Like so many of the Republicans they try to emulate,the conservative Democrats claim to worry about spending and deficitsexceptwith respect to programs that benefit them, their favorite constituents or thelobbyists who pay their campaign expenses.
Facing re-election and plummeting poll numbers, Lincoln voted to commencedebate last weekend. But then she turned around and warned that she wouldprobably join a Republican filibuster against the Democratic health reformbill. Why? Because the Democratic legislation, favored by a clear majority, islikely to include a public option.
Last July, Lincolnpublished an essay on the op-ed page of the largest daily paper in Arkansas that statedclearly why a public option should be part of a broader reform plan:"Individuals should be able to choose from a range of quality healthinsurance plans. Options should include private plans as well as a quality,affordable public plan or nonprofit plan that can accomplish the same goals asthose of a public plan.”
That makes perfect sense in her state, where BlueCross-Blue Shield controls 75% of the insurance market, and throughout much ofthe South, where similar monopoly conditions prevail.
But over the summer, Lincoln and certain othermembers of her party were simultaneously spooked by low poll numbers andpersuaded by big insurance and pharmaceutical donations. So more recently shehas learned to parrot the Republican talking points about the public option andthe general topic of health care. The fact that those talking points arelargely untrue doesn't seem to trouble her or the other nominally Democraticsenators who have likewise threatened to join the filibuster.
"For some in my caucus, when they talk about apublic option, they're talking about another entitlement program, and we can't affordthat right now as a nation. ... I would not support a solely government-fundedpublic option. We can't afford that," she has said.
More Money for War and Corporate Subsidies?
Yet if Lincolnhas actually read the Democratic health care billand the analysis provided bythe nonpartisan Congressional Budget Officethen she knows that none of thosecomplaints are valid. The public option is not an entitlement program, althoughthe health care bill will provide subsidies to help families that cannot affordhealth insurance to buy either public or private plans.
Second, the public option proposed in either theSenate or House versions of the bill would not be funded solely by thegovernment, because both bills require the plan to be supported fully throughpremiums paid by the insured.
Third, the proposed bill is not only deficit-neutralbut is estimated to reduce the federal deficit by hundreds of billions ofdollars over the next two decades.
Now, of course, Lincolnjust like her fellow self-proclaimedmoderatesis well aware of all those basic aspects of the bill because sheinsists that she has read every word. Still, she tells the world that we cannotafford real reform.
What can we afford? According to these worthysenators, we can afford to spend a million dollars per soldier to send another40,000 troops to Afghanistananamount that would add up over the coming decade to approximately $400 billion,with no obvious benefit. And according to Lincoln, who chairs the SenateAgriculture Committee, we can afford to spend $14 billion a year or more onsubsidies that mainly enrich corporate farms and wealthy growers. Back home in Phillips County, Ark.,for example, where her family owns considerable acreage in rice and soybeans,big farmers have cashed U.S.government checks totaling more than $300 million over the past 10 years.
So when these centrists warn that we cannot affordhealth care reform, double-check their factsand ask why they prefer to spendtax dollars on wasteful wars and corporate subsidies rather than health carefor every American.
© 2009Creators.com.
