Tweet
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
Give Carolyn Maloney credit: she says what everyone else is thinking. The health care bill that comes out of the Senate is going to be shitty, and she wants to be able to vote for it.
This despite the fact that Maloney is a member of the progressive caucus, and the progressive caucus held a press conference saying they would vote down any bill that didn’t have a public plan.
The Progressive Caucus is an embarrassment, and nobody — not even their own members — takes them seriously.
It’s what we’ve known all along and why we started the whip count project. The same thing happened on ACES and on the supplemental. What happens in the House is kabuki to please progressives, and in the end, members of Congress don’t want to take a vote on principle when they could sell it for a ton of pork.
Is it worth passing a health care bill that is little more than a bailout of the insurance industry, just like the ACES bill bailed out the coal industry, or the supplemental bailed out European banks? Should progressive members of Congress hold the line and demand a public plan as part of any health care bill?
You decide:
Call Maloney’s office and ask why she signs on to things she doesn’t intend to live up to: 202-225-7944 DC, 212-860-0606 Manhattan, 718-932-1804 Queens.
Maloney’s full statement after the jump:
To NYCEVE, Jane and the blogging community fighting to make sure health care reform includes a public option:
As you all know, America’s health care ‘system’ is broken. Too many people pay too much for coverage, too many others can’t afford coverage, and overall our nation pays more for a health care system whose results are worse than other industrialized nations. It’s wrong, it’s been that way for far too long, and finally things are aligning in Washington to do something about it.
As we begin this critical debate on health care reform, I want to make sure you know where I stand. I believe universal health care is a fundamental right and value and we must pass it this year.
In terms of how we achieve universal health care, I believe the best way is a single-payer health care system and I’ve long been a co-sponsor of that legislation. But, if single payer isn’t on the table, then we must give all Americans the option of enrolling in a public health insurance plan and I will fight to make sure the public option is included in any health care reform bill.
As President Obama said just this week, a public plan is one of the best ways to bring down costs and ‘force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest.’
I am confident, in the House, under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and Chairmen Rangel, Miller and Waxman, we will pass a health care reform bill which includes a public plan option, and I will proudly vote for and support this bill.
I applaud your efforts on this issue and, let there be no doubt, we share the same goal – universal health care. And, as I said, I will vote for and fight like heck to make sure the final bill includes a public option. But, the real question is in the Senate and given the uncertainty there, what I will not do is potentially put myself in a position of having to vote with Republicans to kill a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to pass health care reform that provides coverage to millions who go without health care every day.
So, while I agree health care reform must have the public option and I will fight for it; I also believe health care reform is too important to maintain the status quo and, even though I won’t like a bill that doesn’t include the public option, if that happens, the principle of getting people health care who don’t currently have it must come before any one particular method to achieve it.
As a nation, we have been talking about national health care since Harry Truman was President in the 1940s and it’s time to finally get it done. We must pass real health care reform and we must pass it this year.
Carolyn Maloney,
Member of Congress
99 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
At least someone finally said it.
boo hissss
I’ve just called her office here in Queens, and expect a return call confirming that she is committed to a public option.
I indicated that I’d be hard-pressed to support any candidate in a Senate primary who had abandoned the public option, particularly after committing to it.
Let’s see what they have to say.
stark in it’s jackassery, aint it ?
It is an outrage to pass a healthcare bill with a MANDATE but no public option. This will simply create a government-sanctioned monopoly, as consumers will have no choice but to purchase an (often useless!) insurance policy.
Just got off the phone with a very nice woman in Maloney’s DC office. She appreciated my call and said she would pass my sentiments onto the Congresswoman.
In a very calm voice I told her I was not a constituent and I gave her my name and zipcode. Then I explained that Jane Hamsher at FDL had just put up a post that was very critical of the Congresswoman. Then I explained that unlike health insurance corporations, doctors, nurses, P.A.’s, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and medical device manufacturers, provide VALUE to patients. Health insurance companies only siphon dollars away from patients, they provide NO VALUE.
Then I explained that if Congresswoman Maloney voted for a bill that does not include a very robust public health option, it will be my pleasure to contribute to a primary campaign against her, regardless of whether it’s in the Senate or the House.
The young woman I spoke with was very nice, very professional.
Thanks Jane for all you do.
I think your characterization of the progressive caucus is right on target.
So the healthcare “reform” is going to have a mandate to buy private insurance and no public option? Beyond an outrage. When does the revolution begin?
Campaign Finance Reform is necessary before any significant progressive – or might we say populist? – reforms can be successful.
There are two parties in America: the corporatist party, and the populist party.
I think she just killed whatever chance she had to win the NY Senate Dem primary.
Don’t you mean the corporatist “populist” party?
Jane, for all my differences with you on health care, you are doing incredible work and if Obama would get behind what is supposed to be his plan we would be winning.
How much have you given to 8 for 8? That’s campaign finance reform.
On what planet are you living?
Do you think you’re going to get campaign finance reform, if we lose on effing health care? A lot more people are concerned about health care than campaign finance reform.
Do you think legislation that reforms campaign finance comes via pixie dust?
Jane, I urge you to change the question. It’s the wrong one. The question should be, “Should any member of Congress vote for a ‘public option’ that will get its ass kicked by the insurance industry?” The version proposed by the the House tri-committee bill will get its ass whupped by the insurance industry.
It is way past time for progressives to stop demanding that Congress support any old “public option” and to start demanding that any public program that is passed be one that can actually seize a very large share of the non-elderly market from the insurance industry, and keep growing after that. A public plan that cannot do that will merely serve as a fig leaf for progressives to hide behind as they bail out the insurance industry.
To state this another way: Members of Congress are not going to be asked to vote for a “public option” all by itself. They’ll be asked to vote for a bill that will funnel $1 trillion over the next decade to the “public option” AND Cigna, Aetna and the rest of the insurance industry. If the Progressive Caucus, egged on by readers of FDL and other progressives, vote for a bill with a “public option” as weak as the one in the House tri-committee bill, all or the vast majority of that $1 trillion will go to the insurance industry.
So let’s start sending a very different message to Congress: “No public option is better than a bad public option.”
Kip Sullivan
Jane: On ACES, would you call Al Gore stupid and misguided to his face for supporting it? Would ANYTHING satisfy you, on any issue, or do you just like to make noise?
That’s the whole thing. Why is she doing this? Is she really just a Gillibrand stalking horse? Because Maloney can’t expect to win the primary doing stuff like this.
thank you. completely agree.
imo, it’s long past time these issues had a place at our table.
Almost every member of Congress who voted for ACES hated doing it. So I’m not alone.
I have been thinking about some of my disappointment with the political situation since the inauguration of President Obama. I certainly am not unhappy that he is president and the Democratic Party is in ‘control’ of the House and Senate. I have felt a great deal of disappointment that key issues have not been addressed to my satisfaction, such as: getting out of Iraq, stopping the practice of detention without a legal hearing, living by our commitments to prosecute those who commit torture, making a serious attempt to put banking and the security businesses on a firm financial footing, and equal rights for the gay communities. This is just to name those that are most pressing to me personally.
The health care reform issue is not something that I have forgotten about in this rant. And it is most important for the overall wellbeing of the citizenry and economic stability of the country. I am dealing with it separately because I do think that there is still hope for this reform to occur. And I think that what has make that even remotely possible in any meaningful way is the grassroots activism that has and is occurring to put pressure on the representatives and senators who tend to listen to the moneyed interests and ignore the voters.
Thank you, all of you who have helped with this.
As I was reflecting on this and bemoaning the sorry state of our body politic, I was reminded that I was being what I detested. I was acting like most U.S. Citizens and congratulating my self on being a reasonable informed voter and voting in all elections and being happy when ‘good’ people were elected and then just sitting back and letting them ‘do their jobs’. Much to my chagrin this is not how democracy actually works, at least not in this day and age. Large corporations and well-financed interest groups have the incredible wealth to influence ‘our’ representatives and frequently do. This is their right, apparently. This money finds its way into the re-election efforts of ‘our’ elected officials who think (apparently correctly) that a large enough cash outlay will overcame any obstacle to their re-election. We need to remind THEM and ourselves that a corporation and a special interest group do not have a vote. The people do! We need to get organized, stay organized, and get vocal on all the major issues. Our representatives have to know that we are out there, that we care, and that we are going to make a difference. I love this country. It is my country, too. I do not want our leaders to disgrace it any more. Like the people in Iran and everywhere else, liberty, democracy, power is not given to you; you have to claim it, if not with blood, then with hard work. And once claimed, it must not be abandoned and ignored, but cherished and nourished.
As I learned in the last election working for a candidate for the House, “If the People lead, the Leaders will follow”.
You’ve got to have something to build on. That’s just how the process works. If there is a public option that can be improved upon over time, it’s a starting point. If it doesn’t have one, it’s nothing more than a bailout.
The system just doesn’t work the way you think it does. Sitting in the corner on your hands and holding your breath is not an effective legislative strategy. The insurance company knows it — the system got this bad because they were in there every day fighting.
Kip, thank you for not posting under a pseudonym. I read the content of your post as an endorsement of Jane’s strategy, not the indictment you claim.
Just because we get a public option, doesn’t mean we stop railing against the insurance companies.
I think you’re misreading the constituency you have to work with. If we don’t have the votes to even get a bad public option, from where do you think we are getting the votes to secure a better good public option?
We couldn’t get 40 Democrats to vote against the War Supplemental. That was to end funding for Afghanistan and a bailout of European banks.
This is all about a public option, but it’s also all about whipping the progressive caucus on a wider range of issues.
BooRadley @ 12:
Wow, defensive much?
The cart cannot go before the horse: the reason we can’t get health care reform is BECAUSE we don’t have campaign finance reform.
As I have posted repeatedly, the only way to get CFR is through a long-term coordinated grassroots effort to elect representatives who, whatever their party and whatever other policies they support, are committed to Campaign Finance Reform. If we do not do this, Democracy will never return to this country.
We need Democrats committed to CFR, and we need Republicans committed to CFR, in both the House and the Senate. Regardless of whatever other policies they support. Because right now corporations control Congress, and we won’t get Health Care Reform, Tax Reform, Voting Reform, or even Peace until we can remove the control of the corporations over Congress.
CFR is the ONE topic where legislators could defy their corporate sponsors and expect to get away with it. CFR would emancipate our Congress from servitude to campaign ”donations.”
We need to make bribing Congress illegal again. We need to free our representatives to once again represent their constituents, rather than the corporations that control their re-election.
You don’t need to agree with me. Go ahead, try to get meaningful health care reform. The system is already rigged, it’s not going anywhere. Take your time. Eventually you will see that the only remaining bastion of democracy is our ability to elect our representatives, and their ability to change the laws. And the only way we’ll change the laws is to elect representatives committed to Campaign Finance Reform, first.
Please by all means, bring your pixie dust.
if Bernie Sanders amendment to permit states to enact their own single payer plans passes, then we will have achieved something.
I am surprised that Jim Moran is not behind the public plan, because he is very vulnerable to a progressive primary challenge.
since when is a comment in support of discussing the actual policy issues involved equal pixie dust?
Hey genius, we figured that one out. Glad you caught up.
You won’t get ANY traction on something as esoteric as campaign finance reform, until you can get movement on something like the War Supplemental or health care.
This isn’t a Ph.D. thesis, it involves “messaging.”
By injuring this fight, you’re crippling any chance we have at campaign finance reform. These Democrats in the progressive caucus, who won’t take our public option pledge, are the identical Dems we need as a core to pass campaign finance reform, or to block something worse. Since you don’t get “messaging,” get behind someone like Jane who does.
And so Rep. Maloney wants our support against Sen. Gillibrand, for her Senate seat, by promising to be .. exactly the same thing! Oh boy.
I was so angry at your previous comment, it was the best I could do.
Do you remember the FISA vote we lost? Do you remember the War Supplemental we just got bludgeoned on?
This is a blood and guts fight for the progressive caucus and the relevance of an opposition party to the corpratists. We aren’t getting inside the effing building, that holds the back room, where policy gets made.
The only way we get in the building is if we have VOTES. Then it take more votes to get into the back room. Then it takes more votes to actually make policy. Until then the Blue Dogs are just laughing their asses off at us.
I don’t know why you aren’t on the phone calling selected Democrats. I know that’s where I should be right now.
Well, thanx to this much heralded ‘progressive’ 2010 challenger to Blue Dog Hilibrand, I’ve finally been driven over the top! I became a U.S. citizen after the Gingrich mafia took over the House in ‘94 & immediately registered as a Florida Democrat. I held my nose & voted for Clinton in ‘96. I lived thru’ the madness of Gore v’s Bush in 2000. I was dis-enfranchised by the Dem. party’s refusal to hold a primary here in ‘08 and was a reluctant supporter of ‘change you can believe in’ Obama last November.
I have been very critical of the Dems in general, & Obama in particular, on this site for their timidity since the election. All my critiques of these scumbags have proven correct. They don’t represent us – they’re merely mascarading to attract our support. These people controlling the party – with a few exceptions such as Howard Dean (who was frozen out for his trouble) – are in reality Eisenhower repubs (or worse). I immediatedly called my county supervisor of elections & changed my party affiliation from Dem to ‘Other’. Anybody interested in starting a real progressive party so we can show the likes of Rahm Emmanuel that there IS somewhere else to go?
We had a FAR more corrupt campaign finance system at the time of the 88th congress, and they passed the Great Society agenda. I regard the arguement over campaign finance as a constant diversion from passing legislation that would make a difference.
i don’t think anyone disagrees with this statement — it’s what is required to be something that “can be improved upon over time” that is in question.
p.s. imo the “Sitting in the corner on your hands and holding your breath” comment was completely uncalled for. kip has a long history of activism on this issue, one that deserves, imo even if you disagree with his position, to be taken seriously.
http://firedoglake.com/2009/07…..nt-1933461
http://firedoglake.com/2009/07…..nt-1933461
Anybody interested in starting a real progressive party so we can show the likes of Rahm Emmanuel that there IS somewhere else to go?
yes
but rather than start a third party it might make more sense to scour the country for Bernie Sanders types, they are out there if we look for them.
In response to BooRadley @ 26
I’m sorry that you’re so frustrated, although I can completely understand why that would be the case. However your attitude is hardly constructive. I suggest you take a couple of days off and regain some perspective. Take your time. The system is not going to improve until Campaign Finance Reform is passed. You may call it ’esoteric,’ but frankly yes, I believe attempting Health Care Reform before CFR is a waste of time and energy. And before you suggest that I have no skin in the game, I lost my mother in March because she had no health insurance and waited too long to seek treatment.
I am not ”injuring this fight,” I am not ”crippling” any chances. I am pointing out that corporate control of Congress already prevents passage of ANY bills that threaten the multi-billion-dollar corporations that fund the election campaigns of our legislators. NO policy that significantly threatens corporate profits will EVER pass until we pass CFR.
The health care mess in this country is a symptom of corporate control of Congress: you can try to treat the symptom, but the problem needs a cure.
i have been making phone calls. i’ve also been asking — for months — what the public option plan is and what it would take to make it work because all the critiques i’ve been reading — for the past year — have yet to be addressed.
i just want to understand. you know the “informed” part of “informed and engaged citizenry?”
p.s. please see the link to valley girl’s comment @31.
in case you missed it, Mike Lux has some advice for them all -
Mr Lux, a FDL Book Salon Guest, and student of history is nobody’s doe eyed naif, he is a veteran activist, campaigner, – and worked in the Clinton Healthcare War Room
What are you doing here?
What evidence can you provide that you’re not a troll paid by Rahm?
That’s what you look like to me.
Why aren’t you fighting tooth and nail for campaign finance reform?
What actions are you taking? What legislation do you support? What legislators are you backing? Why aren’t you soliciting my dollars and my energies over to a web site that contains your history of activism?
I’m not in the FDL threads much, so if you’re a regular commenter here, my apologies. But if you’re paid troll, you can fill in the rest.
Gosh, I wish I were a paid troll. That would be the life, wouldn’t it? Just making snotty comments all day and getting a check?
No, I’m not a paid troll, and if you want to google ”site:firedoglake.com albatross” I’m sure you can see that I’ve been banging the CFR drum for ages and ages.
As for the rest, why, I wasn’t aware that this was a closed blog only for qualified commenters, nor did anyone present me with the qualifying questionnaire wherein I outline my bona fides for posting here.
I’m sorry you’re frustrated, and I empathize with your frustration.
Of course I’m not “informed.”
You’ve read enough of my comments to know that.
I know the insurance companies don’t provide any value. Any moron can figure that out. I know “the pledge,” doesn’t ask anything detailed about policy.
When progressives won’t even take “the pledge,” why do you think there’s ANY reason to think/hope that there’s ANY shot at getting a GOOD public option?
First you get them to take “the pledge.”
THEN, once you’ve got that, you start a new campaign to drive on more specific issues that make it a “good option,” as opposed to a bad one.
It’s a no-win situation for the House Progressive Caucus. If these people vote against a health care bill, however bad, they’re going to be attacked. If they vote for a bad health care bill, the only one the Senate will pass, they’re going to be attacked. The real solution is to reform the Senate, and that’s going to take years.
Banging drums doesn’t provide any value.
You have to roll up your sleeves and get dirty on policy that is never perfect.
Trust me.
No one takes you seriously until you start donating cash or making calls or something else.
You have no CFR legislation on the floor.
Can we at least agree on that?
Until you have CFR legislation on the floor, throw whatever resources you have into THIS fight.
Since you know from your Mom dying, people who need health care frequently don’t have a lot of energy. Many of them AREN’T GOING TO BE THERE FOR YOUR CFR FIGHT, even if they’re still alive. They will, however, mobilize their resources on this fight, however imperfect.
Concern and awareness about CFR are also dwarfed by concern over funding the War and Afghanistan and funding European banks. In light of the progressive cave-in over the War Supplemental, how you can post that anyone should not join Jane on health care is unknown to me. We have to make alliances and build a progressive caucus to move on a whole range of issues.
Your CFR legislation is much more at risk from the banksters than from the health insurance lobby. But, we can’t get traction on that one either. THAT’S WHY THIS FIGHT, TODAY, is so effing important. It’s about more than health care.
Okay, well I do give her credit for being honest about this. But I completely disagree with her approach of saying she’ll fight for a public option but saying she’ll settle for a bill without one. IMHO, Maloney has already conceded that the Senate will thoroughly marginalize any healthcare bill that the House sends to them.
More importantly, I think she is conceding that the House leadership and the White House are also conceding that this will happen. The Senate is ground zero of the problem with our country, as I’ve said many times before. But what comes after the Senate — the way the WH and House leadership deals with it — is just as important. I will never forget how Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, et al, held a ceremony congratulating themselves on the bailout bill. They are not above trying to convince the public that they’re getting chicken salad, so to speak. We have to make sure that doesn’t happen this time.
What I think is dishonest is how she frames her argument toward the end of the letter when she says that she won’t give up the “once in a lifetime” chance to do healthcare reform. Because any bill without a public option would not be health care reform. It would be legislative package with a pretty bow and a tag that says health care reform.
For those who are questioning Jane’s tactics, my question to you is “Do you want to know now or later that a Congressperson is going to cave in on the public option?” Pinning them down on this very question is the only way we will know their real positions. It’s too easy to say “Oh yes, I favor the public option.” We need to know if they are so committed to a public option (a public option with specific requirements) that they won’t compromise it away. And we need to know now because once the House/Senate voting and the conference bill comes along, things happen too quickly and we lose, almost every time.
Jane, if the Progressive Caucus is just a stage upon which to placate a vocal group of voters, and it seems that it is for some Congresspeople, then they are useless, as you said. Don’t they have any standards about what they can take a position on before they announce that they are “for it”? We need a newly formed caucus, just for this issue — similar to cosponsoring a bill but with a pledge that ensures they won’t vote for a bill without a public option. And people who take the pledge should get some kind of a badge of certification :)
Lastly, have Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer taken the pledge that they won’t vote for any bill without a strong public option?
Thank you.
Guess she’s out of a job come next election? I wonder why these turds in a pie continue to think the pie isn’t going to be eaten eventually? Their constituents are the ones with pitchforks, yet they don’t believe the severity of their decisions until they feel the need for immediate medical care from the fork in the ass.
Don’t suppose there is anything to do now but be sure the thugs and the democrap are removed. As we see what they are willing to do to destroy our country, perhaps the people will get angry.
I appreciate that others have different strategies. But unless you’re willing to be there when the battle is being fought, it’s going to be ineffective. As most progressive activism is — for just that reason.
Registering my agreement with BooRadley.
I’m not one to jump on band wagons and I’m a skeptic. Most issues and/or legislation are full of grey areas and complexity. But we’ve got this one pared down to a clear choice. Yes, there are going to be all kinds of other things in the bill but the public option is the.key.issue in the bill and it also happens to be likely to protect us from some of the other wranglings that might be in there.
If there was ever a time to jump on a band wagon, this is it. The public option is legislation that should be by the people and for the people and then we need to fight to keep it that way.
We have people who are watching the details this time, every step of the way. We need to make sure that Congress and the lobbyists don’t manipulate it. This is going to take all of us, working together.
Jane, What makes you think the puny little public option in the House bill will be improved over time? It doesn’t work that way. If we can’t get a powerful public plan with Democrats in control of both houses and the White House, what makes you think it will be given more powers in the future? The reverse is likely to happen: The public program will stumble about trying to find customers and providers to sign on, it will die in many parts of the country, and the right wing will have a ball making fun of everyone who said the government can provide health insurance more efficiently than Aetna.
While the public program is staggering about trying to get started, we hand a trillion dollars over a decade to the insurance industry, the world’s most ferocious foe of single-payer. You can’t say you’re for a single-payer system with a straight face and simultaneously support handing that much money over to the insurance industry.
I think it would help if we actually discussed some details about what a public plan really will need to work and then compare that to what’s in the House bill. It’s impossible for anyone who cares about a strong public plan to lobby effectively if you have no idea what a truly powerful public program would look like or what’s in the House bill now.
I repeat: Please stop banging the drum for any old public program. The risks are horrendous.
Kip Sullivan
assume that the public plan is dead (and it is) – what’s plan B?
is it pitchfork time yet?
if we can push a viable, leftish 3rd party candidate in the next presidential election, obama will lose, and at least we won’t have to suffer any longer under the illusion that progressive change is gonna come.
selise, I’ll go back to our fights about Obama. IIRC, you wanted to vote for a third party candidate. I know you’re sincere in your positions. I am concerned that you’re impractical in terms of advancing them. In a two-horse race with McCain/Palin, your willingness to vote against Obama made no practical sense. It only emboldened the blue dogs.
47% voted for McCain Palin.
I’m in no way denying that there aren’t serious problems with a bad public option. I grew up Republican.
I just don’t see any scenario where that is worse than no public option.
On that calculus, I just think Kip’s analysis is completely inadequate. This is a retail debate where messaging wins. It’s a three-level chess/war/game about positioning. That’s one of the reasons someone who understands the complexities of messaging, Jane, could beat Lieberman in a primary with a no-body like Ned Lamont, 9% name recognition six months before the primary.
You, Kip, and Albatross all may be “right” about some sliver of policy, but it’s irrelevant. You’ll never get anything done. Worse, you’ll never block anything that provides even more support for the insurance companies.
Your position/comments on this thread marginally injures our efforts to concretely make the situation less bad than it is. Likewise your position injures us wrt positioning the progressive caucus more strongly in fights ahead on war funding, CFR, FISA/civil rights, auditing the FED, GLBT rights, education, taxation, climate change, energy,….and ongoing health care legislation. On all these issues, we have to look to the same progressive caucus for the core of our support.
None of those other issues, however, enjoys the popular “reach,” of health care.
I remember when you were upset by comments I made about the importance of backing Joe Seestak against Arlen. Before I read your comments today, your concerns about Seestak carried more weight with me. You voted against Obama in the general and now you’re supporting Obama by not supporting Seestak. These are zero sum games. You’re missing important opportunities to further the progressive caucus and that always helps the blue dogs.
Health Care WITH Public Option = REFORM
Health Care WITHOUT Public Option = SURRENDER
This is the mantra.
One more thing:
In my earlier comment I said that I thought Rep. Maloney was being honest in her statements. I’d like to qualify that. One thing that I find dishonest is her expression of support for single payer/universal healthcare but her willingness to vote for reform without a public option. If she strongly supported single payer and really felt the need for drastic changes, she would never settle for a bill without a public option. The public option *is* the compromise. Either that, or she is a completely ineffective member of Congress who is willing to compromise the well being of her consituents and one that is too weak to help bring about the changes so direly needed in this country.
Congresswoman Maloney, if you are reading this, why are you willing to give away your power to people who do not have the best interests of your constituents at heart? The well being of your people is more important than any office or any election or any amount of money or any promise of support from a politician or group. Your job is to *represent* your people. Have you seen the polls? Have you heard the stories? Can it be any clearer that they want you to deliver a public option?
As a regular reader and occasional commenter, I am dismayed at the nasty tone of this thread.
Guess I’ll go do the work I’m being paid for and come back later when hopefully the nasty stuff will have dissipated. I’m a big fan of the informed discussions that occur at FDL. Several of the commenters on this thread aren’t living up to my usual experience. I feel like ducking instead of jumping in.
Kip,
We’re all well aware of the risks.
No one in DC is going to discuss anything with you, unless you can deliver money or votes. That’s what Jane’s trying to do. She’s fighting a delaying action to buy time and you’re fighting her. Bad strategy.
Throw your weight behind Jane.
If we can get forty Dems to take the pledge, THEN, maybe you have a small chance to make the public option more robust.
Without “the pledge,” you have zero leverage against the insurance companies.
I doubt the Black Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus and the Unions would ever leave the Democratic party. They have too much to lose. Without them, we’re irrelevant at the state and local levels, next to irrelevant at the national level. Except possibly in the north east, we won’t be able to get candidates on the ballot
If we lose on this, I think are only recourse would be trying to primary the worst of the progressive caucus.
About my using my real name, you’re welcome.
About you’re not seeing any alternative to creating a public program that embarasses the hell out of the Democrats and everyone who cares about good government and sets the single-payer movement and the entire universal coverage movement a decade — I see many alternatives, at both the state and federal level.
Let me mention one: That all of us reading this post vow that we will educate ourselves about what type of public program will work, and immediately lobby Congress to write language that does that and insert that language in place of the sad, ridiculous language in the House bill now. Conversely, we will vow to stop acting like little pigeons in a Skinner box every time we get an email from Howard Dean or Moveon.org or HCAN demanding that we tell Congress “vote for a public option, any public option.” We vow that when we get those emails, we will send them back demanding either that the sender help us understand what a powerful public program looks like commpared to what is in the House and Senate “reform” bills, or to stop contacting us.
Kip
no – i’m saying split the Dem vote – peel off enough votes so the R wins. Or, at least the threat forces Obama to actually move from his center-right position.
Denis Kucinch won’t take this SIMPLE pledge. Tammy Baldwin, lesbian in Madison WI is “leaning yes,” we had to fight like hell to get Donna Edwards on board, Gwen Moore (black caucus)is “leaning yes.”
We’re getting played.
Progressives know we have no where else to go, so they take turns placating us. Kucinich voted no on the war supplemental and no on ACES. Now he thinks he make nice with Rahm by dodging the pledge.
That’s pre-meltdown, pre-bank bailout, pre-Lehmann bankruptcy.
Americans are waking up the fact that the “trickle-down” theory of David Stockman and Reagan doesn’t work. We are also learning that the private sector doesn’t always outperform the public sector.
Your practical concerns are excellent and deeply needed. I don’t think getting providers to sign on will be as much of a problem as you predicted. The gatekeepers, primary care physicians, already back a public option. All the specialists rely on THEM for referrals. There are a lot of pressures in place to make them compromise. The shrinking number of insured clients means all physicians are looking for patients who can actually pay. Physicians don’t like handing over their fees to bill collectors.
Vietnam started as a conflict and “escalated.” No reason we can’t escalate something positive such as single payer, Medicare for all.
We already tried that, it failed miserably.
That hurts us more than it hurts them. They don’t care if Republicans win.
such stirring rhetoric! how do you confine it within the requirements to vote Democratic, no matter what?
this is the considerable tension between their inexplicable, unrequited devotion to the (D) party, and the ostensible values of ‘progressivism.’
how does this hurt us any more than we already are? we are only suffering more slowly. bleeding to death slowly is preferable to dying quickly?
and wouldn’t you take the bet that Obama would rather be re-elected than not? the trick is to get him to stop chasing R votes (and hearts and minds). if you want to stop being taken for granted, you have to do something and quit hoping, or banging your head against a wall repeatedly, like Jane seems to like to do with her whip hobby.
You have to raise money. You have to have a get out the vote machinery. You have to have minimal traction in the Trad Med. We can’t even get liberals/progressives out to protest the banksters.
We’ve only got 1,600 donating $100,000 to our crown jewell, Marcy Wheeler. We’ve only got 1,200 calling Congress about health care.
That’s why we got destroyed on the FISA vote. We couldn’t even hold the progressive caucus together against funding Afghanistan and EUROPEAN banks. There’s nothing with which to start a third party. I think we’re much more effective from inside the Democratic party.
OT, you can’t let Republicans win on the local levels. Here in Milwaukee, the County Executive wouldn’t pay people to staff the phones to sign people up for FOOD STAMPS. GOP can really destroy infrastructure at the local level.
and – look at how the Rs are afraid of their base. we need to make the Dems afraid of their base as well – punish the transgressors. yes, the Dems are more diverse, which should be taken into account.
before you say “but look at what happened to the Rs. they got their asses handed to them because they were too rigid” – the difference is, that most of the country (at least when it is framed properly) agrees with progressive positions on the environment, health care, schools, drug policy, etc, etc. we have the advantage of being right on policy. punish Ds who step out of line. and be willing to wait through an R presidency to get the right candidate.
Kip,
This isn’t the MCAT’s.
It’s about “messaging.”
People don’t have the time to make vows or do research.
we got destroyed because the Ds aren’t afraid of their base
He won’t get reelected by moving to the left…he’ll lose votes in the middle…ignore the middle all you want, but there are plenty of people there who voted for Obama and don’t want to spend trillions of dollars on stimulus money, are worried about the deficit and think torture is ok.
Obama isn’t overly concerned with pleasing the left all the time…he can’t win by doing that nor can he win without them…if it looks like he’s going to lose, he’ll retire to the lucrative speaking circuit and we’ll get President Romney.
Because as long as 46% of the country is still voting for Republicans, the Democratic party is not going to focus it’s energy on the 8% of the population who thinks they’re too conservative…sorry.
Their base is a hell of a lot larger than ours.
a 3rd party could tap into some enthusiasm from those who believe that cajoling the Donkey Party into doing the right thing is like trying to make a real Donkey walk up a ladder backwards into a burning building, when it would rather stay in the paddock and feast on tasty treats fed by an army of wealthy corporate lobbyists!
switching metaphors, the (D) party is a vast heat sink that can absorb and dissipate mass amounts of grassroots outrage, and, as you point, it hasn’t exactly been massive yet.
I suspect many who do not bother to vote for either near indistinguishable (D) or (R) candidate might come out if their was viable ‘change’ on the ballot.
‘Change’ polls really well, as we know, which is why the Obama marketing people appropriated it.
Case in point…I live in NYC, directly outside of Maloney’s district…she is getting blasted by constituents concerned over the tax hike on the rich…and her district votes over 70% Democratic…but it’s a wealthy district and would be hit among the hardest by the taxes on the rich.
The people in Maloney’s district are VERY Democratic…but they’re not, as you would describe them, our “base”
You suspect wrong…most of the people I talk who don’t vote don’t because both parties are too extreme for them.
A third party might make the Democrats look more lucrative for them because they’d no longer be the left wing party.
he isn’t concerned with pleasing the left at all. his fave hobby is trashing his base. and i said he should move leftward, not put on a beret and start giving corporate owned farms to poor people. obama is to the right of the rest of the country on health care.
and yes – he can’t win without the left which is why he should stop kicking us around.
not really – they just get better coverage
How do you “split” the Dem votes?
You figure the Democratic party in each state is just going to let you waltz on into the primary or general ballot? Do you have an idea how much cash it takes just to get someone on the ballot? Who will contribute money to someone they know won’t win? That decreases your chance of getting decent candidtates. Who will contribute money to a bad candidate get a Rethug elected?
It’s a lot tougher in practice than in theory.
What’s your really doing is strengthening the blue dogs. They’ll just continue to move to the right.
recent Turnout of voting-age
population (percent)
2008 = 56.8%
2006 = 37.1%
from : http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
especially in congressional elections, those who opt out of the charade for whatever reason could easily play a deciding role, if an energising, authentic populist, grass roots candidate stepped in.
Nader being on the ballot was probably enough to push Bush the younger through to the Presidency. We just need someone who can pull enough votes away from Obama in a few key states. You don’t think there are a growing number of disaffected leftish voters?
No, they’re larger…8% of Americans think the Democratic Party is too conservative, 17% think the Republican Party is TOO liberal.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121…..sion=print
73% of Republicans say they’re conservative…only 38% of Democrats say they’re liberal…22% of Democrats say they’re conservative, which is over seven times the number of Republicans who call themselves liberal (3%)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120…..group.aspx
They’re base is ridiculously larger. We only won because the GOP is now regulated to only their base.
If you’re frustrated, blame Howard Dean…his 50 state strategy never said anything about electing progressives/liberals in 50 states, just Democrats…as a result, we got a majority with a lot of conservatives, because that’s all who could win in some of these states.
that’s ignorant to the fact that midterm elections always yield a lower turnout than Presidential elections…because there’s no national candidate.
The 2006 number is almost certainly lower than 2004 too.
Yes, I know, and what lesson did Nader throwing the election to Bush teach the Democrats?
I know what it taught my generation, that liberals would rather elect a madmen who kills tens of thousands of people and singlehadidly destroys the US economy and allows New Orleans to drown than elect a center-left President who could effectively govern the country.
people don’t claim to be liberal because liberal has become an epithet. what percentage of people agree with “liberal” values – wrt health care, education, tax policy, etc?
About the same number who agree with “conservative” values like guns, God, banning gay marriage, cutting taxes, funding an enormous military, and bombing foreign countries.
to be fair, Nader actually received a lot of R help and money ;)
but yeah – if the Dems haven’t learned their lesson yet, it needs to be re-taught. Obama is fine with killing foreigners and torture and vast transfers of wealth – so the hope and change wasn’t in kind, only in degree.
Just called Maloney’s office and spoke to an aide who never heard of this website or “the pledge” but promised to “pass my message about the 3 points or “no” vote on to the Congresswoman.”
Sure, because Republicans knew that was the only way Bush could win…and it worked…and a liberal third party challenger will get a lot of Republicans support again too.
You may feel free to “re-teach” the lesson, but if it wans’t learned the first time, what the hell makes you think they’re going to get it the second time?
Just got off the phone with Rangel’s office. Explained the whole Whip Count plan.
The aide never heard of it.
But she sounded REALLY interested and promised to pass the message on to the Congressman.
Are we supposed to be calling ONLY the staffers who work on the markup, or anybody in the office who answers the phone?
they’re not terminally stupid. just utterly corrupt and/or craven. they’ll know what they need to do to win eventually (outlaw 3rd parties).
We need to publish a videotape compilation of the 9 members taking the pledge. This will help inform the other members, the public, and help pressure the critters to vote in the block of 40.
PS. I have a weekly public access tv show and would love to play such a video on there. Is one available?
FWIW, in July 1863, everyone knew Lincoln was going to lose to McLellan in 1864. Lee’s ordering of Pickett’s charge on the third day at Gettysburg, however, changed that momentum forever.
Lee never would have had to order Pickett’s charge if on the second day, Chamberlain and the 20th Maine had not held on the flank of Little Round Top. An even closer fight on the second day was the First Minnesota’s suicide charge into FIVE advancing Alabama regiments. That sacrifice bought Winfield Hancock time to reinforce the federal center. Without BOTH of those victories, Lee doesn’t have to order Pickett’s charge, Lincoln doesn’t win in 1864, and slavery is not abolished.
of course midterms have lower turnout than presidential years, that was so obvious I didn’t think it needed to be spelled out for anyone.
my point had to do with the leverage available to any candidate who could summon disaffected voters back into the ballot box.
nature abhors a vacuum, and the political vacuum to the left of the (D) party is vast.
good for you, finding some poll numbers to bolster your case.
however, if polls are taken on issues like health care, the stubpid failed wars, the environment, then I suspect the numbers are different.
‘liberal’ is an epithet to many, and to many others it reeks of the wishy-washy, centrist, stand for nothing (D) politics of the 1990’s. ew! who would self-identify that way? not many.
‘progressive’ is kind of a new synonym, but Obama will likely take that word down with him if he continues to bail out Goldman Sachs, let California drown, and spend untold billions of dollars to continue Bush/Cheney’s failed wars.
only an idiot thinks he’s “kicking us around”
Most lefties don’t feel that way…just the blogs. Sorry, that’s the way it is.
Again you suspect wrong…most Americans don’t support bailing out California, nor do they support pulling out of Afghanistan. As far as Goldman Sachs, we aren’t giving them any more money, so I don’t know what you’re talking about here.
Thanks for all your work.
FWIW, I called Rangel’s office last Friday.
IMHO, offices frequently order interns/staffer to lie and tell you they never heard of “the pledge,” or of Firedoglake or of any other blog.
I always stay polite and calm. The people answering the phones are not the problem and I certainly don’t want to alienate them.
FWIW, I’ve been having a lot of success when I mention the $5,000 we’ve raised for those who have committed to “the pledge.” That gets people’s attention.
OT, offices seem a lot more receptive this week than last.
OT, I always try and mention as a positive those who voted against the War Supplemental. If they didn’t vote against it, I mention this is a chance to redeem themselves. Staffers/interns don’t like being reminded that their boss caved in on the war supplemental.
Whip Count The Final Total Or How We Went From 0 – 32
On the topic of having a well-defined public plan:
I strongly agree with this sentiment and have encouraged setting out the requirements of a public plan in writing and also giving it a specific name, e.g. “progressive public plan” or any name that works. The public plan is still too amorphous and requires me to go on faith, which I am not inclined to do. That’s why I refused to support the OFA activism. I can’t go out and sell this to people I know without clear definition. Right now, I’m trusting Jane and Eve, whom I trust on this issue. But I think it would make everyone’s job easier if we had a well-defined, named, public plan.
My understanding was that the Progressive Caucus did lay out the foundation for this some weeks ago but I’m not sure how effective that turned out to be. I’d like to see a package, a named public plan, that could be dropped into any legislation. Without that, we risk getting punked and it is much more difficult to find out what a congressperson supports and makes it difficult to assess what’s in a bill and get whip counts once the things start moving very quickly.
Maybe this has happened already and I’m just not aware of it yet. If that is the case, I withdraw my criticism (but I would like to know so I can get up to speed).
mmmm, smell the triangulation.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) criteria for a robust public plan can be found here.
With the caveat that bullet points are not the same as lines of legislation, the CPC robustness criteria are stronger than HCAN’s (on which Jane’s pledge is based) in at least two key ways:
1. CPC calls for the public plan to be available to all individuals and/or employers who want it, without restriction. The HCAN principles are silent on this score. The Senate HELP bill severely restricts who can opt for the public plan. We’ll see where the House tri-committee bill falls when the details come out today. Obviously, a public plan can’t inflict punishing competitive damage on for-profit insurers if people aren’t free to choose it.
2. CPC calls for the public plan to piggyback on existing government health-financing infrastructures to the maximum degree possible. Ideally, this would constitute an expansion and adjustment of Medicare. HCAN says it doesn’t matter whether the public plan is government run or merely government appointed. Obviously, building a new infrastructure is more costly than expanding on an existing successful one.
For all my criticisms of the public option strategy, hats off to Jane’s citizen whip action and to the citizen markup brigade that Jane, Eve, and others are initiating. There’s a great deal to be said for getting our goddamn feet in the door, even if initially in the name of “any old” public option, and then harnessing public outrage once inside to change the terms of our demands to something even Kip Sullivan could sign onto. It’s a gamble, because I agree with Kip that if we don’t achieve a true, industry-withering public plan from the start, the system could well be harder to fix than if it failed and we started again from scratch.
But I see a vitality and sharpness of direction in the whip and markup efforts that put much of both the existing single payer and public option campaigns to shame.
How in the hell does maloney think healthcare can be reformed witout some kind of public option. Does that mean they reform it to screw the people out of their homes, cars, food, and everything they have until they end up on the street kind of reform. Jesus, joseph, and Mary. WTF do these stupid bastards really fucking think.
FWIW, I feel like we’ve reached a milestone, here because at least now the experts can review the legislation.
I think what some such as Kip and selise don’t understand is the effort and complexity it takes for us to really mount a sustained push. We don’t have paid staffers like the health insurance lobbyists. We rely on volunteers, such as me, making calls. We frequently rely on interns inside the offices receiving them. Whatever the message is, it has to be basic enough for both those groups, who are frequently not rocket scientists. It’s a big stumbling block through which the messaging has to be filtered.
A lot of this efforting, the phone calls, the fund raising is about momentum. It’s about energizing people.
So when policy wonks or trolls come on and say we’re off message, it’s really deflating, destructive to the momentum. Jane for all the right reasons is committed to open commenting. I agree with that and applaud her for it. It’s a critical feedback loop in impacting the legislative process accurate and timely information.
Inspired by FDL & Jane I called my congressional representative Nancy Pelosi’s office & let them know that if she bows to the Blue Dogs and the Insurance Lobby that I–and a lot of other San Francisco Democrats–will work hard for and give money to another candidate in the next election.
I think Pelosi has to be reminded by her constituents that she is there to represent US, and her district overwhelmingly supports not just a public option but a real European/Canadian style single payer system. Her leadership has to reflect that.
So all you Bay Area people out there, call Pelosi!
And–thank you, BooRadley–I’ll call Maloney’s office tomorrow and follow your lead in saying I will send money to NY to support another candidate without a public option pledge from her.
Also to all of you who commented about left and middle Dems: there is no left or middle on health care: just about everyone wants Medicare for all.
I am not surprised.She is running to displace Gillibrand and so the slap & beat down of progressives has started.I am glad Jane posted this.She can count on not getting a penny from me.Any true progressive would not come up with the BS Maloney just put out.Heart break @ every turn now ain’t that some s..t.
Here’s what I sent her just now at http://maloney.house.gov/index…..Itemid=73.
Congresswoman Maloney,
I find it most troubling that a supposed member of the progressive caucus in the House of Representatives would make the statement quoted below.
“So, while I agree health care reform must have the public option and I will fight for it; I also believe health care reform is too important to maintain the status quo and, even though I won’t like a bill that doesn’t include the public option, if that happens, the principle of getting people health care who don’t currently have it must come before any one particular method to achieve it.”
The President has stated that he wants a public plan to keep the insurance industry honest. That articulates the progressive standard by which anyone who can vote on this issue will be judged. Why you have chosen to publicly announce/signal a “bottom line” that fails to include a public plan only betrays the extraordinary opportunity that this moment in our collective history offers us.
With a commanding majority of Democrats in the House and a clear majority of Democrats in the Senate, telegraphing your personal willingness to cave like this only encourages and strengthens the opposition to a public plan.
You would like to see single payer, as would I, but the bottom line compromise is having a public option and not settling for less.
Such willingness to give up what this moment holds forth as THE option is unworthy of constituent support in either a House or Senate electoral race and you should not think that giving in on this will be overlooked or forgotten. We’ve become much more aware of what it takes to get elected or in your case re-elected to let such weak-kneed, lukewarm advocacy for a public plan pass without consequence.
The 2008 election changed many things, not the least of which was a heightened awareness of constituent electoral power. The genie is out of the bottle.
Party discipline and unity when the Democratic numbers are there to make progressive change happen are what are called for from you and our other electeds at this historic time.
We need to hear you come out for a public plan the way Charles Schumer, Charlie Rangel, and, yes, Kirsten Gillibrand, have and now is the time for you to be heard loud and clear.
Yours for a robust public health care plan (as part of the President’s three principles),
John de Clef Piñeiro, Esq.
110 West 90th Street Unit 5-J
New York, N.Y. 10024
212-580-4616