Tweet
Cenk Uygur interviewed Rob Andrews (D-NJ) on the Young Turks, and asked him about his position on triggers. Now, Rahm Emanuel has been trying to stop the hemorrhaging on his health care plans by demanding that members refrain from saying that they’ll vote against either the Baucus bill or triggers. Consequently we’ve heard all kinds of weasel words over the past few weeks about how triggers can be a "good" thing (Nancy Pelosi), a possible compromise (Harry Reid), or something the Republicans like Olympia Snowe might go for.
For those who can’t manage to spit out any of those palliatives, we get things like "I don’t want to draw a line in the sand" or some other translation of "I want to leave myself open to vote for whatever Rahm didn’t auction off to the lobbyists." But it all comes out sounding like gibberish:
CENK: Let’s say, as is very likely, that we don’t get the ideal. And the Senate version has a trigger in it, and you go into committee, and it comes out with a trigger. Do you vote no on that bill?
ANDREWS: Again, I’m not going to say that I would because I want to get this plan passed. I would strongly not like to see that in there, and I’m going to do whatever I can to argue that that’s the case but I think in any negotiation painting yourself into a corner is a mistake. I would look at a trigger very negatively, I don’t think it would work, but I don’t think that we should be painting ourselves into a corner.
That just doesn’t make any sense. Andrews has been giving interviews in which he says that the Senate bill will not have a public option, because there aren’t sixty votes. Why? Because — wait for it — Democratic Senators have said they won’t vote for a public option. So their decision to "paint themselves into a corner" means Rob Andrews assumes they’ll get what they want.
Andrews goes on to describe his feelings about a trigger:
ANDREWS: All the trigger really does is delay the inevitable, and frankly, put the American people through five more years of exploding health care costs where they’re at the mercy of the insurance industry.
In Andrews’ own words, he doesn’t want to "paint himself into a corner" by saying he’ll vote against a bill that "put[s] the American people through five more years of exploding health care costs where they’re at the mercy of the insurance industry."
Andrews is in a D+12 district. That’s going to go over really well in 2010.
31 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Does anyone think this joke gets any funnier the longer it goes on?
End the begging, throw them back their crumbs and start demanding Medicare for All Americans / HR 676.
Explain to anyone that cares that the choice is between a trivial tax increase for every American (single-payer) OR a mandate/penalty designed to sustain a worthless middle man (Baucus bill/Obamacare) OR rising costs, sickness and death (status quo).
That’s my rep.
Well at least someone finally got an answer out of him. I’ve called his office over the last six weeks asking the same kinds of questions. I leave my number and they tell me their legislative aide will call me back. He never does. And they never give Rob’s positions over the phone, as a matter of policy.
I get a letter in the mail as a response telling me not to worry, that I won’t lose my insurance and blah blah response to teabaggers (in one of the bluest districts in the country).
This is a guy who is nicknamed the “congressman for life” around here. He sometimes runs unopposed. He rarely campaigns. He can vote for this without any danger.
I guess I’ll start calling again next week.
There is a level of wilfull obtuseness with so many folks inside the beltway. I think they don’t want to recognize how they sound in an attempt to assure not offending anyone and they wind up offending everyone.
His unendangered status would, you’d think, make him a reliable vote for Public Option. Instead, though, his easy re-elections make him a valuable Rahm target: “Nothing can hurt Andrews, he gets re-elected easily. Let’s be sure he votes with us.”
It’s looking-glass logic, but when you think Rahm’s way, it makes sick sense. Why piss off the White House if your constituents aren’t going to punish you one way or another?
We simply must make the punishment fit the crime, this time.
Shorter Andrews: Principled people who “paint themselves into a corner” and strongly support the public option are stupid.
Really short Andrews: Principled people are stupid.
Sure if you look at morals from a short term power hungry insane perspective this guy should have been a GOPer.
Of course no morals no trust society breaks down and we all end up living in caves.
i agree! this is a big one if we stand on this, or if we dont stand on this it will determine the path of politics for the future, we have already made changes by way of small donations through the “internets” to slightly compete with big buisness/lobyists. we now need to campaign against those who play politics with this country’s future!
A society that takes care of people has less crime imagine what state taxes would be if we could over a decade or two get crime rates down to European levels. National Healthcare would help with that Drug counseling and mental health funding.
I think Rep Michelle Bachmann would benefit a bunch:)
I think the only “people” they care about offending are corporate entities.
Am I the only one who feels that politicians should have some damn principles and stick to them, no matter what?
If/when I run for office, I don’t ever plan to bullshit anyone.
“I stand for this and here’s why”.
I can’t believe it’s that friggin hard to do.
Could someone please diagram that sentence?
Never mind, I got it.
Again, I’m not going to say that I would because I want to get this plan passed. I would strongly not like to see that in there, and I’m going to do whatever I can to argue that that’s the case but I think in any negotiation painting yourself into a corner is a mistake.
_
when this kind of BS is handed to an interviewer, why don’t they ever ask “oh, so as far as you are concerned, you don’t unequivocally support the “no pre-existing conditions” provisions?” or “Is there anything in this bill, or in poliitics in general, that you will say is non-negotiable?
At what point do we start a campaign to make sure nothing is passed? This in your face corruption is beyond belief.
OT: Back to last night and that other guy….the Statesman.com has an editorial about GovGoodHair and his scientific and legal acumen.
is there any public option in any of the bills congress is considering that prevents “five more years of exploding health care costs?”
i don’t think so.
never the less, if on the whole some lives can be saved by expanding access that will be a good thing. just don’t think the policies under consideration are expected to prevent “five more years of exploding health care costs.”
would love to have evidence/analysis to the contrary if there is any.
Book Salon up at the Mothership with Jonathon Tasini’s The Audacity of Greed hosted by Teddy Partridge
How convenient, hiring a chief of staff who retains his authority as chief whip in the “independent” legislature. I have an inkling that progressives won’t forget the Rahma side of Bahma & Rahma, and will work bloody hard to keep him from legitimately re-entering the legislature he seems never to have left.
Since 1994 Rob Andrews has never won less than 72% of the vote and twice ran completely unopposed. He’s made no secret of the fact that he wants Frank Lautenberg’s Senate seat.
This is a guy who could definitely use a strong primary challenge. I hope Democratic voters will remember that Rob Andrews would not fight for a Public Option when he runs for re-election next year.
Rob is liked very well in his district. It would take a deep scandal or him moving on to unseat him. He’s a fiscal conservative and makes no bones about it.
History Lesson:
This is the guy who, while running for a higher office in the Primaries, PROMISED he would not run for Congress if he lost (but had his wife run for his old seat, just in case).
Well, he lost that primary, his wife won, and whaddaya know? She dropped out, he ran for his old seat – and he won, going away. Why would anyone believe anything he says – ever?
South Jersey, you got what you paid for – a typical weasel/politician FAR more interested in hanging onto power, than representing his constituents. He was one of the Neo-cons’ favorite Dems – look it up. He’s never been anything close to Progressive. When you look up DINO in the dictionary, you see a picture of Rob Andrews. Shall I go on? I live right across the river so I know whereof I speak…
In response to Teddy Partridge @4
I think I’ve fallen down the rabbit hole. Doesn’t ‘target for Rahm’ mean ‘target for the Administration’? For Obama? I thought these people were on our side.
While I’m down here in the Rabbit Hole, is it my imagination or are parts of the blogosphere ‘turning’? So to speak? I’ve read some posts that seem to be saying, ‘We are good little doggies. We will sit up on our haunches and grab whatever kibbles Rahm throws to us. We will not rock the boat.’
I hope I’m a severely paranoid wrong-o about this.
Great summary of the options, except the middle choice, the Baucus bill, also includes exploding health care costs because the insurance industry will have no competition, just a mandate to purchase whatever they decide to offer.
They’re on someone’s side, for sure, but I think it’s their own.
I see a lot of very messy primaries next year.
The corollary being “My base is unprincipled. But if I’m wrong and they do have principles, then they are too lazy to fight for those principles and I can safely ignore them.”
This is the Corporate Democrat’s operating premises in a nutshell.
He’s safe even if his constituents end up with mandates for expensive insurance, no public option and rising subsidies? Wouldn’t that piss off everybody, especially the fiscal conservatives? I can’t think of any fiscal conservatives who don’t like federal budget increases but are perfectly fine with mandatory increases to their own personal budgets.
If Medicare pays 75% of a provider’s bills and everyone is on Medicare, then what’s to stop providers from simply increasing their prices by 100% or 300%?
Where’s the cost containment if you don’t have either competition (free choice of providers to restrain their own costs to avoid losing customers) OR price controls from government?
What else is there to control costs?
Medicare for all might be nice for simplicity sake, but it’s antithetical to the American way of freedom and limited government.
We don’t want to paint ourselves into a corner and it’s not just a matter of principle. It’s a question of finding solutions to the problem which can work and which don’t violate our principles. Find (and tell us) another solution to the problem of cost containment that’s good for the long run and we’ll listen.
I think some of them have the idea (a very old idea) that you only get lower prices with ‘group rates’. So, they support the employer-based system. Well, to a certain extent that’s fine. But, when it excludes millions of people you’ve got a problem.
There’s also the question of whether ‘group rates’ is really containing costs or just making it better for this group at the expense of that group. What difference does it make if the prices go up all across the board over decades, so that eventually nobody can afford to pay (whether unemployed or as part of an employed group)?
We need cost containment AND to cover more people (hopefully all). This is a different ball game and the older guys are still replaying their winning game from 40 years ago.
So in your view, the American population as healthcare consumers -300M strong- should have prices dictated to them by 1M doctors who won’t allow more people to become doctors in this country?
And you have the audacity to call Medicare For All ‘antithetical’ to the American way?
Get lost and get out of the way of the free market.
Supposedly, Obama really, really backs a public option. I guess that means all else failed.