(This message originated from Moveon.Org, but Joe & I thought it was worth repeating here. I have edited it a tiny bit. -JG)
The Huffington Post is reporting that the Blue Dog Coaltion says it will "only support the public health care option as a fallback measure that would be triggered sometime down the road." If you're following the current healthcare reform debate, you know that a "trigger" means the creation of a public health insurance option would be delayed for years until certain criteria were met. This is a bad idea, and threatens to undermine any real "reform" by ensuring that it "may happen someday, but not now."
President Obama and 73% of Americans think every American should have a choice between keeping their insurance or opting into a quality public health insurance plan. But the concern is that the Blue Dog Coalition and Rep. Carney seem to be siding instead with Republicans and the insurance industry over the voters.
Please call Rep. Carney, and tell him: "We need a public health insurance option immediately. The 'trigger' plan is unacceptable."
The public health insurance option would allow you to keep your current insurance, if you like, or switch to a public health insurance plan. In the absence of "single-payor" reform, it's the key to lowering costs and making sure all of us have guaranteed access to health care. But some Blue Dogs, like Newt Gingrich said the other day, seem to be more concerned that "a public option stacks the deck" against insurance companies than actually being concerned about Americans' healthcare. Don't be fooled: The trigger proposal is an attempt to defeat the public health insurance option. It would delay a public health insurance option for years. But we know there's already a crisis: high costs, millions of uninsured, and a lack of choice for all of us. We cannot afford to wait. Please call right now.
Sources:
1. "Blue Dogs Backsliding on Health Care," Huffington Post, June 8, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51485&id=16350-8030410-ioKh3xx&t=4
2. Ibid.
3. "Fixing Health Care Does Not Require a 'Bi-Partisan' Bill—It Does Require a Public Health Insurance Option," Huffington Post, June 8, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51486&id=16350-8030410-ioKh3xx&t=5
4. "Blue Dogs Backsliding On Health Care," Huffington Post, June 8, 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51485&id=16350-8030410-ioKh3xx&t=6
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
We are starting to see the effects of having both health care and energy as CSCC priorities. Both of these issues are coming to a boil right now. It's hard to know where to focus. Which one is going to come to a decisive vote first?
We are starting to see the effects of having both health care and energy as CSCC priorities. Both of these issues are coming to a boil right now. It's hard to know where to focus. Which one is going to come to a decisive vote first?
It is hard to say; it sounds like Congress wants to push healthcare off until after the July 4th holiday, but Obama seems to be increasing the pressure, if anything, with today's press conference and Wednesday's ABC special.
As far as contacting Carney and our other reps goes, I think we need to keep pressure on both issues, because both *are* important and if we're lucky, something is actually going to come to fruition on both of them. But we need the so-called "moderate" Dems to listen to their constituents and not just their donors.
I think the Democrats are actually wise in attacking both issues head-on, more or less simultaneously. Why set each one up slowly, giving the vast right-wing noise machine a chance to focus all their efforts on knocking each one down as it comes? Obama seems in a better position to push multiple issues than the Republicans are in a position to derail several things at once without further cementing their images as the party of 'No.'
Post a Comment