| Jeff Merkley, October 26 2009: 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. |
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
