30 Senate Democrats Stand Firm for a Public Option in Letter

Thank you, Democratic Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Tom Udall (D-NM), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Roland Burris (D-IL), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Al Franken (D-MN), Bob Casey (D-PA), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Ted Kaufman (D-DE), Arlen Specter (D-PA), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Bob Menendez (D-NJ),  John Kerry (D-MA), Herb Kohl (D-WI) and Paul Kirk (D-MA), and thank you Bernie Sanders, the Independent Senator from Vermont.

Today, by signing a letter written by Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown supporting the inclusion of a strong public option in the Senate health insurance reform bill — a measure of health care reform that the majority of Americans support — you stood up on behalf of the American people and put the interests of ordinary working American families ahead of the interests of multimillion dollar insurance companies. You put people ahead of profits, put principles ahead of politics, and brought the United States of America one step closer to joining the other developed nations of the world in recognizing access to basic health care as a human right that should be granted to all of a nation's people.

You promoted the general welfare, just like the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution says our government should. Your mothers should be proud.

The MOMocrats extend our gratitude, and encourage more Senators to join you.

Readers, if you support the public option like nearly two-thirds of your fellow Americans, and your Senator has not yet signed this letter, please encourage him or her to do so.

Full text of the letter after the jump:

Dear Majority Leader Reid:

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.

Comments

[Melissa S.]

Glad to see that my current Senators (from Maryland) and past ones (from NJ and NY--except for Charles Schumer, but I know he's for the Public Option) signed the petition.

[nancy]

no way, no how, no public option. this would hurt women!

[Fun & Fact]

Good stuff here. Will definately be useful for me so I will have to sign up and see what I can get to help me. Thank for this.