Just a touch of math

by: Darcy Burner

Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 11:43


The House progressives have been saying that no health insurance reform bill can pass the House unless it includes a public option.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that no health insurance reform bill can pass the House unless it includes a public option.

Today, The Hill posted an article saying that 23 Democratic Members of the House have said they're planning to vote against the bill, and Mike Ross (Blue Dog lead on healthcare) has said he'll vote against anything that includes a public option.

Our job is in some sense easier than we thought: if we hold a progressive block greater than 15 Members in the House, we win.

More below.

Darcy Burner :: Just a touch of math
Here's the basic math.

There are 435 voting Members of the House. Half plus one - 218 - are required to pass a bill out of the House.

257 voting Members are Democrats.
178 voting Members are Republicans.

We know that all of the Republicans are going to vote against this legislation regardless of what's in it. They've said so, and being purely obstructionist is what they do these days.

That means that the 218 votes have to come from the 257 Democrats. No more than 39 Democrats, therefore, can vote against it and have it still pass.

23 Democrats have already said they will vote agasint the legislation. That leaves leadership where they can't afford to lose more than 16 more Democratic votes. Mike Ross is a no with a public option, so they're down to a margin of 15.

And we have 60 progressives who have said they won't support a bill that doesn't include a public option.

The math is on our side.

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Just a touch of math | 52 comments
can count on any Republicans (4.00 / 2)
and we shouldn't seek their votes by watering down the legislation.

But I still think there are a few in Democratic-leaning (or purple) districts with lots of constituents who want health care reform and those few will be very hard pressed to vote no on a health care bill.

We should pass the best bill possible and make Republicans and ConservaDems vote no and see which ones blink. It seems to me that we never push for bills that might fail because they are too progressive but the right doesn't have a problem pushing bills that might fail because they are too conservative.  

Same as voting "no"? (0.00 / 0)
And we have 60 progressives who have said they won't support a bill that doesn't include a public option.

Sorry if I'm a bit paranoid about the meaning of words. Politicians seem to have a way of having their cake and rhetorically eating it as well.

Does this mean that 60 progressives will vote against a bill that does not include a robust public option that is functional on day one?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

yeah (4.00 / 1)
For example: for how many of those 60 would a robust public option trigger "count" as a public option?
[ Parent ]
Actually (politics aside), no bill is better than a no-public-option bill. (4.00 / 2)
One thing that's clear is that if there's a bill, it will require mandatory insurance. That, without a robust public option, will be nothing but pharma and insurer welfare, paid by ordinary people who just want access to medicine.

We can't let congress intervene to force people to buy something, without also invervening to force that thing to be affordable! That's what the public option is all about. So, yes, a bill with a public option would be the best realistic outcome. No bill at all would be the second best.

[ Parent ]
what about this: (0.00 / 0)
http://www.rollcall.com/issues...

"key liberals willing to bargain"

Roll Call? Aren't they known for their conservative bias? (4.00 / 1)
I don't think this is a reliable source. Those guys may have their own reasons for dividing the progressive block.
[ Parent ]
these are direct quotes (0.00 / 0)
"We're the caucus that least marches to a unified drummer - that's not what we do," Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Mass.) said. "I'm serious about increasing access and quality, but that doesn't mean it has to be a grand slam home run. I'll take a ground-rule double if that's what it takes. I'm happy to compromise if that's what it takes. But compromise is compromise - it's not rolling over."

Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.), a Progressive Caucus member, said he did not support the approach but did not foreclose on it, either. "It depends on how strong that trigger is," he said. Farr said he has seen triggers implemented effectively in California. "Triggers work, but they've got to be really clear as to how they operate," he said. "The only way I could see it getting progressive votes is by making sure the public option is strong and goes into operation."  

[ Parent ]
There will always be some weak links in any chain. (4.00 / 2)
But this doesn't constitute a trend. Haven't you read Mrs. Burners statement: " if we hold a progressive block greater than 15 Members in the House, we win."

Afaik the progressive block has about 60 members. Do you believe more than 45 of them will fall?

[ Parent ]
i was just asking.. (0.00 / 0)
darcy's post and the quotes in roll call seem to be at odds
[ Parent ]
I don't think so. (0.00 / 0)
She wrote "And we have 60 progressives who have said they won't support a bill that doesn't include a public option." That doesn't rule out that some my support a bill with a public option depending on a trigger. However, since a trigger very likely would be a mockup, manipulated in a way that it would never be activated, it sure would be good to know how many of the caucus would fall for that false compromise, agreed.

Btw, I made a mistake with my comparison upthread. The point is, the progressive block with 60 votes, and even with as low as 39 members (257-218), can block any legislation without the public option. Their inner party opposition can only muster 24 votes against the p.o. so far. So, the progressives are in a better position to get "their" bill through.

[ Parent ]
She said 60, Roll call has 4 (0.00 / 0)
There is no conflict......And Sam Farr can get back in line; he's wavering about wavering.

 Capuano is going to run for the Mass Senate and this is not th eway to run for that seat.


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
The one problem (0.00 / 0)
is I don't belive the number of nos are 23. I think it's a lot higher.

Mike McIntyre, Lincoln Davis, Jon Tanner, Jim Cooper, Ben Chandler, Ike Skelton, Dina Titus, Ann Kirkpatrick, Harry Teague, Chet Edwards, Jim Marshall, John Spratt, Allen Boyd, Allan Mollohan, Charlie Wilson, Bill Foster, Marion Berry, and Chris Carney have all given little to no support for the PO. If they all vote no, that's 41...enough to kill a bill with a PO.  

[ Parent ]
The question is, if they would vote against it. (4.00 / 1)
Isn't that the same as in Senate? There are some who don't really support the p.o., but who still wouldn't vote against it.
[ Parent ]
I'm not really sure (0.00 / 0)
I know of one Senator who doesn't support it but will vote for it anyway. I know Senators who do support it but would vote against it.  
[ Parent ]
Uh, we're only talking about Dem Senators, of course (0.00 / 0)
"I know Senators who do support it but would vote against it."
Must be those with a "R" in front of their state...  
[ Parent ]
I was thinking (0.00 / 0)
more along the lines of Mark Warner and Amy Klobuchar.  
[ Parent ]
That's news to me. (0.00 / 0)
I understand you correctly, they are for the public option, but would vote against it? Where did you get that idea?
[ Parent ]
The fact they said (0.00 / 0)
they'll vote for a bill without a public option...that's what I meant to say.  
[ Parent ]
Ok, that's something different. (0.00 / 0)
What's important now is that they would vote for a bill with the p.o. And as long as the progressive caucus in the House makes a determined stand, this is the only bill that can pass at all.
[ Parent ]
oh well (0.00 / 0)
They will have to live with their vote either way.

One could flip your argument the other way around, claiming that 60 votes against a bill WITHOUT a robust PO will kill it.

Seeing as the folks at the right-end of the spectrum have had their chance to make noise and stamp their feet and this has not changed the debate one whit, maybe its time that the focus shift to the other end of the spectrum?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Right (0.00 / 0)
which means they'd realize both progressives and Blue Dogs would need to compromise further.

That's how the triggers are getting thrown around.

[ Parent ]
Wrong (4.00 / 1)
progressives have done nothing but compromise on this issue. Its time for the CoporoDems and Blue Dogs to do their part.

They need to realize that the only message they need communicate to their handlers is that the only thing standing between single payer and/or non-profit health insurance is a robust PO.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
They will (0.00 / 0)
they'll be forced to support a trigger, which may seem like nothing to us, but would be a movement for them, or be forced to accept stricter regulations in exchange of getting rid of the public option.

or nothing passes, period.  

[ Parent ]
Could you be more clear, pls? (0.00 / 0)
Who is the "they" you are talking about? BlueDogs? Why should they only be forced to accept a trigger? Right now, it looks like a bill without the public option won't pass at all. Why shouldn't some BlueDogs be forced to go all the way? After all, as I already said upthread, they ARE more vulnerable than progressives. They are the ones who would suffer most from their constituencies if nothing passes.
[ Parent ]
Same logic will get rid of the trigger (4.00 / 1)
time for the right wing to compromise.

or vote against.

Simple.

Would the insurance companies prefer we come back in the next congress and put single payer back on the table? Maybe they would prefer making health insurance a non-profit business, instead?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
But if we don't pass anything (0.00 / 0)
won't the next Congress be a Republican one? Isn't that what we've been saying?

[ Parent ]
That's not what I have been saying (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
It's the same as if you pass crap... (4.00 / 2)
..that doesn't improve the healthcare situation for the people. A law without the public option is just crap, it will do nothing to ensure competition and keep the costs down. And then the insurers will find ways to weasel around the regulation for the customers with preexisting conditions. All this, plus the unpopular mandate, that would ensure rising market shares for the insurers, and the subsidies, makes a bill without a public option a total failure that would actually make things worse. And if this happens, the Dems will suffer, too. And those in vulnerable seats will suffer most.

So, without a public option, the party is doomed in 2010 anyway, and it's better for progressives not to pass anything.  

[ Parent ]
And don't forget, BlueDogs are much more vulnerable... (4.00 / 3)
..in general. Most of them come from swing states or from more conservative precincts. If the progressive make their stand, and don't allow a bill without the public option to pass, it's the BlueDogs who will suffer more from that failure. They have to know that, so that makes them much more likely to support a p.o. bill, rather than facing reelection with no health care reform on record.
[ Parent ]
That's now how they look at it (0.00 / 0)
they're throwing the "without us, you have no majority" card in the progressives' faces...and many of the Blue Dogs are cemented into their seats, it's the younger ones who are on thin ice, and they're voting no anyway; Periello, Massa, Markey, Kosmas.  
[ Parent ]
Cemented into their seats? Just like Tom Daschle, or what? (4.00 / 1)
Without any health care reform to deliver ot their Democratic constituency, they are unlikely to survive against republican challengers. How can this be painted as "cemented" into their seats? Just that they are unlikely to be replaced by progressive challengers doesn't mean they have a guaranteed reelection.
[ Parent ]
If they were cemented in their seats (4.00 / 1)
they would not be Blue Dogs.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Why? (0.00 / 0)
they've always been Blue Dogs. Why wouldn't they be Blue Dogs?  
[ Parent ]
Maybe we disagree on terminology (4.00 / 2)
To me a "blue dog" is an elected member of congress from the Democratic Party that claims they have to choose more conservative and republican-like positions on various issues and bills because they are so vulerable to losing their seats to the GOP in the next election. If their excuse is the vulnerability of their seat, one can hardly call them "cemented".

Am I wrong?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
We do disagree (0.00 / 0)
Blue Dogs aren't usually blue dogs because of their electoral chances, they're Blue Dogs because they just are that conservative.

some of them do join for electoral reasons, but they tend to be the ones who are moveable, like Gabrielle Giffords, Patrick Murphy, Kirsten Gillibrand, Mike Arcuri, Zack Space, Loretta Sanchez.

The ones who are just plain conservative are the ones we can't move, they ran and got elected as Blue Dogs.  

[ Parent ]
If they don't vote with the Democratic Party (0.00 / 0)
and end up crashing healthcare because they insist on toeing the conservative line - they should not be supported by the Democratic Party.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Supposedly Woosley said in the conference call (0.00 / 0)
with the President that she feared some members of the CPC would compromise.  
[ Parent ]
And this: (0.00 / 0)
"House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said he was confident the House would pass a health care bill this year, but not necessarily with the new public insurance plan sought by many Democrats."

Hoyer and several other hard-line pro-business Moderates also may not vote for it to avoild pissing off their donors.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

[ Parent ]
Thank you, Darcy! (4.00 / 4)
You bring hope.  :-)
Darcy we love what you are doing (4.00 / 1)
organization wise and completely understand this is a 'herding cats' like none other.  We out here in the far off lands have heard several reports that Farr and Capuano are backing away from their signed pledge ... as you are aware we are not really happy about this turn of events.  Consequently, we are actively pursuing 'our ActBlue Funds' to be returned and if you could help either get them back in line or kick their asses out of the caucus that may help.

Also, silly Hoyer needs some attention apparently and is again going against the majority of Dems and the Speaker and siding with Ross and the Blue Dogs.

Disappointing on Ross... (0.00 / 0)
He was OK with the public option not less than a week ago....He never liked it, of course, but was willing to play along... I bet Rahm gave him the go-ahead to continue to be an ass.

Unfortunately, he has a good deal of sway within his caucus....  not a good sign at all...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

Actually it's the exact opposite (0.00 / 0)
Ross is flipping because he isn't getting what he wants.  
[ Parent ]
What, exactly does he want? More pork? (0.00 / 0)
He's a pig, that's for sure...  That's one guy who's seat I wouldn't mind losing, but he's relatively safe, no matter what he does...

What's your take, DTO?  What does he want?

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
lets get this straight- (4.00 / 1)
lets get this straight-the bill was scuttled for a month for a terrible august recess that has nearly killed it at ross' behest. ross weakend the po at ecc nwo doesnt back it.ross won his game with wh for sure.rahma nd messina did all they could to help ross broker a deal with waxman and as ususal rahm ahs failed potus and us. now ross vows to vote no and to oppose any po. so we got a weaker po, a disasterous delay in a vote on the bill, obama forced to scramble and have a joint session to try and save it, liberals now furious over po. progs must outplay ross this round. ross in a way is irrelevent he will vote no on this.
[ Parent ]
Not so worried aobut Ross himself.... (0.00 / 0)
...more worried about the folks on his "friends and family" cell phone plan...  He's got some sway with them, and I'm sure Rahm isn't interfering....

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Acutally we're not getting a weaker po (4.00 / 1)
that's why Ross is bolting.

[ Parent ]
He wants his bill to be the final bill (4.00 / 1)
and it won't be.  
[ Parent ]
Mike Ross from Arkansas? (0.00 / 0)
Is that who you mean?

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure that, though he may have played along for a while,   Ross would never do anything to hurt his relationship to Blue Cross, which has over 75% market share in his state. He's recieved almost $600,000 from healthcare related companies, and his leadership PAC has received thousands more. The chances of him coming out in favor of real reform were always pretty slim.

He's the original "Blue Cross Democrat".

[ Parent ]
More math, for nerds (0.00 / 0)
There are 434 members of the House right now -- Tauscher's seat (CA-10) is a Dem seat which is now vacant.  NY-23 (McHugh, R) will become vacant upon his confirmation.
23 Dems will vote against ANY bill (4.00 / 2)
whether or not it has a public option? Is there a list of them? I think I heard Gene Taylor say in a town hall that he'll vote against it, but who are the others, and why are they going to vote against it?

Now why are they Democrats again?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

A lot of these guys are simply opportunists (4.00 / 2)
who took advantage of disaffection from the GOP by running against pro-Bush Republican incumbents in conservative districts.  

[ Parent ]
Well then I guess it's time for them to decide (0.00 / 0)
which team they're on.

Next!

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Just a touch of math | 52 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox