Congressman Coward Votes No on HR 3962

I've been following the debate over Universal Health Care trying to make sense of all the different options & form a half-way educated opinion, as I've written w/ my Sept 14, 2009 entry.

The Representative for NY's 20th district, Scott Murphy, voted "no" on HR 3962. In his press statement, he writes:

(1) "I firmly believe that health care reform is critical to strengthening our nation. However, in order to achieve this goal, we must address the fundamentally flawed system that has led to skyrocketing costs, bankrupt families and extremely profitable insurance companies. For these reasons, I voted no on H.R. 3962 tonight.”

(2)“This bill makes a number of important reforms, which I wholeheartedly support including the elimination of the lifetime caps on insurance benefits and the pre-existing condition exclusion, invests in prevention and primary care, creates a health insurance exchange to force insurance companies to compete and offers a public option for people who want to get away from for-profit insurance companies."

Ok, he's trying to be for the little guy. I get that. Yet he turns around & says this:

(3) "I have consistently said that any bill that Congress passes must curb costs and keep health care affordable in the long term. During these difficult economic times, an unacceptably high price tag will stress our already overstretched federal budget and place even more burdens on our hard working individuals, families and small businesses. We need to fix the system now, and not put off the hard choices for another generation. Furthermore, I am deeply frustrated by the last minute addition of over $50 billion in taxes on the two largest private employers in the 20th District – medical device manufacturers and paper mills."

Emphasis mine.

(4) “As a small businessman, I am also concerned that H.R. 3962 falls short of making health insurance affordable for the small businesses of the 20th District; it fails to reform the fundamentally flawed incentives in the system, which continue to drive costs upward; and it fails to restrain the monopolistic practices of private insurers, which allow them to continue to increase premiums already weighing on families and small businesses."

When comparing paragraphs 1 & 3 this begs the question, who is Congressman Murphy really for? Is he for the people who put him in power by a mere 1465 (out of over 161,000 cast) or is he simply out to protect his benefactors that give him his $$ w/ state sanctioned bribes?

It'd be one thing if he voted against it because the current plan fines people for not having health insurance or that it basically neuters the public option (all legitimate grievances). However in paragraph 3, he's against the provisions that raise taxes on the industries in his district. Let's back up for a minute. During his special election, he was perfectly fine using tax payer dollars for handouts to private industries (even after they demonstrated in screwing up their own finances) but when it rolls around for them to put back into the system, its an outrage. I guess it shows where his priorities are.

If you also take a look at paragraphs 2, he lists all the ways it attempts to fix the very problems he's concerned w/ yet flips flops on why the current bill isn't good (paragraph 4). This would've been less confusing had they appeared in two separate statements (as opposed to just the one). Or maybe they're just playing the old "if you can't dazzle them w/ brilliance, bewilder them w/ BS."

His "no" vote begs the question, what has he actually done to help align the bill w/ his beliefs? Did he propose any amendments to address his concerns? Has he given a floor speech? If not, then what exactly has he been doing since he took the oath of office? Its not like Congress has had much else on its agenda.

Murphy's Health Care position reinforces the notion of being a typical politician w/ no firm beliefs. He makes his decision by licking his finger & putting it in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. Murphy votes against the Stupack Amendment (as reported by PlanetAlbany), a provision disallowing federal funds to pay for abortions in the reform package. He wants it both ways. He pays lip-service to appease the pro-abortion segment yet votes against measures that directly effects his own campaign contributors.

His "I need to study the issue" mantra (as he said countless times when asked about the Federal Bailouts to both the auto, bank, & insurance industries) may have served him well during his special election this past spring, yet conveniently is in favor of it when its outcome is already assured. The "I need to study the issue" doesn't carry the same weight or slack when you've been studying it for the last 6 months. This isn't like the national budget where they cram God only knows how many pieces of legislation in less than a 48-hour period (if that).

I used to be one to scoff whenever pundits said, "So & so's vote is going to come back & haunt him come reelection." The American voter has an incredibly short memory. But w/ instances like this, I understand where they're coming from. To paraphrase Musing of a Fairly Young Contrarian, "If a candidate cannot even be bothered to hold a core set of beliefs, why should I obligated to vote for him?"


Mr Murphy take a lesson from your fellow Congressman like Rep. Thomas Perriello (D-Va.), Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-Ohio), Rep. Steve Driehous (D-Ohio) and Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio), all vulnerable freshman. "Grow a pair & actually stand for something."

---

This is another shot of Government Center when I was visiting Boston this past summer. (I'm using the clickable thumbnail version because its a little to wide)



Feel free to opine, criticize, whatever so long as said views are expressed in a civilized manner.