The knives are out. All that pent-up, barely contained loathing of Howard Dean by the DC Democrat set is all finding gleeful expression following his call yesterday for the Lieberman-driven, Obama-endorsed helth care “compromise” to be defeated. This is the bill that, in requiring that citizens pay for private health care with no public option and no price control, gives the insurance cartel (unrestricted as it is by anti-trust laws) free, clear, and unrestrained direct access to Americans bank accounts.
The resentment that has simmered for years towards Dean. Stemming from his failed upstart presidential bid, and growing exponentially during his grassroots-driven coup of the Democratic National Committee, it, of course, found expression in his being summarily closed out of the historic administration he was so instrumental in bringing to power. Now that he has shown the audacity to remove himself from the party line and start talking reality, the beltway crowd that can’t bring itself to say a negative word about Joe Liberman can hardly maintain their glee at castigating the good Doctor. It’s quite a sight. Here’s Sen. Jay Rockefeller:
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) fired back at former DNC chairman Howard Dean on MSNBC today over Dean’s comment that the current health bill is not “real reform” — something Rockefeller said characterized as “irresponsible” and “nonsense.”
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said no “rational person” would want to kill the bill, prompting reporters to ask if Gibbs thinks Dean is “irrational.”
“I can’t tell what his motives are,” Gibbs responded. (For what it’s worth, Glenn Greenwald of Salon points out that Gibbs was the spokesman of a group that ran anti-Dean ads before the 2004 election.)
Not-so-subtle email from the DNC and Organizing for America:
Democratic senators across the country are currently fighting hard alongside the President to pass reform. They deserve our appreciation. Others are still trying to score partisan points rather than stand up for American families — and they need to understand that their constituents demand better.
President Obama himself resorting to desperate sounding, Republican style “mediscare” tactics:
“If we don’t pass it, here’s the guarantee….your premiums will go up, your employers are going to load up more costs on you,”… The president said that the costs of Medicare and Medicaid are on an “unsustainable” trajectory and if there is no action taken to bring them down, “the federal government will go bankrupt.”
And possibly the biggest phony, corporate sell-out in the Senate still sporting a D after her name, Mary Landrieu:
Hell with ’em. This is a bill that will hurt more people than it helps, and that should be the only metric that matters.
Love him or hate him, you have to admit; if there’s one thing about Howard Dean, it’s that the guy is unintimidatable, for good or ill. As far as I’m concerned, right now that’s very, very good.
Call our Senators and tell them to back up Governor Dean. No public option? Then remove the individual mandate or no deal. Period.
Leahy contact:
Burlington office – (802) 863-2525 1-800-642-3193
Montpelier office – (802) 229-0569
DC office – (202) 224-4242
Sanders contact:
1-802-862-0697 – or – 1-800-339-9834 (In State Only)
And I couldn’t be happier. As frustrating as this health care debate has become, it’s a really proud day to be a Vermont progressive when Dean is tearing Mary Landrieu apart only a few hours after Senator Sanders has been on the floor denouncing Republican obstruction to his single-payer amendment.
I want to move to Canada. This health care bill is no good anymore and dean is right to castigate it.
the end of the tunnnel
This September the Plum Line blog said
And back before he became President a Chicago columist wrote about Obama’s team
Same old, same old. Think back six years. Dean was running for president.
He was repeatedly attacked by the DLC, who called him one of the “activist elites,” and warned that Dean would lead Dems to a McGovern-esque disaster in 2004:
“What activists like Dean call the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party is an aberration: the McGovern-Mondale wing, defined primarily by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home. That’s the wing that lost 49 states in two elections, and transformed Democrats from a strong national party into a much weaker regional one.”
At one point, Dean said the United States should take a more “even-handed role” as the chief mediator in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. America, he said, should “bring the sides together … in a constructive way.”
He was promptly raked over the coals by Sens. John Kerry (then his chief rival for the nomination) and Joe Lieberman (one of Bush’s Democratic enablers on Iraq, now enjoying his role as enabler of the Obama/Emmanuel effort ti kill real health care reform). Kerry said Dean’s approach “would throw this volatile region into even more turmoil.” Lieberman charged that Dean wanted to “compromise our support for Israel,” and that his approach meant “breaking commitments to our long-time allies.”
In December, after American troops pulled Saddam Hussein from his spider hole, Dean cut against conventional wisdom, saying, “The capture of Saddam has not made America safer.” He was ripped up one side and down the other. What kind of fool, many said, didn’t think capturing Saddam would break the back of the insurgency? That was thousands of American deaths ago.
Howard Dean, scorned as naïve, wacky, out-of-step, was right, and his critics were wrong. The more things change . . . .
Oh, and remember how foolish Dean was for pushing the 50-state strategy? The one that helped the Dems take back Congress in 2006 and paved the way for Obama’s big win. Remember who fought tooth and nail against that one? None other than that crafty insider Rahm Emmanuel.
Health-care bill wouldn’t bring real reform
By Howard Dean
If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current health-care bill. Any measure that expands private insurers’ monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these.
Real health-care reform is supposed to eliminate discrimination based on preexisting conditions. But the legislation allows insurance companies to charge older Americans up to three times as much as younger Americans, pricing them out of coverage. The bill was supposed to give Americans choices about what kind of system they wanted to enroll in. Instead, it fines Americans if they do not sign up with an insurance company, which may take up to 30 percent of your premium dollars and spend it on CEO salaries — in the range of $20 million a year — and on return on equity for the company’s shareholders. Few Americans will see any benefit until 2014, by which time premiums are likely to have doubled. In short, the winners in this bill are insurance companies; the American taxpayer is about to be fleeced with a bailout in a situation that dwarfs even what happened at AIG.
From the very beginning of this debate, progressives have argued that a public option or a Medicare buy-in would restore competition and hold the private health insurance industry accountable. Progressives understood that a public plan would give Americans real choices about what kind of system they wanted to be in and how they wanted to spend their money. Yet Washington has decided, once again, that the American people cannot be trusted to choose for themselves. Your money goes to insurers, whether or not you want it to.
To be clear, I’m not giving up on health-care reform. The legislation does have some good points, such as expanding Medicaid and permanently increasing the federal government’s contribution to it. It invests critical dollars in public health, wellness and prevention programs; extends the life of the Medicare trust fund; and allows young Americans to stay on their parents’ health-care plans until they turn 27. Small businesses struggling with rising health-care costs will receive a tax credit, and primary-care physicians will see increases in their Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.
Improvements can still be made in the Senate, and I hope that Senate Democrats will work on this bill as it moves to conference. If lawmakers are interested in ensuring that government affordability credits are spent on health-care benefits rather than insurers’ salaries, they need to require state-based exchanges, which act as prudent purchasers and select only the most efficient insurers. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) offered this amendment during the Finance Committee markup, and Democrats should include it in the final legislation. A stripped-down version of the current bill that included these provisions would be worth passing.
In Washington, when major bills near final passage, an inside-the-Beltway mentality takes hold. Any bill becomes a victory. Clear thinking is thrown out the window for political calculus. In the heat of battle, decisions are being made that set an irreversible course for how future health reform is done. The result is legislation that has been crafted to get votes, not to reform health care.
I have worked for health-care reform all my political life. In my home state of Vermont, we have accomplished universal health care for children younger than 18 and real insurance reform — which not only bans discrimination against preexisting conditions but also prevents insurers from charging outrageous sums for policies as a way of keeping out high-risk people. I know health reform when I see it, and there isn’t much left in the Senate bill. I reluctantly conclude that, as it stands, this bill would do more harm than good to the future of America.
The writer is a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and was governor of Vermont from 1991 to 2002. [Hey, Post! He also ran for President]
The major reason they’re yelling at him and not Leiberman or Landrieu or the others is that they don’t need his vote. I’m sure that away from the lights and mics there are plenty of people agreeing with him, but by saying the truth he’s making their job of gathering votes harder. Another case of the truth hurts.