Broomfield, CO Con Lashes Out At Denver Post Editorial

Via a tweet, I found this letter to the editor, trying to argue against the inclusion of a public option in legislation this year.  The Denver Post had previously written a short take in favor of Congress passing a public option.

First, the DP Ed board is pretty conservative.  That said, I agree with the Post – the public option bill won’t pass this year.

Second, what is the Broomfield Con arguing?  It’s actually pretty hard to tell.  Something about “government controlling everything”.  Eye-roll.  He cites the government’s control of the American auto industry, the finance industry, the banking industry, and then tries to scare readers into thinking Congress wants to control the energy industry too!!!  Oh noes!

This letter-writer obviously has no problem with the government controlling the war industry.  How many of his taxpayer dollars were physically lost in Iraq and Afghanistan?  I’m not talking about the supplementals funding the occupation; I’m talking about the physical bills that were well and truly lost – by Bush’s government, if it makes any difference to the writer.

The auto industry isn’t any more controlled by the government than the energy industry would be if the pathetic energy bill now being considered passes.  Unfortunately, private corporations will still control the lion’s share of the generation and transmission of energy across the entire country.  By the way, letter-writer, we pay dearly for that dirty energy immersed in the most inefficient infrastructure possible, just as we pay for the lack of care (but bountiful private management!) and massive inefficiencies in our health care system.

After the Bush government gave away more billions of dollars to the largest banks in the land, did this person write a letter of protest?  I doubt it.  Guess what those private entitie did with our taxpayer dollars, Mr. Letter-Writer.  They bought smaller banks.  They still aren’t lending the money to those who would help the economy to grow again – us.  They’re sitting on it all, waiting until the broken economy (which they broke, by the way), finally turns around.  Just as many honest observers pointed out back in 2008, the plan to dole out our tax dollars to unaccountable private industries wouldn’t pan out.  Yet you sit there defending them!

If a government entity can help provide  energy, or health care, or directly loan money to people who actually need it, I’m all for it.  There’s an advantage in that approach, actually.  Governments, unlike obscenely profitable corporations, can be held accountable.  Neither you nor I can hold Bank of America or United Health or Xcel or Halliburton as accountable as we can our Representatives and Senators.

If you truly believed in the power of private industry, Mr. Letter-Writer, you would be begging for the government to offer a public option.  Because if private industry was as smart and powerful as you seem to think it is, that public option would have no chance in surviving.  Your attack against the editors and a public option indicates that you recognize that health care isn’t being delivered by our private entity dominated industry.  Why are you rooting for failure and profiteering, Mr. Con?  Are you one of the billionaires running one of those corporations?

Rep. Grayson’s “Medicare You Can Buy Into Act”

Activists are disappointed (to put it lightly) that health insurance legislation, and not health care reform, passed after a year of intense debate and discussion at the highest levels of government.  A few solidly progressive items made it through the process; many more did not.  Among those that did not is a public option, to say nothing of single-payer.

Flying somewhat below the back-and-forth arguments of whether or not a public option should have been a part of the legislation and what form it might or might not take is an effort that should be lauded.  Rep. Alan Grayson (D,FL-08) has a piece of legislation that accomplishes many progressive goals: H.R. 4789, the “Medicare You Can Buy Into Act”.  Rep. Grayson has done what many activists wish our elected officials would do: show some leadership.

H.R. 4789 has been referred to the House Ways and Means Committee.  It has already garnered 80 co-sponsors.  In answer to complaints in the Colorado blogosphere, I would point out that both Rep. Jared Polis (D,CO-02) and Rep. Diana DeGette (D,CO-01) are among those co-sponsors.  Notably, Rep. Polis was an original co-sponsor, another sign of progressive leadership.

This likely isn’t going to be the sole effort to keep the public option discussion going as we move forward.  However, it is concrete and it is available to us right now.  The Progressive Change Campaign Committee has a tool up so people can ask their Representatives to join as a co-sponsor to the bill.  While CO-01 and CO-02 have been taken care of, there are plenty of other representatives who could sign on and I’m sure we all have friends and family in other states to point this to.  I am unaware of similar action coming out from the Senate.  It would be refreshing to see a Senator present something fashioned closely to H.R. 4789.

Cross-posted at SquareState.

One Democratic Party Problem: Communication & Messaging

One of the biggest problems the Democratic Party has is its failure at communication and messaging.  They’ve had this problem for a long time and at times it doesn’t appear like they care to do anything about it.

What’s in the health bill?  Can “average” Americans describe it?  I doubt it.  Can elected Democratic officials?  They haven’t yet, that’s for sure.  Instead of a five minute, convoluted laundry list of “cool things”, how would this have played out:

Medicare For All.

Congressional Progressive Caucus Stands Up For Single-Payer/Public Option

The Blue Dogs aren’t the only caucus in Congress flexing their muscles on the health care debate.  The Congressional Progressive Caucus sent a letter; to Speaker Pelosi on Friday making their case for what will be required to garner their support for health care legislation.

The CPC is a strong and vocal advocate of a single payer approach.  Nonetheless, we stand solidly behind our criteria for a robust public health insurance plan option.

We want to assure you that for our continued support, the public option must not be based on any trigger and must be available immediately. Further, the public plan must be on a level playing field and receive the same subsidies as private plans in the Health Exchange.  And, it must be connected to the Medicare infrastructure, including the provider and payment system. Allowing providers to opt out of the public option has already created a loss of $91 billion in savings.  We cannot tolerate further weakening of the public option.

[h/t mcjoan]

Immediacy & Framing: Climate Change vs. Health Care

Two issues that are being addressed by the 111th Congress and President Obama provide an interesting example of the importance of immediacy and framing.  As this post’s title suggests, I’m talking about legislation to deal with our breaking climate and our broken health care system.  The way potential solutions are being proposed and discussed provide an interesting contrast.

On the one hand, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454) was passed by the House of Representatives a couple of weeks ago.  There was plenty of talk about how the bill didn’t go far enough by climate activists.  Some activists, including myself, wondered if the bill should have been voted on in the form it took.  As I quickly detailed yesterday, other countries are taking more aggressive steps to ramp down their carbon emissions and ramp up their renewable energy capabilities.  I don’t think the ACESA bill, as currently written, will do enough to cut carbon emissions from history’s biggest polluter: the U.S, in time to prevent 2°C or more warming globally.  Yet most of what I read and heard after the House vote revolved around something like this: “This bill isn’t perfect, but it’s better than nothing”;  “It’s a step in the right direction” and so on.  What I didn’t hear, especially from progressive House members, was a refusal to vote for a bill that didn’t get done what science demands to be done.  What I didn’t hear was a refusal to vote for a bill that didn’t do what a majority of Americans wanted it to do.  Does anyone seriously think Americans wanted the House to give billions in corporate welfare to the nuclear, oil, natural gas and coal industries?  Because that’s what had to be stuck into the bill while at the same time reducing emissions and renewable energy targets.