Senators Say Stuff: John Kerry Edition

[babylonsister]

Senators Say Stuff: John Kerry Edition
by: Chris Bowers
Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 12:00


Senator John Kerry's office has responded to our push to get all Senators on the record for a strong public option. The response is a resounding "yes."

1. Do you support a public healthcare option as part of reform?
Yes.

2. Do you support a public healthcare option that is ready on day one?
He supports a public option that will be available immediately.

3. Do you support a public healthcare option that is national, available everywhere, and accountable to our government?
Sen. Kerry supports a robust public plan, that like Medicare, would be
available to everyone from coast-to-coast.

4. Do you support a public healthcare option that has the clout to establish rates with providers and big drug companies?
Sen. Kerry believes a public plan will meaningfully transform our delivery system through its lower administrative expenses and bargaining power. These efficiencies will provide affordable coverage to those enrolled in the public plan and due to increased competition could lower costs in the private insurance market.

That brings us to 40 Senators in support of a public option. Only ten more to go.

Keep emailing your Senators here. Check out the updated targeting chart in the extended entry.

Update: Count Feinstein in, too. Great work by commenter carson002!

Senate Public Option Whip Chart at link:

http://www.openleft.com/diary/14109/senators-say-stuff-john-kerry-edition

[politicasista]

1. Kick

for truth. :kick: :patriot:

[Hutzpa]

2. Sweet !!

K&R



:kick:

[Cant trust em]

3. Feinstein is in? Holy shlamoly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm really surprised by this. There was a moveon.org gathering/protest at Sen. Boxer's office today. I never would have guessed that Boxer would still be fairly non-committal and Feinstein would have agreed.

[babylonsister]

5. Well, I don't know. This is from the link in the OP...

Sen. Feinstein (4.00 / 7)

I just spoke with Senator Feinstein's office and asked if she supports the public option available on the first day. Her staffer was very irritated and dismissive when I told her I read on a blog that Senator Feinstein did not support it. He told me that I shouldn't believe what I read on blogs. I had to firmly remind the staffer that 1) I am a constituent and 2) I pay his salary. At that point he seemed a little bit more inclined to answer my questions.

After some back and forth, he indicated to me that Senator Feinstein supports either a public option or non-profit co-ops. He also said that yes she supports it on the first day, and that it would be available to all Americans.

I was as underwhelmed by the staffer as I have been by Senator Feinstein generally.

[Cant trust em]

6. OK. That sounds more like it.

I sent an e-mail to their office a few weeks ago and got a very non-commital response. But it was a response nontheless. We also tried getting her to do something for the purple ticket fiasco to no avail.

[blm]

13. I think those actually DOING the negotiating in committee have to hold back somewhat

on where they stand publicly in order to debate the points in private as honest brokers willing to listen.

[Cant trust em]

16. I think we're close to an agreement on this.

I prefer the way the president has dealt with it. "I'm for the public option, but everything is on the table."

[blm]

18. Once you know the players it's easier to see the hows and whys of nuanced statements

that don't always tell the true story.

[Cant trust em]

19. That's true, but Feinstein's "I don't think we have enough votes"

statement, drove me totally crazy.

She rankles me regularly, so I've become really distrustful of what she says.

[blm]

42. heheh, and for good reason - she ISN'T trustworthy. "Once you know the players..."

.

[John Q. Citizen]

20. willing to listen to the insurance companies, that is. Not to single payer advocates, certainly.

[blm]

41. This is Boxer we're talking about...like I said ...once you KNOW the players....

.

[John Q. Citizen]

53. If you knew the players you would know that Boxer isn't on any committee that deals with health care

Neither is Feinstein.

So what are you talking about?

Or are you just talking to talk?

[blm]

61. Her committee IS involved and having hearings on July 16.

Competition in the Health Care Marketplace
Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance

Thursday, July 16, 2009
10:00 AM
SR - 253

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation announces the following Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance Subcommittee hearing on Competition in the Health Care Marketplace.

[masuki bance]

4. I don't think this has ever been in question for him. nt

[ProSense]

7. Senator Kerry's 2004 health care plan was

the definitive plan: a public option and catastrophic care. The top Democratic candidates for President in 2008 cherry picked from his plan. Obama's plan featured both.

[beachmom]

8. Thanks. And Chris Bowers is a tough crowd. nt

[ProSense]

9. Who unrecommended this post?

Isn't it telling about DU?

[beachmom]

10. Hold on: why are there 6 recs but only a plus 4? I mean, who but trolls

could unrec this informational post?

[ProSense]

11. Or simply

bitter. :)

[masuki bance]

12. yes, bitter clingers. nt

[grantcart]

14. or the o shit i hit the wrong button group

[ProSense]

15. Or

Kerry envy!

[Cha]

21. This feature puts the spotlight

on the trolls..I've already noticed it on the "Obama in Ghana on Friday" thread when last I looked.. hours ago, it had four unrecs..now, it's up to 8.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8518465

[grantcart]

17. Their count is 41. Only 2 'no's. Franken and Byrd are not counted yet

Actually this is better than I expected.


When it comes down to it, it will be very very difficult for any Democrat to vote against it. Even if they have personal reservations about it, it is a historic entitlement and there will be a very strong emotional pull to have it recorded in history that every Democratic Senator voted for it.

For the next 30 years Democrats will get votes from people who are grateful that they have health care.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a handful of Republicans break ranks at the last minute for the same reason.

[TayTay]

22. Nice to see this reiteration of what has been said all along

Sen. Kerry has been saying this all along. Nice to see that someone finally noticed the correct, non-Fox News version of this and took it seriously.

[masuki bance]

23. Still no denial of the trigger.

Kerry's D.C. office response to my question re. the trigger question was this:

"Any suggestion that Sen. Kerry proposes any legislation that would delay a trigger is false."

That according to a prepared statement given to the Kerry office phone-person. Meaning: If there is a "trigger" tied to the public option, Kerry is against any delay of the trigger. The Kerry phone person did not know the answer to the question if Kerry was against a trigger or not. He also said that Kerry was for the public option.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8517388&mesg_id=8519528
What does that even mean, "Any suggestion that Sen. Kerry proposes any legislation that would delay a trigger is false."?

No one has said that he has, number 1) proposed legislation or 2) proposed legislation that would delay a trigger. WTH?

[TayTay]

24. He is for the public option

Not the trigger, the public option.

Where is your direct, for attribution quote that he is for the trigger? Please show me this from a decent source. Otherwise you are playing idiotic semantic games with someone who is on-the-record as being for the public option from the get-go of this legislation.

Please show me the quote that says that John Kerry is on record as being for a public trigger as a delaying tactic to implementing the public option.

Where is your proof please? Otherwise, you are engaging in a meaningless game of trying to prove a negative, which can't be done. (Prove to me that you didn't not hear him say that he wasn't for the public option, please, with proof?)

[masuki bance]

25. Look, you seem confused. Nobody is saying that he is not for the public option.

The continued confirmations from his office are a distraction, the stories have all made clear that he was involved in discussions involving the trigger mechanism. Every time some one hears from his spokesperson, or someone answering the phone at his office, all they say is that he is for a public option. And then people go "see, I told you he was for the public option!" Of course he is, it is significant that they will not deny the stories that involve the trigger, other than this latest twist, "not in favor of any delay of a trigger".

How easy would it be, considering that the outrage is only about the trigger aspect of the story, not the the public option portion, for himself or his spokespeople to just say- "he is not in favor of the trigger, he won't involve himself in any discussions involving a trigger, the trigger concept is off the table"?

They haven't, they say that of course he would consider it, if that's the only way to achieve the public option. What if that is the situation right now, behind closed doors? No one is denying that the trigger is being discussed and debated.

[ProSense]

26. Cut the attempted clever BS. The statement was issued and it was

not ambiguous.

Then again, keep playing your little game.

[masuki bance]

27. Why do you keep using that? It doesn't say what you think it says.

"Any suggestion that he prefers proposals that would delay or trigger the implementation of a public plan is outright false, end of story..."

No one has suggested that he prefers a trigger or a delay, so why deny that?

here is the wiggle room-

and obviously if it's the only way to get universal health coverage then people will consider a trigger that ultimately guarantees a strong public option."

Why did they say people here? The statement is meant as a representation of where Kerry stands. So, this is the key part. It's a classic non-denial denial.


If you can't see it, sorry.

[ProSense]

29. Why do you ask so many bogus questions?

Kerry supports a public option. He introduced it into the health care debate in his 2004 health care plan.

In fact, when a bill emerges that includes a public option, it will do so largely because of Kerry's efforts.

Until you have evidence that he plans to support something else, all you have is conjecture and spin. In other words, your own little game.

[masuki bance]

31. Look, the bill can have a public option and a trigger for implementation. nt

[ProSense]

32. Speculation isn't evidence. n/t

[masuki bance]

35. Wev. nt

[ProSense]

37. Telling response. n/t

[TayTay]

28. I think you are confused

This is pretty simple stuff

If you have a public option, then you don't need a trigger.

If you have a Senator saying he was for the public option from the get-go, then what point is there flogging a meaningless trigger story.

I think you are perhaps confused on what a trigger it. It is a means of getting to a public option on health care if certain conditions prevail.

If a Senator is for a public option then, by definition, they are not in favor of delaying the public option till conditions of a trigger are met.

It's not that difficult a concept.

[masuki bance]

30. No, you can say "my bill includes a public option!"

"..it will go into effect at the appropriate time" "Thankyou, Thank you"

[TayTay]

33. You mean like Sen. Kerry said?

Wow! What a guy! I'm so happy that he has endorsed the public option.

So good of you to notice this.

Thank you, thank you indeed to all our good Democrats who have endorsed the public option. Now to work on those who have not in both the US House and US Senate. After all, we need more votes to get this passed and shouldn't be spending our time splitting insignificant hairs over things that won't matter unless we get more Dems on board.

[masuki bance]

34. For the love of God, no one has said he doesn't prefer the public option.

He also has not ruled out a public option that would be implemented when certain criteria are met, a "trigger", if you will.

[TayTay]

36. Once more for the benefit of the folks in the cheap seats

If you have a public option embedded in the bill from the get-go by the members of the Senate Finance Committee and, we hope, the HELP committee, then there is no trigger.

SOoooooooo, if Sen. Kerry is in favor of the public option, then there is no trigger. Got that?

Why would there then be a trigger for something that is already in operation? Why would Sen. Kerry push for a trigger if he already had the public option?

Answer that sequence. That is a simple request.

[masuki bance]

38. You can have a bill with the public option, no triggers. John Kerry prefers that, by the way.

Or you can have a health reform bill that includes a public option, but will only go into effect if certain things happen, a "trigger" in the current lingo.

Both health care reform bills would include the public option, one would be in effect just by passage, the other would have to meet "goals". JK has said repeatedly, or his spokepeople have, that he prefers the first option, but of course, if the only way to achieve, wait, let me just use the quote- "...and obviously if it's the only way to get universal health coverage then people will consider a trigger that ultimately guarantees a strong public option."

[masuki bance]

40. more-

*On edit- responding to your question that if it is embedded in committee with no trigger, then what? Then of course a trigger will not occur- was that a serious inquiry? Obviously, the committees have not come to an agreement on the public option, the trigger is being discussed, Snowe has confirmed it, and Kerry could have denied it. The news organizations changed their original reporting with the first statement, they would be willing to back off the claims about Kerry if he would actually address them. Like this- "I did not and will not discuss the trigger option for the public option. I will only consider a straight up public option bill, no triggers, no delays, no gimmicks." He didn't, you can speculate as to why, any other reasonable person would assume that if he had the chance to deny it, but chose to distact by claiming the reporting stated somehow he did not prefer a public option, that he did in fact do what was claimed in the article. If the bill was ready to leave committee clean, w/o a trigger, this whole discussion would be moot. Obviously the votes aren't there yet. If it takes a trigger to get those votes, Kerry has already signaled that he would consider it.


Your statement- "SOoooooooo, if Sen. Kerry is in favor of the public option, then there is no trigger. Got that? " is untrue. Kerry can be in favor of the public option , prefer it even, but may accept it if he had to, with a trigger.

[TayTay]

44. Then if John Kerry prefers it

and you called and you noted that his spokespeople say he prefers it and is fighting for it then what is this disagreement all about.

Sen. Kerry is fighting for what you, presumably, want. I don't get the disagreement here then.

[Mass]

45. That Kerry should not be discussing it at all (or any Dems for the matter).

Trigger is not acceptable because it is useless. While I do not get while this DUer has so much time to lose on that, the position ALL democrats should take is that, if insurance companies have not been able to reach the goal of an affordable insurance in 15 years, why give them more time?

That part I understand. It is just I do not get how what he does is going to advance the goal of not having a trigger. Currently, there are 3 outcome:

NO public Option
A public option with some trigger
a public option NOW.

We need to get pledges that Dems will vote for the 3rd option.

[TayTay]

47. There are Democrats who are opposed to a public option

Wishing that away doesn't work. Pretending that it isn't there won't make it go away.

There are a number of ugly things that are going to go into paying for health care reform, or getting health care reform past corporate backers.

Saying that I don't want that to happen isn't going to make it go away. We are better off if we look reality in the face and deal with it as it is. We will get more of what we want and know where to put pressure on which legislators to affect more of the change we want.

I want a pony. I ain't likely to get one anytime soon however. I want the Dems in the US House and Senate to do everything I want, but I ain't likely to get that either for a host of reasons.

[Mass]

48. Well, spending time getting these senators to change their minds could be a beginning.

But, of course, this would mean we do not believe that the people are useless and only white knights can do something.

[masuki bance]

60. Serious? You can prefer the public option, but still propose a trigger. HFS. nt

[blm]

46. Then WHY focus on a senator fighting FOR public option instead of focusinng on the one negotiating

with Snowe (as per Snowe) for a trigger compromise and promises the insure companies need a level playing field?

[masuki bance]

49. I don't want Kerry or Schumer working on a trigger,

going into denial that Kerry has been involved in those discussions doesn't help.

[ProSense]

50. Completely disingenuous.

You went from claiming Kerry supports a trigger option to accusing someone of being in denial that Kerry was involved in the discussion.

Of course he was involved in the discussions: He's on the friggin Finance Committee working on its plan.

What you can't seem to comprehend is that being involved in a discussion doesn't equate to support.

[masuki bance]

52. You guys are really hopeless, the story says he brought it up

no one from that room including Keryy or his spokespeople have denied it. Why do you think that is? This is what a denial sounds like- "That story and the headline are totally false, it's a lie that I would bring up triggers" Every one of his susequent statements have left that specific charge alone. You let him off the hook with a completely obvious non-denial denial. You are a politicians dream.

[ProSense]

54. "no one from that room including Keryy or his spokespeople have denied it." What BS!

Are you serious? Do you have an aversion to facts?

[TayTay]

55. Ah, excuse me? He affirms his support for a public option

and you some posters go after him for alleged support for a public trigger. (BTW, support he never affirmed and that has been asserted here not by a negative.)

Don't you have better things to do like go after Senators like Lincoln, Pryor, Landreui, Bayh and others who are wavering in their support of the public option. That is the real source of the disdain for your posts. It sounds like a meaningless search for a meaningless purity from those already publicly, on-the-record for the public option.

People have trouble taking your allegations seriously because they are meaningless to the overall debate. Kerry is not the problem here in getting a progressive health plan through the Senate and we all know it.

Maybe the shots should be aimed at those who are not publicly on the side of the public option.

[ProSense]

56. No they actually don't have better things to do.

The sole purpose of posters like this one is to distort. The comments have the same tone, pretending to be logical while claiming that it's the other person ("you guys") who is in "denial" or "hopeless."

Poster: This is what a denial sounds like- "That story and the headline are totally false, it's a lie that I would bring up triggers"

Kerry's statement: Any suggestion that he prefers proposals that would delay or trigger the implementation of a public plan is outright false, end of story.

You see the Rovian/GOP tactic adopted by the poster: Kerry has to deny it in the same exact way as the poster stated it or he isn't denying it. Then the poster can continue to say that Kerry didn't deny it in those words, therefore he supports it.

It's important that the poster twists the debate to focus on the denial, not Kerry's strong support of the public option. (After all, this is proof to morons that he is out to undermine the very thing he strongly supports.)

It's tranparent BS, but the poster actually believes s/he's being clever.



edited missing word.

[TayTay]

57. Actually I never bought this from the get-go

because of a logic problem in the way in which it was presented

Senator Kerry never said, in print for attribution, that he was in favor of a trigger for a public option for health care. Neither he not anyone authorized to speak for him said he was in favor of this. The stuff attributed to him was all 3rd hand hearsay. There was not a single source online that said that Kerry said he was for this. It was all conjecture. All the non-denial denials crap is for something that no one can prove he is in favor of or against to begin with anyway.

The poster wanted something denied that no one can prove was actually said. I see zero logical reason to get the person who never said something to deny it. That is proving a negative and is a logical fallacy. I think the poster knows this but chooses to ignore it.

I am a Mass voter. I am extremely interested in this debate. I have a lot of relatives who are also interested in this debate over health care and can be persuaded to call their Congressional representatives to persuasively argue for a public option. The arguments asking me to ask someone to call Sen. Kerry and have him deny something he never said are ridiculous. I am not moved to do this. It's a silly waste of time.

[masuki bance]

59. No one has accused him of preferring it. Read the story.

Who cares if he "prefers" it? He brought it up in case the public option can't be passed w/o it.

[ProSense]

62. "Who cares if he "prefers" it?"

You've entered the clownish realm. You've spent the past few days claiming that Kerry isn't opposed to a trigger. Obviously you care a lot. Like I said, you obviously have nothing better to do than to spend a ridiculous amount of time harping on something you now claim you don't care about.

Fact: Kerry introduced the public option into the health care debate in 2004, and he is one of its strongest supporters. Period!






edited typos

[masuki bance]

58. That;s a meaningless denial, nobody has accused him of preferring the trigger or a delay.

Show me anywhere where that charge has been made against Kerry.


You just have a big blind spot.

[ProSense]

63. And that's more BS semantics. n/t

[blm]

51. they are ALL participating in the discussions but it's SCHUMER that's DEALING trigger as per Snowe.

But, gee....I can't find your CONCERN about that or any trace of you picking apart Schumer for his role.

No one denied the subject of trigger came up - they all have a DUTY to discuss everything that comes up in these meetings - what we denied is that Kerry pushed it as Grim claimed and that we KNOW Kerry is continuing his fight FOR public option, not dealing it away the way Schumer is.

[Jennicut]

43. I totally agree, why flog a nonstory to death?

Unless you don't want to be proven wrong or have something against Kerry?

[politicasista]

39. Kick n/t