In the wake of last week's "bipartisan summit" -- which proved that no Republicans in Congress will vote for health care reform -- an avalanche of Democratic senators are announcing today that they will vote YES for the public health insurance option if it is brought up in "reconciliation."
Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Ben Cardin (D-MD), and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) are the latest to announce their support, raising the number of senators on record from 0 to 30 in under 2 weeks.
The below statements were released to the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), Democracy for America, and Credo Action -- three groups who have been organizing thousands of Americans daily on this issue and who gathered over 200,000 signatures on a petition telling Congress that Americans want a good bill with a public option over a "bipartisan" bill without one. A tally of senators supporting the public option in reconciliation is at WhipCongress.com.
DICK DURBIN (D-IL):
Durbin Communications Director Joe Shoemaker: "Sen. Durbin has long been a supporter of the public option. I don't know whether the votes exist in the Senate right now, but if the House version of the public option came up for a vote in reconciliation Sen. Durbin would vote yes."
PATTY MURRAY (D-WA):
"I've been consistently supportive of a public option so that Washington's families and businesses have choices in their health care options and so insurance companies are finally forced to compete for the business of the American people. Nothing has changed that support. I don't know whether the votes exist in the Senate right now, but if the public option came up for a vote as we move ahead with reform, including under reconciliation, I would vote yes."
JEFF BINGAMAN (D-NM):
"I have long been a supporter of the public option, and I have voted for it every time it has come before the Senate. I drafted the public option provision in the HELP Committee and co-sponsored the public option amendment in the Finance Committee. If the public option came up for a vote in reconciliation I would vote yes."
BEN CARDIN (D-MD):
Cardin spokesperson Sue Walitsky: "Senator Cardin has always been a strong supporter of the public option. As a member of the Budget Committee, he has always considered reconciliation a viable option for passing health care reform. If there is a vote in reconciliation on the House public option, Senator Cardin would vote yes."
AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN):
"I support the House bill version of the public option which is based on negotiated rates, and if that came up for a vote in reconciliation I would vote yes. I do not support a public option based on Medicare rates because it exacerbates geographic disparities that already hurt Minnesota."
Previously, 24 other senators signed Sen. Michael Bennet's letter calling for the public option through reconciliation plus Majority Leader Harry Reid made big news by endorsing the idea:
Reid spokesperson Rodell Mollineau: "Senator Reid has always and continues to support the public option as a way to drive down costs and create competition...If a decision is made to use reconciliation to advance health care, Senator Reid will work with the White House, the House, and members of his caucus in an effort to craft a public option that can overcome procedural obstacles and secure enough votes."
We are finding out who our real friends are. These senators deserve praise for embracing the will of the people. Polls show that voters in state after state overwhelmingly want the public option -- and progressives will keep pushing others senators to take a stand until 50 votes are reached.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee will spend thousands of dollars this week on an online ad campaign in the states of at least 10 senators who should be for the public option but have refused to issue a statement so far, reaching at least 1 million people online.
First up: Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa -- and we'll soon be naming more. Jon Stewart lampooned Harkin last week for previously saying, "I'd say right now we have well over 55 votes for a public option, but we need 60" -- while now shrugging his shoulders and saying not even 50 exist.
Harkin also claimed on MSNBC that nobody has fought harder for the public option than him. I've been a longtime Harkin fan, but at this point, that claim is laughable. I can name at least 30 senators who have fought harder than Harkin, with more likely to come.
People can help fund the online ads pressuring Harkin and others here -- and can join 200,000 others in signing the petition to Harkin and others here.
The avalanche of Senate support for the public option will continue. Who do you think is next to take a stand?
Follow Adam Green on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Adamgreenonline
My $0.02:
We all know that there will be no public option WITHOUT using reconciliation so it is not intellectually honest to simultaneously claim to support the public option but oppose using reconciliation to achieve that goal; and it is simply inhumane to squirm, as Rockefeller has, that the intricacies of the Senate are even worth considering in this context.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/24/155120/418
Market capitalism is a failed system where health care is concerned.
Consider the basis of market capitalism. A transaction occurs between a buyer and a seller. In an ideal world, each has free will and equal power. The seller can offer goods or services for a price; the buyer can take it or leave it. The interplay, or negotiation if you prefer, between the two determines the price.
But now shift your focus to the health care "market". A very narrow group of sellers sets the price. It might be the price of health insurance (and the coverage you do or don't receive for it) or it might be the price of health care itself. "Mr. Smith, if you don't have this operation, you're going to die." "No thanks, that operation is too expensive. I think I'll pass."
The two parties to a transaction where necessities are involved are not equal. One party is in a position to blackmail the other with loss of life or loss of home being the consequence. This is not a "free" market; it's capitalist exploitation plain and simple. There is no free will or buyer choice when there is no choice. In such markets, we, as a society, need to intervene in the transaction to set the rules. The rules I would prefer to see would reflect a decency and humanity and caring for our fellow citizens instead of reflecting greed and selfishness and inhumanity.
Capitalism, when you're shopping for a TV or a car, is fine; when necessities are involved, capitalism is pure evil. We should aspire to something better. If you want to call that socialism, which I define as caring about people, that's fine with me.
Here's the problem we face with our health care system. Imagine that an insurance company wants to increase its profits and chooses to double the cost of its premiums. The obvious effect would be that many customers would drop their coverage completely. Others would shift to policies that offered far less coverage with much larger deductibles. They would be "self-insuring" and incurring much more cost when illness strikes. And, a few "lucky" ones would just pay the increase. If these changes resulted in increased profits for the insurance company, they'll double their rates. This is the calculation that was just made by Anthem Blue Cross who raised their rates by as much as 39% to some policyholders.
The problem is that their singular pursuit of profits, which is what their corporate charter calls for, is not in the interest of the US or its citizens. The idea of insurance, be it privately provided or provided by government through taxation, is to "share the risk." At its core, it has a "we're all in this together" societal purpose. If your neighbor gets sick and incurs costs beyond his means, insurance, public or private, helps him avoid disaster; if you get sick, the same applies.
When private insurers, however, seek to maximize profits, the core purpose of insurance as an industry is perverted. The goal is no longer "maximum sharing of risk"; the goal is pure greed and maximum profits.
That is why I argue that market capitalism is a failed system where necessities are involved.
Let's take one last case that parallels the insurance example above. Take a pharmaceutical company that develops a unique cancer drug. First, let's make sure we understand that a very substantial amount of research for new pharmaceuticals is paid for by the US government through a system of federal grants. Once again, we have a poor soul with cancer whose only chance to survive is taking this newly developed drug. Rather than basing their price for the drug on what it actually cost to produce it, the drug company prices the drug much, much higher because they easily can see the pathetically weak bargaining position the cancer patient is in. Nice, huh? The price is not "cost based"; it's pure exploitation based on whatever they can get away with in the "market". Is that the society we want? Capitalism takes the sickest people we have in the most desperate situations we can imagine and exploits the hell out of them.
Instead of whining away about socialism, let's start hearing a little compassion for your fellow citizens.
For a quick link: http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/
Further, although I can not verify it, Afghanistan will have a similar system paid for by us.
Yet, we Americans are the real 3rd world citizens here in terms of health care. Even the crap we eat in our food supply has been banned in Europe, but it's okay to use Americans as guinea pigs. When is enough enough?
with rethugs saying passing this health care reform is dem career suicide...seems to me it's the thing to do...
Dems are worried about their seats?....if they all said..."screw it..I don't care if I get elected or not...I'm voting for the public option"....I can just about guarantee everyone of them will be voted BACK into office untill they can no longer physically perform their duties...
What I think is even funnier is that I a person was out front, doing the tally for the votes against moving the "public option" through reconciliation, they'd probably already have near the 50 votes to declare that the "public option" is dead. Hate to bust your bubble, but it needs to be popped.
Now, on a quick count, you can safely say that the entire Republican Party's delegation is unified in its' opposition to the "public option" or any of the ideas that the Democrats want to advance. Suffice to say, that almost immediately becomes 41 votes against the "public option".
Since the debate began, Nelson(D-NE), Lieberman(D-CT), Landrieu(D-LA), and Lincoln(D-AR) have been out front with their opposition to the "public option", so that ow takes the vote tally to 45 votes.
Sen. Rockefeller, a one-time proponent, just came out with his statement that he couldn't support pushing the public option through reconciliation. 46 votes.
And the you have a slew of 8-10 Senators whose main fear would be how a "public option" would affect their local hospital.
And it won't benefit the republicans. They've shown themselves obsolete; the Dems are simply corrupt but that can be fixed in three words: campaign finance reform.
What planet are you living on , and how long are you going to say something is true when it is just not.
The senators aren't voting for this bill because they know they will lose their jobs, come November.
You don't care what the majority of the people think as long as you get your " public option".
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
But the Republicans cranked up the lie machines, and they convinced millions that the public option wasa socialist plot (never mind that those socialist countries have better health, insure everyone, and do it all at a fraction of the cost of our private system).