many questions remain unanswered. The senator said that he was "enormously frustrated" by the unwillingness of his party's more conservative members deal with its progressive members on a public option for insurance coverage.
Some interesting stuff in there. Let's talk about it a little, below the fold...
Evoking a famous Seinfeld episode, today Congressman Earl Blumenauer has posted an open letter to his House colleagues via HuffPost and Kos, essentially telling them "No soup for you!" if they persist in attempting to delay health care reform for no other reason than to see it killed:
Senators who are filibustering and throwing sand in the gears to delay health care reform desperately need a reality check. It is ironic to me that members of Congress enjoy some of the best health insurance in the world through our government-administered health care, and yet so many are working overtime to deny quality care to Americans - using scare tactics to claim the "government is going to take over their health care."
Well, for those Representatives and Senators who are so terrified of a government take-over, I say to them NO access to government run programs for you.
Members of Congress should not have access to taxpayer-funded healthcare when they are actively denying these very people quality care of their own.
So for the 150 members of Congress who qualify for Medicare, a single-payer government insurance plan, you get no access. For all members who are eligible for the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, no more. And no more access to the attending physician in the Capitol, either. Not until we pass the health insurance reform that millions of Americans so urgently need.
All I can say is, A-Freaking-Men. There's nothing more frustrating than watching or listening to (typically) some Republican claiming that the taxpayer can't afford public health care, or that government care is so poor or fundamentally evil--at the same time they are getting their own health care from the government, at little to no personal cost. Whether it's health care or pay raises or tax deductions, these "For me but not for thee" hypocrisies are one of the clearest illuminations of where their hearts truly lie when it comes to public service: dedicated to beating primarily for themselves, their cronies and their better-heeled contributors.
So it's high time someone called them out on it, and while it has certainly been brought up before in other venues, an actual Act before Congress is the most direct put-up-or-shut-up way to express it. Call up Greg Walden and ask his staff: does he receive health care through the federal government in some fashion? If so, why does he believe he's entitled to suck off the public tit, but it's wrong to give that opportunity to non-Waldens?
In the Senate there's something similar that has cropped up, ironically produced by two of the more egregious delaymongers as a way to highlight Senators' true reticence to admitting their double standard:
Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and David Vitter (R-La.) are preparing an amendment to force members of Congress into any public option health plan that becomes law, frustrating at least one Senate Democrat who wants to join the effort.
Sen. Sherrod Brown (Ohio) said he is trying to co-sponsor the amendment - but that Coburn and Vitter won't let him. Coburn and Vitter are planning to offer the amendment during the Senate floor debate on healthcare reform.
This got resolved earlier today, when Brown asked for unanimous consent to be added as a co-sponsor. Either somebody in the GOP forgot to object, or they decided not to press matters. That's opened the door for Senators Dodd and Mikulski to join them; every member of the public option caucus--which is still likely a majority of Senators--should sign on and make an issue of Vitter/Coburn's attempt to be cute and difficult.
That's sort of a different angle on things; it uses the public option as a threat, whereby if it's included it will force Members of Congress to change their health care plans. That obviously goes against President Obama's prescription that if you like the care you have, you should be able to keep it. Vitter and Coburn confuse availing oneself of the OPTION to receive public care, with compulsory enrollment (something the insurance industry wants more than anything else--individual insurance mandates).
Blumenauer's bill is much more direct and logically grounded; it simply asks for consistency: if you think government health care is such a disaster, stop perpetuating it by taking advantage of the care you're currently being offered--care that you are simultaneously denying to Americans who are literally DYING for want of it. If it's so bad and destructive for us, it must be bad for them too. We're just thinking of you, Congresspeople! (Hey, maybe I'm not sincere when I say that, but you should be used to baldfaced insincerity by now).
Sunday's New York Times has another in a long series of winning columns by Oregon's own Nick Kristof, this time on the subject of health care. Kristof's work for NYT is often a feature-political hybrid, attempting to take serious and weighty matters and express them through tales of the human experience. There's certainly no shortage of such stories that can be told to express the imperative for health care reform, and Kristof finds one in Yamhill County:
John [Brodniak] is a sawmill worker from Yamhill County, Ore., where I grew up. He was a foreman at a mill, he felt strong and healthy, and he had very basic insurance coverage through his job. On April 18, he was married, at age 23, and life was looking up.
Ten days after the wedding, he was walking in his backyard carrying a neighbor’s dog — and he suddenly blacked out. That led, after rounds of CAT scans, M.R.I.’s and other tests, to the discovery that the left parietal lobe of his brain has a cavernous hemangioma. That’s an abnormal growth of blood vessels, and in John’s case it is chronically leaking blood into his brain.
John began to have trouble walking and would sometimes collapse. He developed spasms and restless leg syndrome, he began to use a cane, and his mind suffered.
John says the principal obstacle to treatment appears to be simply his lack of insurance. In August, he qualified for an Oregon Medicaid program, but he hasn’t been able to find a doctor who will accept him as a patient for surgery, apparently because the reimbursements are so low. Doctors tell him that his condition is operable — but that they can’t accept him without conventional insurance. He is increasingly frustrated as he watches his family crushed by the burden of his illness.
If a senator strolled indifferently by as John retched in pain, we would think that person pitiless. But isn’t it just as monstrous for politicians to avert their eyes, make excuses and deny coverage to innumerable Americans just like John? [emph mine]
A haunting, piercing question, to be sure--but it's the moral essence of the decades-long drive to insure Americans against health catastrophes, one that heroes like Rep. Alan Grayson recognizes and highlights so often in his speeches, but which few others seem to want to focus on. Perhaps it's because for so many in Congress, their tenure stands as an indictment for their inability to accomplish that goal sooner. I suspect many--perhaps even John Brodniak--would forgive them, however...if only they get it right this time, and soon.
I admit I'm watching all of this from the sidelines, but it's fascinating: unbenknownst to me, the right wing trash rag American Spectator features a blog by former Reagan political director Jeffrey Lord. Furthermore, this longtime conservative critic is actually a member of the same religious denomination--the United Church of Christ--as Portland's Chuck Currie, former pastor at the Parkrose UCC and sometime contributor to the UCC's "My UCC" pages at the national's blog.
If you know Chuck or have come to know about him from his own blogging or perhaps via the interview I did with him on health care this summer, you know that he's been a consistent champion for the rights of the homeless, those under siege by an out of control police force, universal health care, and other strongly progressive ideals. And of course the UCC, as a "welcoming church," is open and affirming of the GLBT community.
And that is mostly what confuses me about Lord--clearly there's an obvious political disconnect between the Spectator's brand of conservatism and the current teachings of Lord's faith in his church, best exemplified by UCC's Christian embrace of gay and lesbian seekers. Perhaps that philosphical discontinuity is part of the process of faith; I came across the news of this contretemps via a theology blog citing another blog, asking whether the UCC's championing of this "New Gospel" is a health tack for Christians to take.
So discussion and interplay between church teachings and any adherent's personal belief system is fine and healthy. But Currie finds Lord's criticisms of the UCC untoward, when they are based on what Currie sees as lies (given that he titled his blog posting Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them:
Drop[Lou]Dobbs.com is a project sponsored by Media Matters for America and other organizations. Lord falsely stated last night this grassroots effort was part of a United Church of Christ campaign.
Honesty and integrity ought to be highly held values for those in the media. Sadly, Dobbs and Lord have used their positions to spread misinformation about all those they find disagreement with.
The United Church of Christ is a diverse national church with people of all sorts of theological and political backgrounds. That's a strength for our denomination. Even with those differences, however, we normally respect our covenantal tradition by expressing differences of opinion freely, with respect and honesty. It's disappointing that Lord has used his website and CNN as a vehicle for making less than honest comments about our church.
Currie also cites a report from the United Church News, calling Lord's appearance on Dobbs' show part of a campaign which also includes "lengthy unsubstantiated opinion pieces over the past five weeks critical of the involvement of the United Church of Christ's Office of Communication, Inc. (OC, Inc.) in the So We Might See coalition."
This has caused Lord to respond at the Spectator, in a form many will quickly recognize: a sudden aversion to rhetoric and criticism, a complete avoidance of the substantive charge being made (ie, that Lord lied on Lou Dobbs' show about UCC), and some highly charged, if bizarre, ranting:
But his politics? When he uses the church to do politics, that should never get a free pass. The Reverend Chuck --let's remove the "Reverend" here since he's doing the political thing -- worships in the political temple of progressivism. Which is to say he has signed on hook, line and sinker to the political faith that supported slavery, segregation, lynching and racial quotas and the idea that people are "minorities" and not people living Dr. King's dream of a colorblind society. He supports a philosophy that signed on for torture (or "partial birth-abortion," as sticking a needle in the head of baby is called) and the economics of envy. All topped off by a totalitarian passion for suppressing the free speech of those -- like Lou Dobbs -- with whom Chuck disagrees. All in all, progressive politics -- as evidenced by every one from the federal government -- segregating Woodrow Wilson to the pro-lynching supporters of Social Security to the greed and envy economics of the Obama era has constructed quite the politics to proudly oppose. For those of us who believe in human freedom, a colorblind society in which people are judged by the content of their character instead of by their race, gender or sexual preference, the right of a free press, the right to free speech, to not have the government ration your health care etc. etc. -- this places us well on the other side of the extremist/race-based/totalitarian style politics favored by the quaintly named "progressive" philosophy.
Damn that political busybody Jesus, and his callout for treating the sick, feeding the hungry and assisting the poor--clearly all "progressive" positions! And don't forget to notice the barely clever ruse going through conservative circles these days, where "Democrats" are now the party that are responsible for slavery and segregation, as if many of the actual people aren't still living in the South and voting Republican.
There is a comment on Currie's piece that suggests the UCC has indeed been promoting the "DropDobbs" effort, but that's not the same thing as financing it or lending its name to a sponsor. However, it might be enough of a gray area for Lord to contest Currie's assertion of lying--but we'll never know, I guess, since Lord went the more traditional "ad hominem and quickly assumed victimology" route in his response. That forfeit suggests Currie may have the truth's edge. In any case, leave it to a Portland UCC figure to start a national-blog tussle with a conservative church fellow. Maybe Currie will get the chance to ask Lord how he reconciles his political beliefs with a faith that, if Lord were truly paying attention to the denomination's teachings, would strongly call into question his worldview. Maybe the "New Gospel" isn't really where Lord is at.
(As a final note, check out that Gospel Coalition link, the original blog post about the New Gospel and why it's a dangerous trap for Christians. Maybe it's my status as a nonbeliever, but the thrust of it seems to be that Christianity can't survive as a dogma without the specter of Hell, and the idea of God as a wrathful, smiting sonofabitch. The whole "Jesus is love" part is important, sure--but don't forget the rod while you're spoiling the child, apparently!)
As part of an agreement hashed out at the end of the Finance Committee mark up process, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) will join forces to amend the Senate health care bill with Wyden's "Free Choice Act." If it can attract 60 votes, it would give low- and middle-class Americans with employer-provided insurance the option of purchasing subsidized insurance in the exchanges.
Sixty is a tough climb. It would have likely been impossible under the original terms of the Wyden amendment, which would have opened the exchanges up to everybody. This is a scaled down version of that, and it will be a hard amendment for Democrats to vote against.
Estimates of additional participation in the exchange--no notation of whether it would be public or private plans, which I assume means they counted both--apparently run about 1 million. Of course, that's among those who already had insurance, albeit costly or insufficient coverage.
There will be time to discuss his proposal as it comes up for a vote--but in a separate, broader piece at TPM by AP pre-gaming the initial cloture vote in the Senate tomorrow, is this nugget:
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said Friday that Senate leaders will support an amendment he plans to offer to allow certain low-income people with offers of employer health coverage to shop in the purchasing exchanges instead. Wyden had not committed to voting for Saturday's procedural motion prior to securing the commitment from Reid to support his amendment. The amendment would extend health coverage to 1 million more people who would not otherwise have been able to afford the coverage offered by their employers, according to Wyden's spokeswoman. [emph mine]
It's not clear who said this--Wyden's spokesperson, who is cited in the statement immediately after that one, or the AP reporter operating on the fact that Wyden had made no public pronouncements of support for cloture. And it's not 100% obvious that he's stated his support AFTER getting his amendment a hearing, although it damn well better be a Yes, and I don't think anyone suspected otherwise. (If you know of such a statement indicating he's a definite Yes now, let me know.)
But unless the AP reporter is simply trying to make trouble, the strong implication is that prior to Reid's support for Free Choice, not even the Majority Leader had been able to fully count on Wyden's support for health care reform--and that support was in fact the predicate for Wyden's Aye on initial cloture. If that's the case, how is he any different from Ben Nelson, or--gulp--Joe Lieberman? To think that there was really some kind of chance--or even that Wyden was bluffing as such--that he would risk the entire HCR bill over his pet project, is extremely unsettling. It's been the pattern for Wyden to withhold support on larger health care reform issues until his ideas had been addressed, and this instance appears no different. As the estimate indicates, getting one million people to switch to the exchange neither saves as much money or covers as many uninsured (since Free Choice covers zero of those folks) as the larger bill...and to suggest or even allow the suggestion that Wyden's vote was in doubt based on whether his particular concerns were addressed, is the kind of political toying with people's lives that leads folks to mistrust the motives of our representation in government. Let's hope with the pacifier having been proffered, that "commitment" can be safely assured.
We can all blame Oregon Representative Earl Blumenauer for giving Betsy McCaughey, Sarah Palin and the rest of the lunatic wing of the Republican Party their fodder for the biggest and most absurd summer episode surrounding health care reform: "death panels." Were it not for his totally wrong-headed and foolhardy notion to improve the quality of care for millions of Americans as part of the reform bill, the phrase might never have entered the political lexicon as it has.
Obviously I've got tongue in cheek to "blame" Earl for any of the subsequent madness that highlighted just how deep the crazy runs in parts of the GOP right now, and how poorly the media handled the entire episode, but the man himself offers a somewhat lighthearted up-fessing in Sunday's New York Times--perhaps an ironic display of column-inch gratitude via pillory, for Blumenauer indeed finds fault within:
The news media was a particular culprit in this drama. This was not just Fox News; seemingly all the national news organizations monitored any meetings they could find between lawmakers and constituents, looking for flare-ups, for YouTube moments. The meetings that involved thoughtful exchanges or even support for the proposals would never find their way on air; coverage was given only to the most outrageous behavior, furthering distorting the true picture.
My office quickly produced testimonials from 300 respected professionals and organizations to set the record straight. Articles followed about how Republicans themselves had supported such provisions. Sites like PolitiFact and Factcheck.org as well as national organizations like the AARP pushed back on the lies.
It didn’t matter. The “death panel” episode shows how the news media, after aiding and abetting falsehood, were unable to perform their traditional role of reporting the facts. By lavishing uncritical attention on the most exaggerated claims and extreme behavior, they unleashed something that the truth could not dispel.
I think there are some key points to highlight here that Blumenauer is savvy to catch: We all know that the media will gravitate towards controversy and conflict, but it is impossible for them to simultaneously blanket coverage with discussion of a false concept like death panels... and also try to weakly correct the record on the facts. Furthermore, it's not about Fox News specifically, although they're a prime and most ethically liberated example--all of the networks and cable news outlets operate in the same fashion.
Blumenauer also directs specific criticism at specific other Members of Congress, which seems rare in a non-campaign context:
There was a troubling new dynamic: People like Senator Chuck Grassley, a Iowa Republican, were now parroting these falsehoods in their town meetings and letting it drive their policy decisions. (Mr. Grassley: “We should not have a government program that determines if you’re going to pull the plug on Grandma.”) When the most extreme elements peddling false information can cow senior members of Congress into embracing their claims, it does not bode well for either policymaking or for the Republican Party.
ON Sept. 9, President Obama spoke about the health care reform plan to Congress. Although his speech was more thoughtful and less partisan than much of what I’ve seen from presidents in my years in Congress, it was greeted by the call of “You lie!” from a backbencher from South Carolina, Joe Wilson. The accusation came as President Obama was attempting to debunk the many myths about the health care bill; Mr. Wilson’s outburst was the culmination of the summer’s frenzy, of everything that my end-of-life provisions had unwittingly set in motion.
The resulting support from the right wing and the inability of Republican leadership to acknowledge Mr. Wilson’s behavior as crude, unprecedented and inappropriate is telling. The Republican Party has been taken captive by these tactics, the extremists and their own rhetoric.
Joe Wilson's an easy target and he's also in the same chamber as Blumenauer, so there's probably little risk in calling him out. Grassley is another matter, and while I have no problem with the direct aim taken at the way the Senator has conducted his official business, it's a direct challenge from one legislator to another that essentially says: this guy lied like a rug about my amendment.
And yet even so, the phrasing is curious: extreme elements of the party "cowed" Grassley into peddling fearmongering bullshit about HCR, as if he were a hungry bird. So too is Earl's conclusion oddly hopeful in the face of all past experience--even that ruefully detailed in this account: maybe somehow after all this Congress can still come together, and we can take care of the nation's problems as a united government. Ha! In a piece that might be subtitled, "Sorry for thinking the wackjob right wasn't capable of demonizing my harmless amendment," you wonder if he's actually learned the lesson.
A small morsel of Friday political amusement, as I continue to recover from an accident involving rain, embedded rail lines on Portland's Central Eastside, and a motor scooter: check out the lead to the latest missive received via email from our friends at the Oregon GOP, as expressed by ORP Chair Bob Tiernan:
“The House vote on Saturday is disappointing for Oregonians as Nancy Pelosi, Kurt Schrader, David Wu, and Peter DeFazio ignored the concerns of voters and rammed a trillion dollar 1,990 page government-run health care bill through Congress, ignoring pledges of transparency and bi-partisanship. Oregonians for generations will be forced to deal with the consequences of this legislation that increases health care costs, increases taxes on small businesses and the middle class, cuts Medicare and puts a Washington bureaucrat between you and your doctor.
“Last Tuesday, the American people made clear at the polls that they oppose bigger government, more spending and higher taxes, but this is exactly what they are getting with this new government-run health care legislation. Kurt Schrader, David Wu, and Peter DeFazio chose to vote with their liberal buddies in Washington rather than in the best interest of their constituents back home, and this vote will not be forgotten by Oregon voters in 2010,” Chairman Tiernan concluded. [emphs mine]
Blah blah, ho hum, totally expected--the ORP is trying to make the case that those liberal overreachers from the Democratic side of Oregon's delegation are running afoul of their constituents, and risk their elephantitis (on several levels) in the next election. As an aside, is it just me, or does the use of the phrase "liberal buddies" conjure an image more reflective of a beginning swim class? "You can't swim in section 2 without a liberal buddy!" OK, maybe it's just me.
But anyhow, what might the discerning reader notice from this screed? Isn't someone missing? Don't we in fact have FOUR Democrats representing us in DC? They've got Schrader on there, natch--he's by far the most vulnerable member of the federal delegation, although that's doesn't necessarily mean he's truly vulnerable (and now would be a good time to offer published thanks to Schrader for getting the daily double "No on Stupak, yes on HCR" vote right). DeFazio's there too, and I'm sure despite the flameout of Sid Leiken they'll come up with someone to challenge him. David Wu isn't necessarily anyone's favorite in OR-1, but his district keeps getting bluer and legitimate challengers from the right fewer (Perhaps you could move one district over and try again, Mike Erickson!)
Of course, the Congressman-Who-Apparently-Shall-Not-Be-Mentioned is Earl Blumenauer, OR-3 and the LEAST vulnerable member of Congress from Oregon, even more so than Greg Walden. Is this by accident? I suppose it's always possible, but that's a harder case to make when he omits Earl twice in two paragraphs.
No, there's likely a more calculated reason he's not there, and I've already mentioned it: there's not a chance in hell Earl is losing his seat next year, not even if Brandon Roy retires and declares as a Republican. (Joel Przybilla, maybe!) The email, while in newsletter format--there are pictures of Walden with the troops, and reprints of the latest Gallup claiming a generic GOP voter advantage nationwide--is at its root a fundraising vehicle, but there's no vehicle the Republicans own that can drive Blumenauer out of office.
And they know it, apparently. Maybe I should applaud their sense of reality, but it's a rather striking thing to not even TRY to fundraise off the votes Blumenauer casts. Obviously they think they can't say about his constituency what they're trying to say about the others--that they'll be upset about the House vote for health care reform. And just as obviously, they're almost assuredly correct.
But is there any evidence that they're fundamentally closer to being right in the other three districts? All three are Democratic-leaning in their registrations, Schrader at +23,000, DeFazio at +39,000, and Wu now at a whopping + 57,000 according to last month's tallies by the Elections Division. (Of course those are not locked-in votes for the Democrat, but they're even less locked in for a Republican). And if they simply follow the mood and inclinations of the greater national electorate, they're much likelier to be on board with the Dirty Three, than they are upset with them.
I guess admitting 12 months out that you're probably screwed in all four districts was just too much to face for Tiernan and the GOP--but they've already come to terms with the idea that Oregon's largest city and country are not only infertile ground, they're fields not even worth rhetorically tilling. It's a start.
I think by now we all know who the "Tea Party" name refers to--the dupes who were organized this year by Dick Armey, Glenn Beck and Fox "News" to protest, well, nearly everything they can think of that is irritating their shorts. And by now we all also know what unfortunate sexual reference they chose as a moniker--"teabaggers." (google it if you still don't know).
Although it likely would have happened anyway, it was in fact members of that little group that began referring to themselves as such--which is why it became extra-super-funny. Now it's mainstream, a fact that the teabag-loving blog RedState seems to abhor now that it's a term of ridicule rather than pride.
(photo linked from and credit to the Washington Examiner, who also get the h/t for pointing me to Earl's comments)
So they're upset enough about the danged liberal media using it gleefully (I have to say, David Shuster took it to new heights--count the entendres)...but they've reached Official High Dudgeon with the claim that our own President has used the phrase.
Putting aside the argument about who began using the term first, or whether it's now appropriate/tasteful to continue using it, there's an Oregon-specific angle to RS's nonsense: Obama didn't actually say it. Who did? Earl Blumenauer, Oregon-3rd:
According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”
It's not exactly surprising that they'd overlook this pretty basic, easy-to-confirm fact; why excoriate some liberal West Coast Congressman, when you can simply attribute it to the President and get even more outraged? (Another example from the RS article would be the allegation that Obama advisor Kevin Jennings is a "pedophile," when in fact he wasn't even accused of that by the people who were trying to get him fired!).
I guess what also is not surprising is that they don't dare affirm Blumenauer's point, which is that Democrats who claim they're saving themselves from teabagger ire by going soft on Democratic principles, are kidding themselves. (Or perhaps more darkly they're just using it as an excuse to keep the healthy care industry money flowing to them). Focusing on Earl's message does them no good; it only highlights their radical impotence. So instead, much better and more motivating to focus on nomenclature. It's not that you're a bunch of clueless, angry protestors--you're being personally maligned! To the mattresses! Let's do some teabagging! (Oops, now I've done it too. Bring your worst, RedState!)
It's hard to get truly excited about the fair-to-middlin' health care reform package now pending final debate and a vote later today, because it really stood just a few cruel Blue Dog votes away from producing an ironically cheaper (and more effective) bill they couldn't support. Kurt Schrader in the 5th echoed the refrain from other Western/rural Democrats who complained that Medicare +5% provider reimbursements under the public plan would penalize the more efficient Oregon providers, who get much less than doctors in other states for the same services.
It's a fair argument--but it's also something that can be dealt with; Congressman Blumenauer last month reached an agreement to insert into the current bill a call for study of Medicare rates prior to 2013, with its recommendations to be taken by the developers of the public plan, the idea being to geographically adjust provider rates more fairly, and begin rewarding efficiencies rather than paying less as a "reward."
So it's fixable, and even if it's not let's be honest--Oregon providers are not out selling Street Roots, they'll continue to get by on Med+5, and for that generous gesture the reward will be nearly $100 billion in savings for the entire nation, plus a much better potential reach for the public plan and an easier path to immediate stability and success. In short, it's not really a good reason to oppose the more robust plan...but out Med+5 went to appease the Coalition of the Fiscally Ironic, and Schrader appears to be nominally on board this weekend for the final vote.
Not so the Coalition of the Indignantly Inappropriate, led by Bart Stupak and a small group of other pro-life Democrats who are almost literally holding the entire health reform bill hostage in order to indeed literally strip women of their prior health care rights. If you can believe it--and really, I still can't almost--what they are demanding be voted on would not only bar the public plan from covering abortion, it would bar any PRIVATE provider that wanted to participate in the exchange from doing so as well. Women who are covered today, may not be covered tomorrow if Stupak gets his way.
And why did he get his way, exactly? That part may burn me up the most: the whole idea was that the bill would hit the floor clean, without amendments. Anthony Weiner had to graciously fall on his sword for the Speaker, agreeing not to have the single payer amendment heard on the floor--explicitly so that poison pill amendments like Stupak's could be blocked out of fairness.
Single payer proponents--progressives--once again are told to suck it up for the team...and then the very same leadership turns around and gently cups the balls of the Blue Dogs, giving them whatever they want to get their votes. It's disgusting, and it Makes. The Base. Stay. Home.
Blumenauer, for his part, is not going to let that happen:
I am deeply troubled by any Congressional action that restricts a woman’s right to choose. This amendment is an unfortunate shift from the status quo on federal abortion policy that will disproportionately impact low-income women. There is no room for government involvement in the personal and difficult decisions around women’s reproductive choices. To force insurance companies to deny a woman access to a legal procedure would be a very disturbing step backwards.
Good for you. As I said, I think all four Democrats in Oregon are on board with the bill at this point, and in any case the only waffler has a filled voice mail box in DC and no answer at the state offices. So about the best you can do is sit back and hope that Stupak's gambit with fire (remember all 177 GOP Reps will happily vote for his amendment) falls short, and then they'll be able to wipe their diapers and vote for the bill. Heaven help us for the small favors we desire.
well, thanks to a quick return of my voicemail, we can correct this erroneous story forthwith: according to Schrader spokesman James Atkin, the story I just reported is NOT accurate, and in fact the opposite is true; Schrader opposes Med +5 in favor of a negotiated rates option that he believes will in fact be the presented version on the floor. The reason given was the standard complaint that rural providers would be badly hurt by such a plan. When asked whether he was OK with his favored plan costing taxpayers $85bil more than a Med +5 alternative, Atkin demurred on the basis of floor fights yet to come. So to repeat: this story is NOT confirmed; in fact it is directly contradicted by the Congressman's office.
---------------------
In light of the fact that freshman Congressman Kurt Schrader (OR-5) has to this point maintained virtual media silence on his views regarding the public option alternatives swirling about in the House, I think this is important news to relay: what I've discovered from a source with knowledge of one of the various whip counts being performed within the caucus recently is that Schrader has signed on to support the most progressive alternative currently being floated--the so-called "Med +5" option that pegs provider reimbursements to Medicare rates plus 5%.
Until as late as this past Friday, target lists being used by progressives to pressure individual lawmakers still included Schrader as an unknown on the subject. (In fact, his appearance was rather conspicuous by the various misspellings of his name in the appeals.) Last week Carla Axtman at Blue Oregon posed the question as well--sparking a bit of an intra-editor squabble over whether he did, or didn't. As it sussed out, Schrader has long been publicly supportive of a PO in general, but has remained mum on what types of POs he would support--such as Med+5.
Earlier this morning, however, newer target lists being circulated did not include Schrader. I asked around, and one person with knowledge of one of the whip counts indicated that Schrader was now listed as a "yes," I have made a call and left a message for Schrader's communications staff to confirm the information, but I trust my source and am willing to say with that caveat that Schrader appears to be on board.
Obviously that's excellent news, and it brings the House one step closer to a truly robust alternative for the public option. But as Carla does, I can't help but wonder why it's such a big secret, or why he alone among Democratic Reps from Oregon would be hesitating in his support. Hopefully we'll get a confirm from his staff, and can bring his laudatory decision to the forefront.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced Monday that the bill he will bring to the Senate floor will include a public health insurance option that individual states could decline to participate in.
"The public option, with an opt-out, is the one that's fair," Reid said. He said his decision was supported by the White House and by Senate Finance Commitee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).
Don't believe me? I don't blame you. But unless it's the cruelest parody video in history, here's the proof:
This hoped-for but still somewhat unexpected turn of events creates an entirely different, MUCH more positive dynamic for health care reform than just last week, when the PO-less Finance bill was still passed with full Democratic panel support. Evidently they were promised that things would improve with the merged Finance-HELP bill, but given the way things have gone with promises and deals over the years, you could forgive anyone for skepticism.
But now, assuming the House is able to follow through on its version, that is even stronger than the Senate bill, the likelihood that some form a of a real, nationally-based public option will be in the final legislation is now near 100%--and anyone who has been following this story during 2009 has to understand just how remarkable it is to be able to make that statement. The PO was dead a number of times, and it clearly did not have strong backing from the White House or the "sensible" members of the Senate. They had to be pushed to where we are now, and frankly, I'm not sure anyone can even remember the last time a legislative process was significantly pushed to the left.
One thing to note is that the version in the Senate bill will indeed include a state-based "opt-out;" that is, under some as-yet undetermined process a state could decide not to allow its residents to avail themselves of the public option in any health exchange. But as many have said, Medicaid is opt-out, too. So was the stimulus bill, and so are highway funds. The opt-out record for all three? Zero, despite much blustering and threatening otherwise.
No statement has hit my email box yet from Senator Wyden on this momentous accomplishment, but that's not necessarily meaningful. If and when something comes on, I'll append it. But Senator Merkley--who has been a very strong supporter of the PO, and helped put together the HELP Committee version of the bill that will be supplying much of the terms for the Senate configuration of it--is on the ball:
It has been clear from the beginning of this debate that a public option is absolutely necessary to provide consumers with more choice, hold insurance companies accountable and keep costs down.
Senator Reid made the right decision to include this critical component in the merged legislation. States may choose to opt-out based on their individual needs and the input of their citizens, but this provision will ensure that most Americans will have the choice between private insurance or a public plan that operates on a level playing field. This is a reasonable compromise to this issue and takes us one step closer to action by the full Senate to finally pass health care reform and fix our broken system.
As another eventful week in health care reform comes to a close, here are the FDL Action health care highlights for Friday, October 16.
1. David Dayen reports that the latest CBO score of the merged House health care bill shows it "actually costs around $900 billion or less, and cover more Americans than the SFC bill - and that's WITH a public option." Dayen quotes Howard Dean: "What's going on in the House is much better than what's going on in the Senate... Pelosi is doing a terrific job in the House." A not-so-subtle jab at Harry Reid?
2. Jon Walker writes that Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) "has told the local Arkansas News that she is open to Olympia Snowe's worthless trigger idea." Walker adds, "Lincoln believes it is more important to give large, for-profit health insurance corporations another chance to play nice, than it is to provide the people of Arkansas a public option that would save them around $1,300 a year on premiums." But of course, isn't that what being a Democrat is all about? (snark)
3. David Dayen reports on a rumor by "anonymous Senate aides saying that the merged bill may not include a public option." And in related news, "[Joe] Lieberman tells the New Haven Register that he is 'inclined' to invoke cloture, but 'I haven't decided yet.'" Two words spring to mind: "insufferable" and "egomaniac." Actually, several more words spring to mind, but most of them are not suitable for a family blog. Heh.
4. Jon Walker says that Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) has jumped on the "'blame Reid for killing the public option' bandwagon." According to Walker's analysis, the "message is clear, if the bill brought to the Senate floor by Reid has a public option, there are not the votes to remove it." Which means that if Harry Reid "chooses to include a public option in the merged bill, it is almost assured that there will be a public option." OK, Mr. Majority Leader, this is what they pay you the big bucks for! :)
5. Jon Walker writes about Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR) "being super unhelpful (again)" by pretending to support opening Medicare to all. The problem is, Ross is obviously not serious about this. As Walker correctly points out, "Suggesting alternatives that can't even secure your own vote is a waste of everyone's time."
6. Jon Walker inquires whether Harry Reid will "let his caucus...be ruled by a tiny handful of senators or will he stand with the vast majority of his party" on the public option. Given that "none of the five Democrats opposed to the public option have publicly given any indication they would let the whole of health care reform die because it contained a public option," this should not be a difficult question to answer.
7. Finally, Jon Walker reports on yet another "headache" for Harry Reid, this time the "$245 billion Medicare payment fix to buy off the AMA," specifically by addressing the "Medicare sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula." Man, just reading this stuff gives me a headache sometimes! :)
Here's the latest news on health care reform from FDL Action.
1. Teddy Partridge reports that "Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Reid) reiterated her opposition to [the] Public Option," calling it "problematic" and claiming that "government's not gonna do it better and it's gonna be more costly." All of which raises an important question for Harry Reid: "Why have you agreed to elevate to power Empress Snowe instead of requiring Democratic caucus members not to block cloture and allow a bill containing a strong public option to come to vote?"
2. Jon Walker writes about "most of the major unions in America" essentially "declar[ing] war on [the] Baucus bill in defiance of Rahm." Walker adds, "The fact that many labor unions strongly object to the Baucus bill should not be a surprise. The new excise tax on health insurance benefits would disproportionally hit middle class union members. The new tax is highly middle class regressive." Other than that, of course, the unions love the Baucus bill! (snark)
3. Jane Hamsher announces an arts contest by POP (Public Option Please), FDL's health care reform advocacy campaign. Judges for the contest will include Arianna Huffington, Marshall Ganz, Jesse Dylan (directed the "Yes We Can" video), Arlene Holt Baker (AFL-CIO), and Aaron Rose ("film director, art show curator, musician and writer responsible for the Beautiful Losers art movement and world tour"). The contest runs until October 31, and offers cash prizes and publicity to the winners. Check it out here.
4. Jon Walker reports on another new "'study' [PDF] out today, this time paid for by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association." Shockingly, Walker writes, "[t]he Blue Cross Blue Shield conclusion is that premiums would increase even faster with reform, unless we do exactly what they want...A larger government fine for anyone who does not buy their product, the ability to charge older Americans dramatically more, and to have what qualifies as minimum health insurance scaled back even farther." It's amazing how it works that way, huh?
6. Finally, Jane reported this morning that Rahm Emanuel would be "meeting with Harry Reid to tell him what the White House wants in the final Senate bill." Jane quotes Emanuel from his appearance last night on the NewsHour, where he told Judy Woodruff, "Senator Snowe has the idea of a trigger, that, in case that price isn't achieved or that competition isn't achieved, there be a trigger that then the option, a public option, would come available." For FDL Action's opinion on the "trigger," see item #5 above.
Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden isn't saying how he'll vote when the Finance Committee takes up Chairman Max Baucus's 10-year, $829-billion plan next Tuesday.
"I am not going to characterize where I am (on the bill) in any way," Wyden said Friday as he headed to the airport for a trip back to his state.
"I'm going to be doing everything I can to make sure hardworking Americans aren't forced to buy unaffordable coverage from monopolies," he added, making his discomfort clear.
Narrated by former health insurance executive Wendell Potter, the spot accuses private insurance of trying to "kill health reform" and whacks the committee for not including a public option to keep the industry honest.
"Take it from me," Potter says, "the Senate Finance bill is a dream come true of the health insurance industry. If there is no public option insurance companies aren't going to change. The choice of a public health insurance option is the only way to keep insurance companies honest."
"I want to continue to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle," he said in remarks before the Finance committee, emphasizing that he did not want to do anything to promote groups trying to halt healthcare reform this year.
"My vote today to advance this bill forward is a judgement that there is enough goodwill in this committee and this Congress to move this bill forward," Wyden told colleagues.
Wyden asserted that Baucus and other Democratic leaders had vowed to work with him to ameliorate concerns about the bill as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) works to meld the Finance proposal with the one in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.
"I am convinced every one of those colleagues is anxious to get real health reform, while we have spirited debates about how to get that done," the Oregon Democrat said.
Always the optimist, the cute little dreamer believing that working with people like Chuck Grassley and Joe Lieberman is an exercise in good faith.
Today, millions of Americans are one step closer to the healthcare reform they need. We disagree with Senator Wyden on some of the principles of healthcare reform, but we stand with him and many of his colleagues today in saying that, while the Senate Finance Committee bill is not perfect, it is important to ensure that the process does not stop. There is still time to make changes, and we hope changes will be made; we hope that all Oregonians will be ensured access to affordable healthcare, that a public option will be available and that employers who support their workers by providing health insurance will be rewarded, not discouraged. As the Senate and House bills move to the floor we are counting on Oregon's delegation to continue to stand with middle class Oregonians and support the real reform we need, reform that, for the first time in a decade, is now within our reach.
I suppose a bit weirdly, I agree with both Potter/MoveOn, and OR-AFLCIO: it's a horrible, bogus, POS gift to the insurance industry, and if it's what largely ends up as the Senate version that crowds out a more robust House plan, we're all doomed and Democratic electeds will start feeling the pain next year. However, while I'm not as sanguine as Wyden is about all the good-feelin's within the caucus and across the aisle for health care, it's true that the SFC bill is simply batter waiting to be made into cake. There WILL be modifications; I'm just scared about what they will be. The truth is that a solid bill was never going to come out of that committee, and in fact Baucus and Co have been a tremendous hindrance all summer. At least this way he's gotten his moment in the sun, and while he'll definitely have a big seat at the table, there will be several other players working with/against Baucus to create something that might actually help American citizens instead of Humana shareholders.
So the vote today was almost entirely meaningless, for perhaps everyone except Snowe. She now has to endure what will surely amount to furious pressure from her own caucus, who has reportedly threatened to keep coveted chair assignments away from her for this vote. Equally furious effort will come from those still obsessing over the mercurial value of "bipartisanship," hoping to keep Snowe in the Yea column when it comes time for a floor vote. Again, what's it worth? Not a lot, but that's where we are. Onward! And screw it, let's just put the MoveOn ad here at the bottom, above the fold:
Two interesting developments, one symbolic and one substantive, that represent a far more visibly progressive effort on health care from Ron Wyden this week. The symbolic but paradigm shifting sign was Wyden's signature on a letter to Majority Leader Reid signed by 30 Senators, "urging" a public option as part of any bill leaving the Senate:
Thirty U.S. Senators signed a letter today urging the inclusion of a public option in any health reform legislation that will be considered on the Senate floor. An additional 14 Senators at least have expressed support for the public option through a resolution, letter, or by voting for a strong public option during committee markups.
The Senators’ letter expresses concern that “absent a competitive and continuous public insurance option – health reform legislation will not produce nationwide access and ongoing cost containment.” It continues on to state that “the number one goal of health reform must be to look out for the best interests of the American people – patients and taxpayers alike – not the profit margins of insurance companies.”
Why is this a marked shift in language for Wyden? It's the difference between being "open to" something, as Wyden has stressed repeatedly this year about the PO, accepting it like a rainstorm when you're caught without an umbrella--and being FOR it, asking for its inclusion, and emphasizing its importance. Those are all things that to my knowledge, Wyden has not explicitly done in this campaign for reform, so that he's saying them now is--while tardy--significant.
Significant, but tangibly effective? That's an open question, although surely at this stage when the option appears to be more on the wax as far as the likelihood of inclusion in a bill, every positive voice helps and builds additional momentum for what one would hope is a 60-vote stand on cloture and then 50+ votes for a bill with some kind of PO.
Of course, "what kind of PO" becomes the next set of goalposts, if "whether a PO" is a question now looking more answerable with a yes in the Senate. From my reading it seems the co-op Conrad con never got the slightest bit of traction, so that's probably out. The trigger is apparently the default carrot for "bipartisan" legislation, hoping to snare Olympia Snowe to the side of the good guys, although it's not even clear that will make the nut for her vote. And so Chuck Schumer's "level playing field" plan that basically makes public insurance play by private rules is the current "most worrisome" version likely to be the Senate's offering.
...which makes the newest variant, the "opt-out" concept (not the opt-in idea of Conrad's, yet another DOA stinker) where a federal public option is established but states are left with the option to ban their use, a very interesting prospect. I am a strong subscriber to the idea that this can work as a classic "camel's nose" attempt to build universal compliance through the presentation of an "option" that is nonetheless a federal fait accompli. I don't think you'd see many states really take that step, to taketh away what the federal government giveth, and have to face their electorate afterwards.
Steps away from the Finance Committee markup, SEIU Chief Andy Stern ducked into a private meeting Thursday with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
Stern told Pulse colleague Manu Raju that he was working with the senators and "trying to improve [the bill] as we speak."
On Sen. Tom Carper's proposal to allow states to opt into a government plan, Stern said states should be allowed to opt out of the government plan.
"I'm in the fourth way option," Stern said. "If Alabama doesn't want a public option, they should consider that question. I don't think the citizens of Alabama will want out. ... I think we need a public option. I don't think it needs to be triggered. The question is if there are certain state legislators who think it's not appropriate for their state, they should have a right in some fashion to deal with it."
It's not a direct line established by Politico between Stern's meeting with Wyden, his espousal of opt-out, and that meeting having been about developing that idea. But it's a logical hypothesis, at least. I'll see if I can get a confirm that Wyden is willing to cop to his development and support for an opt-out. If so, you'll see the tone of the coverage on Wyden's efforts for reform change at Loaded Orygun. It's a long way from signing letters with the likes of Nelson and Lieberman to delay a bill, to signing one urging a PO--and it's almost as long a journey going from being "open" to a PO to pushing for one (if the strong version is indeed what they're cooking up for it, which is the point--that with the argument that any hesistant Dem Senator can cover his ass at home with the theoretical opt-out, the bill that gets passed can be much stronger). That would be the path towards real reform for everyone, and I would hail it.
OK, I'm not 100% sure what to make of this video, just released by the Merkley folks, and featuring the Senator himself on camera, arguing the merits of solving the health care crisis. It's fewer than two minutes long, so give it a scan and then I'll comment:
I have to say that as it began, it seemed like a clever idea to tie the complex health care mess to the convoluted and seemingly intractable problem of a scrambled Rubik's Cube. Wow, I thought--Jeff's going to sit there and play with the cube while talking about how to fix health care! Amusing, breezy and informative!
...and then he set about working to solve it. No, not health care, the cube--he started to turn the sides around and attempt to put the colors together. OK, I thought, maybe the joke is that he'll try to solve it for a few seconds, then throw up his hands and say, "See how hard it is?" But he kept going, and it became clear that he really was trying to solve it--and of course that meant he was going to succeed, and do so in less than 2 minutes, apparently, since they wouldn't film him giving an extended try but failing.
...except then they started speeding up the videomotion, meaning that he CAN solve it, just not in two minutes. And while doing so, the three espoused tenets of fixing health care--extending access, strengthening coverage and lowering costs--are bullet-pointed on a sidebar.
...but that's pretty much all the explication there is: if you want to solve health care, just do these three things! I kept waiting for him to go into some kind of detail, but it doesn't happen. And it's not like there was no time; for several seconds after the voiceover stops, Merkley's still leaning on his desk, flipping those cube-sides at Chaplinesque speed.
And when he finishes, it's a mildly triumphant moment, but I was left with the sarcastic sense of "oh, it's just THAT easy, huh?" After watching, I'm no closer to understanding how he suggests we break the health care Rubik's Cube, or for that matter how he solved the cube itself.
I get the sense that Merkley's staffers took a cue from the truly clever (and much rarer) ability of Senator Franken to draw the United States freehand while simultaneously talking politics. Now that had wow factor! Merkley's clip is cute, and it's interesting to know he can solve a Cube. The message that we actually CAN do this if we have the requisite resolve is right on. And there's no doubt that he's carried a ton of water for serious health care reform, particularly a robust public option. So I'm not trying to be critical either of Merkley's committment to the issue, or the unconventional, lighthearted way to get his message across. I'm just not sure it's very effective, informative or value-adding. At least reference other sources where you can get some details--or offer viewers an action item, to call their representatives or to step up discussions about health care and the PO with friends and family.
Maybe next time he can describe how our daily activities are interconnected to the global environment, while completing an entire Jenga stack, as a way to advocate for the climate bill. Perhaps Merkley keeps a bunch of brain games in his office, to distract lobbyists while he gets actual work done?
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
As another eventful week in health care reform comes to a close, here are the 