Rep. Cao steps up

Joseph Cao voted yea on healthcare reform!

This couldn't have been easy. He was the only Republican to break ranks. I'm glad he did.

Though I am pro-choice and proud, the Congressman is clearly passionate about his side of that endless debate and at the very least, I respect the consistency with which he couched his reservations about healthcare reform in terms of the language around abortion.

On the other hand, Congressman Charlie Melancon voted no. It's getting harder to figure out how he'd be an improvement over David Vitter.

How about Joseph Cao for Senate instead? 

Here is his full statement:

Tonight, Congressman Anh “Joseph” Cao (LA-2) voted in favor of the comprehensive health reform bill, H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

Of his vote, Cao said: “Tonight, I voted to keep taxpayer dollars from funding abortion and to deliver access to affordable health care to the people of Louisiana.

Cao said: “I read the versions of the House [health reform] bill. I listened to the countless stories of Orleans and Jefferson Parish citizens whose health care costs are exploding – if they are able to obtain health care at all. Louisianans needs real options for primary care, for mental health care, and for expanded health care for seniors and children.

The bill passed the House at a 220-215 vote.

Cao said: “Today, I obtained a commitment from President Obama that he and I will work together to address the critical health care issues of Louisiana including the FMAP crisis and community disaster loan forgiveness, as well as issues related to Charity and Methodist Hospitals. And, I call on my constituents to support me as I work with him on these issues.

Cao said: “I have always said that I would put aside partisan wrangling to do the business of the people. My vote tonight was based on my priority of doing what is best for my constituents.

H.R. 3962 included the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which will keep in place current federal law on abortion funding and conscience protections for health care providers.

Cao said: “Before the Stupak-Pitts amendment was adopted as part of this health reform bill, the bill failed to explicitly include the longstanding policy prohibiting federal funding of elective abortion and plans which include elective abortion.”

According to a letter from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops dated November 7, 2009, “The [Stupak-Pitts] Amendment will not affect coverage of abortion in nonsubsidized health plans, and will not bar anyone from purchasing a supplemental abortion policy with their own funds.”

Cao said: “Thank to the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, taxpayer dollars will not go to supporting elective abortions, and for thousands of my constituents, this was a top priority. By incorporating this amendment into the health reform bill, my colleagues and I made this bill better, and that is an achievement of which I will always be proud.”

Archbishop Gregory M. Aymond, the archbishop of New Orleans, said: “I am grateful to Congressman Cao for his courage and determination to defend life. I appreciate his work to prevent abortion from being included in health care reform and for protecting conscience rights of health care professionals. I – and, I am sure, many in New Orleans would join me – [I] appreciate Congressman Cao's commitment to the people of New Orleans."

Urgent! Tell Congressman Cao to vote yes on healthcare reform

The House of Representatives is going to vote on healthcare reform tomorrow. That's right, tomorrow.

At yesterday's Bachmann-inspired rally staged at the Capital, the House GOP leaders promised that not one Republican would vote for the bill.

The Republican leadership is going to be leveraging incredible pressure on their members, including Congressman Cao.

I just called Congressman Cao's offices in D.C. (202-225-6630) and New Orleans (504-483-2325) and asked whether or not the Congressman had planned to vote yes or no.

He apparently remains undecided.

I urged his staff to pass along my hopes that the Congressman will choose to vote yes.

Should Congressman summon the courage to vote in the interest of the public health of this district instead of the in the interest of a symbolic partisan rebuke, he will have my support against whatever sanction he may receive from GOP leadership.

This is our last chance to convince Congressman Cao to do what is right and to do what is wise.

Please let the Congressman know how important it is to you, this district, and the country that we increase access to care and lower costs.

It is time to be resolved.

Make sure the Congressman's staff gets your name. Make sure they know you are registered to vote in the 2nd district.

Tell them why you expect a yes vote out of your Congressman.

Washington Office 2113 Rayburn HOB Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-6636 Fax: (202) 225-1988

.

New Orleans Office 4640 So. Carrollton Ave. Suite 120 New Orleans, LA 70119 Phone: (504) 483-2325 Fax: (504) 483-7944

Breaking: Impossible looking increasingly possible

The Senate healthcare reform bill will create a national public option with an opt-out provision to allow states to choose not to participate.

Remember four weeks ago when the public option was declared dead?

A few thoughts:

1. The progressive grassroots organizations that took all that heat for running tough ads against wayward Democrats deserve some credit. They refused to cave.

2. Harry Reid deserves some credit. Though grassroots pressure made success on the public option absolutely critical to the Senate leader's reelection next year, Reid had to do the heavy lifting to get Baucus and other moderates on board with a public option. He is forging ahead with the preferable opt-out compromise even though the trigger policy seems to have had more votes. That shows backbone.

3. The White House deserves slightly less credit. Though I wish we'd used single-payer as a starting point and think we'd be much further along if we had, you have to give the White House some applause for preaching patience and for allowing space for the Senate to negotiate.

4. We have a bit of a ways to go and a lot more work to do. Call Mary Landrieu and urge her to support the opt-out compromise. Reach her in New Orleans at (504) 589-2427. Reach her in D.C. at (202)224-5824.


We are so close to passing a pretty damn good healthcare reform bill.

Public option gaining steam? (updated)

Polls are showing support for the public option holding steady or growing. I am starting to believe that the pressure exerted from the grassroots on this aspect of healthcare reform could ultimately prove to have worked. Progressive dissatisfaction with Democrats for waffling on the issue is being noticed in incumbent campaign bank accounts to the point that I think Harry Reid's only chance at reelection is to be perceived as a fighter for the public option.

Today, Organizing for America and others have called on supporters of healthcare reform to inundate members of Congress with over 100,000 phone calls.

Here is how you can team up with OFA to do that.

Senator Landrieu and Congressmen Melancon and Cao are right in the middle of this and their votes carry considerable real or symbolic influence.

They must hear from their constituents. Please take five minutes to be a part of this effort.

Update:

I made my calls to the D.C. office today.

Have you done yours yet?

Congressman Cao's staffer was very friendly and she willing to discuss the Congressman's position for good amount of time. We bonded. Senator Vitter's office noted my call. Senator Landrieu's office didn't pick up the phone after 10 rings.

Organizing for America shattered their goal of 100,000 calls to Congress. They've more than doubled it, as a matter of fact.


Update II:

Senator Mary Landrieu says she doesn't like the public option because she suddenly doesn't like medicare and medicaid. I didn't know she had such distaste for those programs. That's the first time I've ever heard her say anything like this before and I find her logic to be quite misleading and discouraging.

I don't think she'll join a GOP fillibuster but given the momentum for healthcare reform right now, her recalcitrance is deeply troubling considering the promises she's made to working families in Louisiana over the course of her career.

This sounds promising for the country but not so much for us

Healthcare reform is finally creaking forward in the Senate. The CBO score on the Baucus bill should pretty much guarantee that the thing is going to finally get out of the finance committee.

Senator Schumer has been leading the charge to rally Democratic colleagues to support sort of public option once the Baucus bill is married to the one that emerged from the HELP committee.

On that front, it appears that a compromise is in the works that seems like it could win the support of blue dog Senators without alienating progressive votes.

The bill would include a national public option healthcare plan, which I think, is a major victory.

But it would also allow individual states to opt out, to prohibit its citizens from choosing the public option.

Now for most of the country, this is a great deal.

For people in Louisiana and elsewhere in the Deep South this might not be so great.

Though I think the politics of denying Louisiana residents the opportunity to participate in a national program like the public option is quite a bit more difficult than halting the creation of the program in the first place, I don't think there will be a shortage of ultraconservative politicos willing to roll the dice.

It also exposes what I consider to be the central challenge to progressive politics in the United States. To what extent can the Democratic Party and the loose progressive coalition that brought it back to power continue to throw overboard minority, poor, and working class families of the South and other ultraconservative areas when it comes to enacting policies that poor and working class families in conservative districts and states need more than anybody else?

If families and individuals from Louisiana, perhaps the state with the absolute worst healthcare outcomes of all, can't take a crack at a national public option program because of ridiculous GOP intransigence and Democratic cowardice, it would be tragic.

Still, I think the right thing to do is to swallow hard, embrace this sort of compromise for the good of the country, and take our chances fighting any state politicians that want to deny Louisiana residents the right to choose the public option.

What say you?

Feeling Bullish

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I thought this speech was brilliant in so many ways.

He avoided drawing hard lines in the sand on most of the specific policy proposals he personally favors.

But he drew several lines in the sand on the principles at stake here.

Either you're for participating in the creation and passage of a critically important but imperfect healthcare and health insurance reform bill or you're against it.

Either you're for working with the President to fix problems or you're against it.

He's putting his Presidency on the line.

Because if we can't fix healthcare, with all the general agreement there is on what the problems are, we're not going to be able to fix anything at all.

Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, corporate Democrat enemy number one of liberal progressives for his role watering down healthcare reform in the upper chamber, who stood steadfast against the public option in the face of hundreds of thousands of dollars of ads, said after the speech that it was a "game changer."

He's on board and will work with the President to pass the best bill they can.

Who else we got?

Max Baucus of Montana?

Olympia Snow of Maine?

Susan Collins of Maine?

Mary Landrieu of Louisiana?

George Voinovich of Ohio?

The New Guy of Florida?

What are you all going to do? Who you with? What side are you on?

--

Senator Landrieu's statement after the speech:

“President Obama’s speech tonight was very much needed to keep Congress on track to find a solution for the health care challenges facing our country. It was a sincere and heartfelt effort to unify Democrats and reach out to Republicans to forge common ground and build a broader coalition. Moving this debate forward will take principled compromise and an approach that draws from the very best ideas – regardless of political party.

“The President rightfully focused on the need to lower health care costs for families, businesses and the government. If Congress does not find the resolve to pass health care legislation, people will not be able to afford the insurance they like or get the quality coverage they need, and the federal government will not be able to balance its budget.

“Skyrocketing health insurance premiums and unstable costs have hurt even our most successful small businesses and stifled job growth at a time when our economy needs a jolt. Insurance reform and the new insurance exchanges that the President highlighted are excellent solutions to giving consumers and small businesses greater choice, and with it, competitive prices in a market-based approach.

“The coming weeks and months will produce a spirited debate. But as the President said, the time is now for improving health care. Our current system is unsustainable and is costing our nation more than $2 trillion a year. Louisiana and all of America simply cannot afford the status quo.”

This sounds like she's is ready and willing to vote for healthcare reform even if it includes a public option triggered four years from now with the launch of an insurance exchange and I hope that my interpretation of her position is correct.

It is shameful she hasn't been a strong advocate for healthcare reform. I don't think it's politically risky to contrast oneself with David Vitter's position. I think there is way less downside risk if one is a fierce supporter of healthcare reform but a lot of potential benefit. Conversely, hanging back until the last minute before ultimately voting for healthcare reform, which is what I expect the Senator to do, would seem to be to carry all of the downside risk without any of the potential benefits.

It was cowardly, especially given that she's not even up for reelection for another five years.

--

Congressman Cao told the Times-Picayune he was "relieved" by Obama's assertion that there would be no funding for abortion in the healthcare reform bill.

That's important. At a forum last week in New Orleans East broadcast by WBOK, Cao insisted that there was federal funding for abortion in the bill over the objections of the crowd.

As a result, Tracie Washington posed a hypothetical question to the Congressman, which he clearly answered. Even though the abortion myth has been debunked by nonpartisan fact checkers for weeks prior to the President's speech last night, Washington wondered whether Cao would support the bill if it had everything he wanted but didn't include additional specific language pertaining to abortion.

She asked if abortion was a deal-breaker.

And Cao said yes.

So Congressman Cao's statement to the Times-Picayune is very encouraging. I would strongly urge him to become that rare Republican advocate for healthcare reform from here on out. I don't expect that but I would applaud him loudly if that's what he ends up doing.

Chicken Soup

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

No more political pussy-footing. Pass healthcare reform now.

Real World: Westwego

Last night I went to Congressman Joe Cao's town hall event in Westwego.

It was pretty uncomfortable.

Nobody flew off the handle and there were no gun shows. It certainly wasn't the worst of the worst. The small auditorium was probably 75% against. He took maybe ten questions but only one from someone in support of healthcare reform.

I'd never heard Congressman Cao talk off-the-cuff for such a long period of time. His explanations of the healthcare reform proposals were kind of disjointed. I'm not sure how much of that is related to his accent and how much of it is related to his lack of confidence about his knowledge about what's actually included in the HELP bill.

For instance, he then went on for awhile about how he was worried that illegal immigrants might be exempt from the individual mandate, which of course is a ridiculous argument because if you're worried about benefits going to undocumented workers, you certainly wouldn't want them in the mandate system, which would make them eligible for subsidies, the insurance exchange, or the public option.

Besides:

House Bill: "No Federal Payment for Undocumented Aliens." According to America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, Page 143, Line 3, Section 246: "No Federal Payment for Undocumented Aliens. Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." [America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, accessed 7/22/09

Favorite question from audience member:

"I guess I understand that we need some kind of reform. But why does it have to be a bill."

Cao cracked a nice smile at that one. Because that's how laws are made, my dear.

A high percentage audience questions were phrased in terms of how wrong it is that "lazy" people would get health insurance on the backs of "hard-working" people.

One of the more disappointing moments came when a woman went on a long and inarticulate rant about how because the Obama administration is answering emails with questions about healthcare reform, their should be some sort of investigation. This is the latest Fox News fear-smear. Cao should have knocked it down but instead said he'd have to look into the woman's claims.

Cao's office also collects email addresses and answers questions via email.

After the event, I walked up to the stage to ask the Congressman if he was still "leaning" toward supporting the bill. If he said yes, I was going to thank him.

But instead he just hedged a whole bunch. He backed off. He wouldn't say he was leaning toward it.

At some point or another he's going to have to say what he believes. He's going to have to vote on this at some point very soon. We're all going to know about it.

So he might as well just come out now and say what it is he's going to do for his constituents on this.

Make a decision and live with the consequences.

Seriously.

--

After the event I stayed around for a little while and discussed my thoughts on the bill with some of the anti-reform folks that were there. It's amazing how people react when you start telling them the facts. When you explain that we have the highest costs in the world and the 37th best outcomes, when you explain how taxes already pay for people's healthcare except only at its most expensive point - the ER, when you inject a little reality into things... well, it just confounds people.

It made me feel bad. We're so far apart on what the basic facts are.

People are being taken advantage and they're being lied to. It's a shame.

Questions for Congressman Cao

I'm in Pittsburgh and unfortunately will be missing Congressman Cao's event tonight in my Irish Channel neighborhood.

Thursday, August 13th
Neighborhood Association Meeting
Irish Channel Christian Fellowship
819 First Street
New Orleans, LA
7pm-8pm CST

Here is what I would ask him about healthcare if I could.

1. Does Congressman Cao support extending the opportunity to create living wills to medicare recipients?

2. Does Congressman Cao support an individual mandate that would require all Americans to carry health insurance?

3. Does Congressman Cao support expanding medicare eligibility and/or increasing subsidies to help poor people afford insurance?

4. Does Congressman Cao support requiring employers to contribute to the health insurance costs of their employees?

5. Does Congressman Cao support changing incentive systems to reward quality of care over quantity?

6. Does Congressman Cao support regulating the private insurance industry to prohibit companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions?

7. Does Congressman Cao support health insurance exchanges where consumers could compare costs and benefits of different insurance plans?

8. Does Congressman Cao support establishing a public option insurance plan to compete with the private insurance industry?

9. Does Congressman Cao believe that the House is proposing the creation of 'death panels?'

Congressman Cao has developed the habit of not taking positions on issues (think stimulus) before he votes the reactionary position with his Party's leaders. It is important that meeting attendees make a real effort to force Mr. Cao to explain what he believes, how he plans to vote, and why.

A loaded gun on the table

Before I get into this, let me first say that I would agree with some reasonable conservative critiques of the legislative process related to healthcare, that people are not as informed as they need to be on the different proposals on the table. I agree that a sweeping overhaul of the systems that govern 17% of our GDP represents an immense undertaking that should be pursued very deliberately. I agree that President Obama overestimated the capacity of the American public to conceptualize the legislative process. I also agree that the President has done real harm to healthcare reform's chances at passing in a reasonable time frame because of a failure to get out in front of some of the more ridiculous lies and smears. That such a large percentage of Americans now view this bill as an imminent threat to their health instead of an imperfect and evolving improvement to our system is deeply troubling.

The problem is, unfortunately, that I'm not sure what I would have had the President do differently aside from getting out in front of the smears faster. In '93, when Clinton dictated a bill to Congress, they freaked. So this time, Obama decided to let Congress do it's constitutionally-authorized job, only to be criticized for not exercising leadership. So I think we're seeing some real structural problems with our civil society that can't really be reduced to "if only Obama had" or "if only Obama hadn't."

I wonder what is salvageable in the current hysterical climate. Can the President wait for comprehensive bills to reach the floors of the House and Senate before swooping in with his own plan - maybe one that incorporates some GOP standards like TORT reform? Will members of Congress just decide that these town hall mob scenes won't sway them from voting for something really critical for the short term health and long term wealth of the country?

I'm not sure.

I just know that I'm getting increasingly, well, frightened by the hysterical lying about the President's plan - and not just by the outer fringes of the right win - but by members of Congress and by veteran GOP talking heads.

It's not just Sarah Palin claiming the end of life counseling clause (an idea offered by Republican Rep. Charles Boustany of Lousiana, by the way) would result in death panels that would kill off her parents and child; it's also Newt Gingrich refusing to repudiate that remark on national television and instead highlighting by parsing together some obscure old speeches by Rahm Emmanuel's brother.

It's not just Glen Beck joking around about poisoning Nancy Pelosi, it's Representatives actually getting death threats at their offices. There have been fistfights at town halls and at least one instance of someone bringing a concealed gun to a meeting.

These people aren't angry because they don't think the bill being debated by the House Energy Committee doesn't quite strike the right balance between cost controls and extended coverage; it's because they've been heinously mislead to believe that the government is going to make it more difficult to receive coverage than it is now, cut medicare, or worse, send death panels out to kill old people.

A lot of these same people have also been lead to believe that President Obama is not a legitimate elected leader. There is an all-too casual invocation of Nazi Germany and Hitler.

Add it up.

We've had people going out in record numbers since election day to purchase weapons. We've had a growing movement to discredit the President's legitimacy as an elected leader. We have a shameless push to convince people that his moderate initiatives to stabilize the economy represent dictatorial socialism. We now have a transparent effort by GOP leaders - role models for some - to trick already frightened Americans into the belief that healthcare reform will literally bring about some form of medical genocide. And we are also witnessing seemingly unchallenged efforts to invoke the personification of evil (Hitler) in describing what this healthcare bill represents.

It is vile and sickening. It even makes me afraid.

We have really dark history of racism and violence in this country and it appears as though GOP leaders are ginning up unrest amongst the kinds of people who have been alienated because of their resistance to the progress we've made in our society.

And it doesn't seem like anybody in the Republican Party leadership cares about the tipping point.

Rachel Maddow had a really jarring segment on this last Friday that I think everyone should watch in entirety.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

If you can't spare the 15 minutes, skip ahead to 7:55 and watch Rachel talk to Frank Schaeffer, an original founder of the political evangelical movement who has since repudiated his past views.

I was really struck by Mr. Schaeffer's alarm and after sleeping on it for two nights to pass it through the hyperbole scan, well... he's got me quite on guard.

--

If the default position of 100% of the Republican Congress wasn't just to kill whatever healthcare reform proposed by the President or by Congressional Democrats, it would be a lot easier to have a civil discussion about the best way to achieve sustainable reform.

But most elected Republicans and the conservative base aren't at all interested in that.

The GOP is oriented to fight any healthcare reform bill 'by any means necessary.' But it's scarier than that. The GOP is oriented to fight any progress possible.

As Mr. Schaeffer puts it, the GOP strategy is to leave a loaded gun on the table, stop just short of calling it honorable to halt Obama's policies with violence, and walk away.

I'm not sure GOP leaders know how to stop the hideous monster they've reanimated.

This is the America the world fears; not the America the world respects.

--

Organizing For America has unenviable task of trying to cut through all this BS with actual information about the actual reforms being debated in Congress.

They have an office here in New Orleans and they really need our help.

842 Camp St. in the CBD.

There are phone banks every Tuesday and Thursday from 6:00PM to 8:30PM and they canvass on Saturdays.

Their number one priority is to reach individual voters and to attempt to disabuse them of the baseless lies being spread about healthcare reform.

If you want to get involved, e-mail BayasW@dnc.org or call the HQ at 504-302-0802.

Call the senior citizens in your life.

Go to www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck to arm yourself with tools you can use to debunk the lies.

Chicken Soup

Pretty much everyone is going to post this column by WaPo's Steven Pearlstein but I don't care, I'm going to do it also.

I needed this.

The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.

There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made against the health reform plans moving through Congress -- I've made a few myself. But there is no credible way to look at what has been proposed by the president or any congressional committee and conclude that these will result in a government takeover of the health-care system. That is a flat-out lie whose only purpose is to scare the public and stop political conversation.

More like this please.

Shoulda

Single-payer is what I want. Public option is what I'll settle for.

Nate Silver parses poll numbers and makes the case for the popularity of expanding medicare wholesale.


Jeff Cohen says liberal groups blew it.

Old Links I Meant To Post

Columns on healthcare reform I liked:

Krugman on the 26th.

Meyerson on the 22nd.

Krugman's piece examines the absent logic of the Blue Dog caucus. I don't get it either. It's bad politics and bad policy.

Charlie Melancon should take a stand. What is he afraid of?

Civil Discourse

I went to the OFA press conference in support of healthcare reform outside Mary Landrieu's office earlier today.

We were rudely received by a phalanx of tea-baggers from the 'Baton Rouge Tea Party,' who I guess represent Mary Landrieu's base now (and I'm only sort of kidding).

I have got to say, these people are out of their effing minds.

Even liberal-ole-me will concede that there are some occasionally reasonable conservatives out in the world (sometimes they'll leave comments on this blog) but the folks that came out to protest this press conference were for the most part, well, crazy.

There's nothing quite like having a middle-aged woman scream in your face that you're a socialist communist at ten in the morning.

"You guys don't care about freedom."

"Barack Obama is taking our way of life."

They shouted over speeches by OFA's Steven Walker and Rep. Karen Carter Peterson, which I guess is fair game.

But when they continued heckling a volunteer speaker who offered a personal story of breast cancer survival and the difficulty of obtaining insurance as a carrier of Crohn's disease, well, I was disgusted.

Then, of course, there was the middle-aged white woman who deemed it appropriate to inform a couple of African American volunteers from SEIU that they were "lucky to be here."

But my favorite teabagger comment came from a woman standing right behind me who said:

"My brother pays $1,000 a month for health insurance and he doesn't complain."

I've been chuckling at that one all day long.

I have to also admit that I was a little bit humbled by the conduct of the progressive press conference attendees who exhibited near excessive patience with some of the protesters, sticking around to answer their questions and to try to engage them in a reasonable discourse.

I certainly will not talk to anyone that screams in my face that I'm a communist socialist or a freedom-hater or whatever because I want universal healthcare.

One older African American woman was walking away from a heated discussion with one of these people and smiled at me.

"How can you not forgive them? They're crazy."

I laughed. That's probably the right attitude.

Waterloo

Talking Points Memo published the following reader comment earlier today:

Just to mention something that is obvious, but hopefully not overlooked, i.e., if this country cannot pass a bill which insures that every citizen has access to medical care, which every developed country has managed to do (and got done many many years ago), there is something very fundamentally and structurally wrong with this country.

Such an event, in my mind, would confirm that we live with a completely corrupt and dysfunctional form of government. Forty nine states, each with bicameral legislative bodies, some of which have distinguished themselves recently with unabashed levels of incompetency and cluelessness. Then, graft a federal government over that, which is also bicameral, the non-representative portion of it being filled with officials who are certifiable morons and/or who are bought and sold like whores by wealthy contributors.

Talk about a Waterloo.

This is a defining moment in our history. Do we fulfill our supposed status as a "shining city on a hill" or continue our long slow decline into a second rate oligarchy?

I am not one prone to hyperbole.

I believe this to the depths of my soul.

This is pretty much how I feel about healthcare reform as I filter of my analysis of the issue through the lens of the history of progressive movements in the United States. The most compelling reason for to vote for Democrats, donate to Democrats, and work for Democrats is that the Party represented the best shot for the implementation of progressive policy, however incremental those policies have to be sometimes.

Universal healthcare has probably been the most sturdy plank in the Democratic Party's domestic agenda for the last 60 years. The creation of Medicare and Medicaid represent two of the most substantive and important achievements of the Great Society coalition.

After decades in the wilderness, a new coalition has been forged, one that voted in record numbers, not just to repudiate the neoconservative dogma of the last decade, but to affirm a domestic policy agenda that centered on a repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the rich and universal healthcare coverage for the working and middle class.

It actually happened.

Democrats control the House of Representatives by a comfortable margin.

They hold a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the first in decades.

And there's an immensely popular and powerful leader in the executive branch that is actively working to keep the campaign promises he made and which the American people voted for.

If real healthcare reform fails - and Republicans certainly realize this - the Big Bang enthusiasm that so many people feel for this so-called new era will disappear into a black hole.

What compelling reason will I have to vote Democrat ever again if they can't deliver on the most fundamental policy promise they've made to their base constituents for the last six decades?

If Democrats can't deliver on their signature issue, what hope is there that they'll be able to do anything worthwhile on issues where there is less historical consensus?

The Blue Dog wing of the Party, in my mind, is doing everything they can to ensure they sink their own ship. If they effectively neuter or kill healthcare reform, I don't see how the Democratic Party will be very popular heading into 2010 and 2012. Given that Blue Dogs come from districts less likely to vote for Democratic candidates under favorable national conditions, how the hell do they expect to get reelected over Republicans in national conditions unfavorable to Democrats? It's not as if Blue Dogs were ascendant in the Party from 2000-2004.

Meanwhile, the Republican opposition smells blood. The 'waterloo' comment by Senator DeMint is a fairly candid way of stating the Party position.

They don't care about healthcare coverage or healthcare reform. They don't have an alternative plan because they believe that if you don't have insurance or if you have bad insurance - it's your own fault. For them, this is only about political victory.

Observe Dick Polman's discussion of GOP flack Michael Steele's latest:

Q: "Is it morally acceptable for 30 to 40 million Americans to be without health insurance?"
Steele: "I don't know if that's the consideration for politicians versus a pastor."

Q: "Do Republicans support an individual requirement to get coverage?"
Looking flummoxed, the chairman clearly had no idea what the question was about, despite the fact that this issue - whether Americans should be required to sign up for coverage as part of health care reform - was debated extensively during the 2008 campaign. Steele: "As an individual requirement? What do you mean by 'an individual requirement'? To require individuals to get health coverage? Again, that is one of those areas where there's, there's, different opinions by some in the House and the Senate on this...Look, I don't do policy."

(Translation: He does slogans, not substance.)

And then there was the piece de resistance...

Q: "Why didn't the Republicans, when they held both houses and the White House, do something substantial to address the health care issue?"
Steele: “Well, I think that, you know, there were efforts along the way."

He cited the GOP Congress' passage of the expensive Medicare prescription drug law, but then, apparently remembering that the conservatives in his party actually hate this law, he quickly added, "There's always been a debate about that particular piece of legislation." And then he took a second stab at the core question, about why the ruling Republicans did so little to address health care during the Bush years, why in essence they didn't do policy.

Steele again: "The other reality is, you know, the will to do it...There has been just a general lack of focus on this issue, by many."

Bingo.

This disgusting approach to civic life seems to be winning some momentum in the healthcare debate right now.

I sense that the White House understands the stakes.

I hope Senator Mary Landrieu does too.

TODAY! Wednesday the 22nd, there will be a rally at 10:00 AM outside Mary Landrieu's office at the Hale Boggs Federal Building.

500 Poydras St.

Karen Carter Peterson will speak.

I will be there.

Why I still write to my French ex-girlfriend

Mary Landrieu seems to be shrinking away from engaging constituents critical of her hypocritical stance against the public option.

Call her up mmkay?

Washington D.C.: (202) 224-5824
New Orleans: (504) 589-2427
Baton Rouge: (225) 389-0395
Shreveport: (318) 676-3085
Lake Charles: (337) 436-6650

Senator Kay Hagan of North Carolina, another conservative Democrat, has come out in favor of public option after initially expressing skepticism. Senator Landrieu should get on board with her colleagues and with the overwhelming consensus of Americans that favor a public plan.

Or she could continue to side with incestuous lobbyist gangsters instead of the people of Louisiana.

Option = Competition

TPM had an interesting piece a few days ago on how the private insurance industry behaves like a monopoly in practical regional settings.

Landrieu, Small Businesses, and Public Option

One of the main selling point on the public option plan as part of healthcare reform is that it will help alleviate the burden of health insurance costs on small businesses and start-ups. One of the main reasons innovative people with good ideas avoid striking out on their own to build a small business from scratch is because of the risks associated with abandoning one's health insurance.

So it will be very interesting to see how Senator Mary Landrieu, the Chair of the Senate Small Business Committee, explains her sell-out on the public option plan to a room full of small business owners and entrepreneurs. She's holding a small business outreach conference tomorrow morning at UNO.

Got this presser today:

Louisianans for Real Healthcare Reform is encouraging small business owners and all others upset with Senator Landrieu area to come to the event and confront her on why she is opposed to a public option as a part of healthcare reform that will lower her constituents’ healthcare costs and increase their choices.

Note: Senator Landrieu has already canceled previous events in New Orleans after seeing the frustration her constituents have with her over this issue. Louisianans for Real Healthcare Reform urges Senator Landrieu to not back out this time and have the courage to face her constituents and explain her opposition to providing them more affordable healthcare.

WHO: Senator Landrieu and small business owners upset with her

WHEN: Tuesday, June 30th, 2009

9:00 a.m-11:45 a.m.

WHERE: UNO Research and Technology Park

2045 Lakeshore Dr., New Orleans, La

I'd highly recommend attending. You can register for the event on site from 8-845AM.

Also some folks have decided that they don't believe this New York Times poll gauging popular support for the public option plan. I'd advise them to check out other polls on the issue that appear to confirm an overwhelming consensus for such a policy.

A Classic Case

Yesterday, TPM flagged a refreshingly candid quote from Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia:

On Thursday, Rockefeller admitted he expects little bipartisan support.

"There is a very small chance any Republicans will vote for this health-care plan. They were against Medicare and Medicaid [created in the 1960s]. They voted against children's health insurance.

"We have a moral choice. This is a classic case of the good guys versus the bad guys. I know it is not political for me to say that," Rockefeller added.

"But do you want to be non-partisan and get nothing? Or do you want to be partisan and end up with a good health- care plan? That is the choice."

I don't generally like when politicians use good v. bad arguments in attempts to sway public opinion on matters of policy but this strikes me as a pretty damn accurate assessment of what the political dynamics of healthcare reform really are.

The Republican Party has opposed every important link in our social safety net dating back to the New Deal. Arguably, today's GOP establishment is even more ideologically rigid than that which opposed Social Security in the '30s and Medicare and Medicaid in the '60s. They don't believe in helping working people and instead focus their efforts on making life easier for folks that are already extremely wealthy. That is the fundamental choice that their policy positions reflect even though many self-identified GOP voters are more flexible about support for programs that will reduce costs and alleviate suffering for their fellow Americans.

Here's where we are:

On one side is the moral imperative and the will of the overwhelming majority of the American people. I personally agree that we do have a moral imperative to provide affordable quality healthcare to all Americans by creating a public option plan. This, again, is supported by 72% of Americans and even 50% of Republicans.


On the other side you have the Republican establishment, lobbyists, their clients, and their lapdogs in the Democratic Party.

NPR took a photograph of the crowd at a recent Congressional hearing on healthcare and has started to identify the lobbyists currently buying access to our Senators.

Senator Landrieu still seems to be confused as to whether health insurance is a luxury or a fundamental right. She still seems unsure as to whether we should have a substantive healthcare reform bill or one that placates a GOP establishment that has been routinely punished by voters for past opposition to important expansions of the social safety net.

Does she stand with the President, her Party, and the overwhelming majority of the American people or does she stand with the insurance lobby and the restless rump of the GOP?

What side of history does she want to be on?

This is how little people like you and I can lobby the Senator:

Washington D.C.: (202) 224-5824
New Orleans: (504) 589-2427
Baton Rouge: (225) 389-0395
Shreveport: (318) 676-3085
Lake Charles: (337) 436-6650

Two Great Pragmatic Arguments For The Public Option

This Nate Silver post presents a really strong case.

Haney's post today on the same subject is also great read.