When it comes to health care reform -- when it comes to lowering costs and finally doing something about the millions of people in this country who live just one medical emergency away from financial ruin -- "no" is not a serious response.
So when John King from CNN asked me if I would vote for health care reform, even if it meant losing my job, it was easy for me to answer.
I said "Yes."
There is no reason we should buy the political scare tactics of opponents who say supporting health care reform is a one-way ticket out of office.
I'm not a career politician, so the ways of Washington may be a little obscure to me. But in my conversations across Colorado, people tell me they want results, not rhetoric, from their representatives. So maybe a few more one-word answers and a little less political-speak is exactly what people want.
There is simply no way we are going to make progress on the enormous challenges we face without making hard choices. It's impossible. I'm reminded of the time when, as Superintendent of Denver Public Schools, we were faced with the difficult task of closing schools that were underperforming or virtually empty. We were spending our money not on kids, but on empty space, as we had been doing for years.
It wasn't the politically popular thing to do, but we moved forward because we knew it was the right thing to do for our kids. We pushed ahead, we held meetings, talked to the community, and did our best to explain why allowing these schools to stay open was the moral equivalent of accepting failure for our kids. And, when it was over, most people supported the change.
Health care is much the same -- the status quo is, by all measures, failing far too many people -- and we must not shrink from the challenge.
If we are serious, there is no doubt that we can pass a health care bill that gets costs under control, helps to reduce the deficit, and provides quality, affordable choices for all Americans.
I've visited all of Colorado's 64 counties, and held town halls across the state to discuss health care reform. In every county, people have shared horror stories -- from small business owners struggling to cover their employees to families confronted with impossible choices as insurance companies drop coverage from their loved ones when they get sick. People are asking for help -- and leadership.
Our failure to provide adequate health coverage isn't just bad for families -- or for business owners who see their employees as family -- it's bad for business. At the rate we're going, health care costs will eat further and further into our economy, crippling our competitiveness and stifling economic growth.
Saturday's vote was a critical step, but we are just starting what may be the most heated battles in this long fight. Those who oppose reform are desperately trying to stop it in its tracks with their outrageous and extreme attempts to sneak in irresponsible provisions, derail the bill all together, or misrepresent what is in it.
But this is a defining moment in our country's history. It's a tremendous opportunity to finally address one of the most vexing public policy problems facing this nation.
To protect our country's economic future and the health and well being of all Americans, we must find a way to rein in out-of-control costs, provide quality, affordable health care choices to all, and make outrageous insurance industry abuses a thing of the past.
What the cynics and the skeptics don't understand is that these decisions are not for the next year or the next election cycle -- they have implications for the next 50 and 100 years.
It's up to us to do what we can to ensure that generations down the line look back on this moment and say we made the hard choices, we did the hard work to build a better future for this country.
That's our cause. And now's not the time to let politics as usual, or even one person's job in Washington, stand in the way.
Michael Bennet is the junior United States Senator from Colorado. Support a strong voice for health care reform. Join Michael's 2010 campaign today at BennetForColorado.com.
Follow Sen. Michael Bennet on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BennetForCO
Pinnacol Assurance.
I guess the TEA Parties, phone calls, faxes, emails, 911 rallies, march on DC with over 1 million concerned Americans (how many pro-socialized health care Americans have marched on DC?), etc didn’t get the message across.
Real reform would allow interstate insurance plans like we have for auto, property and life. Tort reform is major reform; maybe when you sue somebody over health care treatment the losing party should cover the legal expenses for BOTH side. That would help discourage frivolous suits and force down malpractice insurance that is just passed onto to patients. Encouraging low-cost clinics over ERs for walk-ins who don't have health insurance and expect free treatment is reform.
This new plan ONLY covers 30 million additional people.What about the other 20M?
Tax increases and a $500B decrease in MediCare services? Republicans should have done reform when they had congress. Rather than present a bipartisan bill, we get a radical liberal partisan bill that will cost way more than estimates and will lower the quality and availability of health care; those with cash will be fine. The sad part, you know this. If you don't you, are just running with scissors
What polls, non-partisan, show this is what people in Colorado want?
Oh yes it is, if the public option is not available to everyone. Otherwise there is NO COST CONTROL in this bill.
And if language is included in the bill about ABORTION, then this bill is ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE.
Come to think of it, the teabaggers ought to split off and form their own party, too - though since they seem unable to clearly see the corporate fingerprints all over major elements of their own movement, I doubt they'd be able to keep the corporate poison out of it... oh, they're already doing that, aren't they? - and it IS depressingly corporatist...
...come to think of it, as long as corporations are allowed to make campaign contributions, as long as that money is the lubricant that keeps Washington pumping, it's not going to matter how many parties we have. Any honest politician is so completely hedged in by the corporatists, it's hard for us to even see clearly which politicians ARE the honest ones.
Maybe the only new party we need, is a party with no ideological basis, but simply comprised of political candidates who agree to not take corporate contributions. And that's the only platform that's consistent. In today's environment, such a party would take its members far...
There are two kinds of tea baggers.
1. anti tax
2. anti party, any party
Corporate fascists would be more accurate.
We do need a public option. New developments in prevention of chronic Wesern disease will also assist in undermining costs. Vested interests in BIG Insurance, BIG Pharma, BIG Medicine and BIG Politics have to take second place to the needs of the country. It is that simple.
You need to do the necessary in the Senate - it needs a concerted and co-ordinated approach - we don't mind a few arms being broken here and there.
After 30 years of "Trickle Down" Economics, what this crisis has proven is that Republican methods of deregulating, privatization and and anti-labor policies has lead us down a path of huge disparities in wealth, a concentration of power for the very few, and misery for millions of Americans. While such policies may work in an Aristocratic feudal system, they don't work very well at all in a consumer driven economy which is dependent on the health of the Middle Class.
In fact, if you look at the history of the insurance industry over the last 50 years, then it's clear that the current healthcare crisis is a DIRECT result of these same policies.
Private insurance companies couldn't have GOTTEN this immoral stranglehold on all Americans if it hadn't been for the Republican Economic policy that allowed it to happen (namely privatization and deregulation).
So how can you staunchly support fixing a symptom, while refusing to cure the root of the problem?
You're willing to lose your job for your vote on healthcare, but are you willing to lose your job for your vote on financial reform? These two subjects are intrinsically intertwined. Therefore, if you are unwilling to help cure the root of the problem, then I will be voting for Romanoff in the Democratic Primary.
I'm part of the League of Women Voters - healthcare team. Medicare has massive fraud problems. In the House bill - they address fraud in a number of ways. Example: Doctors cannot refer clients to a hospital that they have a financial stake in. There was an excellent article in the New Yorker magazine (March, April?) on why Medicare is so much more expensive in certain areas of the country. They figured out that in some places doctors were sending patients to hospitals they owned for surgurys they didn't need. (14,000$ per Medicare recipient in Texas vs. 5,000 per Medicare recipient in Iowa). The outcomes were worse for patients in Texas - more procedures actaully hurts people. The House bill addressed many problems - you have to read the bill to know this... The Senate bill is a piece of ----, the Senate is dirty, both sides of the isle are corrupt. Senator Bennet is my senator - I'm proud to say.
Passing this monstrosity makes the whole country certain for an eventual financial ruin.