Nye Targeted From the Left
As if U.S. Rep. Glenn C. Nye (D) of Virginia's 2nd District in Virginia Beach didn't already face a tough challenge from Republicans next year, this week he is one of a handful of Democrats being targeted in an email campaign by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.
The PAC, one of the loudest advocates for including a public option in the health-reform bill (and for ditching the Stupak amendment, which would restrict coverage of abortions), is raising money to hold Nye and nine other "blue dog" Democrats accountable for voting against health care reform.
"Poll after poll shows that even voters in conservative states want health care reform and demand the public option," said Adam Green, co-founder of the organization, which boasts 250,000 members. "Glenn Nye voted against his own constituents who desperately need reform, and we're making sure he pays a political price back home for that."
One wonders: In a Republican-leaning district (the Democratic blog FiveThirtyEight measures it at Republican-plus-five), is getting the word out that Nye voted against health care a blessing in disguise?
By
Amy Gardner
|
November 12, 2009; 12:06 PM ET
Categories:
Election 2010
,
Amy Gardner
Share This: E-Mail | Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Stumble
Previous: Updated: McDonnell, House Dems to meet
Next: McDonnell heads to Austin as a GOP star
I have a very basic question about the public option: What is the impetus? I'm not being sarcastic here, I just wish I knew the answer. I have heard it to be the necessity to bring competition to the health insurance industry, but aren't there a lot of companies out there? I have heard people say that there is a monopoly in many states so the people have no choice where to buy their health plan, but I then ask: If there's a market there, why don't some of the other companies move in and compete with whatever company has the monopoly? I have also heard people say that there is some kind of law against people buying insurance across state lines. First of all, I don't know why there would be such a law, or that it couldn't be repealed. Secondly, if other companies could or would enter the markets where they now are not doing business, there wouldn't be the need to repeal any such law. I've got to be missing something here. There's been so much about this public option in the news that I wonder why fostering competition among the existing companies wouldn't lead to lower prices. Can somebody explain it to me?
Posted by: rallabs | November 14, 2009 12:35 AM | Report abuse
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.