By Mark DeSaulnier

I am saddened by the passing of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a champion for social justice.

Senator Kennedy’s dedication to health care reform demonstrated a commitment to honoring human rights and to the enrichment of the common wealth before personal wealth.

The centerpiece of Senator Kennedy’s historic health care bill is the public option.

I am on the record as an unequivocal supporter of the public option as the centerpiece of health care reform legislation. In memory of Senator Kennedy, I am proud to promise again today to sign the letter to Secretary Kathleen Sebelius confirming that any final proposal without a public option will not win my vote (http://firedoglake.com/files/1/files//2009/08/sec-sebelius-ltr-081709.pdf).

The only entity large enough to create an organization capable of introducing competition into the health insurance market is the federal government.

Today, we must pay tribute to a great American; tomorrow we must pick up the mantle and achieve his goal. Senator Kennedy’s legacy demands nothing less than the passage of comprehensive health care for all.

With deep sympathy for the Kennedy family,

Mark DeSaulnier

By Senator Mark DeSaulnier

The introduction of health care cooperatives into the reform debate is a dangerous distraction. Health care co-ops will not increase competition in a business dominated by giant insurance companies, but rather fail in the most critical need of health care reform: cost control.

Co-ops have been around for a long time in the United States and have been successful in some industries-grocery stores, community credit unions and electricity. However health care co-ops have a very different record.

Conservatives herald co-ops because, during the 1930s and 40s, health insurance co-ops covered hundreds of thousands of Americans, in large part due to the financial support of the federal Farm Security Administration (FSA).  But this and other health care co-ops have a history of failure without tight federal regulation and significant taxpayer investment.

A local health insurance co-op, as described by many conservatives in Congress and the media could not grow large enough or quickly enough to compete with health insurance industry behemoths and near-monopolies that control the majority of the market.

The only entity large enough to create an organization capable of introducing competition into the health insurance market is the federal government.

A public option capable of competing with Big Insurance will force insurance companies to lower premiums and improve quality of service.  

The public option will provide an affordable, basic coverage plan to all who want it. For those who prefer to buy insurance from a private plan, competition from the public option will aid in lowering the costs of coverage.

Claims that the public option will simply overrun the health insurance market and eliminate private companies are absurd. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that, even among those with incomes that make them eligible for assistance that will aid in paying for a public option, just one-third would chose that public option. Moreover, under the reform proposal in Congress, three million more people would have primary medical coverage through an employer than under current law, according to the CBO.

The public option creates competition in a market dominated by a few massive conglomerates.  It lowers health insurance premiums across the board and increases quality of care. As the debate in Congress and throughout our nation rages on, we must be a clear for voice advocating for the public option. It the only true reform that can control costs and provide health care insurance for a greater number of Americans.

By Senator Mark DeSaulnier



Older Americans have an especially important stake in the health care reform debate, yet opponents of reform have resorted to telling bold-faced lies to protect their economic interests.

Republican scare tactics-tying health care reform to fictional death panels and a raid on Medicare-are shameful and neglect to recognize the current precarious state of health for many seniors.

Sold to Congress by the Bush Administration as a saving grace, Medicare Part D actually withholds benefits from more than three million senior citizens and requires co-payments for check-ups and wellness visits, discouraging preventive care. At the same time, Medicare Part D prohibits the government from negotiating drug prices, forcing older Americans to pay an average 3.5 times the market value for prescriptions.

The health care reform bill before Congress offers coverage to those three million seniors, eliminates co-payments for preventative treatment, and lowers the cost of prescription drugs.

Reform will make Medicare far more efficient.  It will cut billions in wasteful spending from the system, end $177 billion of overpayments to private providers, and force insurers to compete for Medicare dollars.  Eliminating waste will create a more sustainable and better-designed Medicare system.

Health care reform is critically important for older Americans age 50 to 64, who are at a particular risk of losing health insurance.  In today’s economy, older employees are often the first to be laid off. With Medicare available to only those over the age of 65, these displaced workers are forced into private insurance. Yet many insurance companies will not cover Americans within this age group, especially if the individual suffers from a pre-existing condition.

Health care reform will prevent private companies from denying them coverage – and will ensure that a robust public option provides a quality, affordable choice of plan.

Because health care reform, with a strong public option, offers clear benefits to older Americans, fear mongering and lies are all that the naysayers have left.

As AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond said last week: “This effort is too important to our members and their families to let misinformation derail our best shot in a generation to fix what’s wrong in our health care system.”