Misty: Ok, so I just woke up, but I think Matheson just emailed what amounts to a defense of the public option. Am I reading this right?
JMBell: you are not. He’s telling you that he’s voting against it because he doesn’t believe in free insurance which he then says it’s not – it’s a letter with no point or direction – trying to make everyone love him – but basically an unreadable example of how many directions he can sell out in at the same time.
Misty: Ok, that makes more sense. Because if he was defending the public option that means I’m still asleep and dreaming, and I really don’t want to have to go through waking up twice in one day.
JMBell: nah – you’re good – you can rise from your slumber wrapped in the warm knowledge that Jim Matheson thinks you’re an idiot.
Misty: Just like any other day.
JMBell: pretty much, yeah
See the letter after the jump …
Dear Friend,
Health care reform legislation is the dominant issue of the day. This issue affects every Utah family and business. It is the number one driver of long-term federal deficits. It affects two-thirds of our economy. When I meet with constituents, health care comes up every time.
There has been a lot of discussion of the health care issue, and there has been a lot of confusion along the way. That is not suprising because this is a very complicated issue with many moving parts.
For me, there are two fundamental objectives that must be addressed by health care reform legislation. First, reform should make sure all Americans gain access to quality, affordable health care. I strongly believe this is the right thing to do–both morally and fiscally. Second, reform must fix a broken system where costs are growing way above inflation – that’s a trend we cannot sustain.
There have been five different bills approved by various committees in the House of Representatives or the Senate. Of the five, only the one produced by the Senate Finance Committee is bipartisan, expands health coverage and makes real reforms that will actually control the excessive growth in costs in our nation’s health care system. I don’t agree with every aspect of that bill, but I believe it’s a positive sign that a bill can meet my two fundamental objectives.
Beyond the two fundamental objectives I think this debate is about–access for all and stopping out-of-control growth in health care costs–the issue of a “public option” has become a talking point. There is some confusion about what a public option is or is not. The public option would be an additional insurance plan offered by the federal government. It would not be free health care for the uninsured. All of the proposed health care bills include provisions to cover the uninsured through federal subsidies to insurance enrollees, whether or not there is a public option.
Once the House bill is finalized, I support allowing the public to have 72 hours to review the legislation before any House vote. I will continue to play a constructive role in the debate. We have an historic opportunity to make progress on this critical issue. I encourage you to keep sending me your comments and questions.
Sincerely,
Jim Matheson
U.S. Representative
2nd District of Utah
You’re so cool, Brewster!
I’d like to see that letter, if someone could post a copy online.
I added it to this post, Jason.
He gives me a headache. But I won’t be able to buy any medicine if we don’t get the public option.
I’m not clear on why this is, but I have been called for his last two phone town hall meetings. Is this a bid for statistics? Or because I donated to Obama?
The first meeting was a bit screwy. I swear I heard him say that the reason Europeans have cheaper health care is because they “live a healthier lifestyle”. HUH?
So let’s all have wine with dinner and walk along the Champs Elysee smoking.
Or, even better! Let’s get those darned US citizens to stop having cancer and ms and
and ALS!!!
Keep calling and writing him! He may surprise us and get dementia and vote in favor of his constituants.
Thanks for posting the letter, JM.
Again no person seems to care or realize the implications that this so called, “healthcare reform” will have for personal freedom. All of you should really go and read the conceptions of positive vs. negative freedom; philosophically, the current proposals that our insane congressional leaders (that includes the beloved Jim Matheson) are attempting to instill in us are enviably going to bring about negative freedom via additional macro-economic restraints and individual taxation (economic restraint). Don’t mistake, the argument for social justice that the left and the right both use is not valid here -as per, social justice cannot be exerted at the cost of the individual… this leads to an economic and economic contradiction.