Crossposted from Hillbilly Report.
One of the quotes I remember most from the Presidential primary last year was this, "We simply cannot replace Corporate Republicans with Corporate Democrats and expect any kind of real change". John Edwards told us that at a rally in Columbus, Kentucky. Now, no matter your view of him, and no matter how unwise his personal decisions have been this particular gem of wisdom continues to ring true. Nowhere is that better demonstrated than the "centrist" New Democrat and Blue Dog coalitions corporate reactions to the healthcare debate.
Yes, it appears as if these corporate Democrats are hoping to unify together to help deny the change fifty million Americans desperately need by limiting or even eliminating the true hope for healthcare reform, a public option:
A coalition of more than 100 moderate House Democrats is hoping to unify as they attempt to limit the size and scope of a government-sponsored health insurance option — a key sticking point as health reform enters a delicate phase of negotiations.
Members of the New Democrat Coalition have organized a meeting with their counterparts in the Blue Dog Coalition on Friday morning in a bid to show some strength in numbers as they haggle with party leaders and the three chairmen drafting the bill.
http://www.politico.com/...
The goal of these "Democrats" is equally as perplexing:
The discussion will focus on the so-called public option in health care. Moderates want to ensure that that government-backed health care plan doesn’t undermine the private market. The group is targeting Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.), Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who are writing the House health care bill.
"The committees don’t really understand where their members are," said one senior Democratic aide. "A lot of moderates really do have problems right now. How you define a level playing field with the public option is very critical."
What I would like to ask any member of this caucus is this. When the private market has failed so miserably while driving up costs, and denying coverage and refusing to pay claims to protect their precious bottom line, why should they be protected from a public plan?? Private insurance has already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have absolutely no interest in covering millions of Americans at a reasonable price. I would personally define a "level" playing field with a public plan this way:
A public plan should be available to those of us who because of sheer greed and lunacy are allowed to fall between the cracks and have no insurance whatsoever. A public plan WOULD NOT be competing with private insurance for these costumers because quite frankly, private insurers have already shown they have no interest in covering these people. Private for-profit insurers have already had their chance and have failed miserably. That is why we have a crisis in the first place. I could care less what they think about any plan, because we all know that their greed will cause them to oppose anything that is good for anyone but themselves.
Although I have disagreed with him on a few things before, I think Chuck Schumer summed it up pretty nicely with this statement:
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has served as a bridge with the more liberal members of the caucus, argued during a closed-door Finance Committee meeting that any co-op plan needed to include three features: a national structure, startup capital from the government and a prohibition against naming any federal appointees with ties to the insurance industry.
"Those are the bare minimums," Schumer said. "We are trying to bridge the gap here. I don’t know if we can. We are making a good effort. I am in touch with many of the groups and colleagues who support the public option. The bottom line is we are not going to support anything that won’t be an independent model that puts the consumer ahead of profitability.
"If anyone thinks, ‘Oh, we are 90 percent of the way there’ — not close," Schumer added.
People before profit. As a Democrat one should automatically believe in that goal. However, sadly even within our own party that is a reach as Schumer pointed out. Yes, some "New Democrats" find that concept particularly troubling:
Only about half the Blue Dogs signed on to their letter calling for public plan as the last-gasp option. And some New Democrats who oppose a public plan are upset leaders gave away the farm by laying down public option principles. Others in the caucus supportive of the public plan could get behind a more liberal option.
My question is are they "New Democrats" or just old Republicans?? I think again we need to consider an idea put forward by John Edwards in the primary. How about we deny our taxpayer funded health coverage to every member of Congress, especially those who oppose a public plan for the rest of us until they have agreed on legislation that fixes the healthcare crisis for the rest of us?? Maybe when it is them that is faced with a life-destroying stroke of bad luck they will not be worried as much about protecting the profits of the insurance companies at the expense of everyone else.
We need to pressure every member of the "centrist" coalitions and let them no in no uncertain terms that there will not be a single penney from any Democrat contributor if they succeed in sinking healthcare reform this country desperately needs. Here is the "New Democrat" coalition:
Alabama
Artur Davis (AL-7), Vice-Chair
Arizona
Harry Mitchell (AZ-5)
Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8)
California
Ellen Tauscher (CA-10), Chair, charter member
Lois Capps (CA-23)
Adam Schiff (CA-29)
Jane Harman (CA-36)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-47)
Susan Davis (CA-53)
Colorado
Ed Perlmutter (CO-7)
Connecticut
John B. Larson (CT-1)
Joe Courtney (CT-2)
Chris Murphy (CT-5)
Florida
Kendrick Meek (FL-17)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-20)
Ron Klein (FL-22)
Georgia
John Barrow (GA-12)
David Scott (GA-13)
Illinois
Melissa Bean (IL-8)
Indiana
André Carson (IN-7)
Baron Hill (IN-9)
Iowa
Bruce Braley (IA-1)
Kansas
Dennis Moore (KS-3)
Kentucky
Ben Chandler (KY-6)
Louisiana
Charlie Melancon (LA-3)
Missouri
Russ Carnahan (MO-3)
Nevada
Shelley Berkley (NV-1)
New Jersey
Rush D. Holt (NJ-12)
New Mexico
New York
Steve Israel (NY-2)
Carolyn McCarthy (NY-4)
Gregory W. Meeks (NY-6)
Joseph Crowley (NY-7), Vice-Chair/Whip
Eliot L. Engel (NY-17)
Mike Arcuri (NY-24)
Brian Higgins (NY-27)
North Carolina
Bob Etheridge (NC-2), charter member
David Price (NC-4), charter member
Mike McIntyre (NC-7), charter member
Oregon
David Wu (OR-1)
Pennsylvania
Jason Altmire (PA-4)
Joe Sestak (PA-7)
Patrick Murphy (PA-8)
Chris Carney (PA-10)
Allyson Schwartz (PA-13)
South Dakota
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD)
Texas
Charlie Gonzalez (TX-20)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Virginia
Jim Moran (VA-8), charter member
Washington
Jay Inslee (WA-1)
Rick Larsen (WA-2)
Brian Baird (WA-3)
Adam Smith (WA-9), Vice-Chair, charter member
Wisconsin
Ron Kind (WI-3), Vice-Chair, charter member
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
We need to get busy letting every member of this caucus know that their Corporate pandering on such an essential issue simply cannot be accepted this time around. Sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand and step on one side or another and if they come down on the side of Corporate America on this issue they are not a "New" or any other kind of Democrat but a "Corporate Democrat". Corporate America already has plenty of defenders in the Republican party and definately needs no defenders from ours too.
If these Democrats cannot support a public plan then they definately do not deserve one red cent of support from any Democrat that believes in the ideals of our party. If we cannot depend on them for at least this essential legislation then our Congressional majority means nothing anyway. Lets let them lose and then at least we will know what the true numbers of Democrats we have in the Congress are and can start fighting to expand them with real Democrats.