I would support a primary challenge to my congressperson if she voted against the HCR bill

and I really, really, really like her.

but this is more important than liking her. i think she will vote in favor, but i'm not sure. (Jackie Speier -San Mateo County, CA).

what about your congressperson?

Will support HCR.

I call her office, just to keep the numbers up, but I have no doubt she'll do the right thing. She always does.

reason why he's not voting for the Senate Bill when he voted for the House Bill..he's actually scared of losing his seat and his cozy health benefits in 2010 to a republicon.

They don't want to extend benefits they have to "Others".

He sounds like a perfect fit for the district.

Get Kucinich up against the wall!

I believe in a "democratic" democratic party, even if I think the OP is making a poor judgement. We have to fight for a party that represents us. Personally, I will be monetarily supporting mostly seriously progressive candidates, including Kucinich if he is under attack. But I believe we are all better off when we accept diverse ideas and fight for them within the party. That is all I am saying.

I do have little tolerance for the authoritive types like we see in this forum that always try to paint everyone who has policy disagreements as traitors though. That is just plain wrong.

and she's your congresswoman too.

I've called her office a number of times to encourage her to vote against any bill that doesn't include a public option.

So if the Senate continues to wear their asshats... she'll get the fun and exciting choice of whether she wants your vote or mine.

Maybe she should've decided to run for Attorney General...

you deserve (on health care).

Edited: to correct the impression I gave LooseWilly that he merited Republican policy on anything other than health care.

My congresswoman was one of those who kept the public option in the House Bill. I guess you must be gnashing your teeth at how progressives have mucked up the works for the Senate and Obama?

Gods forbid anyone stand up for policy, when the Party is so much more important?

Your implicit Party over Policy stance is the reason that Democrats seem to feel encouraged to fold in the face of any pressure. It's the likes of you that encourage Democratic Party behavior that leads so many of us to doubt that there's any real difference between having Republicans or Democrats in office.

I hope you're proud of your spinelessness.

ridiculous.

I don't give a pretty shit what he/she "thinks". Once the poster commits electrons to window buffer... the digitally transmitted content of those electrons are there to be interpreted.

If the poster had something else in his/her mind besides the words that came up on my screen... well then he/she should've typed a different set of words. Don't blame me if a poster can't communicate what may or may not be in his/her mind. And don't accuse me of faulty mind reading when I'm not attempting anything of the sort.

And while we're at it, are you saying that you are a mind reader? Talk about ridiculous...

Why don't you present me with a textual analysis that contradicts what I wrote? Failing that, I'll leave you to fondle your crystal balls in the privacy of your own domicile... but leave me out of it.

if you say your statement came from reading his post, that describes your thoughts not that poster's.

"Oh, I was hoping you had the Repuke congressman ."

"That you deserve" (pre-edit post)

That in response to my statement that I would consider a primary of our congresswoman if she voted for the Senate version of the HCR bill.

The implication is that- the poster "was hoping that <I> had the Repuke congressman ." ... "That <I> deserve" if I do as I said (consider a primary of our congresswoman over a vote in support of the Senate version of the HCR bill).

I voiced my opinion over a policy issue, as did you. I voiced a consideration of the possibility of supporting a primary challenge, as did you. The policy position I supported is (unlike yours) not in consonance with that of the White House, and implicitly, therefore, the Democratic Party Establishment. The concluding phrase "That you deserve" suggests clearly that the poster felt that, by speaking in favor of a policy not in consonance with that of the Party Establishment, I deserved to have a "Repuke congressman".

You'll notice the poster did not respond similarly to your OP... and the only difference in what was said was which side of the policy we supported.

Thus, I would say that the poster clearly demonstrated that she stood for Party, over policy... as there was no statement of why my policy stance was "wrongheaded", but merely a statement to the effect that I "deserved" a "Repuke congressman" for standing in opposition to the Party Position.

That is... Party over Policy.

I interpreted the words digitally formatted upon my screen... and the words said exactly that, that putting Policy over Party meant that I deserved to have a Repuke congressman.

I invite you to use the words to dispute my interpretation.

(Hopefully the above will serve as an example of how to do so, since you're response was hardly a shining example of textual analysis... but rather an unsupported assertion.)

The point where the right and left unite against HCR looks reactionary to me.

Edit: I corrected my earlier comment to you.

There's plenty progressive in opposing a giveaway to HMOs. Mandated purchasing of private insurance? Poorly financed state regulators as the only mechanism for controlling HMO misbehavior, while using the IRS to enforce buying the private HMO products?

Sorry... I don't see anything particularly progressive about this HCR legislation. It smells of a means of spreading around the costs of the overpriced private insurance "product", so that those who are getting the product as part of their corporate pay package won't have to face AS STEEP of price increases as they would if those of us who have opted out of the system weren't forced back into the system. The cost burden on those of us forced into the system would be partially ameliorated by subsidies... which basically amounts to a giveaway to private health insurance providers in order to help subsidize the costs of covering those with pre-existing conditions at government expense, while maintaining corporate profit margins on their coverage.

Better to just eliminate the corporate middle men... and let the government subsidy money, and my insurance fees, go to a publicly run alternative... rather than funnelling it all through a system that is already so obscenely profitable.

Public option as merely an alternative... or Single Payer to just go ahead and do away with the private HMOs entirely. Take the burden of health insurance costs off the backs of the corporations... let them use the freed up money to de-stagnate wages... and compete more effectively with corporations elsewhere in the world not saddled with private HMO insurance costs... it's win win win... unless you're an HMO.

But instead, you would have legislators vote for this half ass bill or call them reactionaries?

Give me a break. Surely you're aware of how simple minded that argument is? Right?

I will not subscribe to the political cowardice of not even trying to get a public option through.

They're all holding back a little right now because they want the best reconciliation measures available from the Senate.

I think we should let our reps know that the bill has our full support. I personally don't think we get very far threatening them. Let Labor do that. They have real clout.

Here was my letter of January 19th:

Dear Mrs. Speier,

You have been my representative in the legislature and congress going back to when I was a child. I like you and respect you.

I'm writing to ask you to do anything possible to not only keep the health care bill alive but to make sure the House Bill or the Senate Bill is passed. The issue must not be allowed to die without action.

I cannot express how deeply upset with the party, the president, the congress and even you, yes you, if you don't act to make sure one of these bills is passed.

There is the opportunity to pass something and there is an opportunity to improve it. It doesn't appear there is the opportunity to do it in one bill --if you can improve the Senate Bill, terrific. But even if you cannot, I will be very upset if nothing is passed because the House didn't pass the Senate Bill.

I ask you to do whatever you can and also to vote yes on the legislation you have an opportunity to advance, whether it is your first choice, second or third. Frankly, I prefer a single payer or all Medicare system, however, in lieu of that, I support the Senate Bill even if the House Bill is better --because the Senate Bill can become law, it can regulate insurance companies nationwide and it can expand Medicaid as well as other things.

Do not let this opportunity slip away. As a voter and advocate of Democratic candidates since I was old enough to vote, I can't stress how important it is for you to act on this issue and get something passed. I can forgive passing something imperfect more than I can forgive holding out with the result that nothing is passed.

Sincerely,

aka "CreekDog"

I give my name, and the staffers don't even bother to ask for any more info...

"I would encourage you to vote against any bill that includes a mandate without a public option."

I don't support a half measure. Sorry to anyone who doesn't get access to unaffordable insurance... but I haven't had insurance for over a decade... and I think that the financial unsustainability of the current system requires a fix. As long as a fix is necessary... now is the time to hold out for one that creates a meaningful alternative to private health insurance companies.

If you're willing to settle for half ass solutions, that's your choice. We'll see how the vote calculus plays out...

:thumbsup:

I think they all are changing their positions since the Democrats lost the Mass seat. I don't think there are m(any) all or nothing types in the House. Imo, the final holdouts will be people like Acuri who come from Republican districts where constituents resent extension of privileged health care to the 'undeserving',

as she knows that the Black Community will really benefit from this legislation,
even though she'd love to see single payer. She's not the type to throw out the
good for the perfect. That's not why she got into politics, and she's lived the
hard life of a single mother; she knows why she is sent to Washington D.C. from
our district, and it ain't to only make a point; it's to get things done for her
constituents; and in this case its to save lives, and that's what she's into, period.

I think she has the courage to stand up for a public option. And I'm not sure this bill will do nearly as much for the Black Community as you seem to think it will. Oakland has plenty of people who aren't on the corporate health insurance rolls... but rather are having to come up with money for individual coverage... and those are the people who are least helped by these "compromises".

On the other hand... she might be willing to go along and get something rather than nothing. It's certainly a tempting capitulation... though I generally expect more of Barbara Lee.

Barbara Lee is highly principled, not stupid. She's not voting for health care for herself (since she has it already), she's voting the way that those she represents stand the most to gain.

Fighting the fight against insurance companies is not as large a part of this bill as I'm sure she'd want, but she knows that the quality of life matters more than kicking insurance companies in the nuts, if and when there has to be a choice between the two.

and she understands that this is what is expected from those she represents. It's not capitulation, it is looking at each part of the equation and calculating out the sum in how it will affect her constituents.

I pay for individual family coverage myself, being self employed, and I can tell you now that we are the ones whose rates are being raised by 39% by Blue Cross Anthem now in May if nothing is done. And the other large provider Kaiser is also raising rates and providing less coverage. But, since you know Oakland, then you know that a large portion of the population is not covered at all. They are the working poor, and the not working. They also are, in large part, minorities, who are the most susceptible to all of those ailments like Diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease, and who tend to have shorter life span than their Anglo counterparts. They are the population in where many do not see a doctor when they should, and where Community Clinics are not as plentiful as they should be. The County hospital does booming business there; and as we understand, in the end, everyone who pays insurance premium ends up paying for them.

I know Barbara Lee personally, although I do not know her as well as my hubby (who is one of the ministers at her/our church) and my youngest daughter (who interned for her) does, but well enough to have attended her private birthday party, and to have had a few conversations with her.

to her.