I've taken enough shots here at how the new health insurance exchanges don't start until years from now that I felt I should post on these benefits. Frank Pallone gave us a similar list last year. The main points are the temporary high-risk pool until the exchanges go into effect, thereby helping those who can't get insurance now, and a number of insurance reforms that protect people who already have insurance. Also, relief on the "Donut Hole" for seniors in the Medicare drug plans. In summary, there are significant benefits that John Adler should vote for even though major portions of the reform are not implemented immediately.
Youtube user ctrimarchi has just posted a fragment of John Adler townhall which is labeled as being from March 13 in Toms River. He is facing a crowd that sounds hostile to health care reform.
An audience member asks him about the Senate health care reform bill, correctly pointing out that if the bill is approved by the House it can be signed by the President and become law. There's no need for reconcilation or any other votes. So, he asks, will you vote for the Senate Bill?
Adler's answer sounds like a no and gets cheers, but I actually think it was evasive. (It may be that he said more, but the video "conveniently" cuts off and indeed may be deliberately misleading if he said more.) He says he would not vote for the Senate bill "if that were the final bill." But of course it is not the final bill, the point of having a second bill pushed through reconcilation is that some provisions will be changed. So Adler implicitly left open the chance of voting for the Senate bill, because he knows it will be changed in reconciliation. Needless to say, such positive votes would be welcomed at Blue Jersey and by most of the people who voted for Adler and Obama, and are opposed largely by people who will not vote for Adler anyway. I've expressed my skepticism that Adler will vote the right way but he has not closed the door. In his recent interviews he has insisted on seeing the actual reconcilation bill before deciding on his vote. We expect to see this bill this weekend, or Monday at the latest. The right wing is spreading some absurd propaganda that the bill will be passed without a vote, and I suppose if you think Saddam had nuclear weapons and W. was a good President you might be dumb enough to believe it.
Politico has posted a memo from Chris Van Hollen which went to Adler's district director amongst others laying out the timelime this week and giving some advice.:
I continue to encourage all of you not to get into debates about process and to try and persuade your Member not to get into process arguments either. At this point, we have to just rip the band-aid off and have a vote -- up or down; yes or no? Things like reconciliation and what the rules committee does is INSIDE BASEBALL. People who try and start arguments about process on this are almost always against the actual policy substance too, often times for purely political reasons.
John Adler has posted his appearance on Fox News Sunday to discuss health care reform. He appeared today with another "no" vote on the House bill, Jason Altmire (D-PA), who despite representing a district McCain won by 11 points, sounded considerably more positive about the possibility of voting "yes" this time instead of voting to "do nothing." Both Democrats say they've not made a final decision.
The highlights that in my opinion lead to a pretty clear conclusion:
Adler is again on Fox News.
Adler is still saying he needs to "read the bill first" which in this case, since the Senate bill has been available for months, means see the final deal for a reconciliation fix. But can any reconciliation deal truly be final before the House votes on the Senate bill?
Adler keeps talking about the needs of "my businesses" and cost containment, and not at all about the health needs of his residents. Indeed, if you visited from Mars, you would never imagine from the interview that he is elected by citizens rather than selected by business owners.
He wants to change the fee-for-service system, and isn't satisfied with the pilot projects in the bill. He wants to "mandate" that the "good pilot projects" (with good patient outcomes that save money) automatically go national. That's fine, but does it fit in reconciliation, and does a more radical program lose votes with more cautious members? As Wallace says, this was talked about for a year but didn't get traction. Also, usually reconciliation measures expire after ten years, so how could you wait to see how the pilot projects do and then mandate something for a year or two?
Adler is supposedly "pro-choice" but sits by silently as the "pro-lifers" openly hold the bill hostage. He's enabling them. If he cared in the slightest, he would at least say something, much less cancel out Stupak's switched vote personally.
Adler says he's had good recent conversations with the President and the Speaker, but she is "looking elsewhere" for yes votes.
Do you agree that adds up to a no? It infuriates me but that's what I see.
First up, President Barack Obama is at a 53% job approval rating (an improvement on the sub-50 showing last time). Disapproval is at 38%, so the the net +15 matches the margin he beat McCain by in 2008. His numbers with independents are 53-33.
On the other hand, the right track/wrong track numbers for the country are at 38-52, hardly surprising with 10% unemployment, massive deficits, and victory-less wars.
Democrats lead the generic ballot for U.S. Congress 47-39 with leaners. That doesn't exactly suggest many Democratic incumbents will be swept away, though I don't doubt NJ3 is a battlefield.
If the election were held today, Senator Bob Menendez would get 38%, a (hypothetical candidate) Tom Kean Jr would get 39%, Someone else gets 6%. Not the numbers we'd like to see, but not unfamiliar either. The pollster notes that Menendez did worse with the subgroup that was asked about him closer to the questions about health care reforms.
Senator Menendez is at 29-25, favorable-unfavorable, and Senator Frank Lautenberg is at 42-29. The negative ads of 2006 have been forgotten as Kean Jr is at 28-11. Kean was at 33-32 at the end of the last campaign, so you can see that campaigns matter.
As for health care reform, the numbers are lousy but not disastrous, as you know if you follow it in national polls. 37% think they will be better off and 42% think they will be worse off if health care reform passes. On the other hand, for the "country as a whole," "better" leaads "worse" 45-40. No doubt the numbers are dragged down by strong Republican opposition, but the two sets for independents are 31-35 and 41-33. The numbers are very striking by race, because only 28% of "Whites" think they'll be better off. Overall, 35% say they'd advise their memver of Congress to vote for a health care reform bill, 40% against, and 25% don't know. That 25% is more Democrats and Independents, so they need to be won over, perhaps by the reality of the bill helping them. (Cough, cough, too bad some genius designed most of the benefits to start years from now.)
Well, we're on the final push for health care reform and Democrats are rounding up every last vote they need. Here's the Wall Street Journal on John Adler:
Rep. John Adler (D., N.J.), a freshman who won a Republican-leaning district in 2008, is also undecided, after voting no last fall. He said the Senate bill did a better job containing health costs.
In an interview, he said he had spoken directly to the president about the issue and was not worried about Republican arguments that Democrats would pay a political price for supporting the health bill. "I think people shouldn't be worried about their careers. They should be worried about doing what's right."
He did emphasize cost controls in his previous criticism so it's pretty consistent. If you live in the district it might be good to phone. The Senate bill is well short of what progressives wanted, but I think we'd regret not having in ten years. There's also this interview with Fox News (I don't think this is same interview) where he is undecided, but he keeps emphasizing the viewpoint of business.
The grassroots movement that swept Obama into office sat back and relaxed following 2008's historic presidential victory, wrongly believing the job was done.
Oh ... really? I will acknowledge some post-election exhale, which I imagine they both enjoyed themselves. But, really, who sat back here? We elected a President who told us if we brought the hope, he'd deliver change. And yet, who sat back? Obama, and his people did. The activists have been calling for public option for months - hosting public forums, writing letters, lobbying. And the president is walking on the sticky paper of bi-partisanship, unwilling or unable to lead a majority-Dem Congress to reform, unable to inspire, unable for most of the time even to articulate his position. Or worse, making stirring public option speeches while undermining the effort by sending Rahm Emanuel and Kathleen Sebelius to whisper to legislators, No worries, he doesn't really mean it. The prez gets a partial-save for deftly maneuvering the truculent GOP into the party of NO wall recently. But it's too little, too late.
We called for repeal of ENDA and DADT, and he has not used his power.
A smart friend of mine said of this, The activists used their tools and power, to identify issues that need reform and elect those in support. The President has to use his tools and power - which is to make like LBJ and twist arms and drive strong legislation. We did our part, he didn't.
The players: President Obama, Vice-President Obama, and members of the House & Senate from both parties, including Rep. Rob Andrews, who chairs the House Education and Labor subcommittee on health.
The Location: Blair House, across the street from the White House, significantly at the President's end of the national Mall.
Interesting analysis of what the President's after today, from Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic.
Donor information for all the speakers is at Sunlight Foundation (info changes depending on who's at the microphone - turn off the sound at their site, if you're listening to our stream here).
Meeting started 10am, but I just grabbed the feed. Click the arrow to go LIVE.
Andrews, chairman of a health subcommittee of the Education and Labor Committee, is not a fan of the excise tax that's included in the Senate version of the bill and in President Obama's plan he outlined yesterday.
Information about the meeting, and the President's proposal, is at WhiteHouse.gov. The discussion might be interesting and I will try to watch it live Thursday 10AM. It will be streamed online.
As a practical matter, here are the possibilities Democrats face that don't involve completely craven surrender, and you should keep them in mind as the pundits and politicians talk:
A. Pass a comprehensive bill through the House (217 votes) and Senate (51 votes, but 60 to beat the filibuster first), whether starting over or by modifying the existing bills after conference committee.
B. The House passes last December's Senate bill with 217 votes. Not one word could be changed.
C. Pass health reforms that are budget-related through reconciliation, meaning 51 Senate votes (no filibuster) plus 217 House votes.
D. The House and Senate pass a series of smaller bills, each with 217 + 60/51 votes and lots of time used up in the Senate.
Option A seems highly unlikely, since 2009 was already wasted looking for Snowe's vote and a Democrat vote was lost, so we're into Options B+C. Pass the Senate bill (B), and "fix" it (excise tax, cough, cough) via reconciliation (C.) Some elements of Option D may also happen, for example, we're supposed to see a House vote on repealing the health insurance industry's anti-trust exemption.
The White House obviously has a loser mentality -- but America rallies around winners. Polls show that in state after state, voters hate the Senate bill and overwhelmingly want a public option, even if passed with zero Republican votes. More than 50 Senate Democrats and 218 House Democrats were willing to vote for the public option before, and the only way to lose in reconciliation is if losers are leading the fight. That's why Democrats in Congress should ignore the White House and follow those like Chuck Schumer and Robert Menendez who know that the public option is a political and policy winner.
Now that we know he is the one of the first two names that come to mind when you think "winner," I trust Senator Bob Menendez will never think he doesn't get praise from the left.
But I would warn them that if they think that building up the base's hopes on this again only to fail to even get 50 out of 58 Democrats it isn't going to work. If they are serious about rallying the base they need to deliver, period. No excuses. They have a majority. If they hold a vote that only requires 51, they need to win it.
I'm just praying they aren't going to have a spirited losing debate on the floor and then go the Evan Bayh route yesterday when he was on TV, righteously blaming the Republicans for being obstructionists (good) but also blaming Democrats for making the "perfect the enemy of the good". One more lecture about this and I'm going to put my foot through the TV. The truth of the matter is that liberals have been accommodating every damned step of the way, forced to eat dirt from backstabbers like Joe Lieberman and have been far more compromising than jackasses like Bart Stupak and Ben Nelson. It pays to remember that if liberals had their way we would be talking about a national, cradle to grave universal health care plan (Medicare for all) instead of this Rube Goldberg contraption that's been put together with toothpicks and ear wax. So lectures about demanding perfection really need to be aimed at the vaunted "centrists" and the conservatives, who made this mess a necessary requirement for passage....
But if they are running the same game they ran before I can't imagine how much worse they are making it for themselves. They need to be very, very serious about passing it. This Charlie Brown with the football routine is what's killing them with the base. They just can't afford to do it again.
I don't think it's hard for Blue Jersey readers to think of examples at the state level, but here there are really no excuses, because health care reform has been in the Democratic platform longer than most Americans have been alive. Pass a public option that covers anyone with a pre-existing condition, with subsidies for everyone without insurance and a tax on high incomes, and you are finished. And it's more popular than the current bill.
"You cannot dance with someone if they are not willing to dance with you," said Sen. Robert Menendez, D-NJ. He called GOP complaints that the Democrats wrote a partisan bill "pretty lame, when they have made a political calculation that their path to victory is to have the president fail."
Vote was 60-39. Both New Jersey senators Frank Lautenberg and Bob Menendez voted yes.
Update: We now know who the missing Republican was, that led to a 60-39 vote instead of 60-40. It was Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky, who was entitled to vote today, but is not running for re-election after heavy pressure from fellow Republicans to drop out.
Senators Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders, both lobbied heavily to vote no on deeply imperfect legislation, both voted yes.
Senator Robert Byrd, whose death or injury was wished for by some Republicans this holiday season, was wheeled in and cast his yes vote, adding, This is for my friend Ted Kennedy.
Senator Harry Reid brought the funny, but not on purpose. When the rollcall got to him, he voted loud and clear: No!
The clerk paused, as the room tensed up a little, to let an exhausted Senate Majority Leader catch up with what he just did, and change his vote. Which he did, as everybody in the room cracked up.
I only saw the last minute of the vote. There's more to say, so consider this an Open Thread.
"It's sort of like which devil do you fear the most?" asked Gary Pearce, a longtime Democratic operative in North Carolina. "Are you more afraid of the party base or are you more afraid of the health-care reform opponents?"
Kissell picked the latter, and it may have been the wrong bet. Conservatives who oppose the reform effort are unlikely to vote for a Democrat regardless of how he votes, Pearce said, yet Kissell cannot win reelection without the support of his base.
"That's why they call them freshmen -- because they make freshmen mistakes," he said. "That's why a lot of them don't become sophomores."
You can figure out what this has to do with New Jersey.
Senator Bob Menendez shines as he joins Frank Lautenberg and other senators in opposing and defeating Ben Nelson's abortion amendment to the health care reform bill.
"This amendment would roll back the clock on a woman's right to choose," said Menendez. "It unfairly singles women out and takes away benefits they already have. It singles out our daughters and legislates limits on their reproductive health - their reproductive rights. If we were to do the same to men - if we were to single out men's reproductive health in this legislation - imagine the outcry. Imagine if men were denied access to procedures. Imagine if they were denied access to prescription drugs. But that is exactly what we are doing to our daughters with this amendment - rolling back the hands of time. I personally find that offensive, as do women across this country. The language of this bill has been carefully negotiated to ensure that we are preserving a woman's right to choose, but doing so without federal funding. To claim otherwise is hypocritical and misleading."
The roll call is here. Yea was effectively a vote to kill the amendment.
By a 60-39 vote, the Senate agreed to proceed with the debate on the health care reform bill. Senator Bob Menendez spoke earlier today:
I like the part about "socialism" and all the Republican "no's" in the past. Menendez also issued a statement following the vote:
"Each step we take toward health insurance reform brings families closer to the type of health insurance security and relief from ballooning costs that will prolong lives, protect paychecks and cut the budget deficit. Tonight was a major one of those steps, though there are a number that still lie ahead. With dozens of my colleagues not even willing to work on this bill constructively through our democratic process, this vote laid bare who is for change and who is for more of the same at any cost. The American people can look at this vote and the forthcoming debate and tell clearly who stands on the side of American families counting on their insurance to be there when they need it the most and who wants to protect the insurance companies no matter what. Some of my colleagues will seek to address their concerns about this bill with constructive ideas, but others who have no new ideas and merely want to defend the status quo will instead try to wreak havoc with the tired, old fabrication and fear tactics used for generations to protect special interests. In the end, the American people will understand who takes their struggles with insurance companies seriously and who is only serious about protecting insurance company profits. I believe the voices of families who just want for a fighting chance against insurance company bureaucrats will prevail and we will finally have health insurance reform."
There's an interesting post by Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling (PPP) on how health care reform will affect turnout in 2010. PPP did a good job with the New Jersey governor's race and I think we have to take his analysis seriously, though as he notes, this is all based on polls of the 2009 likely voters, so it's missing anyone who sat home for Corzine but would turn out next year. (Remember that PPP had Christie leading 47-41 in this poll; the actual result was 49-45.) They asked in both Virginia and New Jersey whether the voter would vote Republican or Democratic for Congress in 2010, which found they'd go Republican over Democratic 46-41 here, and then...
Second we asked how they would vote for Congress next year if no health care bill passed. In Virginia that increased the GOP lead to 49-35 and in New Jersey it expanded it to 45-38. In other words the failure to pass health care did not put any dent into the percentage of people saying they'll vote Republican next year. They're voting for the GOP whether health care passes or not. But it did create a small decline in Democratic support from voters who seem to be saying that if a Democratic Congress can't create meaningful health care reform what's the point in going out to vote Democratic anyway.
Third we asked how people would vote if Congress passed a health care bill with a public option. In Virginia the GOP led 51-39 under that scenario and in New Jersey it was a 47-40 advantage. So in Virginia Democrats poll slightly better with a comprehensive health care bill than without one and in New Jersey there's no difference.
All disputes over the quality of the health care reform bill aside, this is an illustration of why many of us also think a Democratic (Adler) vote against health care is political malpractice. While it makes little difference to most people, it seems there's evidence that failure will keep a bit of the base home, when what Democrats need is to increase turnout. The best you can hope, I suppose, is that the effect is small enough that perhaps it won't really pan out that way if health care reforms fails.
In promoting the House health bill, New Jersey Democrat Frank Pallone made reference to discrimination by insurance companies, citing their reluctance to insure people with preexisting conditions and differences in costs based on gender. "But that's not against the law," Texas Republican Pete Sessions said.
Pallone replied, "No, but we would make it against the law. Why do you have a problem with that?" he asked. "Why should a woman pay more than a man?"
"Well, we're all different," Sessions explained. "Why should a smoker pay more," he said before getting interrupted by a burst of chatter throughout the room.
We're seen this view crop up in the Senate too, where Claire McCaskill has to remind Jon Kyl of the importance of mothers. I'm genuinely curious how the so-called "conservatives" justify this kind of thinking when they are supposed to be pro-family, pro-personal responsibility, and so forth and so one. Anyone have a good link? I honestly think it's all BS, the Republicans seem to me to be dominated by a toxic mix of greed and belief in their own superiority. Good for Pallone, for standing up to them. Maybe next time Pallone can ask Sessions to exclude football injuries, that might get a Texan's attention. Still, I can't help but wonder when we'll have a New Jersey woman in Congress again. These are situations where we can see diversity really matters.
While every one of the state's five Republicans marched in lockstep with John Boehner and Eric Cantor by opposing health care reform, seven of eight New Jersey Democrats voted for the historic health care reform bill. Among Democrats, only 3rd District Congressman John Adler voted no.
Of the 39 Democrats who voted against H.R.3962, only four come from more Democratic districts than NJ-03. Some 30 Democrats who represent redder districts than Adler's voted yes. Adler's vote was nothing but cowardly.
Adler's vote may not have been a surprise, given the series of negative statements he has about the bill since the summer, but it certainly is a disappointment. Adler has moved hard to the right ever since being elected to represent NJ-03 last November. Where is the John Adler New Jersey progressives fought to elect?
What happened to the John Adler who pushed the death penalty repeal through the State Senate Judiciary Committee in 2007? What happened to the John Adler who expressed support for marriage equality in the Senate civil union hearings in 2006? The courageous progressive who served in the state Senate for more than a decade has exited the political stage to make way for a cowardly freshman Representative who caves in to the teabaggers on the big votes.
What happened to the John Adler who knows from personal experience what a lack of health insurance can do to a family? What happened to the "outspoken advocate for providing health insurance to all families"? The Congressman seems to have forgotten about the uninsured, for all he talks about these days is cutting costs.
It seems Adler has forgotten what got him elected to Congress in the first place. He won the support of rank-and-file Democrats and thus an easy path to the nomination by maintaining a progressive voting record in the State Senate. He rode Barack Obama's coattails into office in the general election (remember that Obama outperformed him in the district in 2008). But for his first Congressional re-election campaign, Congressman Adler is casting his lot with the big-money donors looking to influence his votes on the Financial Services Committee, and with teabaggers like William Green.
This evening, the US House of Representatives may finally vote on a health care reform bill. None of the 177 House Republicans is expected to vote for the bill, so Democrats must find the 218 votes required to pass the bill from within their own caucus. At the moment, it is not at all clear whether or not the bill is going to pass, as several dozen Democrats are on record opposing the bill and a number of others are on the fence.
One of the Democrats refusing to support the bill is New Jersey Congressman John Adler. Adler concedes that the house bill is "a step in the right direction," but plans to vote against it because it doesn't control costs enough.
Late last month, Adler had a chance to support a bill with a public option that would reimburse health care providers at Medicare rates plus 5 percent. This plan would have saved a substantial amount of money over the current version, which will force the government to negotiate rates with providers just as private plans do. Had Adler and other Democratic opponents of the current bill had supported that plan, it may well have passed the House.
If today's vote fails, or doesn't happen at all, it is likely that the bill will be further weakened. There will be almost no chance of either house passing a public option that can credibly compete with private insurers, and health care costs will continute to rise at alarming rates.
Americans have been waiting for generations for universal healthcare, and tonight, the House of Representatives has a chance to make history. AFSCME is asking progressive voters around the country to call their Representative to express support for health care reform. Call John Adlertoday and tell him to support the Affordable Health Care for America Act.
