Do the Math, Chris Matthews

I sent the following letter to Hardball after hearing Chris Matthews argue, yet again, that the public option only had the support of thirty senators.

"You keep arguing that the public option has only thirty votes in the Senate and suggesting that advocates of the "public option" can't do the math because they have never really had to run for office.

Well, first, thirty is the number of people who signed a letter to Reid demanding a public option. Quite a few senators who are not on that list are on record supporting a public option, including Bingaman -- who told Ed Schultz that he had voted for it three times in committee (once in HELP, twice on amendments in Finance*) -- and Reid himself. It is ridiculous to assume that the only people who would vote for a public option in the Senate are those who signed a letter -- kind of like assuming the only people who support a bill are the co-sponsors. Since a number of elected Senators -- people who, unlike you, have faced the voters many times -- believe the public option has 52 or 53 votes in the Senate, where do you get YOUR math? [NOTE: This estimate was made again today by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who among other things comes from the "middle of the country," the region Chris keeps insisting liberals know nothing about.)

Second, when it comes to math, the most important math is the math of the health care bill. There is a very important objection to the bill -- that if forces people to buy insurance that they cannot afford, without making sure it is affordable. You brag repeatedly about your economics training yet consistently refuse to let the substance of this criticism be played out. Several pragmatic politicians (eg Anthony Weiner) and journalists (eg Margaret Carlson) have said on your show that they would support getting "half a loaf" but that this bill might be WORSE than nothing. Why don't you focus on the substance of the argument a bit instead of just the process?

Here are the objections in a nuthsell, that a former econ grad student should understand: 1. Ceteris paribus, the insurance reforms will raise insurers' costs and therefore raise average premiums; 2. the main countervailing measure in the bill, insurance exchanges, are designed to allow the individual and small business markets to access health insurance at the same rates as large groups so they would NOT, ceteris paribus, rates below those available to large groups; 3. most people participating in large insurance groups have most of their premium payed by their employer so that even now, those premiums would be unaffordable to individuals even if they could get access to them (as they can when they have COBRA); 4. the most generous subsidies in the bills would still require families with moderate incomes to pay around 12% of GROSS income in insurance premiums, which would amount to about 20% of take-home pay, and above that threshold of 400% below FPL there would be no real ceiling.

Maybe the math you need to look into is the math of an average family's budget. The liberals get it. You don't."

*Bingaman also said clearly he would vote for it again if it came up on the Senate floor but he did not sign the letter because he did not need to communicate with Reid by letter.