Psssst that was AP not Ed.

I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district

Classic. Perhaps he really meant for the interests of his district even if the vote s against their wishes?

Frankly, it probably is more accurate to the truth, which is that he'll vote for his own interests over his district. That's more of a Washington DC thing than it is GOP or Dem.

Hopefully the voters in his district will make sure that Massa's political career is "in the cold, cold ground" after the 2010 elections.

Lord, I hate to stick up for a dipshit like this...

But it seems pretty clear to me from the context that he meant "opinions" and not "interests."

It's the classic paradox of representation. Do you consistently express the opinions of the electorate, even when it contradicts your own judgment? Then there is absolutely no reason why you should be elected over anyone else, if you're just going to parrot the vox populi.

Alternately, if you consistently put your own wishes over those who chose you to represent them, then you can expect to be put out of a job at the earliest opportunity.

I've always had a soft spot for politicians who openly say that they will, when they find it appropriate, to vote against the opinions of their constituents. It seems honest and principled -- as long as it is expressed as such.

On the surface, this seems like a great "gotcha" moment, but I really think it's just a matter of a "poorly chosen" word. And Massa is utterly wrong on this point.

But I gotta respect him for sticking to his principles...

got to give the guy an "A" for honesty. He met with his constituents and told them what he thought. So he puts his own ass on the line. Unlike a certain president who tries to take both sides of an issue. Someone should have told him that being president means you can no longer vote "Present".

His job title is representative. He was elected to represent the people of his district. Somehow those people who get elected to office believe they are suddenly enbued with intelligence not genetically related to there family line and somehow magically know what is best for us. There is a remedy for such thinking. It happens often in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Elections. This party boob will find out what happens to those who fail to understand representative government.

We recalled a California Governor a few years ago for far less than this.

He's from NY so he can probably vote any way he chooses with impunity. The interesting question is if he really feels that government controlled health care is in the best interests of his constituents or if his statement is a true Freudian slip and he really did mean that he would vote against their interests.

Alas, the world may never know.

Massa changed his language once he realized how awful voting "adamantly against the interests" of his district sounded, but that was the first thing that came out of his mouth, unfiltered.

He was prompted by the man sitting next to him to change that to "opinion." Listen to the video

If he is adamant that it is in the best interests of his constituency he should have the ability and feel an obligation to effectively articulate why. If he says basically I'm voting against your opinions and screw whatever you think then he deserves to be recalled if thats what the voters want. Whatever the government decides to do on health care reform that money pit is not going to go away in the future no matter who is elected.

The question is what are the interests of the constituents in his district? Most likely in favor of at least a public option, like much of the country. Does anyone think that any district in NY is even close to being "one of the most rightwing in the nation"?

"Bush insisted on the surge even though the American people didn't want it because he knew it was in the nation's national security interests." Bullshit. We are not one bit safer as a country after of the surge. Please to explain.

"Massa seems to think he's helping to them by separating them from those principles by making them more dependent on the government, which a single payer system most certainly would do."

More bullshit. Dependent how, exactly? Like everyone over 65 who can choose their own doctor in addition to many levels of supplemental coverage? Medicare for everyone, if they choose, if not stay with what you've got It's not that complicated. Unless, of course, you involve the companies who stand to lose a few billion in profit unless they can convince people like the poor delusional guy in Michigan who is somehow convinced the new plan will cut care for his mentally retarded son, even though he is undoubtedly covered by Medicare/Medicaid, under which everything is covered, with virtually no restrictions. That was very sad to watch. Where does that level of delusion come from. I wonder.

I take care of many Medicare patients and their complaints are relatively few. Generally speaking, it's much easier to get tests, studies and medications approved for them than it is for patients with conventional HMO plans. This should be available to everyone, if they choose.

Anyone notice the big gainers on Wall Street today were the largest healthcare companies, following the news that any public option may be off the table? I'm sure their bean counters can relax now they may not have to keep dumping 1.4 million a day into derailing any reasonable discussion of reform. You gotta love democracy in action.

it's much easier to get tests, studies and medications approved for them than it is for patients with conventional HMO plans.

That's rich. Why did HOM's become so popular? Because they were what was being pitched as the cornerstone of Hillarycare that's why. We were going to save zillions of dollars with preventive care.

Instead we got insurance bureaucracies impeding care by demanding complex referal paperwork and physicians running away from HMO's and refusing to treat patients with HMO's (not surprisingly we have many physicians who refuse to take direct reimbursement from Medicare too).

HMO's also gave us physician payment schemes that promoted delaying or refusing necessary referrals because they made more money if they didn't refer to a specialist.

Some of these issues have been addressed but not all.

So when you get all high and mighty about how crappy HMO's are, perhaps you should remember where they came from - government intervention in the health care market.

Please, don't give me any more government messing up my life.

Groucho,

If health care related stocks are going up it is because the health care industry is not going to be put under a government payer system that has at it's goal eliminating increases in spending for health care. if you expect that there is going to be limited or zero growth why would you want to invest in any company participating in that market?

And before you carry on any further about how great Medicare is, Medicare happens to restrict choice and availability of therapies for patients and requires physicians getting direct reimbursement to not inform patients of therapies not supported by Medicare. Many physicians refuse to take direct reimbursement and instead take payment from the patient and assist the patient in getting reimbursed by Medicare.

Medicare isn't evil, but it is poorly run and it often does not keep up with the most current therapies.

"I'm sure their bean counters can relax now they may not have to keep dumping 1.4 million a day into derailing any reasonable discussion of reform."

Hey Groucho, would that be the same bean counters who gave your Lord and Master $150 MILLION in ad money to push ObamaCare?

Or that doesn't count, 'cause it's for a good cause?

"Medicare isn't evil, but it is poorly run and it often does not keep up with the most current therapies."

Medicare is piling up deficits right and left. But Barry's Obamanomics will cure that with "increased efficiencies, cost (payment reductions), and elimination of fraud and waste." NONE OF THAT WILL HAPPEN UNDER OBAMACARE! Even when Barry adds 46 or 47 (whatever his current number is) million people to the plan. YES, WE CAN GET MORE FOR LESS!

Too bad for the American people, the Chief Bullshitter never studied economics.

What part of the job description for "REPRESENTATIVE" do morons like Eric Massa NOT understand???? Ok, apparently ALL of it.

We are a REPUBLIC...thus we depend upon "Representatives" to, well, REPRESENT us!

Whether he meant to say "Opinions" instead of "Interests" is immaterial...and either is just as bad.

The reason the REPRESENTATIVES are supposed to meet with their Constituents is find out their wants, needs, and OPINIONS!

I cannot see how this moron can EVER get re-elected!

GarandFan - Obama already promised to save Billions on Medicare by cutting reimbursement back from 50% down to 40%. No word on how providers are going to realize the 'cost savings'. Probably with Groucho's job(and a few of his friends jobs as well) since the easiest place to save is on labor costs.

Did they actually give the $150M since the deal was revealed? Maybe the fact that they didn't have to pay the bribe money is why their stocks are going up.

Now let's get this straight, REPRESENTATIVE Massa stated that he would vote against the interests (later changed to "opinions") of his constituents. Now remind me just who is it this putz "represents"? Himself and his own warped, libocrat, tax and spend, build the beauracracy, conscience? OR the voters who elected him to the US Congress?
Now what district is this joker from anyway.....
Ohhhhhhhhh that explains it, New York City -- "Clueless is as clueless does."...or said another way, "When you vote dumb, you get dumb results"
Oh and all you rich, park ave., "silk stocking" RHINO voters in NYC's upper east side, this time don't forget to vote next election if your limo driver can just stop-by and double park for a sec.

Sadly, since the voters elected this dumbass to represent them..then they deserve this putz..

The teleprompted fool could not be reached for comment!

What this ass is saying that...people are too dumb to know what is good for them. So him, being so superior will decide what is good for them. Screw him....vote him out of office.

So the Representative's vote wouldn't be representative of the individuals he was representing. Got it.

Jim m - Obama already promised to save Billions on Medicare by cutting reimbursement back from 50% down to 40%.

I'm not at all sure that Obama understands that the government doesn't have unlimited funds and unlimited competence. You'd think he'd have realized by now, with his experience in the Illinois senate, with all the 'good' he did Grove Parc - that he doesn't really have a friggin' clue when it comes to what government can and can't do.

Problem is, he's surrounded himself with syncophants and toadies who're very busy reinforcing his ideas. They sound good - I'll admit. But that's it. The promises of a used car salesman or a telemarketer looking to run a scam sound good also. That's about as far as they go.

His ideas have no chance in hell of working as he proclaims - but he literally sees nothing beyond them.

He at least had the guts to come out and say it. All the other wusses are going to vote how they want to, regardless of what their constituents want but doesn't have the guts to say so. We have closed our eyes to people like this too long. We need to vote each and every one out of office starting with the very next election, and keep it up until they are all gone.
My opinion only
Madalyn

JLawson - The point was that Obama talks like paying less for something really does reduce the cost of that object.

If I go into McDonalds and pay $0.99 for a burger, the burger might have cost me $0.99 but that does not mean that it cost that much to make. So if I say that I will pay $.89 does that reduce the cost for anyone but me? No of course not. The cost to produce it has not changed. If I reduce the cost too far then McDonalds needs to take action to reduce their cost whether that be reducing staff, making the burger smaller or with lower quality and less expensive materials.

In health care it is the same way.

Obama declares he has reduced the cost of health care because he will pay less for it. No. He has only reduced the margins of health care providers who, in turn, must find ways to continue making a profit (yes not for profit does not mean that you lose money. Losing money is called government). So health care providers will be forced to cut staff, cut corners, offer newer more expensive services further out in the future if at all.

The point is that government has no control over the cost of health care because they are not actually providing it.

Health care reform proposes to actually run health care, but then the savings are not found in efficiency (because frankly, most hospitals are already pretty damn efficient), but the proposals are to put a bureaucracy over compensation of health care workers (restricting the pay of health care workers) or in rationing (determining best practices is only one of many euphemisms used for this).

Never mind that the single biggest savings could be found in tort reform. Missouri has already started to see the benefits of their efforts in this area. Tort reform is not on the table at all.

Single payer, public option health care is just a method of removing freedom from a free people by slight of hand. Every aspect of our lives is related to our health, if it is subject to govenment approval of the activity. If you smoke or drink you will not be eligible for the services required to treat the damage done by the behavior. There is no right to health care. It is a service provided by those who expect to be paid for their services. If you can make me pay for someone elses healthcare, you can make me buy them a car for feed them. I will fight not to have to do that.

Well, you gotta hand it to the guy for sticking to his guns, even if he is wrong. And the constituents who voted for him, well, you have no one to blame but yourself. How can one of the most supposedly right wing districts in the nation vote for a Dem? If this is true, then sahme on you, falling for all of this Change for teh sake of Change, stuff. You should have researched your candidates a little more and looked beyond the superficial slogans for the meat behind it.

I guess that makes Massa "The Decider."

The guy's slimy. He ran a Hillary type campaign the first time and lost to Randy Kuhl.

GarandFan - he wasn't speaking to his constituents. He was speaking to "Netroots Nation" aka the YearlyKos in Pittsburgh.

PHDinCT - the district he claims to represent (NY-29) isn't anywhere near NYC. It's south of Rochester and stretches all the way to the Pennsylvania border on the south, Cattraugus County to the west, and a bit east of Elmira (Chemung County). All in all, the better part of eight large counties.