Here in Washington, there are some encouraging signs on health care reform. Key members of the House and Senate have voiced their support for a public health insurance option—crucial to lowering costs and covering everyone. And just last week, President Obama strongly backed the plan.
But this progress creates a whole new risk: Opponents of reform know that a public health insurance option is likely to be part of the final bill. Their new strategy is to weaken it as much as possible.
We'll only get one shot at health care reform, and we need it to be the best possible plan. So members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus like me are fighting back by drawing a clear line in the sand: We will only support a bill if it includes a strong public health insurance option.
"Strong" means that it is run by the federal government, helps cover all of us, and comes into effect as soon as possible.
But this will only work if the rest of Congress knows that the grassroots support us. Click here to support our line in the sand on a strong public health insurance option:
Dozens of us in Congress are already on board. If your representative is already standing tall, your signature will show the support in his or her home district. If not, it will help convince your representative that it's time to demand a strong public health insurance option.
Publicly pledging to oppose something—instead of just doing so in closed-door sessions with other members of Congress—is certainly an uncommon step. But with nearly 50 million Americans without health care and the rest struggling with out-of-control costs, it's time for bold action.
We believe a strong public option is key to achieving universal health care and lowering costs. The plan will:
* Finally provide relief to small businesses and families. The public health insurance plan will drive costs down across the board, helping everyone who is struggling in this economy.
* Give Americans a choice. So many Americans don't like their private insurance—or don't have it at all. With this plan, they'd be able to choose a plan that's not run by insurance companies. But if they're happy with their current coverage, they can keep it.
* Make universal health care a reality. The public health insurance option will be available to everyone, regardless of job status or pre-existing conditions.
Our colleagues in the Senate and House are releasing their drafts of health care reform legislation right now, so we need to speak out immediately. Click here to stand with us.
Thanks for all you do.
–Representative Jan Schakowsky, 9th district of Illinois
My MoveOn you plebe, MoveOn doesn't want your response response:
Well, this is original. They finally got some Congresscritter to sign on and help them promote something. Since I've already explained why Obamacare is worse than Hillarycare (but sneakier) and why it won't work, let's look at Representative Schakowsky instead.
First, if the good people of Illinois want Obamacare, why don't THEY get it for themselves and leave the rest of U.S., who don't want it, out of the deal? I have no interest in Obamacare and I have even less interest in what the people if Illinois want. I don't live there. I live in Wyoming, which is nothing like Illinois. For one thing, our state isn't in debt.
Now, let's look at the oh-so-enlightening voting record of Miss Schakowsky. Hmm... it is enlightening, for sure.
According to Project Vote Smart, her record says that she is ranked:
2008 In 2008 National Taxpayers Union gave Representative Schakowsky a rating of F.
2007-2008 Representative Schakowsky supported the interests of the National Tax Limitation Committee 0 percent in 2007-2008.
2007 In 2007 Americans for Tax Reform gave Representative Schakowsky a grade of 0.
2007 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to FreedomWorks's position, Representative Schakowsky received a rating of 5.
That makes sense, given that she's now touting Obamacare as a plan and is one of the few 100% "welfare" voters in Congress.
This can be juxtaposed, of course, with the "government should pay for everything" so-called "energy" groups' ratings. Note that the ethanol people love her, despite ethanol being proven as way less than green:
2005-2006 Representative Schakowsky supported the interests of the Campaign for America's Future 100 percent in 2005-2006 on energy legislation.
2001 Representative Schakowsky supported the interests of the American Coalition for Ethanol 100 percent in 2001.
Hey, how about parental rights? She probably did pretty well there. Eh?
2007-2008 Representative Schakowsky supported the interests of the American Family Association 0 percent in 2007-2008.
2007-2008 Representative Schakowsky supported the interests of the Family Research Council 0 percent in 2007-2008.
2007 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to Children's Defense Fund's position, Representative Schakowsky received a rating of 100.
She's apparently a big fan of government's wasteful spending too:
2007 Representative Schakowsky supported the interests of the Citizens Against Government Waste 3 percent in 2007.
And all of the ratings before Obamacare was an issue show that she is high on the list of most health care types, but is apparently selective about what, exactly, health care really is:
2007-2008 In 2007-2008 St. Joseph Health System gave Representative Schakowsky a grade of 100.
2007 Representative Schakowsky supported the interests of the Alliance For Headache Disorders Advocacy 0 percent in 2007.
2007 Representative Schakowsky supported the interests of the American Academy of Family Physicians 100 percent in 2007.
2007 Representative Schakowsky supported the interests of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology 100 percent in 2007.
2007 Representative Schakowsky supported the interests of the Association of University Centers on Disabilites 60 percent in 2007.
2007 In 2007 Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance gave Representative Schakowsky a rating of 50.
2007 On the votes that the The Children's Health Fund considered to be the most important in 2007, Representative Schakowsky voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
2006 Representative Schakowsky supported the interests of the Academy of General Dentistry 40 percent in 2006.
Since most of those groups aren't supporting Obamacare, I'd bet her ratings are lower now.
Things are interesting when you get paste the hype and false government promises.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment