How to Lobby a Blue Dog

Is it time for a new approach in lobbying the Blue Dogs?

The evidence suggests so.

For the past six weeks progressives have been warning conservative Democratic -- and moderate Republican -- legislators that failure for vote for a public insurance option will prove that they are the corrupt and stupid vassals of the evil special interests and that they deserve to be ousted from office in the next election and subsequently rot in hell for eternity.

A forceful argument, especially from those who truly believe it. But apparently not a very successful one. Near as I can tell, not a single one has seen the light and decided to vote for this option. So allow me to suggest something different. The outcome can't be any worse.

Here's my lobbying letter:

Dear Solon Dog,

I write to urge you to vote in favor of including a public insurance option as part of the health reform plan Congress is currently considering. I think it is a key to creating a better system and welcome this opportunity to explain why.

I understand that there are two basic elements in making your choice -- politics and policy -- and would like to address each in turn.

First, the politics. I understand that the public option isn't particularly popular in some Congressional districts at the moment and would welcome the opportunity to help you convince your constituents that it is a positive step. Opposition is organized and this is not a vote to be taken lightly. In that regard, I am not asking you to vote for such a measure unless there's reason to believe that it will ultimately become law. Nothing will be achieved by losing with a slightly greater margin than would otherwise have been the case. We're not talking about sending a message here. The aim is good policy to improve America's health.

I recognize that such a vote will not be easy for you. Opponents will criticize you for it. I will be among those defending you and being supportive in every way possible, however we may differ on other issues that come before this Congress. This is a defining issue that trumps other regional or cultural differences.

The policy argument here is, I believe, fairly clear. Private insurers have not done a terribly good job in recent years and have not been as responsive as they could have been -- or should have been -- to consumer concerns. One aim of this legislation is to make them more responsive by barring them from discriminating against Americans with pre-existing conditions who most need insurance coverage. But that alone is not enough.

Americans of every stripe believe in competition and we need more of it in the health insurance industry. In market after market, a single private insurer dominates. That's not good health policy or good economic policy. Injecting competition from a non-profit plan will help. The good private insurers will adjust and compete. The bad ones will have difficulty. That's the way our free enterprise system is supposed to work.

I know many are suspicious of government programs, believing that they are inherently inefficient. There's a one-word answer to that -- Medicare. It is the nation's biggest health insurance program and its most efficient. It also serves the happiest insured population.
Other health programs, including Tricare and the VA, have a record that matches that of any private firm.

The public plan would merely be one of several options available to all Americans. If no one takes it -- and the experts estimate that only about 10% of Americans would during the first five years -- no harm would be done. If Americans flocked to it, their behavior would push the private insurance industry to be more responsive.

It is an experiment with a positive prognosis and little potential downside.

I hope this begins to suggest why I'm so supportive of the public option and would welcome an opportunity to respond to any questions you may have about it. I know you join me in your commitment to coming up with a plan that will improve today's costly system and hope that you'll come to realize that a public plan is a key tool in achieving that goal. I look forward to a collaborative effort going forward.

Your friend ,

Jim Jaffe

Comments

[levitrain]

How will the author's support actually help a Blue Dog Democrat, unpopular among their own constituents (who are opposed to a public option regardless of the logic of such a plan), get re-elected? Moral support does not translate into votes on election day.

[Jim Jaffe - Huffpost Blogger]

same logic as threats. money's always helpful. so are volunteers. couldn't agree with you more on using moral support as currency. yet that seems to be what many public plan supporters are attempting when they promise dire response if vote is wrong. I prefer promising a positive response if they vote right. btw, that's how many of the Big Boy lobbyists here do it.

[sunny123]

Best letter I've seen. Can all of us copy it and send it to the blue dogs? Great job laying it out in simple, easy to understand terms. Thank you.

[Jim Jaffe - Huffpost Blogger]

thanks. can't claim originality in that it was derived from lobbying letters I've written -- and received -- in various Washington day jobs.

[Amandagram]

Thanks for this! I want to send a letter to every Blue Dog but I'm not sure where to send them. I have a list of Blue Dog Reps without their local addresses. Can I send them to their House offices? Will they read them?

Do you know which Dems in the Senate are wavering on the Public Option? I want to write to them, too. We are this close to finally getting health care reform and I want to do anything and everything I can to persuade our reps to do it right.

I will personalize the letters but try to make the same points you've made and take the same positive approach. I'm in California. Is it useless to extend my mailings to Blue Dogs in other states?

Thanks for any advice you can offer.

[Amandagram]

Where are you Jim Jaffee? Is this site dead now? I'm kind of a novice at this.