Are You Represented By a “Public Option Senators”

Are You Represented By a “Public Option Senators”

Are You Represented By a “Public Option Senators”

Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, a health care reform champion who has (along with Iowa Senator Tom Harkin and West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller) led the fight for a robust public option has gathered the signatures of thirty senators who are committed to real reform — even if the insurance companies don’t like it.

The signers are not the only public option backers in the Senate. MSNBC’s Ed Schultz got Senator Jeff Bingaman, D-New Mexico — who did not sign the letter — to commit to vote for the public option in bills and amendments during an interview Thursday night.

But the signers of the letter are the committed stalwarts, and they will be essential players as the battle over health care reform plays out in the Senate. Many are supporters of bolder reform — including a single-payer system. Their message to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and the Obama administration is that the public option is a compromise. They’re not interested in compromising any further.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, a health care reform champion who has (along with Iowa Senator Tom Harkin and West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller) led the fight for a robust public option has gathered the signatures of thirty senators who are committed to real reform — even if the insurance companies don’t like it.

The signers are not the only public option backers in the Senate. MSNBC’s Ed Schultz got Senator Jeff Bingaman, D-New Mexico — who did not sign the letter — to commit to vote for the public option in bills and amendments during an interview Thursday night.

But the signers of the letter are the committed stalwarts, and they will be essential players as the battle over health care reform plays out in the Senate. Many are supporters of bolder reform — including a single-payer system. Their message to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and the Obama administration is that the public option is a compromise. They’re not interested in compromising any further.

Here’s what the letter to Reid says:

We have spent the better part of this year fighting for health reform that would provide insurance access and continuity to every American in a fiscally responsible manner. We are concerned that – absent a competitive and continuous public insurance option – health reform legislation will not produce nationwide access and ongoing cost containment. For that reason, we are asking for your leadership on ensuring that the merged health reform bill contains a public insurance option.

As it stands, the health insurance market is dominated by a handful of for-profit health insurers that are exempt from the anti-trust laws that ensure robust competition in other markets across the United States. Without a not-for-profit public insurance alternative that competes with these insurers based on premium rates and quality, insurers will have free rein to increase insurance premiums and drive up the cost of federal subsidies tied to those premiums. This is simply not fiscally sustainable.

We recognize that the two Committees with jurisdiction over health reform – the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee – have taken two very different approaches with respect to this issue. However, a strong public option has resounding support among Senate Democrats – every Democrat on HELP, three quarters of those on Finance, and what we believe is a majority of the caucus.

The Senate Finance Committee included a cooperative approach to insurance market competition. While promoting more co-ops may be a worthy goal, it is not realistic to expect local co-ops to spring up in every corner of this country. There are many areas of the country where the population is simply too small to sustain a local co-op plan. We are also concerned that the administrative costs associated with financing the start-up of multiple co-op plans would far outstrip the seed money required to establish a public health insurance program.

Opponents of health reform argue that a public option presents unfair competition to the private insurance companies. However, it is possible to create a public health insurance option that is modeled after private insurance – rates are negotiated and providers are not required to participate in the plan. As you know, this is the Senate HELP Committee’s approach. The major differences between the public option and for-profit plans are that the public plan would report to taxpayers, not to shareholders, and the public plan would be available continuously in all parts of the country. The number one goal of health reform must be to look out for the best interests of the American people – patients and taxpayers alike – not the profit margins of insurance companies.

Health reform is about improving access to health care, containing costs, and giving Americans a real choice in the insurance plan best suited to their needs. We urge you to fight for a sustainable health care system that ensures Americans the option of a public plan in the merged Senate bill.

Take a look at the list of signers.

Is your senator’s name on it?

If not, it may be time to start making some calls.

Here are the signers — so far: Sherrod Brown (D-OH), John D. Rockefeller (D-WV); Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT); Russ Feingold (D-WI); Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI); Tom Udall (D-NM); Kristen E. Gillibrand (D-NY); Roland W. Burris (D-IL); Ron Wyden (D-OR); Debbie Stabenow (D-MI); Barbara Boxer (D-CA); Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI); Michael F. Bennet (D-CO); Dianne Feinstein (D-CA); Jack Reed (D-RI); Jeff Merkley (D-OR); Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ); Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD); Al Franken (D-MN); Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D-PA); Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD); Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI); Edward E. Kaufman (D-DE); Arlen Specter (D-PA); Maria Cantwell (D-WA); Robert Menendez (D-NJ); Bernard Sanders (I-VT); John F. Kerry (D-MA); Herb Kohl (D-WI); and Paul Kirk (D-MA).

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x