« Howard Dean: Kill the Senate Health Care Reform Bill | Main | Howard Dean: You Can't Vote for a Bill Like This in Good Conscience (Video) »

Lawrence Rael ad

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Holding Progressive House Members' Feet to the Fire on Public Option

Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake lays it all out as to why House progressives need to keep their promises to vote against any bill without a robust public option -- in other words, this bill that's being waylaid by Lieberman et al. in the Senate. Do liberal members of Congress have as much power in unity as do a handful of Senate pseudo-Dems? Only if they stand their ground. Read the entire FDL post and you'll see why.

As Jane says, instead of a public option, what does the Senate bill contain?

  • A removal of the ban on annual limits that Reid slipped in at the last minute, in violation of the President’s promise in his September address to Congress
  • An exemption from anti-trust law for insurance companies that will reduce competition
  • Taxes that start up in January, but benefits that don’t start until 2014
  • No ability to negotiate for Medicare drug prices (you know, when it didn't matter)
  • No cost controls, so health insurance premiums will continue to rise at a rate of $1000 a year
  • A tax on middle class insurance plans that is designed to cut back insurance benefits, reduce coverage, and increase co-pays and deductibles.

In other words, that reduction in our insurance benefits is a feature, not a bug — it’s how they’re going to “bend the cost curve.” The post goes on to quote an email from Dave Johnson that pretty much sums up the situation we face:

Most other countries provide health care as a right – a core function of government. But here privateers have seized it for themselves for profit. So to maintain this, to keep taxes low for the rich and keep the profits privatized we are ordered to buy it from companies instead of having it provided as a government service. This is the battle between democracy and corporatization.

We need to ask our members of Congress which side they're on. We need to insist that they vote against any bill that doesn't provide the premium price controls and public plan that are essential to any bill that's considered genuine reform. You know what to do. Make your views known!

December 16, 2009 at 12:08 AM in Corporatism, Democratic Party, Healthcare, Obama Health Care Reform, Progressivism | Permalink

Comments

Sen. Udall voted against the Dorgan-Snow amendment allowing re-importation of drugs. I wonder what his reasoning could have been? Why would our NM senator vote against our interests? Is he taking money from big pharma?

Posted by: qofdisks | Dec 16, 2009 1:49:51 AM

gofdisks: That was Mark Udall who voted against the Dorgan amendment, not Tom Udall. I checked the roll call.

Posted by: barb | Dec 16, 2009 10:40:55 AM

Post a comment