Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold in Support of the Senate Health Care Bill

[ProSense]

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold in Support of the Senate Health Care Bill

Sunday, December 20, 2009

“I’ve been fighting all year for a strong public option to compete with the insurance industry and bring health care spending down. I continued that fight during recent negotiations, and I refused to sign onto a deal to drop the public option from the Senate bill. Unfortunately, the lack of support from the administration made keeping the public option in the bill an uphill struggle. Removing the public option from the Senate bill is the wrong move, and eliminates $25 billion in savings. I will be urging members of the House and Senate who draft the final bill to make sure this essential provision is included.

“But while the loss of the public option is a bitter pill to swallow, on balance, the bill still delivers meaningful reform, and the cost of inaction is simply too high. This bill significantly expands coverage and helps protect Wisconsinites from high costs and insurance company abuses, such as denying or restricting coverage based on pre-existing conditions. The bill also improves a flawed Medicare formula that denies Wisconsin fair reimbursement rates, encourages the kind of low-cost, high-value care practiced in our state, increases access to home and community-based long-term care, and reduces federal budget deficits by $132 billion over the next decade.”

[Armstead]

1. Hardly a riunging enorsement....and a clear rebuke to Rahmbama

He may be supporting the bill, but he's pissed that Obama threw the public option under the bus. I don't blame him.

[O is 44]

4. How did Obama throw the public option

under the bus? Looks like Mr. Feingold is dealing with the same reality Obama is. We do not have 60 votes for the public option, we never did.

[tblue]

6. He told Rahm to give Lieberman what he wants.

That threw the po and Medicare 55 under the bus. Russ didn't.

[O is 44]

13. How would we have gotten to 60?

Nelson did not even want the PO did you listen to him yesterday. By the way I have read all over this board that Obama is too weak and has shown no leadership, how is he now the blame for Lieberman? He can not have it both ways. Please remember that we have 3 co-equal branches of government. If Feingold truly does not believe in this bill he is free to vote no.

[treestar]

14. that's the difference between the progressives on DU and the progressives in Congress

Feingold, Sanders, any of them could pull a Lieberman. But they obviously prefer to vote for the bill. So why the progressives don't go along with the most progressive Senators I don't know. I notice some of them throwing Boxer under the bus - but if she's not progressive enough for them, or Feingold is not, they can't possibly be "the base" but have to be the extreme fringe left. Otherwise, they'd calm down.

I admire Feingold for his voting against the Patriot Act. I don't know what he thinks Obama could have done about the public option though. One that Senate was elected with those people in it, clearly there was not going to be one.

[O is 44]

15. I know I really don't have a

problem with Feingold either, I heard the other day that he voted for cloture on the defense spending bill although he will vote no on final vote, but he did it to help out Obama and block the filibuster. I really think many including myself were not aware of the process of making legislation. So much horse trading involved, it really is ugly. And what makes it worse is that you have a Republican party standing in unison to vote NO on everything, really unprecedented. By the way I happen to like Dean but too many here are using Dean as a way to bash Obama.

[Armstead]

16. I'm not mad at Feingold -- I'm mad at those who forced him to accept shit

[O is 44]

18. Yeah, what gun was held to his head?

Please people grow up. The Senator is a grown man, if he does not like the bill vote no. Forced yeah ok, by who the weak President?

[Sultana]

66. LOL, seriously

some ppl need to step away from their computers.

[ProSense]

20. "forced him"? Feingold is voting for the bill because he wants to.

This is probably a key reason: "reduces federal budget deficits by $132 billion over the next decade"


He voted against the spending bill because he's concerned about the deficit.

[Armstead]

33. I repeat -- He is being forced to accept shit and he basically said as much

"Unfortunately, the lack of support from the administration made keeping the public option in the bill an uphill struggle."

[ProSense]

35. He's being forced to vote for something he wants to vote against?

Ludicrous.

[Armstead]

40. The same pressure for "party unity" that people like you try to impose here

[ProSense]

41. Oh, poor you. n/t

[Armstead]

55. Not asking for sympathy. Just sick of the crap some of you like to pull.

[treestar]

47. You're better off than Feingold

You don't have to march in lockstep.

But then he is a real Senator dealing with reality.

[Armstead]

54. Can I make a suggestion? Go to a dictionary and get a new set of talking points

The inane use of the same old cliches like "reality" is getting so tiresome.

PS I am not critical of Feingold. I am pissed at the same things he and many other Democratic legislators are pissed and/or discouraged about. The failure of leadership that has been demonstrated in this.

[treestar]

56. Reality is tiresome?

:shrug:

[Armstead]

60. The claim that one particular opinion is "reality" is tiresome

To you, your opinions and analysis are "real."

To me, my opinions and analysis are "real."

To the GOP, their opinions and analysis are "real."

That's the true "reality." So save some electrons and spare yourself from useless typing, and make your points.

[ProSense]

38. And you need to reread his

statement: "But while the loss of the public option is a bitter pill to swallow, on balance, the bill still delivers meaningful reform..."

[O is 44]

39. Yeah ok, he is forced to go against his

principles, I really think you are doing a disservice to the credibility of the dear Senator by continuing to make this lame argument.

[Armstead]

43. Feingold has a lot of credibility -- I am not criticizing him

He is making tghe best of a bad situation by supporting and trying to find reasons to support this.

What sucks is that the WH and Congressional leadership left people like Feingold out in the cold, and kissed th butt of Ben Nelson, when the bill was being put together.

[O is 44]

44. Why will you not give the same benefit

of the doubt to Obama? Just how were we to get to 60 votes? I have been waiting for this to be answered and no one will provide me with that answer. And before you state Obama was not forceful enough on the public option, I dare say that I had not heard Mr. Feingold position on this matter till recently.

[Armstead]

58. Feingold has been forceful all along, whether you heard him or not

As for Obama...Riddle me this. Why does a tiny mionority of Democrats opposed to refiorm carry so much more clout than the majority who supported it?

Because instead of whipping them into line (a lot of carrots and sticks they could have used) they chose to kiss their asses while leaving the supporters of reform twisting in the wind.

Where were the calls by Obama for the public to join him in gthe fight cfor a real public option and choice? It was crickets.

Why is it that Republicans always seem to find a way to get their bills passed as they want, regardless of gthe numbers?

[O is 44]

61. Republicans get bills passed because they

have at least one or two willing Conservadems. If you have not noticed the Republicans are the party of NO. They will not cross over in this debate. The answer to your question why so few can obstruct what the majority wants is a perfect example of why the Senate is broken. It is not representative government. There are two senators from every state which is not right since some states are lot smaller then others. And it is the small states that are able to change legislation that affects more people then the populations of their states combined.

The Senate must be fixed, that is why I laugh at those who want to primary Obama, no matter who gets in as President they will still have to deal with a broken senate. I think Obama could have used the bully pulpit to be more forceful and call out obstructionist but the way these prima donna's act their feelings would be hurt and they would vote no out of spite. These obstructionists are evil. I think your anger is directed towards one basket and that is not productive to the progressive cause.

[Armstead]

62. I agree that Senate is broken

And it is possible that it would have broken a really good bill regardless of what Obama and the leadership did.

But quite honestly, I did not see the leadership exercised that might have actually made a difference.

Obama did not rally the public and generate support for a real public option or Medicare expansion. He did not set marching orders to pass a meaningful Medicare expansion or public option.

Instead it was "I'd like to maybe see some form of public option but the Senate can do whatever the hell it wants."

He did not twist the arms of the minority -- he placated them, while throwing liberals and tghe majority who wanted a public opti0on to the wolves.

Plus this artificial Christmas deadline is ridiculous for something this important.

They could have at least TRIED to get a better bill.

[O is 44]

63. Ok, I agree with you this was not

handled perfectly, but blame goes to everyone involved. You can not just blame the executive branch when the legislative branch is co-equal. As far as the deadline, why does congress move at a snails pace? Harry should not have allowed them to go home over the summer that was the big mistake, now it all seems so rushed. Not to mention the republican delaying tactics.

[Armstead]

64. Okay, we are in basic agreement

[treestar]

49. That would only be possible from a position of strength

If Senator 60 was not Lieberman or Nelson but rather someone to the left of the Blue Dogs. The system lets someone in the center hold everyone else hostage. If they "caved" to Feingold or Sanders (and why can't we use that term on this end as well?) then there would be a bill that does not have a chance.

Feingold has to think this is better than nothing, or he would stand up against it. He has the history to prove he would do it.

[Arkana]

21. If the White House is so weak, please explain how they "forced"

Senator Feingold (and Sanders) to vote for the bill.

[Armstead]

37. The SWH was weak earlier and caved into the right wing

They only decided to use their muscle against liberals after the bill had been castrated.

[O is 44]

42. And you know this how? Stop peddling BS n/t

[Armstead]

45. Stop being such a blind partisan

This bill sucks.

Most of the supporters of the public option and real reform think it sucks.They are supporting it because at this ;point they have no choice.

They are not going to say that so directly, but they are trying to make the best of a shitty situation.

They -- and the American people -- should not have to support a bill that is widely acknowledged as a lame substitute for what most Democfrats really wanted.

This is the Ben Neklson Preserve Private Insurance Relief Act of 2009.

It is sad that what should have been a time of celebration among all Democrats, gthis travesty has made it a bitter pill for so many.

[O is 44]

46. I am not a blind partisan....

I happen to believe in not letting the "perfect be the enemy of the good" This is not yet the final bill I choose to wait until the final results to bash the process or the bill. Too many Dems have been stuck on the Public Option, I too was in favor of this but the reality is that we do not have the votes in the Senate at this time. No getting around that.

[Armstead]

53. We do not have the votes because the WH and lkeadership were....

either inept or didn't really want real reform.

As for fixing the bill, gthe "Nelson compromise" basically precluded any firther changes in conference. Maybe there will be a miracle, but that was the stated intent. What you see now it what you will get.

If they were not smart enough to use the lever of power to whip Nelson and the other SMALL MINORITY of Democrats who opposed real reform into line, and bend the parliamentary rules (a la reconciliation to expand Medicare) then they are failures as leaders.

On the other hand, they were brilliant if their goal was to kill public healthcare and engtrench the power of big insurance.

In either case, they should be pushed to do better, not supported in their failure.

[treestar]

57. How is Lieberman to be made less Liebermanish?

And how is Nelson to be whipped into a progressive?

The people of Nebraska come up with a Dem, good, but from there such a Dem will be conservative, it seems. Likewise ND and MT. I was happy we got the majority in the Senate but am only learning now this "majority" contains these types of Democrats. But from states like that, we are lucky to get Democrats turns out to be the reality.

If there are persons so powerful and mesmerizing that they can still whip these people into shape from the WH, would that they had the ability to get themselves elected to the WH.

[O is 44]

59. So now it is the WH's job to make sure

we have the votes on legislation? How again were we to deal with Nelson and traitor Joe and still get to 60 votes? This is not over so the medicare deal can still be done, I will wait and see. PO could not be done with reconciliation because it involves new law.

[treestar]

23. But if he had a "spine" wouldn't he filibuster it?

BTW: I do not insult him for lacking a spine. Only think that if this bill is so wrong and so horrible then he'd make the same threats as Lieberman.

[Armstead]

36. TO be hionest -- If progressives had made more threats earlier there would have been a better bill

I wish the supporters of real health reform had been tougher and meaner early in the process.

If they had, they might have gotten more leverage and the issue might not just have been "What can we do to weaken this bill to make Ben Nelson happy?"

[treestar]

2. Another corporate sellout

:sarcasm:

[tblue]

5. Oh yeah? Well he's the best of the lot.

I'll take Russ any day. And I hate this bill.

[Cha]

7. The poster was being sarcastic.

[HuckleB]

11. Since that's been the basic message of many on DU the past couple weeks, ...

such sarcasm needs the old "smiley."

[HuckleB]

10. On edit, I'm told you were being sarcastic.

Ok then.

[Cha]

19. Yeah, treestar! Yeah, a smiley would

suffice for those who wouldn't know, otherwise.

[treestar]

22. Fortunately I have not passed the editing time period

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=79803&mesg_id=79812

[Cha]

25. ..

:) Got that straightened out.;)

[NJmaverick]

3. Having to actually produce tends to make people more realistic

It's not a perfect bill, but something needs to be done

[Cha]

8. I just read in the Barack Obama Forum

that Feingold was voting for it..thanks for his statement, Pro.

Oh, but Russ still gets his snark in there on the admin.

This is from the guy who had nothing better to do than investigate the Obama admin "czars".

[HuckleB]

9. Exactly where I stand on the issue.

[Goldstein1984]

12. The Mandatory Insurance Customer Bill

Sounds like Feingold is gambling that it can be fixed in committee.

We'll see.

[ananda]

17. Sad and pathetic, but at least..

.. he didn't use the word "historic."

[Oregone]

34. historic capitulation would hit the mark

[tekisui]

24. He blames the Administration's lack of support. Thank you, Senator.

They were never there for you or for us.

[O is 44]

26. Yeah, keep believing that if that makes

you feel better. Poor, poor senator can't do anything without the Whitehouse having his back. Ever heard of the 3 co-equal branches of government? sheesh.

[tekisui]

28. Ever heard of the leader of the Democratic Party?

:think:

[treestar]

30. Why aren't they marching in lockstep behind their leader?

Oh, right. We never do that.

[O is 44]

31. And your point?

He also happens to be the leader of the entire country. Why the heck have a Senate majority leader, if the President is to occupy both positions? When will the blame be put on the broken senate instead of the executive branch? Not saying they are blameless but my goodness the nastiness towards this President is ridiculous.

[treestar]

50. And he is the leader of the executive branch, the left squad keeps

seeming to insist he is the boss of Congress.

Watch some bad SCOTUS decision come along and it be the President's "failure to lead."

The leadership meme is just foot stomping that we don't have a left wing decider but someone who wants to follow the law.

[DCBob]

27. Sheldon Whitehouse had a profound statement as well..

Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island responded in near-Biblical terms. In a speech on the Senate floor, he said Republicans are embarked on a "no-holds barred mission of propaganda, obstruction and fear. ... There will be a reckoning. There will come a day of judgment about who was telling the truth."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

Looks like the Dems are closing ranks now against the GOPers... about f'king time.

[O is 44]

32. Very nice to see this while other

Dems are fighting to bring down this President because the bill is not perfect, no I am not talking about Mr. Dean who I have alot of respect for.

[DeschutesRiver]

29. Why do we assume that the public option or a reduction in medicare age for that matter

will not be in the final bill?

[brentspeak]

48. Feingold's job is fortunately safe, but there's going to be lots of other worthy Democrats

who'll be voted out in 2010 thanks to Obama's corporate bill. They don't deserve this.

[O is 44]

52. Poor Senate, not only did they

write this legislation but they are now forced to vote for it too, and yet this is all Obama's fault. Your comments make absolutly no sense what so ever. Wow!

[gardenista]

51. The cost of inaction is simply to high

Thank you, Sen. Feingold!

[Garam_Masala]

65. Rhetoric does not take away from the FACT that we are screwed

The for profit private insurance have been rewarded with millions of neew
customers by mandates with the threat of IRS coming after you if you
don't pay.

That in itself would not be so terrible if there was STRICT REGULATION
on rates by private insurance. This bill does nothing to limit what those
profiteers can charge you for your premiums.

Yeah, for sure they won't cancel you or refuse you, but they can screw
you royally by jacking up your premiums.

This bill must have strict insurance reform added, otherwise I am not
happy at all.