Push Schrader off the fence, part deux
At the risk of repeating myself, despite having signed on to a letter pushing for the public option, Oregon Congressman Kurt Schrader is apparently undecided on whether he will vote for a public option (with negotiated rates) if it goes to the floor. This is the compromise bill presented by Speaker Pelosi to appease Blue Dogs and moderate Democrats who dithered over the Medicare + 5% public option.
I called Schrader's office in hopes that he was actually going to be a "yes" vote on this public option, only to be disappointed. Here's their statement:
Congressman Schrader is a strong supporter of the public option with negotiated rates because it encourages competition that will lower costs for Oregon families and prevent major cuts in services that would occur if rates were tied to artificially low Oregon Medicare rates.At the same time he is undecided on how he will vote on the current version of the healthcare bill. While a strong supporter of healthcare reform, Congressman Schrader is extremely concerned with the fact that the bill does not bend the curve of healthcare costs, which everyone agrees is unsustainable, enough. He strongly believes that bending the cost curve for families, businesses and the government needs to be a key component of healthcare reform and is concerned that the current version does not go far enough to accomplish that goal. That being said, he is a strong supporter of healthcare reform and continues to work with his colleagues to craft a final bill that accomplishes the two main priorities of healthcare reform: reducing costs for families, states, businesses and our overall economy while increasing access to high quality care.
Seriously? Schrader is placing a priority now on the curve of healthcare costs?? If that was his pony, he should have been supporting Medicare + 5%, which did so more aggressively. But really, the head of the CBO says that the cost curve argument is BS anyway.
I chatted just a few moments ago with Darcy Burner, Executive Director of The American Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation, who also seems to find Schrader's argument somewhat specious. Here is her response to his statement:
"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has unequivocally stated that this version of health care reform bend the cost curve and lowers costs. Congressman Schrader needs to step up and represent the best interest of his constituents, district and country and commit to vote for the bill."
Frankly, this current bill is the best one on the table since Pelosi had to appease people like Schrader with a lesser public option. As I understand it, there is no other viable health care plan being considered by the House. For Schrader to be weak on this is, in my view, inexcusable. He signed the public option letter. He says he's a strong supporter--well, now is the time.
Obviously if you live in-district, your voice will hold the most sway with his office. But all Oregonians should contact his office and let him know how important this is.
Here's the info:
Washington DC Office
Phone: (202) 225-5711
Salem District Office
Phone: (503) 588-9100
Toll Free: 1-877-301-Kurt (5878)
Oregon City District Office
Phone: (503) 557-1324
If you're not in Schrader's district, you should also contact your own Representative and thank them for their support of the public option....with the requisite Walden caveat.
Update: 3:30PM: The House Committee on Energy and Commerce has done a district-level analysis for each House member on how the bill in question would impact their district. Here's the one for House District 5, represented by Congressman Schrader. A few highlights:
- Improve employer-based coverage for 469,000 residents.
- Provide credits to help pay for coverage for up to 177,000 households.
- Improve Medicare for 117,000 beneficiaries, including closing the prescription drug donut hole for 14,900 seniors.
- Allow 20,000 small businesses to obtain affordable health care coverage and provide tax credits to help reduce health insurance costs for up to 18,500 small businesses.
- Provide coverage for 81,000 uninsured residents.
- Protect up to 1,300 families from bankruptcy due to unaffordable health care costs.
- Reduce the cost of uncompensated care for hospitals and health care providers by $39 million.
|
November 4, 2009 |
Carla Axtman | Comments (64 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 5, 2009 8:09:03 AM
Carla, you usually post fantastically researched articles, but your response here is just poor. Have you talked with the folks at the Office of Rural Health Policy at OHSU? Have you talked with rural providers in Pendleton, La Grande, Klamath Falls, Medford, etc.? I have, and I come to the table with a little more than just my humble opinion.
JTT: Within the context of the ENTIRE discussion, it isn't. The fact remains that Congress is tackling the problem of Medicare rates--but even if they weren't, Schrader says NOW that his big gripe is that the current bill doesn't cut the cost curve enough. Medicare + 5% DID cut the cost curve MORE than this bill does..but he didn't support that either.
These are a bunch of runaround statements by Schrader, IMO.
And then there's the rest of the Democratic delegation. Is the contention by those here opposed to Medicare + 5% that the REST OF THE DEMOCRATIC DELEGATION FROM OREGON just doesn't give a shit about the Medicare rates and were selling Oregon out with their support of it?
These are what I'm having trouble squaring up, JTT. Not the bits and pieces that you're tossing forward.
Posted by: Jake Leander | Nov 5, 2009 8:59:52 AM
I agree with Bill Bodden. There is no upside to US enabling of Israeli thuggery. Along with this war crime denial, the US has now dropped insistence that new illegal settlement building be stopped. The Goldstone report is not factually controversial - just politically inconvenient for Israeli supremacists.
Schrader exibited either a lack of knowledge, lack of concern, or lack of moral courage in supporting Resolution 867.
Posted by: LT | Nov 5, 2009 11:18:23 AM
Jake, I thought this topic was about health care.
Interesting email this morning from 2 groups:
DFA:
"It appears Rep. Schrader is considering standing closer to Greg Walden than he is standing for real healthcare reform that would benefit Oregon families and small businesses."
and their fundraising email which says:
"The bad news is -- even though we're winning -- we could still lose.
All it would take is one senator in the 60-member Democratic Caucus to support a Republican filibuster and healthcare reform with a public option could be stopped dead in its tracks. We're not going to sit around and hope that it doesn't happen. It's up to us to be pro-active and stop a potential turncoat senator from killing President Obama's number one domestic priority.
Today, we join MoveOn members, in pledging support for a primary challenge of any Senator in the Democratic Caucus who supports a Republican filibuster of a public option."
Onward Oregon:
"Let Rep. Schrader know that we'll be standing behind him when he chooses to cast his vote for a strong public option that covers every American. "
..........
Onward Oregon sounds to me like a smarter approach than DFA.
At one time I had heard that the Senate might vote first because one of the lessons of 1993 was that the loyal House members cast really tough votes on some bills ---only to see the Senate vote against that language but then the vote was used against them in the next election and some of them lost their seats.
I want to associate myself with this comment from Lee Coleman:
"And, incidentally, Schrader is most certainly NOT a crappy Democrat; he's a fine, decent Democrat in a difficult district. "
I'm one of those folks who spent 10 years trying to get rid of Denny Smith in the 1980s. Since then, we have only had one term of Jim Bunn to remind us what it is like to have a right wing Congressman.
I recall there were people here who didn't think Darlene Hooley was "pure enough" to suit them. But by golly, once elected, she was never defeated.
Call me what you want, but I don't think excessive certitude sells in the 5th District. If the Republicans are ever smart enough to run a "solutionist" (think the Gov. elect of Virginia) campaign about solving problems rather than preaching ideology, this could be a hotly contested district. I'm talking about the rural areas of this district and some of the city and small town dweller swing voters (I mean the folks who thought in 2004 that both GW Bush and Darlene Hooley were incumbents who deserved re-election)---if those voters were were undecided...
I think Schrader should do what he thinks is best, and if enough residents of the district don't like what he does they can challenge him in the primary or general with a candidate of their choice.
And I remember that not all the civil rights laws were passed the same year. Voting Rights Law was passed in the summer of 1964. Open /Fair Housing law was not passed for another 4 years. One of the Republicans who voted for that law was a former Evangelical Layman of the Year who was offended when Martin Luther King was killed and voted for the bill in tribute to Dr. King.
Read about that bill here:
http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/progdesc/title8.cfm
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 5, 2009 11:31:40 AM
"Jake, I thought this topic was about health care. "
True, but a little context is worth considering.
Now back to health care. It looks like those of us who were skeptical about multiple committees in Congress with many members funded by health insurance corporations could be proved right in our claim this exercise in Congress is mostly a charade.
I was watching the "tea party" at the U.S. Capitol on C-Span and thought what we need is a NON-partisan commission to investigate and develop a single-payer system for the more than half of the people who want it and leave the teabaggers and "freedom fighters" to the mercies of the insurance corporations.
Posted by: Jake Leander | Nov 5, 2009 11:35:53 AM
LT wrote: Jake, I thought this topic was about health care.
There are times when one's attention should shift quickly. Fire, earthquake, tornado, and war crime denial are a few of these times.
Posted by: Tina | Nov 5, 2009 1:16:02 PM
I just called his Salem office where I was disconnected twice and then talked to a rude staff person who had no information about the bill or what was on the table as far as the various options. In particular I am interested in the Medicare +5% but the staffer kept repeating "I don't know I am in Salem and not in Washington" as if I was a complete idiot and didn't know I had called the Salem office. There really is no excuse for rudeness on the part of his staff. I hung up and called the Washington office and at least got a link to the information I was looking for although still not any information on the intentions of my Congressman.
Posted by: John L | Nov 5, 2009 2:37:27 PM
@carla... This is the compromise bill???? WTF have you been smoking today. Like the Senate bill this was written and consulted on by DEMOCRATS only.. how in the hell does that make this a compromise bill. You and people like you are complete idiots. You would rather get something done rather than do the right thing. I doubt rewriting 1/6th of our economy can be done so swiftly without taking the cause and affect into consideration. What's the rush??? are you all really that afraid of 2010 midterms that you are willing to screw EVERYONE including yourself?
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 5, 2009 3:21:11 PM
@carla... This is the compromise bill???? WTF have you been smoking today. Like the Senate bill this was written and consulted on by DEMOCRATS only..
John: The previous bill had a more robust public option. This was the compromise. We saw today where the House GOP wants to go with "reform"...or did you miss it?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/congressional_budget_office_th.html
From the link:
This is a major embarrassment for the Republicans. It's one thing to keep your cards close to your chest. Republicans are in the minority, after all, and their plan stands no chance of passage. It's another to lay them out on the table and show everyone that you have no hand, and aren't even totally sure how to play the game. The Democratic plan isn't perfect, but in comparison, it's looking astonishingly good.
And "what's the rush", you ask? You mean six decades isn't long enough for you? Health care reform has been a major agenda item since the Truman Administration.
Given your comments, the fact that you consider me a "complete idiot" seems like a good thing. If you thought I was smart then I'd be ashamed of myself.
Posted by: John L | Nov 5, 2009 3:29:33 PM
John: The previous bill had a more robust public option. This was the compromise. We saw today where the House GOP wants to go with "reform"...or did you miss it?
No Carla I din't miss it. It's called HEALTHCARE REFORM.. NOT HEALTHCARE TAKEOVER.
Oh and if a quote from a screaming Lib is worthy of political backing then this is the house of falling cards that I have entered.
Posted by: Carla Axtman | Nov 5, 2009 3:30:30 PM
LOL John...post more comments, please. You're making me feel more sane than ever. :)
Posted by: LT | Nov 5, 2009 8:09:57 PM
Steve, what district do you live in? How many Dems vs. Rs vs. NAV/ Independents and other major parties?
Over on "What did the independent vote tell us" topic was this piece of wisdom:
>>
Posted by: Buckman Res | Nov 5, 2009 7:47:43 PM
...bringing health care reform closer to reality?”
Health care reform?! Are you serious? The bills up for consideration now do absolutely nothing to curb the costs of medical procedures or hospital stays.
Call them the “Health Insurance Industry Stimulus Bills” for how they will line the pockets of insurers by mandating coverage.
If this is the best the Dems can do I can see why there’s populist anger in the air.
And Lee, about this:
"Rep. Schrader called me a few days ago. First thing out of my mouth was "I do hope you're going to vote for a robust public option." His reply was concern about the cost. My suggestion is that once the financing issues are settled (and I told him that the House provisions were better because they enable him to tell constituents that he voted to avoid taxing middle class and unions), we should concentrate our efforts on asking Merkley and Wyden to lobby Schrader. Those two can do far more than we can. The main thing is to show Shrader that a vote for a PO will NOT hurt him in 2010. "
All due respect but both our US Senators live in Portland, although Ron understands the rest of the state pretty well from all those years of town hall meetings in every county every year.
I heard Ron on the Ed Schultz Show the other day. He spoke of going into town hall meetings where people carried signs advocating public option and breaking the news to them how few of them might actually qualify for that.
There has been some discussion of what the premiums for the public option might be--starts out federally funded, becomes a nonprofit, can never be bailed out and if that means having to raise premium rates so be it.
Without cost containment, can anyone here say for sure that they know what the differential between public option premiums and private insurance company premiums will be in 5 years? Or does that not matter because this is all about taking one for the team and voting for something one might have qualms about just so there can be a "win"?
Look into the Catostrophic Care fiasco when Rostenkowski was still a powerful congressman. It passed, people realized that the benefits would not arrive right away but the cost would, and Rostenkowski ended up being mobbed when he went home to his district. The bill ended up being repealed.
I believe unintended consequences are possible for any complex bill.
<<
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Nov 5, 2009 8:29:32 PM
"I believe unintended consequences are possible for any complex bill. "
Same for any bill that is a hodge-podge of different bills from different babbling committees. Just the way the insurance corporations wanted (and possibly planned) it to be.
Posted by: saç ekimi | Nov 13, 2009 1:10:11 AM
I'm really very useful to follow a long-time see this as a blog here Thank you for your valuable information
I'd love to take one of those for a spin. We need a lambo rental service in Pittsburgh. Any takers.
Thnx for the interesting post.I found it very useful for myself.Keep writing.
saç ekimi
laptop
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Lee Coleman | Nov 5, 2009 7:54:49 AM
Steve sez: "I've ... lost tolerance for crappy Dems, and don't care if they lose. This seems to be the only way to get rid of them. We can take the seat back when we find a candidate who has the ability to maintain political power while working effectively to advance our common fundamental agenda."
Oh sigh! Idealism is nice but it's a loser. Kicking a Democrat to the curb is worse than that since any Republican is detrimental to our health and welfare. Maintaining political power means winning the consent of the constituency and US explaining to a supposedly "crappy" (in the minds of the cynics) Democrat how to defend and protect his policy positions. And, incidentally, Schrader is most certainly NOT a crappy Democrat; he's a fine, decent Democrat in a difficult district.