House Whip Count on Robust Public Option (Update)

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 09:52


At the request of Speaker Pelosi, the Congressional Progressive Caucus is currently undertaking a whip count to see if there are enough votes to pass a health care reform bill in that chamber with a "robust" public option (that is, a public option tied to Medicare rates, +5%). As I reported on Friday, they began this whip count a couple weeks ago, interrupting their whip count of House Progressives who would vote against a health care reform without a robust public option to do so.

Yesterday, anonymous Blue Dog aides told Politico that Progressives had found only 145 votes for the robust public option during this whip count. This morning, Greg Sargent reports that Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Raul Grijalva's office is claiming a much higher number, around 180:

"I am confident that we have the support of over 70% of the Democratic Caucus," Grivalva said in a statement emailed my way. That means according to him, around 180 of the 256 Dems in the House are prepared to back the robust public option right now.

Sargent is correct, not the anonymous Blue Dog aides. I know this, because I have the actual numbers. As of Friday, here is where the whip count stood:

Progressive Caucus Whip Count on Robust Public Option
Democrats only, 217 needed for passage
Yes: 183
No: 22
Undecided: 20
Not Whipped: 31

All 22 of the no votes are Blue Dogs. Every single one.

Also, the House leadership is a significant portion of the Democrats who were not whipped. This means Speaker Pelosi and Representatives Hoyer, Clyburn Van Hollen, (John) Larson and Becerra. None of these members are Blue Dogs, and only Hoyer would conceivably be opposed to the robust public option.

That means there are at least 188 votes for the public option, only 29 away from passage. The chances of reaching 217 (there are currently only 433 members of the House, due to two vacancies) with the remaining members are pretty solid, too. Consider:

  1. Even if all 117 members of the Progressive Caucus and Tri-Caucus (Black Caucus, Hispanic Caucus, Asian Pacific American Caucus) are in favor of the robust public option, that means non-Progressive and non-Tri-Caucus Dems are currently breaking 71-22 in favor of the robust public option (188 minus 117). If the remaining 45 undecided and unwhipped members (31 plus 20 minus the 6 leaders) break in favor of the robust public option at the same rate (76%) as the other non-Progressive and non-Tri-Caucus Dems, that means there are another 34 votes in favor, which would be enough for passage.

  2. The Progressive Caucus had moved to within 29 votes of passage (and really 28, given that Hoyer would likely fall in line on the floor), without any assistance or pressure from the leadership. As such, they are already close to the point where leadership assistance and pressure can bring health care reform with a robust public option over the finish line.
This whip count will largely determine what sort of public option is in the health care bill sent to the floor of the House. If the leadership is convinced it can reach 217 because of this whip count, they will send a bill with a public option tied to Medicare rates to the floor of the House. If they do not, then at the request of the Blue Dogs a public option with negotiated rates will be sent to floor. From that point, it is highly unlikely the public option would be strengthened.

Every step of the process is important in this campaign. If the House passes a weaker public option with negotiated rates, then it is less likely that any public option will end up in the final bill. If the Senate does not include a public option in the merged Finance and HELP committee bill that is sent to the floor of the Senate, then it is less likely that a public option of any sort will be included in the final bill. As such, not only is it heartening to see this whip count showing real strength, but it is heartening to see Wyden and Rockefeller demurring on voting for the Baucus bill in the Senate Finance committee. If Wyden and Rockefeller can use their leverage to send a public option to the floor, and if the Progressive Caucus can get a robust public option through the House, then we will be on the brink of victory. If neither happens, then we will be close to defeat.

There is still a long way to go in this campaign, and a lot of variables are still to be determined.

Update: I have just learned that the leadership who was not whipped is larger than just the top five plus DCCC chair Van Hollen. Exactly how many leaders were not whipped is unclear, but it might be as many as the 16 House Democrats listed here plus Van Hollen. If so, that would mean another 8-10 votes.

Chris Bowers :: House Whip Count on Robust Public Option (Update)

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

House Whip Count on Robust Public Option (Update) | 29 comments
how undecided are the undecided? (0.00 / 0)
i don't know why anyone would be undecided on this.  it seems that an undecided vote is a likely no vote.
Who are the 22? (4.00 / 2)
Chris, do you have the names of the 22 Blue Dogs who oppose the public option. I listened to an insane Republican-sounding rant by John Barrow (GA) telling his constituents why he opposes it but I'd love to have the whole list.
Nope (4.00 / 2)
Don't have the names. Wish I did.
[ Parent ]
If you don't know their names (0.00 / 0)
how do you know they are blue dogs?

All 22 of the no votes are Blue Dogs. Every single one.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
I was told they were all Blue Dogs (4.00 / 2)
I was told they were all Blue Dogs, just as I was told the numbers.
[ Parent ]
Few of them want to come out of the closet yet! (0.00 / 0)
They want to wait until:

1. Hopefully Olympia Snowe agrees to be bribed into voting for some piece of crap they can call a Health Care Bill with some other piece of bile they can call a "Public Option." Regardless of what it does.

Then all the sell-outs can breath a sigh of relief and blather on about the need for "bi-partisanship."

2. More probably, Snowe ultimately refuses to be the only Republican voting for this. Then the President will have to take the heat for screwing us over and forcing the Progressive Caucus to vote for the poison pill.

Either way, we're screwed in 2010. Obama has officially sent us into the toilet in 9 months, and destroyed his own Presidency into the bargain. He'll be lucky to pull a Bill Clinton and manage to hang on for another term by coming out as a "Bi-Partisan" Republican-lite for the remaining 2 years of his term. Perhaps his signature "reform" will be massive budget cuts designed to reduce the deficit or a business tax cut or something else he can get Republicans to agree to.

This performance is the most astounding example of political incompetence on record. The nation was totally primed and ready for another New Deal, and he's flat screwed it up beyond belief.

[ Parent ]
Where there's a plus, there will be a minus...they're Democrats! (0.00 / 0)
Never forget the closeted cowards and shills.
In a close vote all it takes is a few of them to creep out to deliberately blow passage.  

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.
[ Parent ]
I came up with; (4.00 / 1)
Ross
Berry
Boren
Taylor
Shuler
Marshall
Barrow
Melancon
McIntyre
Childers
Bright
Griffith
Minnick
Herseth Sandlin
Matheson
Lincoln Davis
Tanner
Cooper
Boyd
Spratt
Boucher
Pomeroy

Herseth Sandlin though has been back and forth on the public option. I think she's trying to figure out what can get her elected to the Senate.  

[ Parent ]
Cooper is on the record for Schumer's public option proposal (0.00 / 0)
I've also heard Shuler is for it. Other then that it looks about right. Maybe add Peterson?  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
Unfortunately it's the Senate that counts! (4.00 / 2)
You've already correctly argued in previous articles that the Senate has much more bargaining leverage. Thus, the bill that is reconciled between the finance committee and the other Senate bills will be the final bill, regardless of what the House does. It won't be improved in conference committee because Obama will be leaning HARD on Progressives to fall in line -- in exactly the way he NEVER leaned on the Bile Dogs or useless ass-hats like Conrad or Baucus.

Those sell-out scumbags are still talking about "bi-partisan" and "60 votes."

And we all know what that means: Olympia Snowe. Whatever garbage she'll agree to will be in the final bill. Triggers designed never to trigger probably. The only thing that has prevented this patent fraud from already being a done deal is that she keeps refusing to come on board. The instant she did, the whole fight would be lost in a blizzard of "bi-partisanship."

The only thing that could save us is her telling the President once and for all that she won't vote for ANY health-care bill, regardless of what's in it. Just like all the other Republicans.

1. This bill will have something called a "public option." It will probably be a piece of crap if they take the bill and water it down with all the Baucus garbage. But, that's what Obama will sledge-hammer the House into voting for.

2. He'll demand party line on this with the House and say that "it's the best we can do. And we must move health care reform this year. We can't afford to do nothing."

That fact that EVERY American, right across the political spectrum, will HATE the bill once it's passed, and they find out that it does nothing to reduce health care costs, yet will force them to buy GARBAGE insurance at inflated prices, will be ignored.

If a Camel is a horse designed by a committee, do any of these morons think that anyone will be happy riding a camel? Or that we'll be grateful to them because they say "well, it's the best we could do?"

I agree with Cugel (0.00 / 0)
After a while Consensus building becomes a rather large game.  Very few outcomes of this game really get anything done.  Very few things are ever done in committee unless someone there has a personal stake in the outcome.  This is where Obama will sign anything that comes across his desk and say it was an improvement.  We could probably seek out everyone that doesn't have health care coverage and provide it for them in the federal system and it would cost us less.  

Cugel is correct in saying once it's passed EVERY American, across the political spectrum, will Hate the bill and those pushing it will get the blame for it.

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.

[ Parent ]
the House matters too (4.00 / 3)
The House and Senate bills will be merged in conference committee. As such, it is important both are strong as possible before they are merged. Which means they both matter a lot.

If the House passes a weaker public option, it weakens what will come out of the conference committee.

And Olympia Snowe doesn't matter. We have 60 votes now.

[ Parent ]
Chris, some will never believe (0.00 / 0)
Anyone who can write "Obama has officially sent us into the toilet in 9 months, and destroyed his own Presidency into the bargain" is a lost cause.  Much easier to bitch and carp than find actual facts as you've done.
[ Parent ]
It will be a shock if the CPC definition of "robust" is even mentioned in the Senate (4.00 / 1)
"must Be available to all individuals and employers across the nation without limitation"
[ Parent ]
We need to push hard publicly we need angry people. (4.00 / 1)
And angry at the votes that might not be there. We need people demanding primaries. If frakking Arlen spector can be convinced to act the way his voters demand for 12 months, then we can put that fear into any blue dog.

This is  a popular bill. We need people to be amgry in any district, any district, that has a rep or senator that votes down a strong public option.

WE NEED MORE TV ADS!


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

No, we need protests (0.00 / 0)
put 250,000 on the National Mall and something will happen.

[ Parent ]
Numbers don't matter (0.00 / 0)
Six million people world wide marched against getting in to the war in Iraq.  Som,ething like 2 million in the US.

Those Senators have their eye on million dollar lobbying jobs down the line.  

Reform made this so much more likely.  When the special, very lucrative congressional pensions were phased out, the result was a legislature geared mopre and more to the "needs" of business an less and less to the people.  I was reading that the typical House pension under the old rules was $60,000 per year; now it is $36 K.  We pay for that $24 K 100 times over and more.  Too money of them have their eyes on the prize.  The rest will just stay in till they die.

[ Parent ]
This is completely wrong. (0.00 / 0)
And demonstrations by democrats, in each Senators home state, preferably in the county where they get the most votes, is very powerful.

Your comment about demonstrations is just plain off the mark. One wonders what you do prescribe if you think voting and demonstrating are both useless.

Now that IO think of it, demos in home states is a great idea, it might be time to organize one or teo of those.

Not a "hey hey ho ho", but we are voters and we are watching you, and we wont forget.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
Primaries (0.00 / 0)
I never said voting is useless.  I said demonstrating is useless.  At least right now.  Primaries are the most important thing, almost the only thing.

A few hundred people with video cameras trailing politicians waiting for gaffes would do a world of good.  A lot more than a million demonstrators.  Pretty pathetic, pretty wrong, but that is my view.  It dumped George Allen.

[ Parent ]
As I have said lots of times. (0.00 / 0)
The important point is not just to win, nor just to show anger, but to organize Americans to demand what they need. The point is to help America organize itself on issues of importance.

Helping America organize to demand and achieve universal healthcare is more important than getting universal healthcare. America has been "disorganized" by: conservatives in control of the media, bribery in the halls of power, cynicism and by incompetent organizers.

It is time, long past time, for Americans to learn how to get what they want. They get what they want by learning how to organize.

Stupid organizing, violent demonstrations feed "disorganization" -cynicism feeds "disorganization."

On a side note, the "black block" attending demos, the asshats who just like to break windows etc. are to some percentage, always police who are acting as 'agent provocateurs'

A thousand people camped out at one of Baucus' office in these locations, on the other hand, would help a great deal. Two people hurling rocks through the window of one of those offices would hurt. So much would it hurt, that it would probably only be done by someone opposed to Health Care Reform, or opposed to organizing for progressive change. Of course there are also incompetents who might do that as well.

Billings, Montana   Billings
222 North 32nd Street
Suite 100
Billings, MT 59101
(406) 657-6790

Bozeman, Montana   Bozeman
Federal Building
32 East Babcock
Suite 114
Bozeman, MT 59715
(406) 586-6104

Butte, Montana   Butte
27 North Wyoming St
Suite A
Butte, MT 59701
(406) 782-8700

Great Falls, Montana   Great Falls
113 3rd Street North
Great Falls, MT 59401
(406) 761-1574
(406) 452-1117 (TDD)

Helena, Montana   Helena
Empire Block
30 West 14th Street
Suite 206
Helena, MT 59601
(406) 449-5480

Kalispell, Montana   Kalispell
8 Third Street East
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 756-1150

280 E. Front St.                Missoula
Suite 100 Missoula, MT 59802
(406) 329-3123

122 West Towne St           Glendive
Glendive, MT 59330
(406) 365-7002

This is what is lacking in our drive to giving the emerging progressive majority the muscle it needs to build win upon win.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
like the protests against the iraq war stopped that? (0.00 / 0)
millions of people protested it, repeatedly. to no avail. not that i disagree with the basic ideology of protests, but i'm sorry, a single protest of that size would not have an impact on this process, imho. a sustained action of that magnitude would be another story.

honestly, this whole "debate" about health care 'reform' is starting to remind me of something: the Libby trial. people got so involved in the details, the minutiae, there were many breathless exclamations of how a conviction would 'change everything,' and really, what happened? nothing.

similarly, i believe that when all is said and done, the legislative 'reform' we'll get will be essentially meaningless, if not making things worse for the working class and/or people with significant medical needs. i'm not criticizing people like Chris or the work they do, so much as sadly coming to the conclusion that the outcome was always predetermined.


[ Parent ]
But the public supported the war (4.00 / 1)
so of course protests don't mean anything when you have 65% of the country on the other side.

Put millions on the streets with 65% in support, things will be different,

[ Parent ]
The millions in the street werent in the US. And it did stop other countriers from joining the illegal occupation. (0.00 / 0)
These two comments are WAY off the mark.

It makes wonder why they are so far off the mark.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the report, Chris. (4.00 / 1)
We still have a good chance of prevailing.
a line in the sand that keeps moving (0.00 / 0)
Congressional Progressive Caucus is currently undertaking a whip count to see if there are enough votes to pass a health care reform bill in that chamber with a "robust" public option (that is, a public option tied to Medicare rates, +5%).

wtf?

the cpc has a list of what they said is required for a "robust" po. i don't even agree with it, but for crying out loud, don't pretend that  robustness is all about the rates. it's most certainly NOT and the cpc didn't say that.

here is a bit from the cpc requirements for a "robust" po:

The Congressional Progressive Caucus calls for a robust public option that must:

Enact concurrently with other significant expansions of coverage and must not be conditioned on private industry actions.

Consist of one entity, operated by the federal government, which sets policies and bears the risk for paying medical claims to keep administrative costs low and provide a higher standard of care.

Be available to all individuals and employers across the nation without limitation
Allow patients to have access to their choice of doctors and other providers that meet defined participation standards, similar to the traditional Medicare model, promote the medical home model, and eliminate lifetime caps on benefits.

Have the ability to structure the provider rates to promote quality care, primary care, prevention, chronic care management, and good public health.

Utilize the existing infrastructure of successful public programs like Medicare in order to maintain transparency and consumer protections for administering processes including payment systems, claims and appeals.

Establish or negotiate rates with pharmaceutical companies, durable medical equipment providers, and other providers to achieve the lowest prices for consumers.

Receive a level of subsidy and support that is no less than that received by private plans.

Ensure premiums must be priced at the lowest levels possible, not tied to the rates of private insurance plans.

In conclusion, the public plan, like all other qualified plans, must redress historical disparities in underrepresented communities. It must provide a standard package of comprehensive benefits including dental, vision, mental health and prescription drug coverage with no pre-existing condition exclusions. It must limit cost-sharing so that there are no barriers to care, and incorporate up-to-date best practice models to improve quality and lower costs. All plans, including the public plan, must include coverage for evidence-based preventive health services at minimal or no co-pay. All plans, including the public plan, should be at least as transparent as traditional Medicare.

unless this is what the cpc is whipping to, please stop using the term "robust."

any chance of any republicans voting for the bill? (4.00 / 1)
i remember reading that cao was planning on voting for the bill, and i wonder if castle might vote for it also.
Very good question. (0.00 / 0)
Abd the recently appointed LeMieux

LeMieux said he is still open to reforming health care and likes parts of Baucus's proposal dealing with creating an insurance exchange where consumers could shop for insurance and compare plans. But he cautioned that the pace of reform can be slowed down to make sure it is done right.

When pressed more more specifics about what he is looking for in a reform plan or where he stands on a public option, LeMieux said he has only been on the job for four days and would need more time to review the health care plans.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
I'd watch three names (0.00 / 0)
Cao, Kirk and Castle.

Specifically Castle, since he wants a Senate seat in a blue state.

[ Parent ]
Lets pressure them then. (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
House Whip Count on Robust Public Option (Update) | 29 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