Massa and Kucinich, men of principles and integrity
…unlike the rest of the progressive caucus who voted in favor of this (piece of crap) bill.
The progressives blinked. Only two, Reps. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Eric Massa (D-N.Y.), lived up to the July pledge signed by roughly 60 liberals in which they vowed to vote against the bill if it did not contain their favored version of public option.
Nothing like sticking to your guns, guys!! And what really burns my butt, is that ANYONE who calls himself a PROGRESSIVE would vote for the “Stupid” Amendment. They should be taken to the woodshed.
This is a rant. Just warning you. If you don’t want to read it, then stop right here.
Ok, for those of you who are still reading, despite my warning, thank you for listening.
I would like to address Mr. Philip Anderson of the Albany Project. Have you read the bill Philip Anderson? Do you really understand it? Eric Massa has read the bill. He said he would not vote for a bad bill. It’s a bad bill. Employers will continue to have to pay for their employees Health Insurance. If not, they will be committing a crime and fined.
Potential Employer: “Hmmm, should I hire one more employee? He really needs the job, but I just can’t afford the health insurance.”
New Production Company Owner: “Hmmmm, should I put up my factory in the US, or Canada?”
We’ve tried the “health insurance tied to employment” route. It doesn’t work. Hellooo, McFly?
I guarantee that the only Companies/Employers who are happy with this bill are the Insurance Companies and Big Pharma. (but, perhaps, Mr Anderson, you’ve been invited to their celebratory dinner) So if you’re looking for someone to be full of sh*t, you need look no further than the mirror in your bathroom.
And, what does the “public option” look like in this bill? From Open Left’s Ian Welsh:
No Robust Public Option: A robust public option is one that is large enough and with enough pricing power to force down costs, and one which is available to everyone. At this point, the public option will likely have between 5 to 9 million enrollees (the CBO says 6 million, but we’ll be generous). As such it will be smaller than most private insurers and will not have pricing power. If it were linked to Medicare and could use Medicare’s clout, it could reduce costs, but the Medicare +5 amendment, which would have had it paying providers at Medicare rates +5% was defeated.
The Congressional Budget Office has stated that the public option insurance plan premiums will be higher than equicalent private plans. This is likely because of denial of care issues, insurer cherry-picking and lack of clout mean it won’t be able keep reimbursement rates low relative to private insurers who have more customers and thus more pricing clout with doctors, hospitals and other providers. If the public option costs more than equivalent private plans, it goes without saying that it will not reduce costs.
If it were anything worth having, do you REALLY think Eric would have voted against it? He says what he means and means what he says. He’s never led us to believe otherwise. You’ve always known where he’s stood, but now you say he’s playing both sides.
The bottom line comes from Open Left again:
I would suggest that if progressives ever want their threats to be taken seriously by anyone again they go into opposition against this bill until such a time as it both has a robust public option and the Stupak amendment is out. Failure to do so will show that their threats were always hollow, that they are willing to sell out child-bearing age women, and that they prioritize the interests of older people over younger and poorer people.
In negotiation against a good negotiator, you get the minimum you are willing to settle for. Progressives have shown that their minimum is not a robust public option. It may not even be practical abortion access. They will not get a robust public option if they will not oppose the bill over it, and if they won’t oppose the final bill over the Stupak amendment, that too will most likely remain.
Obama and the Democratic leadership’s bottom line is they must pass some bill called “health care reform”. Unless you threaten to take away their bottom line, they will take away anything that isn’t progressives bottom line - and that includes practical abortion access, and a robust public option.
Amen.
Related posts:
Over the weekend, I finally took the time to drop a note to my congressman Massa thanking him for both his votes, against Stupak and against the bill. Sometimes it sure is lonely to be right, and I wanted him to note that the right-thinking (not right wing!) folks support his lonely but correct stand. Ditto your comments to those at the other supposedly liberal blogs for criticizing him and Kucinich.
Thank you
I have been in favor of the bill passing (minus the Stupak amendment), but I admire Massa for standing his ground.
I’m sure many of you in Massa’s district got an email from Move-on today calling his vote “shameful”. I’m sure it’s just a mass email that automatically inserted the name of every no vote, but I would’ve expected Move on to do a bit more research as the reasons behind the no’s. Did they send the same note to Kucinich’s district I wonder.
Anyway, I hit reply and issued a complaint, but I really don’t know if replies to a mass email like that would ever been seen by a real person or not.
“Robust Public Option” is a double oxymoron. Robust usually denotes good, that is anything but good. And, there is nothing optional about the public option.
In Germany, the public option IS optional if you make more than 4,050 Euros a month. And the Germans have a very excellent work ethic.
While I’ve got no love for either the Stupak amendment or individual mandates, I do think this bill was good enough to pass. I also don’t blame Massa and Kucinich in the least for voting against it. They had the luxury of voting their principles. I suspect that if they had been the deciding votes, things might have turned out a bit differently.
Why the qualifier as in “no love for the amendment or mandates”? That is the bill. That is the bill we will start negotiation with the Senate. It certainly isn’t the final bill but that is our starting point.
Imagine if the progressive block held - Maybe we would have no amendment or mandates, maybe a even a robust public option.
The luxury of voting their principles? Does that mean everyone else didn’t?
comments are sterile so hope I’m not coming across as attacking, I’m not.
why is it we have finite resources for health care but unlimited money for war? - kucinich