Creating a Trigger for Campaign Contributions in 2010 and 2012

[proud2BlibKansan]

by: tremayne
Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 20:00

Various outlets (see Quick Hits on the right) are reporting that the White House and/or Nancy Pelosi are moving away from a robust triggerless public option and toward accomodating Olympia Snowe. Others say these stories are a fiction.

Instead of adding to the he said/she said on that I'd like to propose a new kind of trigger and here it is:

If a trigger-based public option passes Congress and is signed into law the entire netroots, or as much as we can corral, withholds all campaign contributions to the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Organizing for America for the 2010 and 2012 campaign cycles.

No money to these groups. None for the next 3 years. Instead, we only give money to those leaders or groups we know fought to do the right thing. Open Left does a great job highlighting these Better Democrats and other groups advancing progressive causes.

So this shouldn't be too hard a sell on this site. But should we work to spread this idea throughout the netroots?

Are you in?

http://www.openleft.com/diary/15660/creating-a-trigger-for-campaign-contributions-in-2010-and-2012

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. very nice!

i'm in!

[glowing]

2. I'll give it 5... I want a real medicare for all program. The insurance co's

provide nothing for us. In this I trust the govt better than I do the private insurers. Medicare is a proven working model.. Eventually, we may move towards making the entire system more like the VA to save even more money. Its all lies. They own the all of the branches. If this was Bush, they'd ram the shit thru and have been done with it already and I would be recieving my Medicare card in the mail today and having the amt taken out of my pay check in a larger amt than I already have taken out.

[KharmaTrain]

3. That's The Option Part Of The Option...

The first priority of any real reform is finding means to insure all those who are currently outside...starting the government program...be it tied to Medicare or a totally different entity by getting these people insured and getting the pool rolling. Next, surely will be folks like yourself who would prefer a government program to an employer controled one...and I imagine that will be a majority of those who are in a similar situation. Hopefully by then the government program is up and running to handle the millions who will participate and put enormous pressures on the insurance companies to lower costs or be marginalized. This is where the 2013 number seems to play in as the current Medicare structure isn't capable of handling the large influx of new claimants and it will take time for an efficient system to be operational.

Now there are those who either want to keep their plans or will want additional coverage. As wonderful as Medicare is, it doesn't cover all and there will be those who can afford to supplement, and I iamgine that many of the big insurers will move into that field. None of this will be mandatory, yet another option...and one that works well with Medicare as it provide a dual safety net...what one doesn't pick up, the other does.

There also needs to be an "education" period. So many minds have been poluted with fears of the government and "socialized medicine" that a transitional system can show people what the differences are...and thus, if public option and a government-run healthcare program are an attractive alternative, this opens the way to single-payer.

[corpseratemedia]

4. good idea

the public's got a trigger too, although our reps are beholden to big corp. donators, we do also have a voting trigger- we need to find more graysons to run in the primaries!