I am disappointed with Foster. He's an intelligent guy. But ever since the get got he's had Blue Dog leanings and he's been willing to say so out loud. Still he's a scientist. That should count for something.
Lipinski's a straight up machine hack. Well son-of-a-hack. Still his district is solid Democratic and he has to have some affinity with his electorate.
Actually that Bean is still persuadable is a pleasant surprise. I know we write her of as totally bought by her district's heavy pharma presence, but maybe she is more independent that we give her credit for here.
What's also interesting is our poll. We give too much credit to Foster but not enough to Costello and Halvorson. Costello is a bit far away for us to properly notice. Halvorson is still pretty new to us. And we have high hopes for Foster. That's one set of explanitions.
Update: The Howard Dean count has Foster and Lipinski as yeses. We've reported Foster here as yes as well, and I regularly forget it. I assume that the OpenLeft whip count has Foster as persuadable because he has not recently stated clear support.
A poll reported on-line in today's New England Journal of Medicine, http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1790&query=TOC, shows that a considerable majority (63%)of practicing physicians favor a mixture of public and private options for healthcare reform. Twenty-seven percent favor having only private insurance while 10% favor having only a public plan. These results are essentially consistent across all demographic subgroups, specialties, practice types, and practice locations.
As the article's authors note, the opinions of physicians largely mirror those of Americans in general. Maning that physicians are not among the groups opposing inclusion of a public option in healthcare reform.
Instead of having individuals and employers opting out of the private sector health insurance system by buying into a U.S. public option (like Medicare), why not buy into the better and cheaper Norte Americano health care system, the Canadian system?
What if employers and individuals in Buffalo, Detroit and Seattle (major cities that are close to Canada) could buy health care from the Canadian system?
It seems like this would be a win-win. Americans and U.S. businesses would get quality health care more cheaply. And if the Canadian system prices their product correctly, it should help the financial solvency of the Canadian system. Also, more Americans going to Canada would mean more business for Canadian businesses.
And employers in Buffalo, Detroit and Seattle being able to provide health insurance cheaper should be a competitive advantage for these cities. And our brothers and sisters in the Motor City could use a bit of competitive edge.
Am I missing something? Is there some legal or logistical barrier to doing this?
This came in an email from EDDI this morning. Thought it was interesting and I am posting the entire thing. The email begins (without blockquotes, due to the length):
A progressive activist in the health care debate participated in Melissa Bean's tele-town hall tonight and forwards this report:
My wife and I received an automated call tonight inviting us to participate in Congresswoman Melissa Bean's tele-town hall, so we joined in. Based on the questions asked, it appeared that we were selected randomly. The entire town hall (about 30 minutes) was about health care reform. We were very pleased by what we heard.
Over $64,000 $67,000 has been raised on Act Bluesince this morning for a list 57 congresspeople who signed a letter to Speaker Pelosi and 18 that took the FDL Pledge to vote against any health care reform bill that didn't include, at the minimum, a robust public option.
Right now this "Progressive Block" is what is keeping the public option on the table -- if they cave it is all over. (BTW I am completely stealing this analysis from Open Left.) Why? Obama needs to pass health care legislation and to do that someone needs to blink. In the past the progressives have been the blinkers so it makes sense to pressure them now. But we desperately, desperately need these folks to keep their eyes wide open.
In an effort to show my appreciation for their resolve I went to Act Blue and threw in a cool $10 each to the only three Illinois congresspeople on the list:
- Luis Gutierrez (IL-04) - Phil Hare (IL-17) - Jesse Jackson Jr. (IL-02)
So ... where are the rest of our Illinois Dems? Jan? Mike? Danny? Your buddies are looking pretty lonely there.
Maybe it would help if they knew that there was a crisp 10-spot in it for each one of them if they are willing to add their names to that list (which I think they can do via the FDL Pledge). If you too want to reward those who are standing strong you can do so here:
We want to assure you that for our continued support, the public option must not be based on a trigger and must be available immediately. Further, the public plan must be on a level playing field and receive the same subsidies as private plans in the Health Exchange. And, it must be connected to the Medicare infrastructure, including the provider and payment system. Allowing providers to opt out of the public option has already created a loss of $91 billion in savings. We cannot tolerate further weakening of the public option.
If health care reform has to fail, then the best way for it to fail is because it loses support from progressives. Obama, should he so choose, could then take up the fight anew next year, without it being a victory for the Republicans.
An emasculated and efeminated public option will in the long run and possibly even in the short run be worse than what we have now. Especially if there is a mandate requiring everyone to put more money into wasteful private insurance coffers that will continue to deny paying for care at every possible turn.
The letter actually includes the taboo words "single payer", reminding everyone that the "perfect" and the "best" have already yielded for the "good".
Dr Quentin Young's influence is being reflected in this amendment initiative. It is not expected to pass, so it simply becomes a marker for the strength of single payer advocacy.
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) will introduce, in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, an amendment to the Tri-Committee health care bill. The amendment would replace the private health insurance industry with a single-payer national health insurance program.
In effect, the Weiner amendment would substitute Rep. John Conyers' (D-MI) single-payer bill, HR-676, for the Tri-Committee legislation.
The vote will take place the same day it is offered; last I heard on Monday.
The other health care related story I'm following is the Kucinich amendment.
Under the Kucinich Amendment a state's application for a waiver from ERISA is granted automatically if the state has signed into law a single payer plan. With the amendment, for the first time, the state single payer health care option is shielded from an ERISA-based legal attack.
The House Education and Labor Committee approved the Kucinich Amendment by a vote of 27-19, with 14 Democrats and 13 Republicans voting yes. I don't fully understand the process in the house. There is this committee bill and the tri-committee bill. Do they get merged at some point? I don't know, if you do help me out here.
The other place I could use some help is an analysis as to how practical it might be for a state to enact a single-payer system. It's my impression that a lot of the clout of a national single payer is in negotiations with vendors, like drug vendors. Is much of that lost at the state level?
I think we are approaching a tipping point in the push for "universal" health care in the U.S. The progressive caucus has stated that they will not support a health care plan that does not include a public option. The public option is a pre-compromised position from single-payer. The medical-industrial complex is attacking the public option both from with-in and with-out. If they cannot eliminate it from the plan then they desire to emasculate and efeminate it. A public option that will either be non-competitive and/or not implementable until some date uncertain.
And that is about all we know.
So at the moment progressive activists are expending what little influence we have in pushing for an effective public option being included in the plan. But there is a tipping point fast approaching. We will see the tipping point arrive when progressive activists begin expending what little influence we have in pushing for a defeat of the entire bill. A bill that will be at best a Trojan and at worst a virus within the body of heath care change in the U.S.
And at that point we will be facing a double defeat. Not only will there not be an effective public option but we may have a bill as bad Medicare Part D for drugs; not only a defeat for people's health but a boondoggle win for the medical-industrial complex. Perhaps even a triple defeat as the corporatist element within the Obama regime will characterize the progressive opposition to another corporate giveaway as progressives being opposed to health care reform. All because of our insistence on the barely acceptable becoming the enemy of the awful.
Hindsight has the ability to highlight those things that in retrospect were more important than we realized. That is it becomes clear those things that we should have placed in higher priority. I'm thinking of progressive tax reform here in Illinois. Now maybe we can still have some influence there. But no matter. If progressive tax reform should have been our number one goal here in Illinois this year, well then nationally I think it safe to say that our number one goal should be health care reform that includes at a minimum the public option choice.
Members of Democracy For America and MoveOn made calls to their members of Congress and reported back the results to Stand With Dr. Dean. We have compiled the reports from those calls and combed through public statements of every member of Congress. The grid below lists every member of Congress and their position on the inclusion of the public healthcare option based on our research.
It appears that the sticking point is likely going to be the Senate. We only need 50 votes to get this. Chris Bowers says:
If we don't pass a non-trigger public option, it won't just mean the end of meaningful health care reform. It will mean the end of any meaningful progressive legislation for at least two more years, and possible eight. Given the low bar, high popularity, and peak efforts we have on this one, a defeat on health care means that Republicans and Senate conservodems will be able to water down, or kill, all other progressive legislation proposed to this Congress.
In our area (IL, IN, IA, OH, MI, WI, MN, MO) the one Democratic Senator in the Don't Know category is Indiana's Evan Bayh. We will be giving Senator Bayh some love communications! Below is Evan Bayh's contact info and the Don't Know Illinois reps. After the jump the other area reps.
For the past several weeks, Health Justice has been facilitating the delivery of e-faxes abd phone calls to Sen Max Baucus and the entire Finance Committee, demanding that he provide a seat at the table for a single payer proponent. Go to http://www.health-justice.org/
The number of faxes sent has risen to 30,000 and the number of phone calls to 4,000. There is a call to do more: Dr Clark Newhall, MD and JD, is a malpractice lawyer looking to be put out of his job, I find him a compelling writer, based on the faxes I've sent so far.
Browse the home page to see the growing list of subjects and choose a pre-written fax or relay your own story if you prefer. Join the virtual demonstration coming up soon or call the White House 800 number and make your opinion known. Donate to Health Justice Education Fund; donations are tax deductible to the extent allowed by governing laws.
For an very informative list of the top ten groups who support their own plans, like AARP, or otherwise oppose single payer, click on the "read more" button on the home page, "Join Us Now, It's Free!" block. The list of Top Ten Enemies is located on the right hand side group of articles explaining single payer.
