TPMDC
Dean Of House To Nervous Dems: If We Fail On Health Care, We Lose
Rep. Jon Dingell (D-MI)
Share
Send to a friend!
In a tense, closed door caucus meeting this morning, during which House Democrats were made to go on the record on the question of whether they'd vote for a health care bill with a robust public option, some of the caucus' most nervous members got a bit of perspective from its longest serving members.
"It was really fairly simple speech," said Rep. John Dingell (D-MI). "All I did was to remind the members that the Republicans are out there to beat us by seeing to it that we accomplish nothing during this Congress especially on health care. It's exactly the same tactic, the same strategy they used in 1993. And I reminded them that that tactic took control of the House from us, because, one of the principal reasons was, we were not able to pass a health insurance bill."
Dingell tells me, "I reminded them that Democrats were divided on the issue. And I told them that if they want to come back and control the Congress they should get behind this bill."
I pointed out that there are 47 million Americans--not 35--that would be able to draw benefits under this. That's not only a moral, but an economic necessity. Because we can no longer afford the cost of health insurance... I pointed out that by 2082 or thereabout two curves will cross on a graph. The first the cost of health care the second the United States GDP.We're going to confront a massive and frightening situation.
The more immediate point, though, is that these members have made the wrong political calculation. "I told them that this country will support members that do what they think is right and go home and defend it," Dingell said, reminding them that the real danger is not that some of the bill's provisions, particularly the robust public option, might be unpopular in their districts, but that they go home empty handed.
Dingell's optimistic. "I think we're going to win--I think we very well have to win."
And he's putting that onus on the freshman and sophomore members who are still sitting on the fence on a robust public option bill, despite a week of intense lobbying on the part of Democratic leadership. "I also pointed out something--that this leadership is working much harder, and much more effectively on this legislation than last time on health care. It failed by only one vote that time. I pointed out that I don't think any of us would want to be the one vote that pulled this bill down."
We'll know soon if they were listening. Other Democrats were.
One progressive Democrat who supports the "robust" public option was moved by the speech.
That Democrat said Dingell reminded members Congress couldn't get health care done in the 30s, 40s, '65 or '93, and specifically took the blame for the bill's failure during the Clinton administration.
Additional reporting by Christina Bellantoni
Comments (42) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
CT Voter
October 23, 2009 3:57 PM
It really is simple. If they don't get something done, they're going to get clobbered in 2010. And they can't pass some POS legislation that includes mandates but no public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MasonMcD
October 23, 2009 11:05 PM in reply to CT Voter
I'm wondering what their argument would be when they stand in front of their constituents:
"I voted against health reform, and though we didn't get a major plank of our platform accomplished, I'm sure by election day, you'll realize I did the right thing."
vs.
"Here is new coverage for you, and the rest of America who can't afford insurance! I think I did the right thing."
Hmm. Which one is a more effective sell to their voters?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
October 24, 2009 10:11 AM in reply to MasonMcD
Actually they won't be able to say either of these things. The way the bills stands now, (From FDL)"most of the reforms (and the decrease in the number of uninsured) will not start until several months after the 2012 election."
So what they will be saying is yeah we passed health care legislation, and if you wait a couple years things are going to get better, trust us, really.
Again according to Jon Walker over at Fire Dog Lake the majority of the people don't know this so when things don't start to change right away they are going to get angry and it won't be directed toward the Repugs. Who, by the way, can be trusted to make the most of that anger. That's the only thing they are good at after all.
Read it all: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/10/23/the-health-care-reform-political-time-bomb/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
October 24, 2009 2:36 PM in reply to henk
And so... what?
Scrap what is on the table now? Restart negotiations, go back to all the committees and...?
Besides, the timeline in the report is off; it doesn't go back far enough as to efforts to bring about better health care. That would have to start 97 years ago, in 1912, with Teddy Roosevelt as being the actual start of this fight.
I expect that explaining to constituents that the fight for actual health care reform will end, as a sort of birthday present, 100 years after it started, might be a good antidote to Rethuglican poison. Especially if they likewise inform the constituents that it has always been conservatives that have blocked this reform, every step of the way, for a century of pain and death without care.
Rewarding those same forces opposing human morality when we are inches from crossing the line of this hundred year long race will only ensure the prize ahead will be snatched away one more time. And maybe sentence the uninsured to another century without care, and the certain destruction of our economy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hyla Brook
October 26, 2009 8:23 AM in reply to henk
That health care reform won't really show a benefit until 2012 is a bit of voter education that can be covered. Not passing a decent bill at all will make Democrats vulnerable.
Republicans will scream about everything - even once the plan gets going there will be snafus & growing pains - count on the Republicans to try to profit from each little mistake.
Also, if politicians explain what exactly a public option will be - since we won't know until the bill is passed - that could also help Democrats present a history of accomplishment in the first 2 years of the Obama Presidency.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
October 23, 2009 4:03 PM
I do believe Rep. Dingell gets it. And he stated it quite eloquently. Thank you, sir.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
October 23, 2009 4:47 PM in reply to chimpale
He been getting it for many, many years now. It's nice to think people might actually start listening to him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MonicaDickey
October 24, 2009 7:10 PM in reply to chimpale
Indeed. Every politician wants to be a straight talker and plays it up, but this is real straight talk. Honest and eloquent. Hopefully it's also effective.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
October 23, 2009 4:20 PM
You go, Mr. Dingell!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
October 23, 2009 4:34 PM
"I told them that this country will support members that do what they think is right and go home and defend it," Dingell said, reminding them that the real danger is not that some of the bill's provisions, particularly the robust public option, might be unpopular in their districts, but that they go home empty handed."
Thank God someone will say it if the White House refuses to.
Thank you, Representative Dingell.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
October 24, 2009 2:47 PM in reply to again
Pressure is being applied on Congress, one of the co-equal branches of government designed to represent the people, a check and balance against executive over-reach, and they are very slowly responding. All the president has to do is apply pen to paper and sign the thing.
Instead of waiting for daddy to fix it, we need to keep the pressure on congress. Call, write, write and call, over and over, ad nauseum. There is a reason why the constitution starts off talking about "we the people" then launches into talking about congress. That's because it, not the presidency, is the actual home to "we the people."
In order to form a more perfect union, we must apply pressure to put our house in order for this and the other fights ahead. It has to be done one letter, phone call or email at a time, over and over, relentlessly. If "we" are to govern, then we must govern and not wait for daddy president to make it all better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 23, 2009 4:50 PM
if you fail on HCR you have no one to blame but yourselves
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
October 24, 2009 2:57 PM in reply to Indie Pro
And you are not part of this fight? Because you choose not to fly a red or blue flag, does that absolve you of responsibility as a citizen in this or any other fight?
Even if Rep or Dem, these congressional representatives are still answerable to you though you may choose to not associate with either flawed party. Do you write them, call them, demand that they listen to your ideas and opinions? Or are you just waiting for "us" to fix it to your advantage?
I admit that participating in these public forums is valuable and credit you for that participation, but to suggest it's "our" fault if this thing goes down makes me question exactly what space you feel you are in the saddles "us" with all the responsibility while freeing you from any of it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
October 23, 2009 4:52 PM
Why didn't dingell say ...
"If there is an Opt-out all you scaredy-dats can go back to your districts and say You saved the folks too stupid to realize this will help them by voting for the PO w/ Opt-out" Done Deal. WTF do these yahoo's not see??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe
October 23, 2009 5:05 PM
Thank you, Mr. Dingell!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
October 23, 2009 5:11 PM
As far as I am concerned, any Bill that Snowe supports is a failure. I am sick of the WH and this bi-partisan crap. We didn't elect Obama to peddle this nonsense. We elected him to keep his promise which was for a strong public insurance plan. If he betrays us, he will loose a lot of us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fsudirectory
October 23, 2009 5:19 PM in reply to xargaw
If he wanted her to be Vice President, he shoulda picked her, and not Biden
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lou
October 24, 2009 9:19 PM in reply to fsudirectory
really...the nerve, it is insulting this catering to her especially in this issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cledwards
October 23, 2009 5:18 PM
Thank you Mr Dingell. In the 1940s, your father joined others to propose the Murray-Wagner-Dingell health insurance bill. Needless to say they failed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
October 23, 2009 5:26 PM
Thank you, Rep. Dingell.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
October 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Very basic, very common sense. It's almost too easy. Keeping it simple is the best plan.
In a Democracy the majority rules. We are the super-majority, we are changing & making the rules. What's the problem?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lou
October 24, 2009 9:22 PM in reply to Leftflank
almost starting to look like the obstuctionist dems made more money while the GOP had the WH....
looks like they think destroying the party is an option.
I am really starting to think that and wrote these dems about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
October 23, 2009 5:58 PM
Very true that if this bill goes down, the Democrats go down in 2010. Why should the American people vote for Democrats in office after having 60 Senate seats and 39 seat majority over the GOP in the House?
Americans voted to have them get things done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
October 24, 2009 3:09 PM in reply to Maritza
One year is not very much time to organize an actual, viable third party with enough juice to elect a majority to congress. Better get busy, because handing the reigns back to the new Rethuglican Party will hand back power to the very people who oppose humanity in the name of the corporate overlords.
This is lesser of the evils time. I'll stick with having a game leg in this race rather than sawing it off because I can't get up enough speed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lou
October 24, 2009 9:26 PM in reply to Maritza
and they would deserve it but the alternatives are just downright scary...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stop7997
October 23, 2009 6:15 PM
Congressman Dingell, have YOU ever thought of running for President? It'd be nice to have one with a spine.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SqueakyRat
October 25, 2009 1:37 AM in reply to stop7997
Dingell is no hero. He's been in the pocket of the automobile industry his entire career. Increase mileage requirements? No. Decrease emissions? No. Require seatbelts or airbags? No. Open the US market to foreign competition? Big No! Every attempt to bring the US auto industry into line with the real world has been passed over his hysterical objections.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stop7997
October 25, 2009 12:46 PM in reply to SqueakyRat
You make a good point. Seems like everybody is in somebody's pockets. It's just that Obama seems to be in everybody's.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
October 23, 2009 6:26 PM
They are going to make a movie out of this Health Care fight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Middleclassvotingbloc
October 23, 2009 9:32 PM
Dingell has it right. No truer words have ever been spoken.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
luckysitsinback
October 23, 2009 11:45 PM
You all know the committees and subcommittees he's on, right?
Get on over to the phone and thank him. And make sure he knows you're letting Harry know you thanked him. And then, make sure Harry knows you thanked him. And make sure Josh Marshall knows you thank HIM, too. Thanks, Josh.
I have respect for guts and goodness, separately or together. Rep. Dingell needs our thanks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gizmo
October 24, 2009 12:05 AM
Ya know what I'd like to see? Some political journalists who are determined to find out WHY some Democrats are not on board with the public option. During this long and miserable healthcare debate, I've not seen one single instance of a reporter getting in the face of those in Congress who are opposed to a progressive healthcare bill and asking them to explain themselves. Not one damn time.
Oy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rightoverhere
October 24, 2009 2:21 AM in reply to gizmo
Wait, you want a media member to actually go out and challenge a democrat!? Are you crazy?!? The media would never do such a thing!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lary
October 24, 2009 8:38 AM
"In a tense, closed door caucus meeting this morning, during which House Democrats were made to go on the record on the question of whether they'd vote for a health care bill with a robust public option..."
Suggestion: the first mention of "robust public option" in an article should be linked to definition of just what the hell that means.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
steviez
October 24, 2009 11:08 AM
Well put, well done. Simple, eloquent, correct. Now, let's all stop squabbling and get this done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
out of the loop
October 24, 2009 11:34 AM
So here's the deal with the Democrats: They're against war when they're out of power. They're for health care reform when they're out of power. They're for the working man when they're out of power. Then, on the day they take power, they show that they're for big business, big banks, big insurance companies, big defense contractors, big influence peddlers and they fail to pass laws to reform or change much of anything. They even continue to defend the torturers. The whole health-care issue has been a scam since the single-payer plan was taken off the table on the day before the debate began. Shame on them. And their liberal/progressive supporters get fooled yet again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
raiatean
October 24, 2009 1:14 PM
There are a few Democratic Party members in the House and Senate that are worth a tinkers dam, but to this old Chief, over 90% are nothing but "Users", who care nothing about anything other than the duping of the masses and the enrichment of themselves. I am so very tired of being taken for a fool by these petty Feather Merchants. I look at Inouye's watering down of Franken's Rape Amendment, and even though I am against the beating up of our Seniors, I feel that "Danny the Dummy" Deserves to be taken out behind the barn and horsewhipped to within an inch of his lousy life. There are more "Me First" Democrats today than ever before and if those serving us do not wish to follow our mandates, perhaps we should show those anal retentives the door and find those who will listen for a change... I became a Frenchman during Raygun's Reign and today I am thanking myself for my Sagesse...
Just this old Chiefs 2 cents
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
leeincoltsneck
October 24, 2009 2:13 PM
This congress sure does not want to get rid of the insurance companies. Medicare is loaded with them and
they have been milking Medicare for years. Now they
want to milk the secret public option which would let the cat out of the bag.
This is why congress is scared to death of passing a public option because they would have to include the insurance companies that will start to milk again.
Remember Pelosi said single-payer, no way!
This country will never see a Canadian type of health
reform unless they get rid of all the insurance companies that never existed before like they do today.
Single-payer
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
timba
October 24, 2009 6:27 PM
Meanwhile, back on the Senate side of the battle, Maine is a small media market just begging to be flooded with this gut-wrenching ad:
http://www.actblue.com/page/obamafight
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
baba2nde
October 26, 2009 12:29 AM
Basic question: Why do members of Congress want to be re-elected?
If it is not to fight for what the people want, then has to be the robust pensions and health benefits that come with the job?
Huh? They get those benefits regardless of the length of service? OK. What is the answer,then?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trittydi
October 26, 2009 4:10 AM
I would like to take this article and whack Melissa Bean with it -- she needs it.
*
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SteveGinIL
October 26, 2009 4:19 AM
They don't have to lose on this. 60 is not the magic number.
As long as Reconciliation is an option, all this crap going on right now to get past cloture is just part of the process. If the 60 isn't achieved, then Obama still can go to Reconciliation.
The votes to pass it are there. Everybody knows it. Reconciliation is just the last step, but Obama isn't going to use it unless he has to. He SHOULDN'T even be working so hard at it. He should be holding Reconciliation over the heads of the Blue Dogs, telling them, "Look people. We can do it with you or without you. But if you don't go with us on this, we are going to remember. And we can cut off your national party funds for your reelection campaign. You think it is tough winning in your Red State - try doing it without us helping."
RECONCILIATION.
RECONCILIATION.
RECONCILIATION.
RECONCILIATION.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?