Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement on Nov. 21, 2009, after the Senate 60-39 vote to begin debate on a health care reform bill:
"I voted to proceed on health care reform because our current health care system is disintegrating and must be reformed. Forty-six million Americans are uninsured, and 45,000 die every year because they don't have access to a doctor. We have almost one million Americans going bankrupt because of medically-related diseases, health care costs are soaring and we end up spending almost twice as much per person on health care as any other nation. It is clear that we need real health care reform.
"While I voted to proceed to the health care legislation tonight, I have made it clear to the administration and Democratic leadership that my vote for the final bill is by no means guaranteed. In the weeks to come I intend to do everything I can to make this legislation stronger and more effective for working families and taxpayers in Vermont and America and something all Americans can be proud of."

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

unknowncitizen
November 21, 2009 9:05 PM
That's my Senator. Go Bernie. In Vermont, we elected a self described socialist to represent us - God I love how that pisses Republicans off.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 22, 2009 2:09 PM in reply to unknowncitizen
Anyone in their right mind loves Senator Sanders. Even if only for the fact that he is no bullshit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rosebowl
November 21, 2009 9:12 PM
55 Democrats plus Sanders want a public option in the final bill. We are going to get a bill with a public option. I'm very optimistic about that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 22, 2009 2:10 PM in reply to rosebowl
Same here.
I'm certainly not at all worried about Sanders' statement or position. He knows what he's doing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShawninMo
November 21, 2009 9:17 PM
I hope you can find a way for government can guide it, and not run it, while you're mulling it over.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
de TOQUEville
November 21, 2009 10:52 PM in reply to ShawninMo
Uh... what??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShawninMo
November 21, 2009 11:16 PM in reply to de TOQUEville
How about not taking over the health insurance industry with this first step of "public option". You know, what Obama called the first step towards universal healthcare. Rather "guiding" the industry towards affordable health care, through regulation, because we know anything the government runs is not affordable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WillAct723
November 22, 2009 12:20 AM in reply to ShawninMo
Personally, I'm thrilled your comment made sense to you. I mean, understanding yourself is half the battle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShawninMo
November 22, 2009 1:20 AM in reply to WillAct723
Which leaves you where?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ThinkerT
November 22, 2009 12:57 AM in reply to ShawninMo
Yeah, I know I'm complaining about how unaffordable the post office is all the time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShawninMo
November 22, 2009 1:19 AM in reply to ThinkerT
You do know that the post office operates in the red every year? Which means the taxpayers pick up the slack. You're paying for it, but with a huge assed government, you just don't know that's where your money is going.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
November 22, 2009 1:36 AM in reply to ShawninMo
Right, lets just get rid of the post office. The biggest welfare program for small businesses. Makes 100% sense to me. Any other great ideas? You seem to be all knowledgeable and all.
Seriously, get your facts straight about the post office "operating in the red every year" before you even post.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
November 22, 2009 10:10 AM in reply to mophan
There's no need to get rid of it - we just need to get Congress to release it from the shackles that prohibit the USPS from competing on a level playing field with FedEx and UPS.
Let them raise postage rates when needed to cover costs, and free them from the mandate to provide free delivery to all addresses. Or require the other carriers to start doing that.
I mean, as an analogy, USPS is competing with one hand tied to the opposite foot.
First class mail will probably hit 60 cents/oz inside of a year, and FedEx and UPS will have to merge to stay competitive within 18 months - that'll gain them another 6 months before they're swept into the dustbin of history.
Game over.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 22, 2009 2:13 PM in reply to ShawninMo
Benjamin Frnaklin established the post office as a gov't monopoly. Had it remained that -- but what did Franklin know -- it wouldn't be in the red.
Again, jackass: We the people are the gov't. Your are an ignoramous bashing We the people as a self-important elitist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 22, 2009 2:16 PM in reply to ShawninMo
Asshole: it isn't about "taking over" the health care industry. It is simply about providing COMPETITION -- you know, that mantra-from-God you right-wingers consider to be the end-all be-all (when bombs and tax cuts aren't the cure) -- to that industry, thus both ending its monopoly, and forcing it either to lower its prices to affordable or get out of the insurance business altogether.
The corporations behind that industry are so multi-invested in everything else that they aren't going to collapse because a dead-weight CEO doesn't get a multi-million dollar bonus for being a success at fraud.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cuchulain
November 22, 2009 3:40 PM in reply to ShawninMo
Actually, the government can run MOST things at lower cost than the private sector. By definition.
If the government gets to run things directly, without farming it out to private sector companies, it's always, always cheaper.
For instance, if the government offered health care insurance to all Americans, and did NOT farm any of this out, no private insurance companies could compete with it on price and services. Medicare has a 3% overhead. Most private insurance companies have 30-47%.
Their need to make a profit, their need to pay their execs tens of millions, their need to pay shareholders, lobbyists, advertisers, etc. etc. puts them at a crushing disadvantage as far as competing with government health care insurance. We're actually shooting ourselves in the foot by NOT going in that direction. It's like:
"Oh, no way. I'm not going to stand for paying less for my health care insurance, you commie bastard!! I WANT private insurers to rip me off!! I WANT to support their lavish lifestyles, their 25 million dollar salaries for CEOs, their millions of dollars going to lobbyists!! No way do I want a system that would send a far higher percentage of my premium dollars toward covering my actual health care needs!! I don't want THAT!! I want to supplement the rich and the powerful instead!!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 23, 2009 3:52 PM in reply to cuchulain
Some 20-25% of American's health care dollars go to the insurance industry. I'd much rather that money was spent for actual health care rather than as welfare for insurance industry bureaucrats. They'd cause less trouble if they were paid to dig and fill holes rather than push paper back and forth denying claims.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Puerco
November 21, 2009 9:33 PM
I want the public option, but I just don't know how we will get it with Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu, and Lieberdick. Maybe reconciliation, but I doubt it. Indeed, it might be too late for that. I think we will have to settle for triggers this time, and try to revise the legislation in the next Congress, hopefully with new Democrats in office from NH, OH, and MO. I wish I were more hopeful, but I'm not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
November 22, 2009 1:32 AM in reply to El Puerco
Pig, I agree. It is not looking good at all for the PO. Even a watered down version is on life support. The Senate is an injustice towards Democracy. Small states (the basic principle for the existence of the Senate) would benefit the most from a public option, but here we are with Senators like Lincoln and Landreau suggesting they would vote against final closure if it contains a PO. It absolutely makes no sense to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
November 22, 2009 4:30 AM in reply to mophan
If I were a progressive Democrat, I'd be talking exactly like Sanders...and I'd mean it. My support for this bill, in its current form, would be right at the tipping point, even if they include it in its present form. It would be just another small, ineffectual government program that handed Republicans talking points, thus weakening the argument for single payer: the easiest way to control cost and provide decent healthcare for everyone, as in Canada. When the public option struggles to repay its seed money and the lack of an effective and dutifully enforced risk adjuster, the Republicans will say: "See? We tried government managed healthcare and they can't even perform in on a small scale". They'll be able to pull all sorts of fringe anecdotal arguments, and the health insurance industry and PhRMA, flush with new money from young, healthy mandated customers (all the sick patients will have been dumped on the Public Option - no risk adjuster, remember, allowing private plans to cherry pick), will be able to mount even more impressive campaigns than before...and give even bigger donations to Congressmen and Presidential candidates. We have to think strategically. The private insurers and PhRMA certainly have.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
November 22, 2009 4:32 AM in reply to Tanjaoui
Sorry..."at the tipping point, even if they include the public option in its current form" Coooooffffeeeeeee...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ns
November 22, 2009 9:22 AM in reply to El Puerco
There should be a strong public option, and the best would be to get it this year. However, a bill without it is better than no bill at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 22, 2009 2:20 PM in reply to ns
I'm not ready to go there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
November 21, 2009 9:40 PM
Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu and and Lieberman appear to assume that a health care bill without a public option can be passed. This is not at all clear -- Sanders has indicated that he is doubtful about supporting a weak bill and taking the public option out would make it weaker and Burris has said he would vote against a bill without public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
patmcgrowen
November 21, 2009 10:26 PM
I find it very interesting that alot of these same senators had no problem voting for tax cuts that pad the pockets of the wealthy investors but vote against saving thousands of American lives. Let's just boil this down brass tacks.
They include Nelson, Landrieu, and Lincloln. I wonder how their constituents feel about that. And by the way those tax cuts were passed through the dreaded reconciliation process.
Not to mention all of the Republican enablers that worked behind close doors to make sure the bigotry against the wealthy was stopped. I think we need to remind people of recent history.
Those tax cuts not only inflated the massive bubble we are trying to recover from but it also was meant to destroy future spending programs. I sure would love to see Jon Stewart dig out some old video of Republicans lamenting about the poor, exploited Wall Street types. Choke on that teabaggers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
patmcgrowen
November 21, 2009 10:29 PM
And here is an interesting article that warned of the increasing debt that those tax cuts were causing in 2003. Funny how nobody cared then about that whole generational theft business.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_32/b3845029_mz007.htm
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Outwest
November 22, 2009 1:46 AM
I want Bernie to be MY senator! But I'm stuck in Nebraska. :-(
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 22, 2009 2:25 PM in reply to Outwest
I sometimes accidentally feel sorry for those who live outside the Original Thirteen states, and especially outside New England. Then I remember that it's their own damned fault for choosing to be born where they are. :)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Braised Cod
November 22, 2009 2:07 AM
Go Bernie. Let the Red States vote to opt out, but don't let them kill the PO for everyone. Single Payer is what we really needed, we've compromised enough!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
November 22, 2009 3:47 AM
Bernie is the best Senator in the United States. He is the only one, as far as I can see, who has the best interest of the people at heart. However, even with a public option both the House and Senate bills stink. The mandate/subsidy program is a horrible idea. Fundamentally neither of the two bills, even with a "strong" public option does much to change our current rotten system. Unless this legislation changes in fundamental ways that really change how we do healthcare in the country then it isn't worth passing and I hoe that Bernie will keep his implied word here not to vote for the bill if it isn't substantially altered.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
November 22, 2009 4:35 AM in reply to oleeb
Sorry...should've read this post first: exactly what I meant to say. They should just kill this thing, start over in 2010. If they can keep the ban on rescission, guaranteed issue and overturn McCarran-Ferguson now, fine. Otherwise, put a match to this thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
November 22, 2009 4:27 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
Hate to point this out but that's exactly what the Repugs want. Any form of delay is a victory for them ... and it's worked very well in killing HCR since it was first proposed by Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. All killing the bill now would accomplish is to give them time to perfect their message/tactics. As it is, they're on the ropes. I think passage of a bill, however imperfect, would follow the same path as previous health legislation and be tweaked as it goes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
November 22, 2009 5:37 PM in reply to tiowally
Well, I admit it's a gamble...but so is taking what we can get now. We'll agree to disagree. One more point: once the mandate is implemented, the insurance industry is going to have a lot more influence. That's a lot of new enrollments, most of them young and healthy. Which equals money for campaign contributions and advertising. If their lobby is flush now, it will emerge even better financed as a result of this bill.
Single payer advocates got sucker punched by the Senate Finance Committee hearings way back in...when were they? June? May? I certainly hope we aren't caught flat-footed like that again. We should be educating the public like mad as of now.
And working for the Kucinich Amendment. All it will take is one state to implement it, the others will follow, just as in Canada.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
November 22, 2009 4:40 AM
What other progressives might vote no? Have Brown or Rocky made any signs they might vote against this bill? It's extremely hard to do this by yourself, even for someone like Sanders. Senators like to do things in small groups. They have to work together. Very rare that a lone Senator will take a principled stand. And I hope he's not alone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cuchulain
November 22, 2009 3:52 PM
Someone should force the CBO to score Single Payer. They should have done that months ago. It would have changed the goal posts dramatically, cuz the whole country would see that a Single Payer program would save THEM trillions over the course of the next decade. The tea baggers wouldn't have had a prayer to counter that.
Our current system of private insurance, plus public insurance, farming out to private insurance companies, costs an extra 300-400 billion each year just in overhead. Taxpayers and customers pay for that.
If we went to a true Single Payer system, where government acted as the only insurance agent, and did not use ANY private sector companies in the process, Americans would save hundreds of billions of dollars a year, every year.
After getting CBO to score that, the Dems should have and could have talked in terms, NOT of costs, but of trillions of dollars in savings, and then they could have sealed the deal with the humanitarian side of things (which is more important, of course).
Single Payer would all but eliminate those 45,000 deaths a year. It would all but eliminate those million bankruptcies a year. It would cover EVERYONE for less than we pay now NOT to cover 45 million.
It's beyond crazy that Single Payer was never on the table.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
November 22, 2009 7:45 PM in reply to cuchulain
About scoring a bill...how does that happen? I've often thought the same thing. Does a Congressman just hand the CBO a proposal and say 'Here, score this'? Is it up to the Chairman? I wonder. But you're right. SP advocates have an interest in seeing that done. Then do a side by side comparison: this bill vs Sanders' single payer bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cuchulain
November 22, 2009 7:56 PM in reply to Tanjaoui
To be honest, I'm not exactly sure how that works. But I would imagine it has to go through party leaders. Probably Reid and Pelosi have to ask for it. But not sure. I'm also guessing it's fairly easy, if the majority leader in either house asks for it.
It seems obvious that they didn't really want Single Payer from the start, because if they had wanted it, a CBO score would have guaranteed the country would support it. Much of the country seems worried about those deficits and the debt (missing many of the humanitarian reasons for going with Single Payer). Seeing in black and white that a Single Payer system would drastically reduce our debt by literally trillions of dollars in the next decade . . . . There is just no way it could lose. At least if they wanted to keep their jobs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
goatherd
November 22, 2009 10:33 PM
Hypotheticals:
If this bill is killed by Corporate Democrats (aka "conservative," "moderate," or "centrist" Democrats), they can be spotlighted as spoilers for the same predatory corporations that have made healthcare unaffordable and inaccessible for many Americans.
If the public option is traded for some form of trigger, then the bill could pick up support from Snowe. That would mean Reid could afford to loose one member of the Dem caucus and still pass it. At least one more progressive would need to stand with Sanders in order for his potential "No" vote to be a real bargaining chip.
If Sanders votes "No" on principle to a bad bill, yet the bill passes with token bipartisan support, then Sanders would be left on the sidelines amidst the hollow hoopla. That's what seems to have happened to Kucinich in the House.
If this bill is further corporatized, as expected, to secure the support of Corporate Democrats, then progressives need to come up with a chess move that will cultivate our long-term strength.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
baltimore
November 23, 2009 5:21 AM
i live in Europe, where we all have free state-run health care. it works, it's great. the reason you can't get that in usa is that 1) politicians talk too much about jesus
2) congressmen are paid by the big corporations to vote their way and 3) the voters are too dumb to understand this.
after all, people in usa voted for dumbya bush, not once, but twice! wake up americans!
if any politico over here talked about jeebus and opposed our health care system, he would soon be unemployed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?