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.
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.
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.
The O carries a story from this afternoon describing a trio of Democratic Senators who are seeking a slowdown on the potential extension of some of the more egregious USA PATRIOT provisions otherwise set to expire. (Betcha didn't know the Act's title was actually in acronym form, didya? It's short for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism...Act.) Along with Russ Feingold of Wiscosin and Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois is our own Ron Wyden, who--compared to his stance on healthcare--is well out in front of his caucus on surveillance and civil liberty issues, and continues to lead progressive interests in the Senate:
Wyden is spearheading an effort to place tighter rules and oversight on the so-called business records provision in the law. Under the current law which expires Dec. 31, federal investigators can scoop up individuals' bank and financial records, medical information, DNA and other "tangible things" (the law's actual wording) without having to prove that the individuals have any connection to terrorist activities.
But Wyden and his allies believe the definition is too broad and too easily allows government officials to conduct "fishing expeditions" of people who may not have any involvement with terror activities.
The "business records" provision sets the standard that the government must meet to obtain an individual's personal information from banks, hospitals, libraries, retail stores and other institutions.
On a pure workload and intellectual basis I think President Obama can handle multitasking on a variety of issues, but the media and the general public may not be so facile. I've been aware of the business records provision and the attention it's been getting in prog-wonk circles, because it's among the most ridiculously overreaching of the PATRIOT provisions, and one that has great potential for touching the lives of ordinary Americans in their homes and businesses. But with stimulus and health care and climate and Afghanistan and banking all taking up chunks of our collective consciousness, we run out of things to devote your outrage and our energy to.
Diehard fans of H.R. 2651 charged the floor of the Senate chamber Tuesday after their bill, a 14-vote underdog nicknamed the Maritime Workforce Development Act, passed 51-49 with just moments to go in the legislative session...A champagne-soaked Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), whose last-second vote clinched the bill's passage, said the guys on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee deserved much of the credit, but that the biggest thanks should go to God.
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.
This is sort of a continuation of the tea-leaf reading post earlier this morning, on the several opportunities recently featuring Ron Wyden speaking out on his vision for health care reform. It must be noted that true to his staff's word this summer, they said when a bill was presented in Finance he would have plenty to offer--and he is indeed an active member of the current debate, and a respectful representative for our state. He's a gentleman, and we're glad for that.
But his discarded reticence hasn't, to my mind, brought us any closer to his actual positions and predilections when it comes down to the nitty gritty of a final bill. There's a difference between "committed to" and "open to," and Wyden's consistent use of the latter when referencing a public option leaves a big trap door open, allowing him to say later "Well, I was open to it, but never committed to having it in for passage." Contrast that with Jeff Merkley's language, or Jeff Rockefeller's language, or even Maria Cantwell's. It's pointedly weaker and softer in tone.
Kathleen Wells: I read a summary of your Plan and it's an exchange. What about the public option?
Senator Wyden: I'm open to the pubic option and I've said that to your publication and others. What's important for folks to know, and what I was struck with this summer [is]: I had town meeting across my state. I had eight town meetings across Oregon. I headed into a gym in a community and up against the wall there would be lots of folks with public option signs [stating] "Public option or bust." I'd say, "Folks, I really appreciate the fact that you are trying to hold the insurance companies accountable and trying to put the consumer in the driver's seat. Are you aware that the way these bills are written now, more than 85 percent of you would be legally prohibited from choosing a public option?" People practically fell out of the bleachers.
I happen to think that choice, whether it's private sector choice or public sector choice, is the key to competition. Competition is the key to holding the insurance companies accountable, turning the tables on the insurance lobby. It's almost as if the country has been having this debate between the ideas of private option versus public option when what we really ought to be thinking about is "no choice" option.
That's a tell, to me. Competition is what drives down costs, and for Wyden the key is not a more efficient and cheaper option from the get go, but the idea that you can choose from among options no matter who provides them. That's like being lethally injected but getting excited because the drugs come in different flavors. And you simply aren't committed to serious reform if you don't think public or private matters.
It continues to be a busy and visible time for Senator Ron Wyden, as he rides the cable and print junket for his "Free Choice" amendment to the Finance Committee inkblot. We've got two TV clips for you, a long interview that frankly makes my Spidey sense tingle in a bad way, and then a news piece from yesterday that simply makes me want to retch. So grab that sandwich and let's dig in!
We'll start with the videos. Note the way they're being presented viz Wyden's position on reform, as here at Blue Oregon but also headlining the YouTube original of the Ed clip--in short, that he's suddenly on board, talking less about plans without public options, more about plans that have them--but also, conveniently, Free Choice running alongside. And the pitch is that the news is happy--yay, he's off the fence! Is he? I'll let you watch. First is Ed Schulz, then Rachel Maddow. He says much the same in both, but Maddow asks some really piercing questions that throw him off his game at bit at the end of hers:
It's an extreme rarity when Oregon's entire Congressional delegation finds a way to vote in unison on any bill that's not blandly symbolic, splashily ceremonial or a blatant pander to a constituency no one dislikes. Obviously in this hyperpartisan age, it's a foregone conclusion that they won't all vote the same way, as long as there's an Eastern Oregon Republican thrown into the mix with our six Democratic representatives. But even with the Ds, and even just the House Dems, somebody dissents from the group for one reason or another from time to time.
Not yesterday. In a capitulation to the GOP fringe notable even in this Season of Caving for its speed and sense of political repulsion, both the House and Senate overwhelmingly passed bills banning any federal funding for the non-profit community group ACORN. In the House just 75 Members stood up to defend the truly massive sums being doled out (about $3.5 million per year--million with an M), and in the upper chamber there were only seven votes opposed to the funds cutoff. Naturally, all 82 legislators were Democrats; if there's one group that knows how to fall in the line with the bell rings, it's the Congressional GOP.
But in one of the more shameful, cowardly, politically-eskeert votes I can recall, not a single one of those 82 lawmakers were Oregonians:
Earl Blumenauer? Fuck you, ACORN.
Peter DeFazio? Suck it--I might run for Goobernor!
David Wu? I may be from a minority community, but it's the overachieving one
Kurt Schrader? Don't look at me--I'm the new guy!
Ron Wyden? I couldn't--what would Chuck Grassley say?
Jeff Merkley? File this turkey with his Yea allowing loaded guns in parks.
Greg Walden? Well, natch. You get a pass as a lost cause...
Well, now wait--why is this such a bad vote? Isn't ACORN that group that commiitted massive voter fraud, getting Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck to vote for Obama last election? Don't they tell people in child prostitution rings how to evade the law? Aren't they just some nefarious underground cabal of Chicago style "community organizers?"
Below the fold, I'll let Glenn Greenwald lay it out for you.
The rubber is beginning to really hit the road when it comes to health care in Congress; recess is over and the Baucus Caucus finally came out with a bill to mark up. It appears the rest of the Finance Committee--including our own Senator Wyden--either want to mark it with a bunch of changes (Democrats) or with a big red F (Republicans, even Olympia Snowe).
Both of our Senators have elucidated serious issues with the Finance bill, not quite as directly as Senator Rockefeller from West Virginia--who essentially declared it a dead letter and ripped the "co-op" compromise to shreds in a letter to the Gang of Six--but by attacking what the Baucus Suckus plan lacks. And for each Senator the complaint is different.
Jeff Merkley, for his part, continues to be one of the more repetitively vocal members of the chamber when it comes to support for a robust public option. His insistence has not wavered throughout a long summer of angst-ridden tea-leaf reading over whether the PO would survive the deliberative process. His refusal to sit quietly on the back bench and let the seasoned pros handle things is enormously welcome, and a big poke in the ribs to doubters (like me) who thought the key word for Merkley's first term would be "languid" rather than "loud and liberal."
Yesterday he took his advocacy to the airwaves, hitting not only The Ed Show, but also CNBC. Here's the latter clip, first:
And now, chatting with Ed Schulz:
If you like, you may consider my relegation of Senator Wyden's media efforts below the fold as some kind of "punishment" or commentary on his behavior on the health care issue. That doesn't mean it would be true (but it doesn't mean it would be false, either). What it definitely means in part, at least, is that with two vid clips, the top of the fold is already pretty big....
It's been a long and frustrating summer for Oregon citizens who have been hungry for some indication--any indication, really--of Senator Ron Wyden's true position on health care reform. We've covered it at LO ad infinitum (and some in Wyden's camp may change the last word to nauseum), and have gotten no further than where we started: Wyden claims to "be open to" an unspecified public option, although his first preference is for his own bill, the Healthy Americans Act--which doesn't have a PO. And as we reported last week, one of his colleagues claims that Wyden has let them know he's perfectly willing to "get off" the public option when the time comes.
So is he supporttive, coercable, against, waffling? As I've heard the various staffers say at various times, "The Senator is not willing to speculate at this time." Sucks to be us, I guess.
But we're not giving up, and we need your help to continue reminding the Senator who he works for, and that it's entirely reasonable to expect him to be clearer on his position. I also think given his status as a senior Democratic Senator from a blue state that surely mirrors (at least!) the high level of approval for a PO that exists nationwide, he could go crazy and declare his support for the HELP bill already out of committee, pledge to vote against any bill in his Finance Committee that doesn't include a robust PO, or pledge to vote for any bill in conference that contains a PO. But let's not push his delicate buttons too firmly just yet. First things first.
And this is where you come in. A major push has been underway by national bloggers like Jane Hamsher at FireDogLake, and Chris Bowers at Open Left, along with progressive groups like Democracy for America and Health Care for America Now. Through various pledge letters covering what they will and won't go for, over 60 House Democrats and 45 Senate Dems have made their stand for real reform. The House Gang is enough to hold the line there, and if five more Senators can be signed on by the time they return to DC next month, there'd be enough in that chamber to pass strong reform under reconciliation.
Junior Senator Jeff Merkley is one of those 45, and has been pretty clear about it. Senator Wyden? Not so much. And so he's made the list of Sens on the Hot Seat for this issue, the focus of a national campaign to get those final five committments and stand strong when recess ends.
What would we like you to do? It's so easy a Cave Junction* man could do it! Send Wyden a fax! "But I got rid of my fax machine the same year I stopped having to carry around a big plug-in box for my cell phone," you may be saying. Not to worry, the Toobz can now do all that faxing stuff for you, right online. Here, click on this hyperlink! It will take you to a page to enter your information (so Wyden knows who he's getting it from and it's not just a vacuous form fax), and then submit your message. (If you'd rather call or send a snail mail, that works too!)
Below the fold I'll show you the example, and then what I wrote for my comments. Obviously, it will be more effective and taken more seriously if you don't use the form version, but your fax will still count if you do. It's probably just fine to use the questions verbatim, but think about using your own words if at all possible. If you're fired up and ready to fax, get cracking, otherwise click below decks...
Daily Kos' mcjoan got herself a bit of a scoop the other day, somehow getting her hands on what is normally a private list--an insider's Congressional whip count, this one from the House Congressional Progressive Caucus on health care reform, pledging to vote AGAINST any bill without strong reform principles. I noticed a key Oregon omission from that list, and asked--with reply--why that was. Meanwhile, over on the Senate side the GOP's primary goal of slowing down health care to kill it is being given a boost by none other than our senior Senator. We'll take a brief look at both, below. {really, go below!}
So in yesterday's Medford Mail Tribune, one of the featured op-eds was co-written by a 50-year nurse and OHSU professor--and her writing partner is a small business owner, another group we should be listening to on the subject. I'll let you read the whole thing, but they bring up some points about Wyden's bill that we haven't touched upon here, so I'll reprint those:
Wyden's legislation contains substantive problems beyond its lack of a public health insurance option. It eliminates two successful public programs: Medicaid and S-CHIP, health insurance for poor adults and children, respectively. In their place, Wyden would provide subsidies for the poor to purchase private insurance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concludes, however, that neither the level of the subsidies offered nor the annual increases allotted will adequately cover low-income individuals and families, leaving them worse off than they are now.
Ron Wyden has championed his own brand of health-care reform for years. He claims his approach is winnable because he has bipartisan support. Look again. Wyden wrote his bill during the Bush administration. It was an innovative idea at the time. But, over the past three years, he's recruited only 14 of his colleagues to sign on as co-sponsors. And five out of the seven Democratic co-sponsors have come out in support of a public option.
We believe there can be no real health-care reform without the option of a public health insurance plan. Even Maine Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe says, "We can't entirely depend on the private insurance market to deliver. They haven't delivered thus far; that's why we're in the predicament we're in today."
I had not heard about the CBPP analysis of Wyden's plan with regard to subsidies for the poor; if their take is accurate, then it's one more reason to see why the GOP likes it so much: not only does it not create good public health care, it takes away some of that which we already have.
The 90s were a festival of "block grant" bills, where long-standing traditional funding of national priorities were dismantled and replaced by bulk subsidies to states, within certain parameters to use (or not) however they wished. In some cases it does allow states to experiment and tailor the funding to their specific needs, but in others it's simply an excuse to cut previous funding levels and divert the money elsewhere. For health care--where the insurance industry has been very successful in gaining favorable state legislation--it stands to be a disaster.
Interestingly, the authors cite Wyden as "opposing" the public option bill in Jeff Merkley's HELP Committee, something Wyden would probably object to with his standard "I support it, if..." rejoinder. But after repeated attempts from media and constituents alike to pin the Senator down on his specific views, maybe it's not so inaccurate. If you support something, generally you say so. If you don't support it, but there is political risk for that stance, generally you avoid saying so, perhaps even while trying to make it seem as if you DO support it. Like, by saying you support it, if...
Here's one more paragraph that aptly sums up the argument for a strong public option: it's effective policy:
A public option significantly can decrease costs by increasing competition, emphasizing prevention and primary care and streamlining paperwork. Just as important, we would all receive quality, affordable health care while choosing between keeping our current insurance, shopping the private market for the best deal or enrolling in a public health insurance plan that cannot be taken away.
A bit delayed, given that the rally was Friday, but I did go down and cover the event in front of Senator Wyden's Portland office, snapped a couple of photos, and talked with Lisa Caballero, the volunteer organizer while getting a copy of her statement and testimonials from ordinary Oregonians about their strong desire for a public option.
See, that was the reason for the rally, to try and push Wyden towards a full and robust public option (FRPO). Here's a picture of them doing that!
The shot I have here is cropped a bit; the strength of the rally was a definite 50+ and closer to 75 by my headcount. (That's easily double or triple the group who came out for single payer, although I did recognize some overlap). They spoke, chanted and got honks for about 20 minutes before dispersing, but they did deliver their petition (more on that below), raise some awareness and earn media attention (WWeek and the Merc).
Here's the transcription of the audio I got talking to Caballero after the rally, which wasn't really conducted as a formal interview--but she does make some good points which echoed her speech:
People don't quite understand the politics of what's happening. Wyden keeps making these statements that are quite confusing to someone that's not bothering to dig and be informed. I have had people just from this event say, "why are you out here? Wyden is supporting a public option." Well actually he's not; if you listen to what he's saying, he's saying he supports a public option if it's "sustainably financed." And then he doesn't describe what that is.
I would be happier if he just said, "I disagree with you; we don't see eye to eye on this and this is what I'm supporting, can I convince you?" But instead, he's deliberately not being straightforward to people that aren't up to their neck in this issue It's confusing to people. So I think we're really getting down to the point where he needs to come out and make a statement. This week Sen. Kennedy's committee has come out with a bill. There's something on the table. It's been vetted by the Congressional Budget Office, and so they've got a number on it. My question to Sen. Wyden is, does he consider the finances of that bill to be sustainably financed?
The problem that starts happening with someone like me is I'm not a professional. I'm not an economist, I'm not a policy wonk, I just read the newspaper. So I can't argue policy with complicated answers like that about Senate procedures. But I just get the feeling that I'm not being dealt with straightforwardly.
As nothstine aptly noted this morning, there's some national blogger blowback hitting Senator Ron Wyden in the face today: Atrios has named him the Wanker of the Day, and Digby goes into somewhat more detail that concludes the same thing--the continued obsession of Wyden for bipartisan results on health care reform is bizarre, pointless, and decidedly NOT conducive to getting effective reform passed.
The original source of their ire is a piece published last night by Huffington Post's Sam Stein, showing that indeed, Wyden continues to operate under the assumption that inter-party comity is the prime directive. That may have been relatively stomach-able when it was Gordon Smith and Mt. Hood Wilderness, but it's just damned foolish on health care. Some relevant bits from Stein:
In an interview this week with the Huffington Post, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) maintained that there was still "great interest in the Finance Committee for a bipartisan bill on both sides of the aisle" and he urged lawmakers to continue to pursue a collaborative path. He would not comment directly on news that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had urged the Committee's Chairman, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to drop efforts to attract Republican support. But he also didn't hide his own preferences.
"I'm committed to the priority that the president laid out," said Wyden. "I think the president got it right. He said 'I want to get it done this year' and he also indicated that his first choice is to have a bipartisan bill because he recognizes that a bipartisan bill allows the country to come together."
Asked whether he would support cloture on health care legislation that he would ultimately oppose -- so as to preempt a Republican filibuster -- Wyden was noncommittal.
Funny thing, how the President's directive on bipartisanship is to be heeded no matter what--but his directive on including a public option to be ignored, much like his opinion that Wyden's bill is 'too radical' to be considered among reform options. Does anyone else find it extremely weird for an otherwise intelligent Senator to brush off contending with serious policy choices, but is ready to go to the mattresses over process--and a fully meaningless process at that?
What really chaps me, however, is the last line of that excerpt: asked whether he would support cloture, Wyden could not commit. Every Democrat in Congress, House or Senate, from ultralib Keith Ellison to newjack freak Arlen Specter, should be compelled to have a kneejerk answer ready every time this question comes up: Of COURSE I'll support cloture, even if I might vote against the bill. Failure on this point is to allow that maybe the absurd manipulations of a rump regional party have some merit, and should possibly be supported.
I have to say, while I've showed repeated and strong disappointment with Senator Wyden on this issue, I've defended his integrity and committment to doing his job in the best way he knows. As much as I think he's dead wrong and showing a seriously poor grasp of what Democrats were elected to do the last two cycles, if he thinks Broderism reigns supreme all I can do is bitch. But there is no logical justifiation--NONE--for hemming and hawing over whether you'd vote for cloture so that the concept of majority rule can actually start getting applied like it used to be. Under what circumstances could he possibly see for voting to prolong debate on a Democratic health care bill?
Reid, whose leadership is considered crucial if President Barack Obama is to deliver on his promise of enacting health care reform this year, offered the directive to Baucus through an intermediary after consulting with Senate Democratic leaders during Tuesday morning’s regularly scheduled leadership meeting. Baucus was meeting with Finance ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) Tuesday afternoon to relay the information.
According to Democratic sources, Reid told Baucus that taxing health benefits and failing to include a strong government-run insurance option of some sort in his bill would cost 10 to 15 Democratic votes; Reid told Baucus it wasn’t worth securing the support of Grassley and at best a few additional Republicans.
As I said, if you're among the 3/4ths of Americans who would like a full and robust public healthcare option (FRPO), this is potentially very good news--a bloc of Senators has apparently made it clear to Reid that they will not support any bill that fails to provide a FRPO.
But what does this have to do with Oregon, specifically? Look at the particular positions Reid is redlining in his "advice" to Baucus: a "strong government-run insurance option"" and "taxing health benefits." Who can think of an existing health care proposal that lacks a FRPO and taxes health care benefits?
If you said "Ron Wyden's Health Americans Act," you've been paying attention. Despite protestations that his bill allows for states to create their own, much smaller public exchanges, and that only people with "Cadillac benefits" will see their benefits taxed, what you still end up with is a non-FRPO plan with a benefit-tax funding structure (among other things that I DO in fact like, such as capital gains and estate tax reform--but those things should be happening anyway).
I've said all along that a plan failing to include what Americans most want (FRPO) and including what they do NOT want (a tax on benefits), is not going to make much political headway. And now Reid has validated that analysis, declaring 10-15 immediate defectors on those grounds alone. Couple that with the evisceration that the President did on the central feature of HAA--shifting the insurance process from employers to individuals--and Wyden's plan starts to look an awful lot like the Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail:
{more, including fresh comments from Wyden in today's WWeek, below}
I have rather obviously been laser-focused lately, on what I consider the most compelling and achievable task of this most important year in President Obama's tenure, and of the (ostensibly) now-fully-Democratic Congress--meaningful health care reform. The push and pull of influence is in full swing, and one of the most heavily targeted Members is Oregon's senior Senator, Ron Wyden.
Of course, he's being targeted because he's one of the coy Democrats when it comes to the signature shift in mind for the majority of the caucus: a full and robust public option (FRPO). In a nutshell, he claims to back a public choice in some format, but invariably undercuts it with a deep concern for fiscal reticence that apparently threatens even the idea of a FRPO in his mind, because he'll finish it off with another plug for his own plan, the Healthy Americans Act--which has at best a weak allowance for a de-scaled choice offering and so undercuts his "support" even more.
But maybe it's me, right? Maybe I'm just the extremist harpy blogger who can't accept the pragmatics of the situation, and the obvious need to forge bipartisanship with a collective group who have almost literally vowed in public to kill meaningul reform of any kind this Congress. Call it my Broderian blind spot.
Come to discover, it's not just me. Others are asking him the four questions of reform, and he's not doing much more than repeating the above dance. And these people don't seem like cranks...but you be the judge.
(Bumping to the top as a reminder--apparently there is also a rally today at 1230p for his Salem office, Federal Building, 310 W. 6th St, Rm 118... - promoted by torridjoe)
If you're feeling itchy about where Senator Wyden stands on a full and robust public option (FRPO)--and why shouldn't you be, considering he continues to press his own bill that doesn't contain one?--here's a chance to represent:
Public Option Now! Health Care Rally
Sen. Ron Wyden's District Office, 1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Suite 585 (Map) Portland, OR 97204
Thursday, July 09th, 12:00 PM
MoveOn is sponsoring the rally, and has been working furiously to get its membership out on the hustings, trying to fulfill FDR's imperative when asked to support progressive policy: "Make me do it." The only way that Wyden will come out openly and strongly for a FRPO, and finally ditch his weaker alternative, is the same way that Arlen Specter, Ben Nelson, Dianne Feinstein and Kay Hagan have been made to come around: they've been shamed and warned into it.
Two interesting and potentially game-changing happenings went down yesterday, both of which would seem to be positives for the drive to see a full and robust public option (FRPO) included in any health care reform bill that passes Congress. Plus I've got news of a demonstration in Portland that goes even beyond that, and continues to press for action on a single-payer plan.
First, the President made front page news in The Oregonian this morning, by commenting at some length on the health care bill being carried by Senator Ron Wyden. Obama was as usual polite and mostly glancing in his criticisms, but he was indeed critical of the plan:
"There are a lot of good concepts to what Ron's proposing," Obama said. But despite his professed agreement with "90 percent" of Wyden's thinking, he said parts of the plan are too "radical" for the country.
Wyden argues that linking health care costs to individuals will promote competition and drive down costs. But Obama said that is too sharp a departure from what workers have known -- and become comfortable with -- for generations.
That fundamental shift, along with the major changes in the tax code that Wyden proposes, are too "radical," Obama said, when aligned with all the other changes that must take place to provide health insurance to 47 million Americans who don't have it.
The president said his discussions with Wyden are similar to those with people who advocate a single-payer system. In theory, those plans work, he said. "The problem is, we have evolved partly by accident into an employer-based system."
A "radical restructuring" would meet "significant political resistance," Obama said, and "families who are currently relatively satisfied with their insurance but are worried about rising costs ... would get real nervous about a wholesale change."
Oregon does have one Senator who's willing to come out and stake his claim for a full and robust public option (FRPO)--junior Senator Jeff Merkley. In this video recorded today at Pioneer Square outside KGW's new studios there, Merkley affirms his support for a public option, one that competes directly with private insurance and cuts costs using Medicare-style bargaining rules with providers. He also takes time to parry some of the built-in skepticism of his interviewer, who seems awfully concerned for the health of private insurers (as opposed to say, the insured or those who would like to be). Watch the video, below:
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
