Harvard Poll of Millennials Reminds Me of Why I Hate Approve/Disapprove Questions and False Dilemmas

The Harvard Institute of Politics's 24th edition of its "Survey of Young Americans’ Attitude Toward Politics and Public Service" came out earlier this week.

What stood out to me most when reading through the poll results was how the "approve/disapprove" question format produces false binaries and meaningless results unless used for specific (and specified) policy measures.

Let's look at questions 18 to 22 in particular. Each question began with the following lead:

Now thinking specifically about Barack Obama, do you approve or disapprove of the
way he is handling

18. Syria.
Approve .......................................................... 33%
Disapprove ..................................................... 60%
Decline to answer ........................................... 7%

When the pollsters are asking about "how Obama is handling Syria," what exactly do they mean?  Do they mean the manipulation of intelligence, the incessant warmongering in late August/early September, or the covert support for the Syrian rebels?  Or do they mean the deal worked out between the U.S., Russia, and Syria on the destruction of chemical weapons?  And what about the refugee crisis? Would an answer on this question register an opinion on that?

19. The economy.
Approve .......................................................... 33%
Disapprove ..................................................... 61%
Decline to answer ........................................... 6%

Polling questions about "the economy" are a big pet peeve of mine because they are too vague. You can ask people about unemployment; poverty and inequality; job security and income security; availability, affordability, and access to goods; etc. Polling "the economy" can only register a general sense of malaise. It cannot tell us why people disapprove of how the president is handling the economy, or what aspect of the economy.

20. Iran.
Approve .......................................................... 37%
Disapprove ..................................................... 56%
Decline to answer ........................................... 7%

By "Obama's handling of Iran," do the pollsters mean the crippling sanctions imposed on Iran that are causing a humanitarian crisis? Or do they mean the diplomatic negotiations that were occurring during the time of the poll? Does disapproval convey hawkishness or a desire for a more humane, egalitarian foreign policy?

22. Federal budget deficit.
Approve .......................................................... 28%
Disapprove ..................................................... 66%
Decline to answer ........................................... 6%

What does disapproval tell us? That young people think that Obama should be cutting the deficit more? That young people disapprove of the president's deficit-cutting fetish, embrace of austerity, and prioritization of deficit reduction over restoring employment? Do questions about the "deficit" even mean anything in the first place outside of context of specific policy measures? Thankfully, the poll does ask respondents about specific measures to reduce the deficit in a later section. However, the section manifests the bias inherent in accepting deficit reduction as a normative measure.

Question #21 is similar to Question #23, so let's look at them together:

21. Health care.
Approve .......................................................... 34%
Disapprove ..................................................... 61%
Decline to answer ........................................... 5%

23. Do you approve or disapprove of [The Affordable Care Act/Obamacare], the comprehensive health reform package that President Obama signed into law in 2010?
A. The Affordable Care Act.
(n=1,042)
Approve .......................................................... 39%
Disapprove ..................................................... 56%
Refused .......................................................... 5%
B. Obamacare
(n=1,047)
Approve .......................................................... 38%
Disapprove ..................................................... 57%
Refused .......................................................... 5%

ACA polling that does not disaggregate the disapproval is disingenuous. For example, a CNN/ORC poll from May found that 51% opposed the Affordable Care Act and 43% supported it. However, that 51% disapproval consisted of 35% disapproval from the right ("too liberal") and 16% disapproval from the left ("not liberal enough"). 

 

And, with the flaws of the neoliberal parts of the Affordable Care Act, Democrats are increasingly favoring changing the law to be more progressive and more inclusive. An "approve/disapprove" binary cannot account for that and produces misleading results.

As I noted earlier, the poll, rather than just asking about the "deficit," asked about specific policy measures to reduce the deficit:

As the president and Congress work to reduce the national deficit they will be faced with a series of tradeoffs. The two options in each pair would reduce the budget deficit by similar amounts, either by reducing spending or increasing revenue. For each pair, please select the option that you most prefer.

First of all, this accepts the premise that the president and Congress should be working to reduce the budget deficit, and that is, by all means, a normative claim. However, there is another major flaw here: the poll only tests relative preferences, not absolute preferences. The poll divided respondents into two groups (A and B) and presented each group with six different measures for reducing the deficit (all of which would do so by roughly equal amounts). The results, then, can only tell us how millennials prefer an option given the slate of other options provided. Deficit reduction, if we accept it, need not proceed on a set of such false dilemmas. 

 

Group A saw the following options, which I listed in order of relative preference.
(1)    Enact the “Buffet Rule,” a requirement that people making over $1 million a year pay at least 30% of their income in taxes (69% - 24%)
(2)    Reduce food stamp levels to 2008 levels and limit growth in spending on food stamps to the rate of inflation (58% - 36%)
(3)    Reduce U.S. Navy fleet to 230 ships (from a projected 320 ships) (51% - 41%)
(4)    Raise the retirement age for Social Security from 65 to 68 (41% - 52%)
(5)    Increase the gas tax by 15 cents per gallon (32% - 61%)
(6)    Raise Medicare premiums to 35% of costs (28% - 64%)

Group B saw the following options, which I listed in order of relative preference.

(1)    Cut foreign economic aid in half (71% - 22%)
(2)    Reduce spending related to the nuclear arsenal by reducing U.S. nuclear warheads from approximately 2,000 to approximately 1,550 (70% - 23%)
(3)    Increase the gas tax by 6 cents per gallon (44% - 49%)
(4)    Significantly reduce the Earned Income Tax Credit, and offset to payroll taxes for low-income workers with children, and the Child Tax Credit (38% - 54%)
(5)    Reduce social security benefits, except for workers who earn below the 30th percentile of Earnings (33% - 60%)
(6)    Cut federal K-12 funding by 25% (22% - 71%)

These results are moderately interesting, but they don't show us absolute preference--and that matters just as much, if not much more.

New Gallup Poll on ACA Shows Shift to the Left among both Dems and Indies

Although conservatives will point out that the latest Gallup poll on the Affordable Care Act shows that a combined 52% of the public supports scaling back or repealing the health care law, if you look more into the numbers, you'll find that there has been a shift to the left among Democrats and Independents in support of more progressive health care reform.

In October, 46% of Democrats preferred to keep the law as is, and 21% wanted to expand it.
Now, in December, 34% of Democrats preferred to expand health care reform, and 31% wanted to keep it as is.

The 2% increase in Democrats who want to scale back the law and the 1% increase in Democrats who want to repeal it are statistically insignificant, given the 4% margin of error.

We see a similar shift to the left among Independents.

The percentages preferring to "keep the law as is" or "scale it back" fell by 1%--effectively, no change.

The percentage of Independents who wanted to repeal the law fell from 33% to 29%. That's just at the margin of error.

The real change, though, was in the increased support for expanding the law among Independents: a rise from 14% to 21%.

Just as Democrats and Independents registered leftward movement, Republicans registered rightward movement.

The percentage of Republicans wanting to expand the law fell by 2% (statistically insignificant). The percentage of Republicans wanting to keep the law as is fell by 5% (8% to 3%). The percentage wanting to scale it back fell by 4% (26% to 22%).

Those changes corresponded with an 11% shift among Republicans in favor of repeal: 57% to 68%. Thus, a supermajority of Republicans wants full repeal, but less than a third of the general public agrees.

I would have liked Gallup to poll specific forms of expanding the law and scaling it back. As examples of expansion, you could poll lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 55, a Medicare buy-in, a public option, single payer, and an NHS-style health care system. As examples of scaling back, you could ask people which part(s) of the law they want eliminated: the individual mandate, the employer mandate, the insurance marketplaces, the insurance subsidies, the Medicaid expansion, or other parts of the law. Those results could be very revealing.

Which 36 Democrats Don't Think That Private Equity Should Have to Play by the Rules?

Today, the House voted 254 to 159 to exempt private equity firms from financial regulations enacted by the 2010 Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (aka "Dodd-Frank").

Here's Reuters on what the so-called Small Business Capital Access and Job Preservation Act (H.R. 1105) would do.

The bill would exempt many private equity fund advisers from a provision in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform law which required advisers with more than $150 million in assets under management to register with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Any firm that registers with the SEC is also subject to reporting rules and is required to open its books to agency examiners for routine compliance inspections.

Dodd-Frank also imposed more extensive confidential reporting requirements on larger private equity and hedge fund advisers in an effort to help U.S. regulators monitor possible broader systemic market risks.

Stephen Lynch (MA-07) explained the danger of the bill:

"One of the most important lessons that we did learn during the financial crisis is that systemic threats seem to always bubble up from the opaque and unregulated segments of the market," said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.). "Giving this exemption will allow threats to once again grow in the dark corners of our financial system, only showing themselves when it is too late to prevent serious harm to the American taxpayer."

As I noted earlier, the bill passed 254 to 189. Only one Republican--Walter Jones (NC-03)--opposed it. 

 

36 Democrats supported it:

Ron Barber (AZ-02)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
G. K. Butterfield (NC-01)
Tony Cárdenas (CA-29)
John Carney (DE-AL)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Tammy Duckworth (IL-08)
Elizabeth Esty (CT-05)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
Joe Garcia (FL-26)
Jim Himes (CT-04)
Steve Israel (NY-03)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Dan Maffei (NY-24)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Jim Matheson (UT-02)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Gregory Meeks (NY-05)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Bill Owens (NY-21)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Raul Ruiz (CA-36)
Brad Schneider (IL-10)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Juan Vargas (CA-51)
Marc Veasey (TX-33)

All of the bolded names are members of the DCCC's Front Line, aka the MoC's that get most of the money when you donate to the DCCC. Many of them have awful records on financial legislation because they vote with their donors, not their constituents.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (NY-12) offered an amendment to require private equity firms with U.S. assets worth anywhere from $150 million to $1 billion to register with the SEC but also to create a simpler registration process. The House rejected this 186 to 225.

Two Republicans voted for it: Walter Jones (NC-03) and Chris Gibson (NY-19).

Nine Democrats voted against it:

John Barrow (GA-12)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Jim Matheson (UT-02)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)

Third Way Attacks Elizabeth Warren. Warren Fights Back.

As you probably already know, Wall Street hacks from Third Way recently wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal criticizing the economic populism of figures like Elizabeth Warren. As to be expected, professional centrists and corporate panderers like Ron Fournier and Mike Allen were big boosters of the piece.

Although Third Way bills itself as a Democratic think tank, it should, more appropriately, be called a Wall Street think tank. Wall Street has no inherent party allegiance; it's allegiance is to its own self-interest. Here at the Daily Kos, Hunter pointed out how just about every single member of the Third Way board of trustees is an investment banker. Lee Fang at The Nation highlighted how the group gets its money from corporate lobbying firms and GOP donors:

Buried inside the annual report for Third Way is a revelation that the group relies on a peculiar DC consulting firm to raise half a million a year: Peck, Madigan, Jones & Stewart. Peck Madigan is no ordinary nonprofit buckraiser. The group is, in fact, a corporate lobbying firm that represents Deutsche Bank, Intel, the Business Roundtable, Amgen, AT&T, the International Swaps & Derivatives Association, MasterCard, New York Life Insurance, PhRMA and the US Chamber of Commerce, among others. The two organizations complement each other well. Peck Madigan signs as a lobbyist for the government of New Zealand on the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade deal; Third Way aggressively promotes the deal. Peck Madigan clients push for entitlement cuts, and so does Third Way.

Notice that Humana, a major health insurance company, lists its $25,000 donation to Third Way not as a donation to a think tank but as part of its yearly budget spent on lobbying activity, up there with the Florida Chamber and other trade associations. The company views financial gifts to Third Way as part of its strategy for increasing its profit-making political influence.

What’s more, Third Way’s leadership has tenuous connections to the Democratic Party it hopes to shape. Daniel Loeb, a hedge fund manager listed as a trustee on Third Way’s 2012 annual disclosure, bundled $556,031 for Mitt Romney last year. Third Way board member Derek Kaufman, another hedge fund executive, also gave to Romney.

If Wall Street is going to attack Warren via their lackeys at Third Way, Warren is going to come right back at them. Today, she sent a letter to the CEOs of JP Morgan & Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley--the nation's six largest financial institutions--urging them to disclose their financial contributions to think tanks.  They are required by law to disclose information about their lobbying. Although they are not currently required by law to disclose information about their donations to think tanks, their donations to think tanks effectively serve the same purpose.

Dear Mr. Dimon, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Corbat, Mr. Stumpf, Mr. Blankfein , and Mr. Gorman:

Five years ago, the "Too Big to Fail" status of America's largest financial institutions led to the near-collapse of the economy and massive government bailouts.  That crisis was the result of reckless activity on Wall Street and regulatory failures in Washington.  As Wall Street loaded up on risk, regulators failed to identify and to respond to warning signs in the mortgage market and across the financial system.

To avoid repeating those mistakes, and to prevent future crises, policymakers need access to objective, high-quality research, data, and analysis about our consumer and financial markets. As you know, private think tanks are extremely well-suited to provide this research and analysis, but for it to be valuable, such research and analysis must be truly independent. If the information provided by think tanks is little more than another form of corporate lobbying, then policymakers and the public should be aware of the difference.

As you know, your institutions are free to express your views to lawmakers and regulators through your lobbying efforts and those of the trade associations that represent you. But the law requires that there be transparency around your direct efforts to influence policymaking through lobbying, with disclosures about your lobbying expenditures.  Under current law, however, your institutions are permitted to make financial contributions to think tanks without any similar public disclosure. This means that you can make enormous contributions that threaten both the independence and public credibility of the work of think tanks out of the public view.

I am writing to encourage you to voluntarily disclose financial contributions your institutions make to think tanks.  In my view, policies by your institutions to conceal those contributions from public view are wrong.  Greater transparency will benefit your shareholders, policymakers, and, ultimately, the public.

As the CEOs of public companies, you have an obligation to expend corporate resources only in ways that advance the interests of your shareholders.  For that reason, I believe your shareholders have a right to know both which think tanks your companies are supporting and the extent of that support so that they can assess for themselves whether they benefit from these contributions.

When you use corporate resources to support think tanks, there are only two possible outcomes from public disclosure-those contributions do not influence the work of the think tanks or those contributions do influence the think tanks' research and conclusions. Either way, shareholders have a right to know how corporate resources are spent, and, even more importantly, policymakers and the public should be aware of your contributions and evaluate the work of the think tanks accordingly.

To be clear, your institutions have every right under the law to give financial support to think tanks, and think tanks have every right to accept that support. But just as there is transparency around your direct efforts to influence policymaking through lobbying, the same transparency should exist for any indirect efforts you make to influence policymaking through financial contributions to think tanks.

I very much hope that your institutions work to set a new standard in this area by voluntarily disclosing the contributions you make to think tanks.  I am confident that by increasing public disclosure, your companies can generate goodwill from shareholders, policymakers, and the public that will serve your long-term interests and the long-term interests of the American people.

I would be happy to discuss this issue with you further, and I hope you reach out to my office if you are interested in doing so.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Warren
U.S. Senator

When the Washington Post criticized the PCCC's campaign to expand Social Security, Elizabeth Warren followed up the next day with an excellent floor speech in rebuttal. It's always good to see her fight back.

Dick Durbin, Still Passionately Committed to Cutting Your Social Security

There are few people (or few Democrats at least) in the Senate as passionate about cutting Social Security as Illinois's "liberal" senator Dick Durbin.

The State Journal-Register of Springfield, IL, reported earlier today that Durbin was pushing for cuts (for the umpteenth time) in a press conference after a talk at a local high school.

“Let’s have this debate,” Durbin told reporters after speaking with students at Springfield High School. “Let’s make this choice. I don’t want to wait 20 years and be in the same situation as our state pension systems. We have no choice but to make some really, really tough decisions.”

Durbin said he wants to lift the cap on annual earnings that can be taxed for Social Security to take in “roughly 85 to 90 percent of all earned income.” ….

Durbin also said the retirement age affects the long-term solvency of the system, but “whatever change we make should be made gradually over a long period of time.”
And, Durbin said, the cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) should be based on need.

“Loretta and I should receive less in COLA than those who are living on Social Security alone,” Durbin said of he and his wife, who live in Springfield. “We both have income. … We shouldn’t get the same COLA as those who are struggling,” including those getting the smallest benefits and those at advanced ages “where they’ve expended all their savings.”

Durbin wants to lift the cap to cover 85% of all earned income. As of 2011, it covered 84% of total income. If you want to calculate the exact percentage, you can probably do so with the wage data from the SSA, knowing that the payroll tax cap only applies to income under $113,700. 

On the question of the retirement age, I've written before about how the average life expectancy at age 65 for the bottom half of earners, those who need Social Security the most, has been stagnant for the past three decades. And, for some demographics, life expectancy is falling.

Durbin also proposes means-testing, a conservative plan in progressive clothing. Daily Kos's own Joan McCarter has a great diary from two years ago on the fallacy of means-testing. At the simplest level, there just aren't enough wealthy seniors. To gain genuine savings through means-testing, you have to push the threshold for "affluence" pretty low. And with the looming retirement crisis, explained well by Senator Elizabeth Warren, the number of seniors living comfortably will be going down in the future.

Joan's piece also includes an excellent quote from Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot's book Social Security: The Phony Crisis on the problem with the arguments for means-testing:

The justification for denying benefits to people who have paid taxes into the system is also questionable. We do not deny interest payments to wealthy owners of U.S. Treasury bonds, for example, and it is difficult to see how the payment of Social Security benefits to rich senior citizens is any less appropriate. Indeed, why single out senior citizens as a group for special treatment in this regard? If we think that the rich are getting too much of the economic pie, then they should be taxed more--not just the ones who happen to be over 65.

Durbin also told reporters that he wants any Social Security "fix" to be bipartisan as it was in 1983:

He said similar changes were passed — with his support when he was in the House — in 1983. “It bought 50 years of solvency for Social Security, and it was worth it,” Durbin said. “It was bipartisan, and it should be bipartisan again.”

I'm sure he does want it to be bipartisan. Remember, he served in the Catfood Commission (Simpson-Bowles) and supported the Simpson-Bowles plan. He's actually the only Democrat currently in office who voted for the original Simpson-Bowles plan. 

Durbin also contrasted his recommendations with the evil specter of "privatization." Many Democrats like to use "privatization" as a foil when they are pushing cuts to Social Security. However, "privatize or cut" is a false dilemma. As senators like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Tom Harkin, and Sherrod Brown have shown, there's another option: expanding Social Security.

NYT Falsely Equates ACA Website with Liberal Project

The New York Times thinks that the ACA website represents the liberal project, i.e. that "an activist government can solve complex social problems." And I beg to differ.

Alan Grayson Offers a Progressive Fix for the ACA: Medicare Buy-In

Over the past month, with the healthcare.gov website malfunctioning and the bad press around plan cancellations, we've seen Democrats run scared as they so often do.

Four Democrats have co-sponsored Republican Rep. Fred Upton's bill: John Barrow (GA-12), Mike McIntyre (NC-07), Patrick Murphy (FL-18), and Kysrten Sinema (AZ-09).

A group of mostly red/purple state senators (many of whom are up for re-election) have jumped on another "fix" bill with Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA): Joe Manchin (WV), Joe Donnelly (IN), Kay Hagan (NC), Mark Pryor (AR), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Jeff Merkley (OR), and Tom Udall (NM).
Neither improves the bill, and the former is trying to undermine it.

I've been waiting to hear progressive Democrats start offering progressive "fixes" to the Affordable Care Act because if they don't, they effectively concede the terms of debate over the ACA to the Republicans. The "keep it, but improve it" line resonates well with the public.

Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has been a reliable voice for single payer and has spoken on the issue numerous times over the past month. However, I haven't heard much in the way of "progressive fixes" from other progressive legislators.

I was happy to see Rep. Alan Grayson (FL-09) change that. Back in February, Grayson introduced the Medicare You Can Buy Into Act:

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – Congressman Alan Grayson (FL-09) has introduced his first piece of legislation in the 113th Congress, the Medicare You Can Buy Into Act (H.R. 500). The bill would allow any legal resident of the United States to buy into Medicare at cost.

At only four pages long, H.R. 500 is simple: allow Americans to enroll in Medicare, where they would be eligible for coverage under Parts A and B, as well as Part D’s prescription drug access. Because premiums would be equal to cost, the program would pay for itself.

“In many states, a few private insurance companies control the market, restricting consumer choice and driving up the cost of care.  Although the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act attempts to address this problem, more could be done,” Grayson explained. “Why should the insurance companies get all of the options, while we get none? The people deserve a choice. The people deserve a public option. Opening up the Medicare system increases competition and provides more options to consumers.”

Rep. Carol Shea Porter (NH-01) joined as a co-sponsor in May. Grayson sent out an email this morning indicating that he plans to renew efforts to bring attention to this bill:

Dear America: I hate to say "I told you so." But I told you so.

I said, waaaaaaay back in 2010, that anyone who wants Medicare coverage should be able to buy it. I was right. And I'm still right.

If you agree, then congratulations -- you're right, too.

Think about it: Has anyone ever complained about being canceled by Medicare? No.

Has anyone ever complained that the Medicare website crashed? No.

Has anyone ever complained that Medicare refused him coverage? No.

Has anyone ever complained that Medicare cut him off when his care got too expensive? No.
Has anyone ever whined that Medicare is socialism? Well, yes. In 1961, Ronald Reagan said that Medicare would bring on a socialist dictatorship. As if.

The real problem that we have is not that some website doesn't work. The real problem is not that some insurance companies are canceling some policies - when has that ever not happened?

Here are the real problems:

    A lot of Americans can't afford health insurance.

    In many areas of the country, the health insurance companies and the hospitals are monopolies or duopolies, and they control the market.

    The health insurance companies charge as much as they can, they provide as little care as they can get away with, and they call the difference "profit." They have a conflict of interest with you. They make more money by denying you the care that you need to stay healthy, or even alive.

But there is a solution to these problems. In fact, some Americans have an excellent healthcare system, which is overwhelmingly popular. It provides care from Point Barrow, Alaska, to Key West, Florida, and from sea to shining sea. It's cheap and efficient - 97% of the cost goes directly into providing care. We've invested billions of dollars to make it comprehensive and universal. You may have heard of this healthcare system -- it's called "Medicare."

And, weirdly, we open it only to seniors and the disabled. It's as if we said that the minimum age to drive on interstate highways is 65 years old. It's as if we said that only seniors could go to public school.

That's just nuts.

What would it cost for everyone else? I'm glad you asked. According to the experts, for full coverage, including the prescription drug benefit, Medicare would cost barely $100 a month for children, and less than $500 a month for people in their sixties. Which is much less than my coverage costs -- and, I would venture to say, probably yours, too (unless you're on it already).

Which is why, back in 2010, I introduced a simple, four-page bill, the 'Medicare You Can Buy Into Act'. The bill allows Americans to buy into Medicare at cost. If you want Medicare, and you pay for it, you've got it. Period. End of story.

I signed up more than 80 co-sponsors in the House, in two weeks.

Poll after poll found that a "public option" like this was very popular with the public, too. Politifact did a survey of surveys, and found that in 28 polls, the average result was 57 percent in favor, and 38 percent against - despite massive negative propaganda spewed out by the Chamber of Commerce.

Unfortunately, the Affordable Care Act passed without a Medicare buy-in, or any public option. King Lieberman (D-Aetna) vetoed it. That kept private insurance companies exclusively in charge of health coverage for people under 65. We can all see how well that's turned out. These large and profitable corporations have cancelled policies and raised rates at will. They are demanding the power to continue to discriminate against women, to deny coverage to people with existing illnesses, and to pull the plug - literally - on anyone whose coverage becomes too expensive.

And is it really their fault? "No one can serve two masters." (Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13.) We are asking the health insurance companies to serve two masters: patients, and profit. They can't do it. No one can.

But the health insurance companies have demonstrated that they are good at one thing - fooling voters. They spent $2 million against me in 2010 in the Great Democratic Apocalypse, and they got rid of me.

Temporarily. And now, I'm back.

So after I won reelection last year, one of the first bills that I introduced was that same old four-page bill, the 'Medicare You Can Buy Into Act' (H.R. 500). Because we need it. Me and you. We need it.

If we open up Medicare to everyone who can pay for it, private insurance premiums will drop, because health insurance companies with local monopolies will face much-needed competition. And, to compete, those companies will have to offer better policies -- policies with more comprehensive coverage, with a broader network, and better service.
Now that's what I call true health care reform. That's what I'm talking about.

We want a public option. We need a public option. And that public option already exists - we just need to open it up, to all Americans.

Here is our cheer: "I want Medicare. You want Medicare. We all want Medicare."

Let's make it happen. Sign the petition today: WeWantMedicare.com.

It is never too late to do the right thing.

L'chaim - To Life,

Rep. Alan Grayson

"The greatest wealth is health." - Virgil

You can sign his "We Want Medicare" petition here. 

 

You can also encourage your representatives to co-sponor his bill.

When he first introduced the bill in 2010, he garnered 82 co-sponsors.

57 of those co-sponsors are still in the House:

Corinne Brown (FL-05)
Mike Capuano (MA-07)
Andre Carson (IN-07)
Kathy Castor (FL-14)
Judy Chu (CA-27)
Yvette Clarke (NY-09)
Lacy Clay (MO-01)
Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Steve Cohen (TN-09)
John Conyers (MI-13)
Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Danny Davis (IL-07)
Diana DeGette (CO-01)
Lloyd Doggett (TX-35)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Donna Edwards (MD-04)
Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Eliot Engel (NY-16)
Sam Farr (CA-20)
Marcia Fudge (OH-11)
John Garamendi (CA-03)
Al Green (TX-09)
Raul Grijalva (AZ-03)
Luis Gutiérrez (IL-04)
Alcee Hastings (FL-20)
Rubén Hinojosa (TX-15)
Rush Holt (NJ-12)
Mike Honda (CA-17)
Steve Israel (NY-03)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18)
Eddie Johnson (TX-30)
Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Barbara Lee (CA-13)
John Lewis (GA-05)
Carolyn Maloney (NY-12)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Jim McGovern (MA-02)
Jim Moran (VA-08)
Jerry Nadler (NY-10)
Grace Napolitano (CA-32)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
Charlie Rangel (NY-13)
Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-46)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Bobby Scott (VA-03)
Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01)
Jackie Speier (CA-14)
Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Paul Tonko (NY-20)
Nydia Velazquez (NY-07)
Maxine Waters (CA-43)
Pete Welch (VT-AL)
Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC)
Gregorio Sablan (Northern Marian Islands)

Tammy Baldwin (WI) and Mazie Hirono (HI), who were both co-sponsors, are now in the Senate, and Baldwin sits on the HELP Committee. They deserve a call, too, as do their colleagues.