Joe Courtney (D-CT) skewers those opposed to the Public Option

At some point... (0.00 / 0)

The public option available to Congress and the Senate may have to be put on the table.

Either give all americans the same public option Congress and the Senate has or vote against all public options.

It's a simple message.

---

by: notcho @ Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 00:29:37 AM UTC

Courtney has been adamant on this point (0.00 / 0)

..since entering Congress. He pays for his own health care.

In 2006, Courtney promised not to accept taxpayer subsidized health insurance, a privilege offered to all Members of Congress, until all Americans have access to affordable and quality coverage

---

by: Scarce @ Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 00:41:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's great rhetoric (4.00 / 3)

And Courtney has always said and done great things on health care, going so far as to refuse to enroll in the plan offered to members of Congress in 2006:

When elected in 2006, Courtney promised not to take the Congressional health care plan, to which he was entitled, until every American had health insurance. To date, Courtney has continued to opt out of the health care program, instead purchasing his own health insurance, much to the chagrin others, including his wife.

Which makes it that much more frustrating that Rep. Courtney won't stand up and pledge to vote against a plan without a robust public option.

Instead of progressives, being led by Rep. Courtney, seizing the initiative and altering the political landscape on health care, now, predictably, it's the Blue Dogs who are doing so and threatening to kill the bill if they don't get what they want.  

---

by: tparty @ Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 00:49:55 AM UTC

What Courtney can do ... (4.00 / 2)

... if he really cares about the public option and giving people access to affordable health care:

1. Pledge to vote against any legislation without a strong public option.

2. Co-sponsor an amendment by Dennis Kucinich that would allow states to create single-payer insurance plans.

The Kucinich Amendment would let individual states create single-payer healthcare systems even if Congress fails to create a nationwide single-payer system.

That's exactly how Canada evolved towards single-payer: one province at a time. Given the corporate-funded resistance to single-payer in Congress, the U.S. may have to follow the Canadian path.

Progressive activists in California and Pennsylvania are leading the way for single-payer systems and the Kucinich Amendment would remove the legal roadblocks they face.

The fate of the Kucinich Amendment rests in the hands of ... 12 Democrats.

Courtney is one of those Democrats. His number is (202) 225-2076. Call and ask him to:

1. Pledge to vote against any bill without a strong public option, and

2. Support Kucinich's Amendment today in the HELP Committee to let states create single-payer healthcare systems.

---

by: CaptCT @ Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 11:26:47 AM UTC

1962 Saskatchewan Doctors' strike (0.00 / 0)

On the same day universally funded single-payer (Medicare) was introduced (July 1, 1962) about 90% of the physicians in that province went on strike. Doctors from around Canada, the United States, and Britain were brought in as replacements and the strike itself collapsed after only 23 days due to widespread support for the new service. Over a million dollars was spent by the AMA (American Medical Association) to stop Medicare in Saskatchewan before it was enacted, far more than Canadian sources on either side of the debate. The AMA feared that such a model would spread southward. It didn't but in the next 10 years all Canadian provinces would adopt the Saskatchewan model. Even the subsequent Sask. Liberal party who opposed the measure left it in place in 1964 when they formed a government because the measure was too popular to revoke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

http://history.cbc.ca/history/...

---

by: Scarce @ Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 14:02:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kucinich Amendment passed ... but COURTNEY VOTED NO! (0.00 / 0)

What a two-faced creep:

Then you have the list of members who voted for the arguably unconstitutional step of banning states from providing their citizens with healthcare, a step for which no legitimate case has been made, but which the health insurance companies strongly favor. First and foremost was Committee Chairman George Miller who led the voting with a resounding "No." He was joined on the first round by Democrats Kildee, Andrews, Hinojosa, McCarthy, Bishop, Sestak, Altmire, Hare, Courtney, Sablan, and Titus, and Republicans McClintock, Hunter, Roe, and Thompson. On the second round Democrats Davis and Hirono voted No, along with Republican Cassidy. ...

The amendment passed 25-19. But Courtney's Insurance Company Overlords will continue to try to defeat this amendment. Because:

There are major campaigns with a good chance of passing single-payer healthcare if Congress permits it in the following states: Pennsylvania, California, Illinois, Ohio, Colorado, and Massachusetts.

---

by: CaptCT @ Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 20:33:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I suspect there's more to it than this (0.00 / 0)

A number of Republicans voted yes, including the not so liberal Pete Hoekstra (R-Wingnut), Kline (MN), McKeon (CA), Souder (IL), etc.

While fairly liberal Democrats like George Miller (D-CA) and Carolyn McCarthy (NY) also voted "no".

---

by: Scarce @ Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 20:59:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

More to it? (0.00 / 0)

You can read the text of the bill yourself. It's amendment #18.

Progressive Democrats of America supported the amendment. So did the California Nurses Association.

... and so did every other progressive group that I can find.

Republicans who are fanatical over states rights also supported it.

The only possible reason for not supporting it, which is a ridiculous reason, is because it would make the pool of payers into the national system a little smaller. I believe Bernie Sanders had a similar amendment that allowed two states at a time to adopt single payer (that's dumb -- which states? unconstitutional?). Kucinich's amendment is better. The insurance pool is big enough even without California. More importantly, if California were to adopt single-payer and everyone saw how it worked, more states would adopt it.

Courtney represents Connecticut, the insurance capital of the world. No surprise he voted no. Major insurance companies are also based in NY, PA (Cigna is in Philadelphia), and I assume, CA. Draw your own conclusions.

---

by: CaptCT @ Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 13:00:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As always it's a money issue (0.00 / 0)

Perhaps some states could do this one their own but it's hard to imagine how that could be possible without federal help. Certainly the mess that is California couldn't.

---

by: Scarce @ Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 14:44:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let states figure out the financing for themselves (0.00 / 0)

If states find that it's too expensive, they won't pass single-payer legislation. If they CAN do it, let 'em.

California actually had it figured out. The California legislature passed the single payer bill twice, and the Governator vetoed it (so, does that mean it's a good bill if a Republican vetoed it?).

You can read more about it here.

---

by: CaptCT @ Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 17:48:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If Hoekstra voted for it (0.00 / 0)

That's probably a good indication that something stinks.

My money is on Courtney.

---

by: notcho @ Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 16:38:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So what you're saying is that the progressive groups ... (0.00 / 0)

... who looked at the amendment, evaluated it, and supported it are wrong, including the California Nurses Association.

Even though it's likely that the only path to single-payer insurance in the U.S. may be through the state plans.

But you're against it based on the fact that Courtney opposed it and Hoekstra supported it.

Got it.

---

by: CaptCT @ Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 17:31:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

risk/reward (0.00 / 0)

Shipping part of the process off to the state level is a high risk / high reward proposition. Some states might strengthen reform, moving towards a single-payer system. Other states might use the opportunity to reduce the kinds of care provided by the public option in their states.

To my way of seeing, it's not that either CNA or Courtney are wrong about their positions, it's that they have different expectations about what will happen if that amendment passes. The fact that someone like Hoekstra supported it (progressive punch healthcare score: 3.3%) is something that supporters should be able to account for in their description of why it's an amendment progressives should be supporting.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 18:02:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Poison Pill? (0.00 / 0)

One other explanation for Republican support (besides states rights) is that they probably see this amendment as a poison pill.

Repugs must think this amendment would make it more unlikely for the overall bill to pass -- because they know Democrats still want to throw insurance companies a bone with the public option compromise.

Democrats oppose single-payer. Thus, Republicans think, more Democrats will oppose the larger health care bill if it includes a state single-payer amendment.

That's the best explanation I can think of.

---

by: CaptCT @ Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 18:35:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]