Calling Out the House Progressive Caucus: Are You Men and Women, or Are You Mice?

Yeah, that means you Weiner, and you Grayson, and you Schakowsky, and you Grijalva and you Woolsey, and all the rest of you in the House Progressive Caucus (I think there were at least 60) who signed a letter to Speaker Pelosi last summer promising to vote against any health reform bill that did not contain a "robust" public option including, at a minimum, Medicare plus 5% pricing.

Were you serious or were you just bluffing? Because if you were just bluffing, you've done some serious damage to your credibility. When people get caught bluffing, no one believes them the next time they make a promise.

If you break your pledge and vote for a health reform bill without this minimally robust version of the public option, you've ensured your own political impotence, and more critically, ensured that even with a Democratic Congressional majority, all "reform" -- whether in health care, financial regulation, climate change, Afghanistan, or any other issue -- will be limited by what's acceptable to your Blue Dog colleagues and their corporate contributors.

In addition to betraying the hopes of millions of people who worked their hearts out to elect Barack Obama and a Democratic majority, you will help suppress Democratic turnout, by demobilizing the Democratic base, and enable big Republican gains in 2010 and 2012, just as happened in 1994.

It may be that right now you're 10-12 votes short of the 213 needed to pass a health reform bill with a Medicare plus 5% public option in the House. In that case, it's still better that the bill be defeated the first time it comes to the floor, or that Speaker Pelosi delays a vote.

First of all, passing a health care bill which mandates that all Americans must buy private health insurance or face a stiff fine -- which doesn't include a public option strong enough to put downward pressure on premiums -- would be a disaster for Democrats when voters eventually catch on to reality that "health care reform" actually means they'll be forced to pay higher premiums or be fined by the government. Secondly, the White House thinks it needs a "win" on health care. Holding strong on your threat to vote down a health care bill that doesn't include a "robust" public option will force the White House to twist enough Blue Dog arms to round up the extra 10-12 votes. If the White House can't pull that off, then it's probably better for Democrats that this health care bill be defeated and you come back next year and try to pass something better. Thirdly, and most importantly, following through on your threat to block a weak health reform bill will give the Progressive caucus real power with which the White House and Blue Dogs will have to reckon, and will impact what is achievable in other important areas like climate change and financial regulation.

While you're at it, insist that Speaker Pelosi restore the Kucinich Amendment, which removes impediments from states trying to implement their own single payer plans. Many of you have told your constituents that you're ideally for single payer and are only supporting a "robust" public option as a "pragmatic" alternative that can be passed now. If a public option makes it through the Senate, it's likely to include a state "opt out". The least you can do, in exchange, is insist that the legislation include a state "opt in" for single payer. That, alone, might make up for many of the corporate-friendly compromises already incorporated into health care "reform".

In many of the states you represent -- including California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, New Mexico, New York and Pennsylvania -- there are vibrant movements among your constituents to pass state single payer systems. In fact, in my State of California, single payer has passed the legislature twice, only to be vetoed by Republican Gov. Schwarzenegger. If California can elect a Democratic Governor in 2010, it could become the first state to enact single payer, much as Sasckatchewan first enacted single payer in Canada, and then was so successful that it was adopted by the rest of the country. Incorporating the Kucinich amendment will provide an outlet when, in a few years, health care costs continue to escalate and remain unaffordable for many American individuals and businesses, even if health care "reform" is implemented.

Many of you have repeatedly gone on television to tout your support for a "robust" public option, using it to increase your "street cred" in your safe Democratic districts.

If you now go back on your pledge to vote against health care "reform" without a "robust" pubic option, you will demoralize your base, and your word will never be trusted again, either by your supporters, the White House, or your adversaries among Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans.

Comments

[LynnW49]

This is the moment of truth, and I agree that if Progressives cave on this, the immense support for Democrats in Congress and the White House and their promised agenda will have been squandered utterly.

As much as health care reform has the "urgency of now", I would rather see it fail that be told I must buy insurance in a rigged and monopolized marketplace.

I really do not understand why the two major aspects of the bill cannot be decoupled--pass reform now (regulations on private industry), and then write separate legislation (Medicare for Everyone) immediately after.

[MTLAUREL]

If it goes down, the republicans can't point fingers because they did not help to get a good bill. Can Obama then be freed up to work on something that he can succeed on? That is the next big question.

[creolechild]

Part II--

I'm a single-payer advocate but the harsh reality is that we have to work with what we have...and it's the public option. Perhaps single-payer may one day become a reality. I hope so but I don't know. None of us do. However, if this is our shot to pave the way for REAL reform we should take advantage of it to ensure that the bill signed by the President won't continue to put us in harm's way---at the mercy of the insurance industry.

We need everyone's support on this issue to get it done right: single-payer advocates, Medicare For All advocates, and those who support the public option. We've come to far to give up now... Please take a few minutes to email or call the Congressional Progressive Caucus today and let our voices be heard, in unison, for a strong public option that includes the Weiner and Kucinich amendments. We can do this...YES WE WILL!!!

Contact information for the CPC can be found by clicking on the following link:
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?SectionID=4&ParentID=0&SectionTypeID=2&SectionTree=4

Peace.

[creolechild]

Part I--

Excellent commentary, Miles. Remember when Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, made the following statements:

"We in the majority must have the courage to do what is in our power to do, and pass a bill that guarantees access to affordable, quality healthcare. Standing by and praying the insurance companies will develop a conscience can be no more. If we are to ensure that all Americans receive healthcare that is accessible, guaranteed and of high quality, we must include a public option. I will continue to be vigilant on ensuring that the final legislation contains a strong public option that prioritizes people, not corporations. Anything less is unacceptable."
http://thehill.com/special-reports/healthcare-september-23-2009/59861-public-option--accept-nothing-less

I think we should hold the Congressional Progressive Caucus accountable and remind them of their promise. Bombard them with emails and calls urging them not to cave in by supporting a weak and watered-down health care bill because "anything less is unacceptable."

[fabricnthreads]

I hope they read this, get some cajones and vote NO. These bills are atrocious.

[chopel]

Spot on, Miles.

It seems to me the demoralization of the base is already well under way. By not strongly supporting a robust public option, the WH has indicated its willingness to sell us out. If the progressive caucus supports a bill without a public option, the demoralization of the base will hit a critical mass. Disillusionment will set in; hope will be lost; the dem party will be seen for the impotent and incompetent group of legislators that they are; and dem voter turnout will plummet in 2012. The time is now for the progressive caucus to make their stand meaningful. Its up to the progressive caucus to save the Obama presidency!

Mr President, if I might offer this suggestion: fire Rahm Emanuel!

[LynnW49]

Second that.

I do not understand the suicidal tendencies of the Dems. They are getting huge sums from the private insurers and pharma industry, but I have never heard of anyone taking money in exchange for killing themselves.

[bmull]

You're right as always Miles. The irony is the bill was watered down to try to please Blue Dogs--but the Blue Dogs are going to get burned by the backlash against a bad bill anyway. In my view the right way to do this was to pass a really good bill, and let some Blue Dogs vote against it if they needed to. The White House just does not seem capable of letting go of the lowest common denominator strategy. I fear it is leaving us saddled with some really terrible legislation.

[ThomH]

If only 10% of the public can opt for it, is it still a public option?

The CBO says the much-vaunted public option will cost more than private insurance and fewer than 3% will elect it. A "strong" public option might be cheaper and more popular, but what good is it if you can't choose it anyway? And why should public insurance underpay physicians?

Let's call "healthcare reform" what it really is: "Public Life Support For Health Insurance Companies."

Kucinich is wrong, it's not a bailout - a bailout is temporarry, this is permanent, like farm subsidies.

The current House bill will lead to a steep jump in insurance prices, a big tax increase, dangerous cuts to Medicare, a higher total national healhcare bill, continued medical bankruptcies, and will leave some 20 million people still uncovered.

But Karen Ignani can justly claim her big bonus this year - her army of lobbyists spewing cash around Washington will have purchased a bill that gives the healthcos increased revenues and earnings. And what a bargain: it cost only a small fraction of 1% of their annual gross margin.

The hubris and arrogance of the Dems resembles that of Gingrich after he "took over" in 1995. Pelosi, Reid and Obama behave as though voters don't count, only donors need be heard. Once the reality of their "reform" asserts itself, their arrogant disregard for the interests of voters will bring the vengeance of the electorate down upon them, as happened to Gingrich.

[jkoyas]

I agree 100%. This bill should be voted down! Its time to teach Obama and the other progressive pretenders a lesson!

[PaulSpike]

It makes sense because you're saying that it's up to the progressive Democrats to teach the Administration, by example, the essence of powerful political leadership in 2009.

[blizb]

I agree the public option should be there but unfortunately change comes more slowly than I would like.

I still think if it passes with any type of public option it has a chance of being strengthened with amendments and all Democrats can claim a victory of change with more change to come.

Sometimes it really does take compromise as with any marriage, job or other relationship as much as we all want what we want.

I agree with the progressive stance but I also accept a passage of a bill with any public option to give Democrats an enormous political advantage in order to bring about further change as we move forward.

Already we have done so much and much more than Bush did in 8 years.

[LynnW49]

I've thought about the "strengthen with amendments" later strategy, too. But there will also be a water-down with amendments strategy. And private health insurers will free up the $1.6 million a day spent on lobbying against the bill and channel that into defeating good amendments, writing bad ones, and using lawyers to exempt them from any tatters of reform left hanging around in whatever sorry legislation that does get passed.

The time is now, and action should be bold. Passing a decimated piece of legislation could lead to failures and expenses that opponents of reform will wave like flags in 2010. There would be no political advantage in health reform that will not be perceived as, and actually felt as, genuine reform.

[Awake-and-Sing]

Bravo!

The time has no come for progressives to vigorously stand up for middle class, working class and poor people who would be harmed when they are forced to buy overpriced for-profit insurance at extortion level rates under heavy tax penalty if they don't, with no robust public option to lower costs of everyone's premiums.

If the progressives don't stand up for themselves now, and show more character and courage than the President who refused to draw a line in the sand and stand up and fight for a robust public option, then the Obama/Emanuel/Baucus DLC wing of the party will know that progressives can ALWAYS be rolled.

Sometimes adults have to stand up and fight for what they believe in. Summon up your courage and stand up and fight now for the working class, middle class and poor people who will be severely harmed if the mandate passes without a robust public option.

If the public option cannot be saved, then it is time for Progressives to declare war on the mandate.

Sometimes you have to stand up and fight for your principles. We'll soon see who the REAL progressives are.

[Samalabear]

Thanks for laying this out so clearly. I am totally disheartened by the Progressive Dems. It's no wonder the WH, led by Rahm, did not flinch to slap down the progressive whenever they started to fight for real reform. This health INSURANCE -- not dare -- bill is a nightmare.

They were just talking about the exchanges on PRI's Marketplace, the nightmare Massachusetts' model and how works and expensive the policies are becoming. People at the lower end of the financial spectrum -- small business owners and self-employed, are being forced to buy policies with high deductibles and co-pays, lots, a lot of the lower-premium policies are pure crap, but you don't find out about it until you sign on the dotted line. These policies are also going up thousands a year now. The only way an exchange would work, it would seem, is that if the industry were heavily regulated -- emphasis on heavily -- as they are in other countries. But this will not happen.

I lay this nightmare totally at the feet of President Obama, for not leading one iota on this issue and assisting his sidekick Rahm in slapping down the progressives. And I lay this on the heads of the Progressive Dems if they do no stiffen their collectives spines and vote no on this atrocious bill.

[PaulSpike]

This makes so much sense. Bravo!

[tegrat]

Right on, Miles. Clearly we've reached the point where everybody who knows anything about healthcare policy can accept the fact that the legislation is basically crap. Now we have to deal with the political fallout of not passing anything this year. I think we can handle that and let the states proceed with single-payer plans.

[pajoly]

Obama deserves this bill to fail. A) It is a bad bill, B) He did nothing to advance or advocate for a better one, instead caving without even being pressured in the dim and stupid hope to earn a "bipartisan" bill. It is Obama who gave all this power to Snowe, and then to Liebermann, by virtue of his own tepid efforts. The entire RNC knows Obama will roll over for on any front for the mere hope of a vote.

Obama is a very nice man, a terrific father, and likely an engaging law professor. As a president, he is a God awful executor. Instead, he thinks it is his role to be Encourager-in-Chief.

[Lee Stranahan - Huffpost Blogger]

Preach, brother.