Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) Shows Red State Democrats How To Talk About ObamaCare

The GOP and their Big Business allies and media outlets have worked really hard to poison the well against ObamaCare. It isn't working among Democratic voters, of course-- nor was it meant to-- but it is working among Republicans, of course, and some low-info independents. The individual mandate, a terrible conservative idea Democrats were insane to embrace, is hated everywhere-- by conservatives, liberals and everyone in between (except Big Insurance) and it's complicated and abstract and still unexplained to most Americans. It was a bad idea when the conservatives thought it up and it was a bad idea when Romney based his healthcare plan on it and it was a bad idea when Blue Dogs, New Dems and other ConservaDems forced the Democratic caucus to make it the core of the healthcare reform bill in return for their (partial) support. If the Supreme Court strikes the bill down, as seems likely, the human toll, something Republicans are ideologically and funadamentally opposed to looking at, will be immense.

Opponents of the Affordable Care Act, such as Mitt Romney, say it should be replaced with a state-by-state approach. Romney's home state, Massachusetts, is the pioneer-- Romney signed a 2006 law that has extended coverage to nearly all residents.

But many other states have demonstrated little political will to help people obtain health coverage. In some, such as Texas and Virginia, the threshold for Medicaid eligibility is so stringent that parents earning $10,000 a year are too well-off to qualify.

States that have made an effort to offer subsidized coverage, as Tennessee did in the 1990s, have typically found that costs became unsustainable when people in poor health enrolled at higher rates than healthier ones. It is that problem that the individual insurance mandate in the national law, the crux of the Supreme Court case, is meant to address.

Democrats running in red districts or red states are in a tough situation with voters who are uninterested in nuance and long used to voting against their own financial interests. The campaign video (above), released yesterday by Democrat Heidi Heitkamp handles it exceedingly well. It's a response to the latest DC special interests attacks funded by secret donors. They've already spent over half a million dollars-- which goes a LONG way in North Dakota-- smearing Heitkamp and bolstering the campaign of the state's biggest, and most hated, landlord, Rick Berg. If you haven't seen it yet, take a look, or even watch it again. Key line: "There are good things, and bad things in the health care law, but we have to make coverage more secure, not less. Unlike my opponent, I won't vote to deny coverage to kids or let insurance companies deny coverage for pre-existing conditions."

Heitkamp has reminded the media that just months after filming a campaign ad attacking his opponent for eliminating waste within Medicare, Berg voted to maintain these very same savings. According to the Associated Press: “In a post-election reversal, House Republicans are supporting nearly $450 billion in Medicare cuts that they criticized vigorously last fall after Democrats and President Barack Obama passed them as part of their controversial health care law. The cuts are included in the 2012 budget that Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., unveiled last week and account for a significant share of the $5.8 trillion in claimed savings over the next decade.” Rick Berg... a hypocrite? No one who's ever dealt with him as their landlord would have to wonder. He also voted, right after being elected to the House, to allow insurance companies to deny health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions, a part of ObamaCare that is even popular with Republicans.

Even with all the money Big Business has been dumping into the North Dakota race, polls show that Berg is still losing. Heidi's a real fighter and she's not going to be pushed around by Karl Rove and his financiers. As Attorney General, she took on Big Tobacco and won. When she was diagnosed with cancer-- just two months from election day-- she underwent chemotherapy and she still managed to campaign. The DSCC was smart to back her, even in a tough electoral environment. The DCCC, on the other hand, is insane-- or would rather see Republicans win than help progressives (something I'm hearing from everywhere in the country now, both inside and outside Congress-- to not back former American Diabetes Association national spokesperson, Lee Rogers, a celebrated surgeon, in his race against healthcare for Buck McKeon.

As a doctor and as a dedicated progressive, Rogers opposed the individual mandate and has been an eloquent advocate of a Medicare-For-All approach. His insights on healthcare reform aren't ideological; they're from a practicing medical specialist in Los Angeles County. This is what he told me late last night:

I find the silence of the big insurance companies most interesting. You'd think they'd be spending millions on public awareness campaigns promoting Obamacare. They were certainly the all-around winners from the law, with nearly 50 million new customers mandated and no caps on premiums. Must cover pre-existing conditions? Big deal! Without caps on premiums, patients can be priced out of the market. The US healthcare system is not a free market. Patients are not empowered or knowledgeable enough to make decisions based on cost. It's not like getting an oil change. Healthcare is complicated and that's why you need a doctor, but your doctor is not in charge. Doctors don't determine what is "medically necessary"; insurance companies do. They deny coverage for procedures or treatments they determine not to be necessary.

As many have read, I think Obamacare didn't go far enough protecting patients. It was a "compromise" between Republicans and Democrats not like I've seen before. After both sides finished, it was nothing like either wanted. Democrats pushed it through as their signature legislation, but it could have been so much better. Doctors and patients need to be directing healthcare, not greedy insurers who only make money if they charge you higher premiums or give you less services.

That's a voice we need in Congress instead of the corrupt pile of steaming crap who sells his vote to the highest bidder CA-25 has now. If you'd like to help swap out Buck McKeon for Dr. Lee Rogers, this is the place.