Yay! We passed the bill! No question about it, seeing the House pass the health reform bills, and watching the President sign one of them, felt like moments of triumph. Despite our many many reservations, so many of us have worked so hard over the last year to achieve this victory! From my own work with the remarkable network that has sprung up around EQUAL, and my colleagues at KPFA; to the hard work of women's groups, progressive organizations, and public health; to the members of Congress who took on enormous obstacles: we all have a claim to this step forward. Speaker Nancy Pelosi clearly deserved major credit for working the bill through the Democratic caucus.
But there are bitter disappointments. The public option failed though it was and is popular. Reproductive rights and immigrants' rights are under assault. Corporations are gaining legal as well as de facto rights. The rabid right, while possibly diminishing and cornered, is nevertheless frightening. The opposition leadership is fanning the flames of hate, divisiveness and willful ignorance, as they experience defeat for the first time in a decade. Members of Congress are heckling each other, the President and the public. One staff member described the atmosphere as “vicious.”
It’s not all over yet, even on the most pragmatic level. The Senate will debate all week, and Republicans will attempt every possible maneuver to derail the proceedings.
Both the President and Rep. Dennis Kucinich framed the victory as one that could begin to reverse 30 years of regressive Reagan-era policies. While the details of the bill are largely technical, and far from revolutionary, one has only to think back to the tsunami of corporate opposition that buried similar proposals in the Clinton era to appreciate the potential significance of this accomplishment.
The legislation itself offers significant improvements for health coverage for many, while ducking the most far-reaching controls on costs. The immediate benefits this year include a tax credit for small businesses that offer insurance, a ban on pre-existing condition exclusions for children, the elimination of copayments for preventive care, and a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who fall into the prescription drug plan’s doughnut hole. In 2014, 16 million people will begin coverage through Medicaid (called MediCal in California), and millions more will be able to buy insurance through pools created by new state-based exchanges. The plan will limit insurance plans’ ability to gouge sick enrollees in the small group market.
The public option would be a crucial factor in controlling costs and holding insurance companies accountable. Like Medicare and other public programs, the public option was envisioned as an entity with the clout to demand lower prices from health care providers, and also a real alternative for people seeking an escape from the predatory insurance industry. Its absence leaves a gaping hole in the program’s viability.
There’s no similar dispassionate analysis of the harm inflicted on women and immigrants. At best, the bills strengthen existing prohibitions on spending federal funds on abortion and for the first time intrude on the right and ability to buy abortion coverage with private dollars; and exclude tax-paying immigrants from health benefits others enjoy. These assaults are driven purely by vitriol.
The job for progressives is to rejoice in the prospects that may be opening up, and to stay angry about what we have lost, while taking a cold, hard look at the power dynamics that landed us here. A map of the House vote suggests a huge geographically-based divide in the U.S., with representatives from the more isolated middle of the country accounting for most of the Republicans, and the 34 Democrats who voted no. Can progressives win primaries against ConservaDems in those districts? A number of organizations are chomping at the bit to find out.
We have to come up with strategies to deepen and consolidate the public’s approval of Medicare as a model for a stronger public role in the health care system, and link state based and national campaigns to pursue it.
Challenging sexism, racism and homophobia will be problematic in an era of economic recession. But our communities are organized and articulate. Winning the power to defend and advance our interests is not an option; our opponents have their knives drawn, in some cases literally.
Quoting Rep. Dennis Kucinich:
“We're at a pivotal moment in American history, and in contrast to a crippled presidency, I have to believe that this effort, however imperfect, will now have a broad positive effect on American society, and make possible many things that might not have otherwise been possible. Once this bill is signed into law, more Americans are going to be aware of this as they ask, What's in it for me? And as they become more familiar with the new law, more people will be accepting this bill. The president will have a stronger hand in domestic and international affairs, and that will be good for the country.”
Is this President up for it, and up to it? Are we? The coming months will tell.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
The Health Care Summit: Fight On!
First of all, kudos to Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and the Progresive and Black Caucuses for presenting just the right statement on the public option; to HuffPo for giving it (and us) space; and to the 1.2 million people who stood up in one day(!) around the country yesterday for comprehensive reform. All this certainly paved the way for final statements by Murray and Pelosi on the public option.
The upshot? Obama's timeline - up to 6 weeks - to resolve all this was worrisome, if he meant to suggest this could drag on through Easter recess.
But on the whole, I think it was a careful and methodical dismemberment of every Republican argument and proposal. After both sides agreed that it was imperative to do something about the health insurance crisis, and almost 5 hours of discussion, Boehner retreated back into the standard Republican tropes and misrepresentations. It left the President sounding like the soul of reason and consideration in stating that he could not settle for a Republican plan that made no progress and would at best cover 3 million of the 45 million uninsured. He outlined places where the Democrats had already compromised (no public option, allowing insurance companies to trade across state lines, within the context of a national exchange), and offered a few weeks for the Republicans to consider if they had actual compromise proposals. But he made a firm commitment to move forward if the two sides could not agree soon. It made the reconciliation process, with a 51 vote majority, seem like a desirable process, and perhaps one the country would do well to rise up and demand.
It is clearly the moment for the public to continue the drumbeat.
(see live blog at Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/25/health-care-meeting-exper_n_474978.html)
The upshot? Obama's timeline - up to 6 weeks - to resolve all this was worrisome, if he meant to suggest this could drag on through Easter recess.
But on the whole, I think it was a careful and methodical dismemberment of every Republican argument and proposal. After both sides agreed that it was imperative to do something about the health insurance crisis, and almost 5 hours of discussion, Boehner retreated back into the standard Republican tropes and misrepresentations. It left the President sounding like the soul of reason and consideration in stating that he could not settle for a Republican plan that made no progress and would at best cover 3 million of the 45 million uninsured. He outlined places where the Democrats had already compromised (no public option, allowing insurance companies to trade across state lines, within the context of a national exchange), and offered a few weeks for the Republicans to consider if they had actual compromise proposals. But he made a firm commitment to move forward if the two sides could not agree soon. It made the reconciliation process, with a 51 vote majority, seem like a desirable process, and perhaps one the country would do well to rise up and demand.
It is clearly the moment for the public to continue the drumbeat.
(see live blog at Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/25/health-care-meeting-exper_n_474978.html)
Saturday, January 16, 2010
3 Poles in the Health Reform Debate
There are at least 3 narratives driving the health reform debates that need to be articulated and challenged.
1. The right-wing anti-social killer pit-bull perspective. Deserves closer scrutiny and analysis, and I’m not close enough to those people or their organizational links to say anything illuminating.
2. The Obama administration and many conservative Dems in Congress have proposed policies rooted in neoliberal economics that undermine the likely success of reform, and support for it. They perpetuate the fallacy that we can control costs by making health care work like a free market, forcing individuals to make choices about our health care by paying more out of our own pockets, and by choosing from a blinding array of health plans and benefits. In fact cost conscious consumers have no power in a market dominated by mega corporations: hospitals, drug and insurance companies.
This viewpoint has driven most of the bad policy decisions the White House has made and has threatened to drive a stake into the heart of the support for reform. Americans may or may not be ready for Medicare for All but we are damn familiar with what the insurance industry is doing to us. Whatever the policy merits of the public option, abandoning it is, was and will be a serious misstep politically. The Administration may not have the power to get rid of the insurance industry entirely. But it is giving away plenty in subsidies and other forms of life support to AHIP members. It is not fighting for the public option and a standardized benefit package and progressive financing in part because the economic gurus at the White House don’t believe in them.
3. Liberals and progressives have worked hard this year. We might have come out swinging in January fighting for a Medicare-for-all, single payer system. We didn’t. Obama’s decision not to go that route was seen as insurmountable, so no one really tried seriously. Recognizing that we would not achieve single payer this year, progressives turned either to improving the bill, or to public education on single payer without any expectation of influencing the national bill. While many of us advocated both for single payer and for a better national bill, it was left largely to HCAN and various offshoots of the Obama campaign, both constrained by direct links to the Democratic Party, to fight for the merits of progressive proposals like the House’s bill. At this point there are three divergent themes that lead the discussion astray:
a. "It's all determined by corporate money." Corporations hold great sway over political life and decisions. And their money works in part through direct contributions to candidates. But voters matter too. Corporate money sways public opinion. We have a better story and so can we.
b. "We'll fix it in the states. The way to get around this problem is to get active on the state level, where we can more easily get rid of the health insurance industry." There are some progressive state campaigns, no question. But not surprisingly, corporations have figured out how to influence state houses too, many of which meet infrequently and briefly.
c. From one blogger: “The best thing that could happen to Obama (and America) is for Congress to FAIL at passing any health legislation. That would give Obama the chance … to say 'OK, we now know that the system is beyond any rational attempt to repair it. We are starting from scratch.'”
Proposing, at this point, that failing entirely to pass a reform bill will clear the decks for a progressive resurgence defies belief. It is quite clear what the result will be.
I believe that defeating the bill now would not open policy space for further progress. It would leave the insurance industry in the same powerful position it is in now. If we fail to pass a bill, the real dedicated and out front enemies of equity and community will be back in the ascendance politically. If we fail, corporate America has open season. We need to continue to build the power and vision of a progressive movement. I see no scenario in which defeating health reform would hasten that agenda.
If we pass it we get – if we fight for it – more standardization and regulation; more guarantees that employers will actually pay in to the system for benefits, the hope of fewer deaths and bankruptcies due to uninsurance.
The House Progressive Caucus has an agenda we should support. Loudly, proudly and actively. We can fight for single payer and fight for fair financing, progressive standards for affordability, and a stronger public sector – through expanded Medicare, a public option or whatever. It is not up to us to bail out a wrong-minded Administration but it is up to us to challenge their ideas and support our allies in Congress for the policies and strategies they actually believe in.
Won’t defeating the bill automatically generate a new progressive movement, with dynamic candidates, platforms and mobilizations? Nice thought. We certainly need all that. I admit it, here’s where my crystal ball gets cloudy. Ralph Nader’s recent novel imagines a bail-out by visionary billionaires like Warren Buffett. I think people like to win, and after they win they’re ready to fight for more. I felt that way on Nov. 4, 2008. It is going to take some serious thinking and working to get back to that place. There is, though, no alternative.
1. The right-wing anti-social killer pit-bull perspective. Deserves closer scrutiny and analysis, and I’m not close enough to those people or their organizational links to say anything illuminating.
2. The Obama administration and many conservative Dems in Congress have proposed policies rooted in neoliberal economics that undermine the likely success of reform, and support for it. They perpetuate the fallacy that we can control costs by making health care work like a free market, forcing individuals to make choices about our health care by paying more out of our own pockets, and by choosing from a blinding array of health plans and benefits. In fact cost conscious consumers have no power in a market dominated by mega corporations: hospitals, drug and insurance companies.
This viewpoint has driven most of the bad policy decisions the White House has made and has threatened to drive a stake into the heart of the support for reform. Americans may or may not be ready for Medicare for All but we are damn familiar with what the insurance industry is doing to us. Whatever the policy merits of the public option, abandoning it is, was and will be a serious misstep politically. The Administration may not have the power to get rid of the insurance industry entirely. But it is giving away plenty in subsidies and other forms of life support to AHIP members. It is not fighting for the public option and a standardized benefit package and progressive financing in part because the economic gurus at the White House don’t believe in them.
3. Liberals and progressives have worked hard this year. We might have come out swinging in January fighting for a Medicare-for-all, single payer system. We didn’t. Obama’s decision not to go that route was seen as insurmountable, so no one really tried seriously. Recognizing that we would not achieve single payer this year, progressives turned either to improving the bill, or to public education on single payer without any expectation of influencing the national bill. While many of us advocated both for single payer and for a better national bill, it was left largely to HCAN and various offshoots of the Obama campaign, both constrained by direct links to the Democratic Party, to fight for the merits of progressive proposals like the House’s bill. At this point there are three divergent themes that lead the discussion astray:
a. "It's all determined by corporate money." Corporations hold great sway over political life and decisions. And their money works in part through direct contributions to candidates. But voters matter too. Corporate money sways public opinion. We have a better story and so can we.
b. "We'll fix it in the states. The way to get around this problem is to get active on the state level, where we can more easily get rid of the health insurance industry." There are some progressive state campaigns, no question. But not surprisingly, corporations have figured out how to influence state houses too, many of which meet infrequently and briefly.
c. From one blogger: “The best thing that could happen to Obama (and America) is for Congress to FAIL at passing any health legislation. That would give Obama the chance … to say 'OK, we now know that the system is beyond any rational attempt to repair it. We are starting from scratch.'”
Proposing, at this point, that failing entirely to pass a reform bill will clear the decks for a progressive resurgence defies belief. It is quite clear what the result will be.
I believe that defeating the bill now would not open policy space for further progress. It would leave the insurance industry in the same powerful position it is in now. If we fail to pass a bill, the real dedicated and out front enemies of equity and community will be back in the ascendance politically. If we fail, corporate America has open season. We need to continue to build the power and vision of a progressive movement. I see no scenario in which defeating health reform would hasten that agenda.
If we pass it we get – if we fight for it – more standardization and regulation; more guarantees that employers will actually pay in to the system for benefits, the hope of fewer deaths and bankruptcies due to uninsurance.
The House Progressive Caucus has an agenda we should support. Loudly, proudly and actively. We can fight for single payer and fight for fair financing, progressive standards for affordability, and a stronger public sector – through expanded Medicare, a public option or whatever. It is not up to us to bail out a wrong-minded Administration but it is up to us to challenge their ideas and support our allies in Congress for the policies and strategies they actually believe in.
Won’t defeating the bill automatically generate a new progressive movement, with dynamic candidates, platforms and mobilizations? Nice thought. We certainly need all that. I admit it, here’s where my crystal ball gets cloudy. Ralph Nader’s recent novel imagines a bail-out by visionary billionaires like Warren Buffett. I think people like to win, and after they win they’re ready to fight for more. I felt that way on Nov. 4, 2008. It is going to take some serious thinking and working to get back to that place. There is, though, no alternative.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Enough
I think that HR 3962 offers many important improvements over the status quo, in the areas of coverage, affordability and quality, despite significant limitations, I will document these shortly.
The Stupak amendment however is exactly the poison pill it is meant to be. It virtually rolls back women's current legal right to choose abortion. It is an unacceptable political compromise. It cannot stand. Read it here:
http://www.centerforpolicyanalysis.org/id58.html
It says that no funds "authorized or appropriated" by HR 3962 can be used to pay for abortion or to cover the costs of any health plan that covers abortion.
Authorization and appropriation are particular acts by Congress to direct public funds to various purposes. That could be what this language means. Which would be bad enough.
The bill also "authorizes" employers and individuals to contribute to health insurance. These are private funds. It could mean that no health insurance plan purchased under the auspices of the bill can be used to pay for abortion. None. It is possible that no health plan that covers abortion could be offered through programs created by this bill. This may be a debatable interpretation. If it is challenged, the Supreme Court will decide.
It adds that supplemental abortion plans cannot be purchased using affordability credits, which are public funds. This is an extra punch to be sure that just in case the Supreme Court balks at outlawing abortion outright for millions of women with employer-provided insurance, women earning up to 400% of the poverty level who take advantage of public subsidies won't be able to use their insurance once they find out their birth control has failed.
Why are we facing this devil's bargain at the 11th hour in this campaign? Where was the vigorous organizing and mobilization campaign to get the votes needed to pass this bill without dismantling women's hard-fought rights? Was it news to anyone that the Catholic bishops oppose abortion, that they have access to an energized constituency, or that this constituency represents a minority of opinion even among Catholics?
This is not a re-election pitch or a solicitation for funds, which usually prompts messages like these from our leaders. It is also not a proposal for a particular action, People will need to figure out together what to do about this.
Planned Parenthood to their credit suggests writing to the President, calling this the outrage that it is and calling for actual leadership. Good start.
The Stupak amendment however is exactly the poison pill it is meant to be. It virtually rolls back women's current legal right to choose abortion. It is an unacceptable political compromise. It cannot stand. Read it here:
http://www.centerforpolicyanalysis.org/id58.html
It says that no funds "authorized or appropriated" by HR 3962 can be used to pay for abortion or to cover the costs of any health plan that covers abortion.
Authorization and appropriation are particular acts by Congress to direct public funds to various purposes. That could be what this language means. Which would be bad enough.
The bill also "authorizes" employers and individuals to contribute to health insurance. These are private funds. It could mean that no health insurance plan purchased under the auspices of the bill can be used to pay for abortion. None. It is possible that no health plan that covers abortion could be offered through programs created by this bill. This may be a debatable interpretation. If it is challenged, the Supreme Court will decide.
It adds that supplemental abortion plans cannot be purchased using affordability credits, which are public funds. This is an extra punch to be sure that just in case the Supreme Court balks at outlawing abortion outright for millions of women with employer-provided insurance, women earning up to 400% of the poverty level who take advantage of public subsidies won't be able to use their insurance once they find out their birth control has failed.
Why are we facing this devil's bargain at the 11th hour in this campaign? Where was the vigorous organizing and mobilization campaign to get the votes needed to pass this bill without dismantling women's hard-fought rights? Was it news to anyone that the Catholic bishops oppose abortion, that they have access to an energized constituency, or that this constituency represents a minority of opinion even among Catholics?
This is not a re-election pitch or a solicitation for funds, which usually prompts messages like these from our leaders. It is also not a proposal for a particular action, People will need to figure out together what to do about this.
Planned Parenthood to their credit suggests writing to the President, calling this the outrage that it is and calling for actual leadership. Good start.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
No Excuse for Apathy
Eva Chrysanthe is my health care hero.
Back in January Senator Dianne Feinstein's staff were telling us she wasn't sure about her position on the public option because she was hearing a lot of opposition from people calling in from southern California opposing it. They seemed to be responding to talk radio shows.
A lot of people wrote articles about Dianne Feinstein's campaign contributions. She kept talking about what she was hearing from voters.
Eva networked with people inside Organizing for America and found 1200 people in the Bay Area who thought Dianne should represent us. They demonstrated, set up meetings, flooded her office with letters, petitions and emails. Dianne finally wrote a very long treatise on health reform, indicating that she was open to a public option; or maybe not. She heard about it from the voters.
Last week, Senator Feinstein was one of 30 senators to sign Sherrod Brown's statement supporting a public option. Period. Eva brought the staff a carrot cake.
Let's not get googly eyed about what we can accomplish. We're talking about a political system trying to manage an economy in deep crisis. The President, a charismatic figure who is well-informed about the health care issue on both the policy and personal levels, campaigned on expanding coverage for children.
But lookit, they're going to pass something here. How come no one knows that the public option as written doesn't start til 2013 and won't be open to most of us until years later, if ever? Are we expecting the media to do this job? The corporate owned media exist to manipulate our emotions between commercials so that we will feel sufficiently inadequate or bored to want to buy whatever the sponsors are selling, and definitely sufficiently cynical, apathetic and confused that we will not consider taking political action.
Some progressives also seem generally to think that dismissing and ridiculing the emerging proposal passes for analysis and agitation. Willingness to consider how we might influence the bill to set the stage for future progress has been compared to compromising on slavery (a great analogy, really - all they had to do in that case was stamp their feet and reframe the struggle as a fight for human rights, and by golly that was that).
Expanding Medicare to cover more people would've been a great thing to do. Max Baucus thought so. He proposed it in a Finance Committee document in January. It wasn't single payer for all, just for people over 55. Wimp. Must be due to his campaign contributions. Wonder how Baucus, the present obstacle to the public option, and the 4th poorest member of the Senate, stacks up against Sen. Rockefeller, the 4th richest:
Baucus
Cycle Source of Funds, 2009-2010, Campaign Cmte only
Individual Contributions $5,989,921 52%
PAC Contributions $4,872,291 42%
Candidate self-financing $0 0%
Other $640,654 6%
Rockefeller
Cycle Source of Funds, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte only
Individual Contributions $3,756,635 63%
PAC Contributions $1,963,331 33%
Candidate self-financing $0 0%
Other $260,341 4%
Cycle Top vote-getting candidates Election Results
2008 Max Baucus* Amount Raised $11,602,479 Amount Spent:$9,305,359 Reelected
Bob Kelleher $0 $0
2002 Max Baucus* Amount Raised: $6,719,728 Amount Spent: $6,795,547 Reelected
Michael A. Taylor Amount Raised: Amount Spent: $1,839,020 $1,839,020
Cycle Top vote-getting candidates Election Results
2008 Jay Rockefeller* Amount Raised: $5,972,208 Amount Spent: $5,979,250 Reelected
Jay Wolfe Amount Raised: $123,862 Amount Spent:$123,720
2002 Jay Rockefeller* Amount Raised: $3,045,338 Amount Spent:$2,889,425 Reelected
Amount Raised: Jay Wolfe $136,373 Amount Spent:$136,373
Turns out they both raise most of their money out of state (Baucus 90%, Rockefeller 75%), virtually no one runs against them, and they spend most of what they raise to get re-elected. Why do they take different positions on the public option? Interesting question. In casting his vote, Baucus said that the public plan had a lot to recommend it, but it was his job to get the bill out of Committee. Sound like he's been getting calls from the White House?
It's great that people are sitting in at insurance companies. For the 3% of Americans who still thought health insurance companies had any legitimacy, aside from employees of the industry and their friends and relatives, it's probably a revelation. For the rest of us, a worthwhile way to spend time this week will be strongly suggesting to our friend in the White House, and our leaders in Congress, that they must cough up a program that is going to benefit people pretty quickly or else people will notice.
We need a strong public plan, that bases reimbursement on Medicare rates and uses Medicare providers so that it's affordable and viable. It should be a choice for each of us, in 2010. And we need an ERISA waiver for single payer states, so that they can convert to single payer without a lawsuit. For example people could cut and paste the following:
LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:
The Senate Finance Committee drama has concluded. The American public will not long remember whether or not any Republican voted for health reform. We do want to know if we'll get more affordable, reliable health care coverage, that provides relief soon. It's time to tell the President, House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid:
We need a public plan option with affordable premiums, that pays hospitals and doctors Medicare rates +5% and includes Medicare providers - and all of us want to have that choice in 2010! Put that up for a vote and we'll support you!
And the bill must include the state single payer option, proposed by Rep. Dennis Kucinich.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/
http://speaker.house.gov/contact/
http://reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Back in January Senator Dianne Feinstein's staff were telling us she wasn't sure about her position on the public option because she was hearing a lot of opposition from people calling in from southern California opposing it. They seemed to be responding to talk radio shows.
A lot of people wrote articles about Dianne Feinstein's campaign contributions. She kept talking about what she was hearing from voters.
Eva networked with people inside Organizing for America and found 1200 people in the Bay Area who thought Dianne should represent us. They demonstrated, set up meetings, flooded her office with letters, petitions and emails. Dianne finally wrote a very long treatise on health reform, indicating that she was open to a public option; or maybe not. She heard about it from the voters.
Last week, Senator Feinstein was one of 30 senators to sign Sherrod Brown's statement supporting a public option. Period. Eva brought the staff a carrot cake.
Let's not get googly eyed about what we can accomplish. We're talking about a political system trying to manage an economy in deep crisis. The President, a charismatic figure who is well-informed about the health care issue on both the policy and personal levels, campaigned on expanding coverage for children.
But lookit, they're going to pass something here. How come no one knows that the public option as written doesn't start til 2013 and won't be open to most of us until years later, if ever? Are we expecting the media to do this job? The corporate owned media exist to manipulate our emotions between commercials so that we will feel sufficiently inadequate or bored to want to buy whatever the sponsors are selling, and definitely sufficiently cynical, apathetic and confused that we will not consider taking political action.
Some progressives also seem generally to think that dismissing and ridiculing the emerging proposal passes for analysis and agitation. Willingness to consider how we might influence the bill to set the stage for future progress has been compared to compromising on slavery (a great analogy, really - all they had to do in that case was stamp their feet and reframe the struggle as a fight for human rights, and by golly that was that).
Expanding Medicare to cover more people would've been a great thing to do. Max Baucus thought so. He proposed it in a Finance Committee document in January. It wasn't single payer for all, just for people over 55. Wimp. Must be due to his campaign contributions. Wonder how Baucus, the present obstacle to the public option, and the 4th poorest member of the Senate, stacks up against Sen. Rockefeller, the 4th richest:
Baucus
Cycle Source of Funds, 2009-2010, Campaign Cmte only
Individual Contributions $5,989,921 52%
PAC Contributions $4,872,291 42%
Candidate self-financing $0 0%
Other $640,654 6%
Rockefeller
Cycle Source of Funds, 2005-2010, Campaign Cmte only
Individual Contributions $3,756,635 63%
PAC Contributions $1,963,331 33%
Candidate self-financing $0 0%
Other $260,341 4%
Cycle Top vote-getting candidates Election Results
2008 Max Baucus* Amount Raised $11,602,479 Amount Spent:$9,305,359 Reelected
Bob Kelleher $0 $0
2002 Max Baucus* Amount Raised: $6,719,728 Amount Spent: $6,795,547 Reelected
Michael A. Taylor Amount Raised: Amount Spent: $1,839,020 $1,839,020
Cycle Top vote-getting candidates Election Results
2008 Jay Rockefeller* Amount Raised: $5,972,208 Amount Spent: $5,979,250 Reelected
Jay Wolfe Amount Raised: $123,862 Amount Spent:$123,720
2002 Jay Rockefeller* Amount Raised: $3,045,338 Amount Spent:$2,889,425 Reelected
Amount Raised: Jay Wolfe $136,373 Amount Spent:$136,373
Turns out they both raise most of their money out of state (Baucus 90%, Rockefeller 75%), virtually no one runs against them, and they spend most of what they raise to get re-elected. Why do they take different positions on the public option? Interesting question. In casting his vote, Baucus said that the public plan had a lot to recommend it, but it was his job to get the bill out of Committee. Sound like he's been getting calls from the White House?
It's great that people are sitting in at insurance companies. For the 3% of Americans who still thought health insurance companies had any legitimacy, aside from employees of the industry and their friends and relatives, it's probably a revelation. For the rest of us, a worthwhile way to spend time this week will be strongly suggesting to our friend in the White House, and our leaders in Congress, that they must cough up a program that is going to benefit people pretty quickly or else people will notice.
We need a strong public plan, that bases reimbursement on Medicare rates and uses Medicare providers so that it's affordable and viable. It should be a choice for each of us, in 2010. And we need an ERISA waiver for single payer states, so that they can convert to single payer without a lawsuit. For example people could cut and paste the following:
LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:
The Senate Finance Committee drama has concluded. The American public will not long remember whether or not any Republican voted for health reform. We do want to know if we'll get more affordable, reliable health care coverage, that provides relief soon. It's time to tell the President, House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid:
We need a public plan option with affordable premiums, that pays hospitals and doctors Medicare rates +5% and includes Medicare providers - and all of us want to have that choice in 2010! Put that up for a vote and we'll support you!
And the bill must include the state single payer option, proposed by Rep. Dennis Kucinich.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/
http://speaker.house.gov/contact/
http://reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)