Clarification of Senator Feinstein's Position on Health Care Reform

On Monday evening, some of you may have received or had forwarded to you an email from a local OFA coordinator that read as follows:

"In speaking to Dianne Feinstein’s office today, our OFA Regional Field Director quoted her staffer as saying, 'She's not sure yet how she will vote on the bill'!! On further questioning, the staffer said specifically, 'She is in favor of a public option'. Also, while she is pro choice, she has 'not taken a position' on anti-abortion wording, e.g. as in the Stupak amendment. In general, she has not decided how she would vote on the bill if it was called for tomorrow. The staffer did say that they are receiving '700 calls per day', but did not say whether they were pro reform calls or opposition calls. Bottom line…keep the pressure on Feinstein! I don’t know what else she has to base her position on except the desire of her constituents. So, let her know what that is!!"

The message did not come directly from the OFA Regional Field Director referenced in the email, but from an OFA coordinator. Nor did the email name the Feinstein staffer who provided the information.

It's important to know that the email was sent in good faith, but that some of the information provided by the Senate staffer is clearly mistaken. And I am intentionally withholding the name of the OFA coordinator who sent the email because it's certainly not their fault that there was a miscommunication.

When I contacted one of the two OFA Regional Field Directors for Northern California, he confirmed that the other OFA Regional Field Director had indeed been given this information by Senator Feinstein's office, and he recommended that I circle back with Feinstein's office the following day to see if I received a different response.

I did, and will take the points one-by-one:

1) “She's not sure yet how she will vote on the bill!!" This is not quite the story I was given on Tuesday morning when I asked Feinstein's staff whether Feinstein knows how she will vote on the bill. Instead, I was told that Feinstein will not say how she will vote until she sees the final amendments. Given that the final amendments will likely deal with reproductive rights, it may be entirely reasonable that Senator Feinstein has taken this position at this time.

2) "Also, while she is pro choice, she has “not taken a position” on anti-abortion wording, e.g. as in the Stupak amendment." This was quickly refuted by Feinstein's office today, which sent me the following official message from Feinstein on the Stupak Amendment:

"I am disappointed that the House bill includes major new restrictions on women’s reproductive rights. Health insurance reform should not be used as an opportunity to roll back health care options for women. The House bill is a step back in this regard. It would force private health insurance plans to choose between offering full coverage and accepting people who purchase coverage with new subsidies. Any reform bill in the Senate should discard this flawed approach."

I was also able to find links through Planned Parenthood's website that indicated Feinstein's opposition to the Stupak Amendment.

3) "The staffer did say that they are receiving '700 calls per day', but did not say whether they were pro reform calls or opposition calls." This generated some puzzlement from the staffer I spoke with today, so we'll leave it as unconfirmed.

4) "Bottom line…keep the pressure on Feinstein! I don’t know what else she has to base her position on except the desire of her constituents. So, let her know what that is!!" You'll have no argument from me on that one. The question is how much pressure? If you've been reading Senator Feinstein's website regularly, or this email newsletter, you know that since October 23, 2009, Feinstein has not only come out in strong support of the public option, but has generated several interesting ideas of her own.

*****

Which brings us to... Dianne Feinstein's appearance this past Sunday on "Meet The Press." As a public option supporter, what I found noteworthy was that Feinstein seems willing to trade (an admittedly weak) public option for a rate authority.

GREGORY: So would you vote for a plan, a bill that did not include the public option?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I would vote for it if it had a rate authority to be able to control the increase in premiums, at least to keep it to medical inflation.

Now this is important. The public option currently on the table is weak, and it wouldn't go into effect until after 2012, possibly not until 2014. In the meantime, what do we have? Well, Feinstein herself has proposed three intermediary ideas that would have a greater immediate impact than the weak public option we're looking at.

(Bear in mind that neither Germany nor Switzerland nor the Netherlands has anything resembling either single payer OR a public option, but they do have a strictly regulated and strictly non-profit insurance industry, and it appears that this is the direction Feinstein might be highlighting with these three "back-up" ideas:)

1) Medical Rate Authority in every state: (from Feinstein's Oct 23 statement: "It would regulate premium increases in the state’s market. Companies would not be permitted to increase premiums more than the rate of medical inflation unless they received permission (by majority vote) of the Rate Authority.") Personally, I'd prefer if that specified a "National Rate Authority with a presence in every state" but it's a start.

2) Capping of medical loss ratio: (from Feinstein's Oct 23 statement: "I also believe we must restrict a plan’s medical loss ratio, which measures how much is spent on health care, and how much is spent on profit and overhead. According to Health Care for America Now, insurance companies, on average, spend only 81% of premium dollars on medical care. This number has decreased from 95% in 1993. There is no reason for a plan’s administrative expenses to exceed 10%, and this cap should be included in any legislation.")

3) Elimination of the existing Anti-trust exemption for insurers (including health insurers.) No explanation necessary.

Why should you trust Senator Feinstein's ideas? That answer is up to you. Perhaps those of you who continue to say you deeply distrust Feinstein can take Cato's words in support of Pompey, that the same men who do great evils know best how to cure them.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving weekend, rest up, and get ready to dial some senators when you return. Not just Feinstein, who has earned both praise and a strong reminder of what she's promised, but the more troublesome "Gang of Four" - Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson and Lieberman.

Best holiday wishes,

Eva Chrysanthe

The Feinstein 1200

P.S. I'll list events in an upcoming newsletter - but in the meantime please mark December 2 for an anti-Stupak Amendment rally organized by a group of reproductive health physicians and December 6 for the EQUAL Health fundraiser, where you can meet not just Ellen Shaffer but Deborah Leveen.