Tweet
My one question for the 37 House Democrats who voted against health care reform because it is too liberal, why are you even Democrats? (Kucinich and Massa claim to have voted “no” because they thought the bill was too conservative.)
I’m not big on party purity tests, but there are something that are so essential that they are at the heart of what it should mean to be a Democrat. Helping those in need, protecting people from the excesses of corporations, universal health care, ending discrimination based on sex, and basic civil rights issues. These things are the foundation of the modern Democratic Party. If you don’t believe in them, then what are you even doing on this side of the aisle?
This conservative House health care bill is far to the right of center. It is not the single payer version favored by liberals. It does not even contain a robust public option. In fact, the public option will be restricted to only the small segment of the population that tends to have the hardest time buying insurance. The weakness of the regulation and the lack of government involvement compared to most countries’ health care systems is stomach- turning to progressives. The only amendment accepted on the floor (aside from the Republican alternative) was the Stupak amendment. It was the most far-reaching federal restriction placed on a woman’s right to choose in decades. It was probably the biggest win for the social conservatives in decades.
At its core, the bill relies on loosely regulated competition between private companies, and tax credits to expand insurance coverage (very stingy tax credits at that). The bill is not only paid for over the next two decades, but would in fact reduce the deficit. The biggest fear among health care reform policy experts is that the bill will fail because it does not go far enough. It is a cheap, deficit-reducing, incremental, market-based health care reform bill. This bill is not liberal, progressive, or moderate. It is an extremely conservative solution to a serious problem that is bankrupting our country.
It has been endorsed by the AMA, AARP, and Consumers Union. If you are willing to vote against this very modest way of achieving one of the longest-held goals of the Democratic party–because it is “too far to the left”–you honestly need to re-examine why you are even a Democrat. How many millions more Americans would the bill need to leave uninsured for it to be conservative enough for you?
2006 and 2008 were wave elections. The Democrats were swept in on a wave of anti-Republicanism, and then on a message of hope and change. In 2010 the wave will ebb, and the loses will be even worse if Democrats fail on a top priority like health care reform. When the tide goes out, don’t expect the Democratic base to do anything to prevent you from getting washed out of office.
Below is a list of 37 House Democrats who voted against this very conservative health care reform bill because it was “too liberal.” The link will take you to an analysis of what the bill would have done to help their constituents. (* indicate members who voted for the Stupak amendment but still voted against the over all legislation.)
Adler (NJ)
Altmire (PA)*
Baird (WA)
Barrow (GA)*
Boccieri (OH)*
Boren (OK)*
Boucher (VA)
Boyd (FL)
Bright (AL)*
Chandler (KY)*
Childers (MS)*
Davis (AL)*
Davis (TN)*
Edwards (TX)
Gordon (TN)*
Griffith (AL)*
Herseth Sandlin (SD)
Holden (PA)*
Kissell (NC)
Kosmas (FL)
Kratovil (MD)
Markey (CO)
Marshall (GA)*
Matheson (UT)*
McIntyre (NC)*
McMahon (NY)
Melancon (LA)*
Minnick (ID)
Murphy (NY)
Nye (VA)
Peterson (MN)*
Ross (AR)*
Shuler (NC)*
Skelton (MO)*
Tanner (TN)*
Taylor (MS)*
Teague (NM)*
8 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Collin Peterson (our local Blue Dog twit, as opposed to being an otherwise-liberal antichoice Catholic like Oberstar) is being targeted by the Chamber of Commerce. They’re STILL running ads telling folks to harrass him into voting against the bill!
Why do you write that you are “not big on party purity tests”? I’m a Democratic Party officer in WA, and our state’s Progressive Caucus of the state Party is very much in favor of establishing that kind of accountability.
Our state Party Chair wrote that Baird needs to heed the call of the Party and of history. I certainly support that.
I accept that some members and districts are different. I don’t think a Dem needs to be with the party 100% but they do at least 70%. The lines in the sand should be few, but they need to be there and need to be firm.
two days later and sadly, the question is why am I a democrat ?
let’s keep it real, just as an example – this is a Party chaired by a man, hand picked by POTUS who supported “Choose Life” license plates in his home state – signing a bill that allowed revenue for same to be donated to Anti Choice ‘counseling’ centers
In response to Jon Walker @ 3:
Exactly. The plan that we’re discussing would be to prioritize our state Platform, then hold our elected officials to support for, say, 4 of the top 6 elements. The prioritization could take place by vote of the State Committee members.
Another piece of the program would be to state our Platform points with more of a policy or programmatic emphasis – less generic and polemical.
Jon:
You have the right question but are putting to the wrong group of Democrats. We should be asking that question of the Progressive Caucus. Why are people like Dennis Kucinich, Eric Massa, Barbara Lee, John Conyers still in the Democratic Party? Don’t they know when they are not wanted?
It’s be shown over and over that the Blue Dogs are actually right in line with the Party Leaders. Here in Illinois for the past 8 years, these leaders, Rahm Emanuel, Dick Durbin, Michael Madigan etc. have done everything in their power to block the election of progressives even in previously Republican districts. Instead they have thrown millions to elect conservatives, who in earlier year would be Republicans, but are now masquerading as Democrats.
STop beating a dead horse. The Democratic party is a Center-right, corporate party. It’s not a mistake, it’s not poor phrasing, it’s not a lack of courage, it’s a strategy to capture corporate money from the Republicans and emerge as the single dominant national party. There is no place in that strategy for progressives. How many times do we need to get hit by a truck before we realize that trucks are dangerous?
We need to form our own party. The time is now.
Regards:
Bill Bianchi
PDA-Chicago
They are Democrats because their districts or states tend to vote for Democrats. That’s all. In effect they are really members of the Democratic-Republican Party, which always controls all three branches of government, and can never be out of power.
!!! well stated! very well stated.
the answer to the truck question around here always seems to be … make excuses as to why the truck ran over progressive values for the umpty-millionth time!
these excuses are numerous and imaginative. the truck was playing sophisticated n-dimensional chess en route to Progressive Change! Those darn Blue Dogs were driving it, or Rahm was behind the wheel, or at least we weren’t run over by a Republican truck, thats much worse, or hey, look on the bright side, at least it wasn’t a steam roller, actually an 18-wheel dump truck is amongst the least worst of trucks to get run over by… it goes on and on.
there is also a smaller, hard core (D) apologist contingent that will try to deny the existence of the truck and accident completely, and a larger, quieter contingent whose denial and screening mechanisms inhibit them from allowing themselves to read about any mention of trucks and accidents … they obliviously scroll by.
welcome to the lake, Bill! present your viewpoint with utmost civility and diplomacy, and good luck to you!