Is Jim Himes a Purple Cow?

No real surprise (4.00 / 1)

During his campaign I feared Himes would be just this sort of Congressman, but I hoped to be proven wrong.  So, he got my vote -- once.  

The fact that Himes would rather see ALL health insurance reform fail rather than support a bill that puts us on the road to meaningful solutions for providing safe and affordable health care for all shows that he isn't interested in reform at all, no matter what his rhetoric.  His participation in the foot-dragging delaying tactics that opened the door for the mobs, whose real agenda is simply anti-Obama, is reprehensible.  If health care insurance reform fails, Himes will have played a major role, and he should be held accountable for that.  

Right about now I don't see much difference between Himes and Shays, so I see little reason to support a Purple Cow for re-election.

---

by: chele @ Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 17:35:51 PM UTC

No Freshman Representative (4.00 / 1)

will or could "play a major role" in the success or failure of health care Reform.

If you want to point fingers(which in my opinion is premature) point it the President Obama because it was his lack of juice with the Senate that caused the bill to not be passed before the recess.I'm 100% certain(as is anyone who followed this) that if the Senate finance committee got a bill out the House would have voted and passed a bill and Himes would have voted for it.

As for those here who think being a blue cow is the way to win Jims District I'll remind you that Jon ran against Shays in 1994 as a extremely blue cow and Shays won with 74% of the vote.  

---

by: ctkeith @ Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 00:43:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

But that was a lifetime ago (0.00 / 0)

This district has been trending more and more Democratic and progressive over the years.  Voters in the cities now have far more clout than they did just a few years ago.  In recent years, so-called "centrist" Chris Shays twice received less than 52% of the vote, and less than 50% of the vote last year.  President Obama received 60% of the vote in this district, and Greenwich, the most Republican of Connecticut municipalities, went for Democrat Obama in November as well, the first time in 44 years.  Over the past few years every Republican congressman from New England has been defeated, one of the three remaining Republican senators in the region will soon retire, and that leaves only the Maine pair from New England.  In 1997 Republicans in Greenwich outnumbered Democrats by 45% to 20%.  Now it is down to 37% to 25%.

And the country has also soundly rejected the Republicans who took over Congress in 1994.  That crowd was dumped unceremoniously over the past two elections, with Democrats in the House now holding more seats than the Republicans ever did at any time during the so-called "Republican Revolution".

Times have changed, and the suggestion that Congressman Himes needs to distance himself from progressive Democrats and spend all of his time wooing Republicans in order to secure re-election is a strategy that ignores the new political realities.

Rather than worry how to attract Republicans, Mr. Himes would do well to seriously consider President Obama's precipitous loss of popularity nationally the past several weeks, and consider the words of Frank Rich who argues that Mr. Obama has put one over on the country by governing like a corporatist, rather than the progressive he promised us he would be.  

---

by: thomashooker @ Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 15:29:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Read Himes Comment (0.00 / 0)

then go read or listen to what President Obama himself is saying and there is almost no distance at all between the two.

Himes isn't distancing himself from Progressives unless your contention is that is what Obama himself is doing.

Do I believe Himes district,like the rest of the country has moved leftward? Of Course.But it ain't the 1st or 3rd and Himes needs to win 2 more elections before anyone in DC pays him any attention.

Is it smart politics for Himes(A freshman who I'm certain was given the very good advice from Leadership to "Keep your head down,your mouth shut as much as possible and getting reelected is your #1 job)to lean farther left than Rosa or Larson?

People here better start realizing that what we are involved in is at minimum a 20 yr project and bumps in the road are not the end of the GD world.  

---

by: ctkeith @ Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 15:46:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

but (0.00 / 0)

Is it smart politics for Himes(A freshman who I'm certain was given the very good advice from Leadership to "Keep your head down,your mouth shut as much as possible and getting reelected is your #1 job)to lean farther left than Rosa or Larson?

If he was keeping his "head down" and "mouth shut," we wouldn't be having this debate. His public stands on healthcare have been counter to the direction the leadership (or Pelosi, anyway) wants to go.

You're right that it's not the end of the world, and since Himes doesn't sit on any of the three committees with jurisdiction, in the grand scheme of things it's even less of a big deal.

I think the issue at hand is how activists are engaged and cultivated. Jim could be doing everything exactly the same in Congress, and by changing a few words in the public statements he was already making could have Jon writing lengthy paeans to his greatness as a progressive hero instead of posts questioning his credibility.

What if he talked about PAYGO as a way of "helping us move towards a more fair budget that reflects our national needs and priorities, while forcing Congress to make the hard decisions now instead of deferring them to the next generation" instead of it being "an important first step toward restoring fiscal discipline, but must be accompanied by hard work to control the rapidly-rising costs of entitlement programs"? What if, in talking about eliminating fee-for-service care, he mentioned one of the countries that does compensate based on health outcomes instead of number of tests ordered?

You can talk about PAYGO as a progressive. You can convince your supporters that you're not trying to derail reform, but are instead trying to expand its scope beyond what's being contemplated. But you can't do it if you don't try.

Now, maybe getting Jon Kantrowitz and thomashooker to write nice things about their Congressman isn't something that you think is a valid part of a communications strategy. But there's a potential upside and a potential downside to every decision that's made, and it appears that pissing off activists is viewed as an acceptable tradeoff for potentially impressing conservatives that are ideologically opposed to government spending. I can't tell if that's a conscious strategy (and am genuinely impressed that Jim comes around here to discuss policy with us, which keeps alive the idea that they didn't really mean to make activists in the district mad), or if it's something that we can influence or change.

Once Himes gets out on the field, though, you can't stop people from observing which direction he's carrying the ball.

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

---

by: mattw @ Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 16:21:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, President Obama is definitely distancing himself from progressives (0.00 / 0)

President Obama is an enormous disappointment, and the fall in his approval ratings aren't coming just from Republicans.  President Obama's willingness to give in to the drug industry lobby, to sacrifice a real public option, not to mention continuing the shameful human rights violations of the Bush administration, have all been enormous disappointments.

It is astonishing that President Obama hasn't put his foot down and demanded any details of health reform.  He has left it completely up to a scattered group of congressional committees.  Indeed, Mr. Obama, in insisting on "bi-partisanship", seems more intent on getting something with the name "health care" on it than he does actually reforming health care.  Yes, President Obama has distanced himself from the aspirations of mainstream Democrats.  Yet that is no excuse for other Democrats' doing the same.

---

by: thomashooker @ Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 23:19:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The question of why Obama won in Greenwich (0.00 / 0)

bears careful thought and discussion, imo.

It goes against the conventional wisdom about how politicians position themselves on the left-right axis, and about what wealthy suburban residents are looking for in their elected leaders.

Frankly, McCain's reputation nationally was very similar to Shays' reputation in the district, so the question of what Obama was able to do over the airwaves to impress Greenwich residents that Himes couldn't do from the ground is a very interesting question. Especially in the context of mass media (op-eds, newspaper interviews, direct mail, etc) in Jon's post.

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

---

by: mattw @ Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 15:55:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Two Words (0.00 / 0)

Sarah Palin,Greemnwich Republicans aren't of the wackjob veriety they're of the moneyed veriety and although they'll tolerate the religious wackos in order to win W was as far in that direction as they'll ever go.

---

by: ctkeith @ Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 16:08:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Greenwich was going for Obama way before Palin (0.00 / 0)

For a town that relishes in brand names they got swept up in Obamamania too.  

Not to mention that more than a few residents have become disillusioned with republican leadership because they ran this country into the ground and destroyed ALOT of wealth in Greenwich.  I dare say that per capita Greenwich is one of the places that has seen more wealth evaporate over night, at least in CT.  Property values alone have gone down like 40% in Greenwich, not to mention the losses on Wall Street and almost complete decimation of the Hedge Fund industry which called Greenwich it's home.

Sarah Palin was just the final nail in the coffin.  She was and is just too loony and radical for the people in Greenwich.  They like the Nancy Reagan types much more than the psycho religious white trash Sarah Palin.  She was, is and never will be one of the monied elite and thus will never be one of them.

---

by: DisNoir36 @ Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 11:46:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Although (0.00 / 0)

..it is interesting that Shays beat Himes by about the same amount, or a little more, than Obama beat McCain in Greenwich.

Obama 16,233
McCain 13,937

Shays 16,384
Himes 12,555

http://www.sots.ct.gov/sots/li...

That suggests to me that the type of Republicanism McCain was peddling was not popular in Greenwich, even while it remains a right of center town.

---

by: Scarce @ Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 17:01:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Greenwich does not like McCain (0.00 / 0)

He's not from wealth for starters.  He divorced so that he could marry into it and he wasn't even subtle about it.

He was for immigration reform before he was against it.  While Greenwich people like the immigrants to cut their lawns and scrub their toilets, they don't necessarily like them to be one of us.

Most importantly, he looked like a complete bufoon during the financial meltdown while Obama was cool and collected.  That probably won it for Obama in Greenwich since most are from teh financial sector and need confidence.  McCain did not portray it while Obama did.  

Not to mention Palin really killed McCain in Greenwich.  

I think between the last 2, that is really what killed him.  The first two are more tongue in cheek.

---

by: DisNoir36 @ Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 22:12:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But McCain beat George Bush in Greenwich Repub primary in 2000... (0.00 / 0)

And McCain also took the state of Connecticut that year as well, even though W had come from a prominent Connecticut political family.  After that defeat, W got nasty and spread racist stories about McCain in South Carolina (remember the rumors about McCain's having fathered a "black baby" by a Black prostitute?  That's all it takes for Southern voters to turn against you.  

But he did wup W in Greenwich that year.

---

by: thomashooker @ Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 02:06:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

McCain does, in fact, come from wealth (0.00 / 0)

He comes from a long line of high-ranking naval officers, whose great grandfather was a wealthy Mississippi plantation owner.

He would do just fine in Greenwich.

---

by: OGDem @ Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 14:21:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Look carefully at past elections in Greenwich... (0.00 / 0)

and you will see that since Reagan's second term in 1984, no Republican has won more than 53% of the presidential vote in Greenwich, even including native son George HW Bush, and his son George W Bush.  And that is in spite of Republican registration that has ranged from over 50% to 38% in the past election.

So the independent vote and Democrats have gone strongly for Democratic candidates.  

---

by: thomashooker @ Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 23:21:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If Himes is going to survive in Fairfield County, (0.00 / 0)

he will need to be seen as something of a fiscal moderate/conservative.

If some of you think a staunch liberal could hold that seat, you're dreaming. (it'd been in GOP hands for 40 years until Himes won.)

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

Anyway, keep up the pressure. Himes needs to know his base is watching, and in the meantime it also helps him with his branding!

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 20:26:41 PM UTC

. (4.00 / 1)

It may be attractive for him to use progressives in his district as a political foil, but the unfortunate truth is that as of this moment, Shays' healthcare position last cycle was further to the left than Jim's in this cycle.

You were at that press conference with me -- Shays said directly to us and a room full of reporters that a $2 trillion cost was no problem at all for him to support, PAYGO or no, while Jim is talking about a vote against the $1.2 trillion Democratic proposal if it doesn't get cut back. This situation is profoundly distressing.

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

---

by: mattw @ Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 20:53:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not Really (0.00 / 0)

What you should learn from your comment is that politicians will say whatever they believe is in their interest at the time and it's their votes that count NOT the Bullshit they spout.

I expect if there is a Bill put to a vote with a public option when the dealmaking is done and it passes Himes will have voted for it.

PS- After 2 or 3 more terms I'll expect more of Himes.

PPS- For proof of my thesis just look ar Courtney travels.

---

by: ctkeith @ Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 21:17:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Help Please! (4.00 / 1)

Not a financial maven, I may be missing something; but here's my question: Why is it that the PAYGO concept only has come up as an issue in connection with health care reform? PAYGO certainly didn't receive even an Honorable Mention in terms of rescuing financial institutions.  It seems to me that the bottom line isn't really about balancing budgets; we're back to the conflict between corporate "haves" and public "have nots". . . .  If I'm missing something here, please disabuse me.

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 12:45:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Comments (4.00 / 3)

Friends,
You know I value your input, thoughts, and criticisms. But I think it's important we keep it factual and real, if for no other reason than to differentiate ourselves from the other side, which is willing to simply fabricate to scare the American public.
1) The paygo legislation I supported was strongly promoted by President Obama, so it's hard to accept Jon's statement that it "would bring a halt to all Obama legislative initiatives".
2) I never anywhere suggested "reform in general only if it involved massive changes in how health care decisions are made" as Jon posits. I'm working like a dog to try to craft the very best reform we can pull off. The current bill has some dramatic weaknesses, and it's odd to be taken to task for trying to fix them.
3)Yes, I played for more than 2 weeks to read, consider, debate and vote on the single biggest legislative transformation most of us will see in our lifetimes. It involves 17% of our GDP, life/death issues for millions and millions of livelihoods. If you believe the original 2 week timeline to be appropriate, we'll just have to disagree.
4) To chele's comment, under no circumstances do I want to see reform fail. Its success is critical. I have never discussed my vote. Again, I've been working 24/7 to try to improve what is out there. If you were hoping for a representative who would simply pound the table for whatever the leadership proposed regardless of merit, and who would not wade into the legislative process, this will not be the first time I disappoint you.
5) To Matt's point on $2 trillion, easy thing for Shays to say when there was exactly zero chance that the Langevin bill was going to be taken up in committee, much less go to the floor.

---

by: Jim Himes @ Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 21:22:00 PM UTC

Keep Fightin' Congressman! (0.00 / 0)

So glad you are there representing Connecticut.

---

by: AndersonScooper @ Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 21:36:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Working Like A Dog, 24/7 Rhetoric (2.67 / 3)

Notice he shows up over here at the Purple Cow Diary but not at the one of just a few days ago where Jon K. asked him these questions? Let me paste them here in this one:

1. Is he really in favor of a public option?
What does "Properly structured to assure a level playing field" mean? What's the use of a public option if it offers no better access or lower cots than private insurance? Why must it be a level field? To protect the health insurance industry?

2. Does he really support health care reform at all?

Or does he just supprt it if it meets an impossible goal: reformimg "our current fee-for-service" system. In principle, creating a system where doctors are all on a salary and their income does not depend on how many tests they order, surgeries they perform, or hospital beds they fill, is an excellent goal, and will certainly reduce health care costs - but is it realistic to expect such sweeping changes any time in the near future? Will he support a bill that doesn't achieve this goal?

"If those in charge of our society...can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves." ~~Howard Zinn

---

by: lakezoarian @ Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 22:30:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unless Rep Himes said (2.17 / 6)

he believed,like you do,that 9/11 was an inside job you'd find fault.Your becoming more rediculously outlandish by the comment and I,for one,am growing quite sick of it.

Have a donut!!

---

by: ctkeith @ Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 22:44:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your donut (0.00 / 0)

... and comment are neither merited by the content of lakezoarian's comment (which was on topic and, despite responding to Jim in the third person, was not derogatory in any way), nor are they productive to an exchange with a sitting Congressman.

I know you have very low regard for the guy, but can you keep it in check until our elected officials have left the thread?

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

---

by: mattw @ Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 23:43:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bullshit Matt (0.00 / 0)

Nobody,Politician or not,Owes a response to every question Jon or any other blogger or anyone else posts on the intertubes.

If people here expect to be treated like human beings then they should treat others as such.

If the front pagers here aren't smmart enough to get rid of people here who are our own teabaggers and Birthers(and Lakezorian has certainly proved he's every bit as wacked as they are)I'd expect and advise Himes and every other Pols to simply disengage from here.

---

by: ctkeith @ Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 23:59:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They were good questions (0.00 / 0)

... and I have no problem with you putting him down over the conspiracies, but to bring it up when he didn't is totally counterproductive. To insert that into a discussion with the Congressman that has the potential to be widely read is actively destructive.

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

---

by: mattw @ Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 00:35:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Whats Distructive (0.00 / 0)

is allowing fringe players to come here and bash Democrats at every opportunity.

His accusitory "notice he shows up here" is part of a pattern no different at all from the teabaggers.

---

by: ctkeith @ Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 00:49:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Third Person (0.00 / 0)

Thanks, Matt, I didn't realize that would be taken as a gaffe, I just write in a "conversational" way, and it's how I would speak if I were talking to you in person. I'll pay more attention to such things in the future.

I fully understand how what Keith mentioned about me and my 9/11 activism is a highly emotional subject. But no, I doubt I would hassle Rep. Himes about it.

"If those in charge of our society...can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves." ~~Howard Zinn

---

by: lakezoarian @ Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 01:32:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree (0.00 / 0)

those were not outlandish comments and it is questions like those that deserve answers.

---

by: thomashooker @ Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 23:24:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

. (4.00 / 2)

Hi, Jim -- I appreciate you coming around to discuss this stuff with us.

PAYGO: You know that the MLN community is split on whether or not this is a good idea. I agree that it is, but those who think it's a bad idea tend to believe that Congress is more likely to slash spending on current programs than they are to set the tax levels to accommodate the levels of spending you'd otherwise want. On this point, I have to say that your press releases have signaled that you view PAYGO more as an opportunity to cut than an opportunity to have a dialogue about the appropriate levels of taxation. Your opposition to the surtax as a funding mechanism for health reform reinforces that signal. I guess you could say that the fact that I still like PAYGO makes me an optimist.

The Delay: We've been debating the same issues for 50 years, they're not really head-scratchers at this point. Most of the people calling for delays are looking to see the bill defeated or radically scaled back. And public advocacy for a delay is a different thing than thoughtful cloakroom debate on the issues.

Shays and the Langevin Bill: There's also zero chance that the health reform bill that you may or may not have an opportunity to vote on when the recess is done will end the fee-for-service system of healthcare. He was pushing left on what was on the table in 2008. You appear to be pushing right on what is on the table in 2009. The final vote hardly matters at all -- public advocacy is where legislators show leadership, which was most of the rationale against Shays and Lieberman (who tend/tended to "vote the right way on the final bill" after a lot of rhetoric that undermined reform) during the campaigns against them.

And as to the "factual and real" criticism, I can tell you that people have been clamoring for factual information for weeks and have not been getting it. I've written your staff six times for details on your position on health reform over the last month, and apart from not responding, they also categorically denied the existence of the Polis surtax letter that you signed until I managed to produce a copy. Ann has indicated that I was in no way the first to go looking for this information, nor was I the first to come away empty-handed.

I'm happy to let all this stuff be, in large part because some people that I trust (and whose thorough grillings I have been subjected to in the past) say that you're doing the right things on healthcare. But the vacuum of information makes people crazy, and added to the conservative posture in your media strategy, it has a lot of your allies walking sideways when they could be organizing supporters at public appearances and writing supportive letters to local newspapers.

Anyway, that's all political, which is what we focus on here, even though most of why we elected you was because we thought you'd do a better job operating the sausage factory in DC.

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

---

by: mattw @ Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 22:56:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jim wrote in... (4.00 / 1)

... from his Blackberry, since he's traveling and didn't have our kooky random passwords handy. He asked if I could post this reply:

Matt-
Unusually, I disagree with your characterizations.

1) On communicating my position, I have published an op-ed, held an impromptu town hall in Stamford last week for an hour, and have endeavored to answer the many people who have queried me by personal email. I have been talking about the principles I believe in for two years.

2) I don't think that pushing for more emphasis on prevention/health and less emphasis on fee-for-service, which has been the bulk of my work, is accurately portrayed as pushing to the right.

3) I never made any comment one way or another on either surtax or cuts vs taxes on PAYGO. As it happens, on the latter, the sad answer is not either-or, but both.

4) Healthcare is not a headscratcher, it's a head exploder. Fantastically complicated and difficult for the experts, much less the electorate.

Thanks,
Jim

I wrote a reply, which is a little long and detailed for the comments thread here, but the gist of it was that the criticism being made is about the politics of reform, and how his public statements make smaller reforms, weaker reforms, or no reform at all more likely by the end of the process.

I think PAYGO is great, but when you talk about it like a conservative, it will be used for conservative ends. I think ending fee-for-service is great, but demanding out-of-left-field changes in public (instead of at the negotiating table for the last six months) can push the train off the tracks and can create political problems for the person asking for the changes. And the vague rhetorical style that's common in national politics makes district-level activists confused and unhappy.  

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

---

by: mattw @ Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 15:34:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And in reply to Congressman Himes... (3.00 / 1)

Healthcare is not something that is too difficult for the electorate to figure out.  We understand that nearly two-thirds of all personal bankruptcies are caused by overwhelming health care expenses, that we rank far below other countries with national universal health insurance in terms of many outcomes, that we are in danger of losing our employer-based health insurance at any moment and having needed medical treatment either denied, or plunging us  into bankruptcy.

We understand that in every developed civilized country in the world, universal government-supplied health insurance has worked, and worked extremely well.  We also know that the for-profit health insurance system in this country is bankrupting the economy.  

We also understand that the congressional Democrats and President Obama are abandoning their promise to push through a real government-supplied health insurance offering that would be widely available to the American people and dramatically cheaper than for-profit insurance policies.  And that makes us mad.

What is being proposed by congressional Democrats is nowhere close to what we had all expected from a Democratic congress backed by a Democratic president.  It's not the details that are "head exploding", its the Democrats' abandoning those core principals of universal health care that we'd been promised.

Universal health care has been a principal desire of Democrats for seven decades.  Just when we saw that we would finally achieve it with a veto-proof Democratic senate and a safely majority-Democratic congress, with legislation going to what we thought was a solidly progressive Democratic president, we see that all those hopes are being dashed on the shoals of "bipartisanship" and back-door deals with the drug industry.

We know the details; that is what is so disheartening.

---

by: thomashooker @ Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 13:03:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

say what? (4.00 / 2)

going to what we thought was a solidly progressive Democratic president

What planet have you beeen living on? Please go back to prior posts I made during the primary where I showed that the three GOP-lite candidates were Biden, Clinton and Obama. Amazingly enough these are the only three that have anything to do with the current administration.

There was nothing, ever, that was progressive of these three and any belief rooting in the "progressive credentials" of Biden, Clinton or Obama is rooted in a fantasy world no different than that inhabited by the teabaggers.

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 19:59:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's the rub, Congressman Himes (0.00 / 0)

You mention that "the current bill has some dramatic weaknesses, and it's odd to be taken to task for trying to fix them."  Precisely what are those "dramatic weaknesses" that you believe are in the bill?  And what do you believe are the best ways to fix those "dramatic weaknesses".

As you know, Congressman, you have stated and the New Democrat Coalition, of which you are a member, has called for a "level playing field" on which the public plan should operate.  That "level playing field", however, completely negates the entire objective of the public plan, which is to undercut private insurance plans and, over a period of years, lead to a single-payer system.  Why would you want to forbid a government-offered insurance policy from competing successfully with the private sector by offering inexpensive premiums to Americans and even offer better features with those savings?  As you know, the current proposal severely restricts the number of people who would have access to that plan, and the CBO only envisions that roughly 10 mn Americans would be permitted to sign up.  Isn't that a "dramatic weakness" of the legislation, or do you disagree?

The point about the PhRMA ads in your behalf is that PhRMA is the bad guy in this process.  Yes, it is.  PhRMA, right-wing Republican Billy Tauzin's operation, has steadfastly opposed a public option for American citizens, which you say you support, it has opposed giving the federal government the ability to negotiate lower drug prices for its public option, an ability that the VA health system has used to dramatically lower its drug costs, and it has opposed re-importation of cheap drugs from Canada.  And it has cut a deal with the Obama administration to cap cuts in drug costs to just $8 billion a year, a drop in the bucket compared to the price reductions we should be receiving.

So your focus on cost-cutting is at odds with your other positions in support of PhRMA and your and NDC's opposition to a widely-available public plan.  If you want to cut the cost of medical care in America and you don't favor negotiating lower drug prices and you oppose a real public option that would be available to all Americans, then your only option is really to cut medical services to Americans.  That seems to be what you were hinting at supporting when you wrote about the "unsustainable unfunded liabilities" that included Medicare.  A focus on preventive care will only take us so far.  When people get old, they get sick and need treatment.  There's no getting around old age.

Please tell us specifically what those "dramatic weaknesses" are in the current health care legislation that you have identified, and please give us your solution to those weaknesses.  And please tell us why you insist on such a highly restricted "public option", rather than the widely available government plan that so many progressive Democrats have been fighting for.  Further, please tell us if you support PhRMA's position that the federal government should not be given the ability to use its economies of scale to negotiate lower drug prices for the public plan and other federal medical programs.  And please tell us if you oppose, as does PhRMA, the re-importation of inexpensive drugs from Canada.

Your responses to those questions will go a long way toward enlightening all of us as the differences between your views on health care reform and ours.

---

by: thomashooker @ Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 15:18:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hooker (0.00 / 0)

Can you show me where Pres. Obama said this about health care reform?

That "level playing field", however, completely negates the entire objective of the public plan, which is to undercut private insurance plans and, over a period of years, lead to a single-payer system.

---

by: ctkeith @ Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 16:03:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If that's the plan Hooker (0.00 / 0)

then you can count on me being in Scoopers next video on the same side as the screamers.

One More thing,
Your last sentence suggest you are speaking for everyone here instead of just yourself which I find  very offensive.

---

by: ctkeith @ Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 16:18:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My apologies and thanks for your clarification in your last point (0.00 / 0)

I suppose I've got ahead of myself on that. But I suppose it's true that the people I speak to are very concerned about this, and disillusioned.  But you are correct that I shouldn't presume to speak for all or even a majority at this  site.  That was presumptuous of me.

---

by: thomashooker @ Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 23:34:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Level playing field has been used by Congressman Himes and the NDC (0.00 / 0)

I'm not sure if President Obama has used that phrase, though I think he has.  That phrase was used in the New Democrat Coalition's letter from its leadership to (?) Nancy Pelosi, I believe.  And Congressman Himes has used it as well.

And yes, that "level playing field" concept is what destroys real health care reform.  That is why the CBO estimates that only 10 mn will be signed up- eventually- in the public option, as opposed to the 100 mn people or so who were invisioned signing up in the real public option, which was originally proposed by a Princeton professor (sorry I don't have the reference at the tip of my fingers).  And that severely limited "public option" is the reason that costs, as estimated by the CBO, do not fall under this plan.  Jonathan Cohn, the health care researcher who authored "Sick", and who writes for The New Republic, also has made that point.

That is why backing that limited public option while also demanding cost controls doesn't make sense.  Without a real public option wrenching down prices by signing up large numbers of Americans, the private insurance companies have no incentive to reduce costs.  The public plan comes out neutered from day one.

---

by: thomashooker @ Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 23:32:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hooker (0.00 / 0)

Saying the objective of the Public Options," is to undercut private insurance plans and, over a period of years, lead to a single-payer system.",buttresses exactly what the right wing are accusing "crazy Liberal socialist" of doing.

You and I may well favor a single payer health care system but only Kucinich ran on that and his sleeping arrangements aren't in the same house with the Lincoln bedroom.Obama ran saying,"If we were starting from scratch I believe a single payer plan would be the best option BUT WE'RE NOT."

Medicare and medicaid have administation costs of between 3-4% while private Health insurance administration cost of between 18-25% and in rare cases more.There is room for both a public option(and in my opinion even single payer and private insurance)and private insurance in what today makes upm 16-18% of our economy and with whats coming in the future will be even larger.If we cut adminstration cost in half with the public option over 10 years that will be a HUGE victory.

I believe that over half the people who are 50 years old today in this country will live to be 100 years old and even if I'm only half right this will not be the last time our society and our government will have to visit health care reform in our lifetimes.

---

by: ctkeith @ Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 15:07:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Criticial Element: (4.00 / 1)

The term Public Option has become so perverted -- now a convenient rug under which many items may be swept -- that none of us really knows where health care legislation is likely to wind up. Originally, it appeared to be one step in the direction of an eventual transition to single payer. That made sense, as single payer is the only sensible long term solution if we want to achieve universal coverage with better outcomes at less cost. But if we can't get there in one jump, the current challenge is to determine whether what Congress finally presents for passage precludes (presumably somewhere buried on page 850) provisions to  enable that eventuality.

This battle never has been about socialism; most MLN contributors know that perfectly well. The vested interests have a long-term strategy to fend off substantive reform while also finding short term comfort by seeking the government's assistance in protecting their profits; these interests actually are fighting against capitalism, while tarring their opponents with a convenient label. And pharma already has succeeded in negotiating a two-way insurance policy.  Wouldn't we all like that?

If anyone is able to get a copy of the tome that eventually comes out of Congress -- before the vote -- maybe we should join together and do what recently was suggested on NPR: Each person could take a dozen pages or so, read these carefully, and then report on what's there.  The devil is in the details.

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 17:25:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hi, Keith (0.00 / 0)

Actually John Edwards also ran on the platform of introducing a public plan that would eventually supplant for-profit health insurance, and he was the one who really put the universal health care issue on the map.  It was his plan that Obama and Clinton largely adopted, so the foundation of the public plan being to over time supplant private insurance is not loopy at all.  

The public option was meant to be widely available from the get go.  And in order for it to actually help contain or reduce costs, it was supposed to compete vigorously with private plans.  And since a non-profit government plan could dramatically undercut for-profit insurance, it is inevitable that it would win out in the end.  And what's the evil in that?  If Americans find a cheap health insurance plan that delivers services that are as good, or even much better than the private sector, then what in the world is wrong with the market system resulting in non-profit winning out?  I will point out that our country implemented a system of universal health care for seniors in 1965, and we didn't care at all that we were putting for-profit insurance plans out of business for Americans over the age of 65.  So when that system has worked so well, why shouldn't we want to do the same thing for people under 65?  That isn't loopy.  Indeed, it is a logical extension of our experience over nearly half a century with Medicare!  

But the version of the public option that is about to come out of Congress will be highly restricted and cover a tiny fraction of Americans.  Indeed, in its presently proposed form, it is unlikely to actually ever get off the ground.  So, far from being crazy leftists, the plan to introduce a strong and widely available public option was precisely what everyone believed Obama was talking about, and it was what Edwards was making perfectly clear was the objective to all who were listening.

Overhead at the Social Security Administration is roughly 2%, while profits, admin and taxes take up over 30% of all private health insurance premiums.  It is substantially higher if one includes the cost of administration at doctors offices and hospitals which provide the mirror for the administration in insurance companies.  Indeed, I've seen estimates that roughly half of every insurance premium dollar does not go for actual medical services, but for admin and other overhead.  

In order to cut admin in half with the public option over ten years we will have to offer it much more widely than the 3% of the population that is currently envisioned to enroll over the first several years with the Democratic plan.  Do the math and you will see that it doesn't even begin to make a dent.  That's the problem.

In countries like France and Britain and Singapore, private insurance supplements the basic government-run health insurance scheme, but in France, half of the private supplemental plans are non-profit.  Indeed, though the Netherlands runs on competitive private plans, they, too, are non-profit.  Our system of for-profit health insurance is virtually non-existent in the developed world, and we have proved that it doesn't work.

The sell-out of the public option is a disaster of historic proportions.  So many of us of a certain age felt that this would be a historic year, like 1933  for the New Deal and 1965 for the Voting Rights Act and Medicare. But President Obama has set us up for a major disappointment.  He could have settled our health care crisis once and for all.  But he's let us down.  And that failure will be his singular legacy.

---

by: thomashooker @ Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 17:34:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You've said it all. (0.00 / 0)

Thx.

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 19:28:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Funny (0.00 / 0)

 I must have  missed the signing ceremony?

---

by: ctkeith @ Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 19:45:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You lost me on that one.. Could you explain? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: thomashooker @ Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 20:43:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You folks are acting like this is over (0.00 / 0)

when it's only just begun.Nothing has been signed into law yet.If,after the process is over you feel nothing was accomplished then they'll be plenty of time to express those views but  to assign failure to Obamas Presidency and declare that failure his singular legacy shows such immaturity of thought I'm amazed you'd expect anyone to take that seriously.

---

by: ctkeith @ Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 23:02:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Now wait a minute (4.00 / 1)

That is uncalled for.  And if you haven't noticed, a real public option has already been taken off the table.  The only one being considered is a complete joke, and even that one is being bargained away.  That which is now being considered isn't real reform, and it's nothing like what we were promised.  It is a failure, and we don't have to wait until it is finally passed.  The most important elements have already been defeated.  And that is not a reflection of "immaturity".

---

by: thomashooker @ Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 00:50:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who Promised you what you say (0.00 / 0)

You're so full of it I'm getting tired of it.Go reread What was on Obamas campaign website concerning healthcare when he was Candidate Obama and compare it to what you're now saying "we were Promised".

Obama was sold as a centrist about a silly milimeter left of Bill Clinton on a few issues and a silly milimeter to the right on others and thats what we're goimng to get for the next 7.5 years.If he's successful and the Democratic Party can manage not to self distruct we may,since the first time in my over 50 year lifetime elect a liberal or we may not.

---

by: ctkeith @ Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 01:03:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

We've disagreed a lot on this thread, Keith (4.00 / 1)

... but on this I think you're right. Obama is more conservative than Kerry was, as Kerry was more conservative than Gore (who was more liberal than Clinton).

You can bid high when you're bargaining from a position of strength. You can't from a position of hunger or desperation.

The House and Senate, on the other hand -- they went from slight Dem majorities to HUGE Dem majorities. I expect them to be pushing further than Obama is willing to go, and it seems like, on healthcare, the exact opposite is the case.

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

---

by: mattw @ Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 03:27:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just hold on (0.00 / 0)

This is not a right-wing website, and writing, "you're so full of it" is just not what we're about here.  We can disagree, but that crosses the line, and it's certainly not the sort of decorum we usually maintain here, and that you, personally have maintained.  Let's keep this civil, shall we?

And I know full well what Obama promised through the campaign, and a public option was a key ingredient of his health care reform proposal, which in turn was a key element of his entire platform.  But what we're getting in the public option isn't even close to what so many expected.  And even that is being negotiated away.  I don't think that makes me "full of it", do you?  Let's be civil here, and leave the nastiness for the birhters and Fox News zombies.

---

by: thomashooker @ Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 20:12:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Simple "public option" (4.00 / 2)

Open Medicare up to everyone. Determine what the "cost" would be to purchase it as a plan (and we all know that this has already been determined) eliminate the doughnut hole and allow prescription drugs to be purchased from anywhere and then offer it as a public option. Also, set a sliding scale of income for which the option is partial paid by government assistance (or fully paid) based on gross income and zip codes (the cost of living in LA is way higher than Akron, so there should be some adjustments).

This is NOT rocket science (and as someone who worked about 25% of my adult life in aerospace, I know what rocket science is). What we have right now is everyone playing politics and protecting one corporate interest or another. That's BS.  

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 20:07:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And people could keep their private plans if they desired (0.00 / 0)

The pricing of the new Medicare for all plan wouldn't be that difficult, especially if they shift over all of the SCHIP beneficiaries as was previously planned for the public option.  If by default every American is signed up for the Medicare-for-all option, but free to opt out if they show proof of another private plan, then it would begin smoothly.  Indeed, Medicare was implemented for every American over 65 with nary a hickup when it went live.  So I agree strongly with you that it's not rocket science; it's simple economics and common sense.  Too bad our Democrats refuse to endorse such a simple plan.

---

by: thomashooker @ Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 20:42:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Too many special interests (4.00 / 1)

have their hands deep into too many pockets.

I was hoping that someone in the House would put up a simple "medicare for all" plan that got rid of the prescription drug giveaway to big pharma. But NO! We have to rebuild the wheel so that everyone can pander like whores to the special interests that fund their campaign.

And I'm not talking about the GOP here, but Democrats. Not just the Blue Dogs (GOP-Lite sellouts), but the ones who we think of as progressives.

Imagine, for a moment, just how the right would have to fight this. There is no way, unless they want to say that "medicare has to go" completely.

Only the Democrats (and yes, that includes Jim) can screw the pooch so well. We had a winner that everyone could understand and we pissed all over it until we gave the "other side" every opportunity to mess it up.

What a bunch of dumb ass whores.


The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 23:20:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some Kind of a Record! (4.00 / 1)

Clearly, Jon, you have hit a nerve with this piece! I think it's time to say "Moo."

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 07:33:17 AM UTC

Moooooo (4.00 / 1)

I only wish there could have been a live round-table meeting some where about this with all the commentors face to face in person at a coffee shop somewhere. I wouldn't have missed that in a New York minute!

"If those in charge of our society...can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves." ~~Howard Zinn

---

by: lakezoarian @ Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 11:59:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Still could happen... (0.00 / 0)

Perhaps Congressman Himes would like to hold a meeting with progressive Democrats to iron out the many points that are still up in the air about Obama's legislation and Congressman Himes' viewpoints.  Might start with the question of what he believes the "dramatic weaknesses" are in the current legislation, and precisely what sort of public option he favors, and if he is willing to sacrifice a public option in the health care bill.  It seems that President Obama has been hinting that he is.

Those questions need to be answered.

---

by: thomashooker @ Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 19:45:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My Guess - (4.00 / 1)

We won't have an answer until it's clearer which way the wind is blowing . . . .

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 20:03:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is no "Obama legislation" (4.00 / 1)

Which is one of the keys to this whole mess.

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Thu Aug 13, 2009 at 20:34:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Krugman hit the nail on the head (0.00 / 0)

Obama is a deer caught in the headlights.  But he's been incredibly naive to think that he could negotiate with Republicans whose entire makeup militates against such decent policies as universal health care.  FDR called the Republicans "economic royalsts" and that characterization still stands.

Obama had a set blueprint for health care reform when he was campaigning.  Why in the world once he was elected did he just sit back and let everyone else try to come up with legislation.  He's the president, for crissakes!!! Doesn't he know that it's his job to lead?  If he can't tell Congress and the American people what he demands in health care reform, then on what other issue WILL he take charge?

Big, big, big disappointment.  Krugman has it nailed!!

---

by: thomashooker @ Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 17:10:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

About this whole "let other people write the legislation" meme (0.00 / 0)

I'm sort of frustrated when I read complaints about Obama "letting Congress write the bill."

There are a lot of things to be said about the parliamentary system, where the executive is directly elected and leads the legislature, and where legislators vote directly on legislation authored by the prime minister. But we don't have that kind of system in this country --- Obama isn't letting Congress write legislation; that's just how it works in our system. And had the White House written the legislation and gotten a member of Congress to introduce it on their behalf, I think it would look a lot like HR 3200.

---

by: OGDem @ Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 19:54:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmmm.... (0.00 / 0)

I think that when it comes to critical legislation like this for an in-coming president, the president should have put his foot down and told Congress and the country exactly what he wanted, and then fought like hell for it.  Instead, we have President Obama standing back and letting numerous legislators come up with proposals on various committees.  But Mr. Obama has not come out and told his party and Congress where he draws the line, what he insists on being in the bill and what he is willing to veto if it's not included.  That is the sort of leadership that Johnson displayed for his Great Society legislation and that FDR displayed for his New Deal legislation.  But Mr. Obama's resolve and fight are nowhere in evidence.  Though had he composed and submitted health reform legislation himself it might look like the embryonic legislation now emerging, I would be tremendously disappointed if that were so.  Mr. Obama seemed to be very clear in his demand for a dynamic public option when he was campaigning, but he's now compromised away any semblance of that government plan.  I expected far better from him.

---

by: thomashooker @ Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:26:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is happening (0.00 / 0)

Congressman Himes is holding a forum on health care in Stamford in early September. Everyone on this thread ought to go; you'll have a chance to raise the objections you're raising here.

Whatever frustrations you may have with Jim vis-a-vis his stance on HR 3200, I think everyone who has dealt with him before knows that he is an honest, forthright guy who will give it to you straight. I suspect if you bring reasonable, pointed questions to his town hall, you'll get reasonable, thorough answers.

I also think that if a group of progressive Democrats from his district organized and requested a meeting with his office, you'd be more than likely to get one. Someone should organize one and get in touch with Kathleen Warner, the Congressman's district director in Bridgeport. I'm sure something could be arranged.

---

by: OGDem @ Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 13:49:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good idea! Please take the lead!! (0.00 / 0)

I think Congressman Himes needs to hear the frustration and disillusionment of mainstream Democrats directly from them, and apart from the Birthers who will turn out in force.

---

by: thomashooker @ Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 17:06:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unfortunately, I don't spend a whole lot of time in CT-4 these days (0.00 / 0)

But I know Kathleen and she is a very friendly, very accessible district director. Thomashooker, you've been one of the most vocal of the MLNers, and your criticisms have been voiced articulately. I think you ought to organize a group of 5-10 activists and try to get that meeting.

---

by: OGDem @ Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 19:56:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

FYI (4.00 / 1)

Hooker and others (me included) have contacted Jim repeatedly -- and asked for his views and clarification about a number of very specific health care issues. His replies sometimes have been evasive and, at other times, testy.  

He opposes, and won't even discuss single payer; he claims to support a Public Option, but has not wanted to specify which items under consideration he would support, and which he would not be willing to support.

In fairness, since there currently are three House bills (and the Senate has yet to produce one), he can be forgiven for not saying precisely which bill(s) he prefers; but many of us who worked so hard to elect him are disturbed both by his clear interest in protecting for-profit insurance entities as well as the hugely profitable pharmaceuticals.

We had hoped for more concern about what is best for his constitutents.  

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Fri Aug 14, 2009 at 22:43:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

I don't think Congressman Himes has any interest in meeting with Democrats to discuss health care reform.  

---

by: thomashooker @ Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 01:27:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]