Victory Confirmed: House Has the Votes for Medicare +5% Public Option

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 13:23


Roll Call reported the news this morning:

House Democratic leaders "sounded bullish" after launching "an all-hands-on-deck effort to win support for a 'robust' public insurance option in their health care bill," Roll Call reports.

Said Caucus Chairman John Larson (D-CT): "We think we have the votes now. We have the votes to pass a robust public option."

I have also received word from source on Capitol Hill that "the whip is done," and they have the votes. At this point, the effort will be to increase the vote total as much as possible.

Additionally, the House bill will end the anti-trust exemption for insurance companies:

Legislation ending the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies will be included in the House healthcare bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday.

"It will include the Leahy amendment which is eliminating the exemption of health insurance companies ... from antitrust law," Pelosi said, referring to a Senate provision authored by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).

This is a big win, and now it is back to the Senate. On that front, Olympia Snowe is now saying that she does not support the opt-out compromise on the public option, and would likely vote against cloture on any bill containing a public option of any sort.

However, Democrats don't need Olympia Snowe to reach cloture on health care reform, and Ben Nelson still sounds like he favors the public option opt-out compromise.

With this victory in the House, I could live with an opt-out in the Senate. More details as they come.
Chris Bowers :: Victory Confirmed: House Has the Votes for Medicare +5% Public Option

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Victory Confirmed: House Has the Votes for Medicare +5% Public Option | 29 comments
Only need 217? (0.00 / 0)
I was told a week or so ago that we only needed 217 votes to pass because of two vacancies, but that was before Rep. Wexler announced he would step down.  So while I'm not sure what impact Wexler has, I'm pretty sure its only 217 votes to pass.
for now (0.00 / 0)
for one thing, we'll be a (likely) full 258 in two weeks. If Pelosi holds off the vote two weeks, there will be at least one, if not two, more votes for the bill.

Either way, conference is definitely going to happen post-November 3.  

[ Parent ]
Correction (0.00 / 0)
Sorry, Wexler will remain in office until January. So I'm certain now the magic number is 217.
What's the worst-case scanario at this point? (0.00 / 0)
Let's say the Senate bill goes into conference with no public option whatsoever, and has to be reconciled with the House's Medicare + 5%. What sort of resolution would be likely to come out of that for the final bill?
Watered down muck (4.00 / 2)
The house version is pretty watered down as it is, but if the Senate passes no public option, it will get watered down even more so.  Then end result would probably be bad.  Something like Schumer's "level playing field" mixed with opt-in.

Which is why we need to push the Senate towards the best possible public option it can pass.

[ Parent ]
It's darkly comic (4.00 / 2)
All these Congresspeople (and progressives) getting behind the op-out compromise when no one, and I mean no one, really knows what it would mean.

I suspect the Big Insurance and Big Pharma lobbies, let loose on state houses, would shrink the public pool to a degree that would kill any positive impact the PO would have had, but hey, my guess is as bad as yours.

Surprised you're satisfied with this, Chris, since whatever Reid (and Obama) select here is likely to be in the final product.  

Big states... (4.00 / 2)
If it's opt-out, then it will actually require functional state governments to actually invoke the opt-out. Some states are not blessed with functional state governments (e.g. Gullivornia).

I'd expect Florida and Texas to opt-out, but none of the other large states. California plus New York plus the solidly liberal states is already a big pool.

I mean, Southern governors and senators bad-mouthed the stimulus all day and night, but how many of them actually turned down any money?

That said, I'm still against opt-out because I'm in Florida.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

[ Parent ]
Right. (0.00 / 0)
And I would add: everyone talks about Texas as a paradigm of an opt-out state. But the Texas House is real closely divided and might even go Democratic in the next couple of cycles. It's hard for me to imagine a majority of that body actually summoning the political gumption to turn down this big chunk of government cheese.
[ Parent ]
Yeah, but (0.00 / 0)
the pools created by the POs would be almost too small to make a difference. If you cut that down by, say, thirty percent...

Plus it's the conservative states--like Texas--that have the most people without insurance.

Plus many (most?) African-Americans live in red states.

Plus, as I said, I don't think there's any telling what might happen when the state houses see lobbying campaigns the likes of which they've never seen.

It'd be better states could only opt out through referenda.

Have I mentioned that no Democratic Senator has said he or she will join a filibuster?


[ Parent ]
Opt-out with triggers... (4.00 / 2)
I mentioned this elsewhere, but I think the "opt-out" might be a scenario where "triggers" may actually work... Force the states that want to opt out to come up with another solution for universal care.  If they don't, then they can't opt-out (or they end up automatically opting back in).
[ Parent ]
Referenda? No thanks. (4.00 / 1)
Voters are idiots, by and large.  Big money can buy any referendum easier than legislatures.  Medicare was an opt-out when passed (I think); no state did.  All the winger governors bitched about the stimulus then took the cash.  If the opt-out has a trigger itself -- as in, the law stays for three years and THEN states can opt out -- not a single one will, I don't believe.  
[ Parent ]
Another dose (4.00 / 2)
of elitism from the "populist" netroots:

Voters are idiots, by and large.

If that's really what you believe, why do you stay politically engaged? To keep the idiots in their place?  

[ Parent ]
who's populist? (0.00 / 0)
I stand by my statement.  Decades of proof have convinced me.  More people believe in UFOs than Social Security.  Bush was re-elected in 2004.  Should I go on?  The morons in this country muck it up for the rest of us.
[ Parent ]
he's right (0.00 / 0)
just look at Olympia Snowe's approval ratings among liberal Democrats for further evidence.  
[ Parent ]
Medicare is not optional (0.00 / 0)
it's a single-payer system.

Medicaid was opt-out, but it's a different program.

Agreed on the referenda, by the by. I live in California, and I don't trust them at all.

[ Parent ]
Medicaid is not opt-out. It's opt-in. (0.00 / 0)
As I explained here.

I will further add:

When senators, congressmen, or anyone really, argue that a federal law should allow states to ignore it - to "opt-out" - then that too is an argument for states' rights.  It's a deliberate attempt to weaken the federal government from the inside and thereby strengthen the states'.  Writing a law with an opt-out clause would be to legalize non-compliance.

This is different from a law which uses an opt-in clause.  The opt-in is a method of offering an incentive for complying to a certain set of regulations.  It's a law which sets up a certain set of guidelines for evaluating state laws and provide assistance to compliant states so as to encourage states to write their laws to comply with the federal framework.  The incentive can be (and I believe usually is) automatically given, even if the state doesn't ask for it, because all the state has to do is meet the regulatory requirements.  "If you do Y, you'll get X."  Thus, the law is written such that states cannot help but comply.

Medicaid is a perfect example of an opt-in law.  Any state could set up a Medicaid-like program without meeting federal regulations, but by meeting federal regulations, they get federal assistance in providing the program.

I'll take an opt-in federal law over an opt-out any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.

[ Parent ]
There were no corporate interests against the stimulus (0.00 / 0)
There will be corporate interests against a public option: the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies.

The same corporate interests that are blocking the public option in the US Congress will endeavor to block it in every state lege in the nation.

[ Parent ]
Getting the damn thing to conference (4.00 / 2)
The only thing that matters now is getting a Senate bill to conference with some type of non-trigger, non-coop national public option in it. The key is having the conference decide what type of PO will be in the final bill, not whether there will be one at all, as would be the case if there's no PO in the Senate bill.

I think Chris is saying (and I agree) he likes his chances on a final compromise between Medicare +5 from the House and level playing field w/opt out from the Senate. If opt outs are what it takes to get a Senate PO to conference, just do it!

"Don't take much, does it, elected Democrats, to get your balls tucked up." Cf.

[ Parent ]
Anthony Weiner has proposed an opt-out with a caveat (0.00 / 0)
in that states can only opt-out after "a few" years.  The hope is that the PO will be popular enough that any politician who tries to opt-out after a few years will provoke a voter revolt.

In any case, I hate how we liberals are all jumping for this compromise when it's not clear that a PO with no opt-out would not pass the Senate.  By holding out this opt-out, we're essentially giving license to the centrists to oppose a PO with no opt-out.

[ Parent ]
Please Post Link (0.00 / 0)
I can't find this in Roll Call. Please post the link. I need to see it for myself to believe it!

Thanks.

I'm rooting for Weiner's amend-by-substitution move -- (4.00 / 3)
-- HR 676 for HR 3200. I hope Sanders makes a similar move in the Senate.

Beyond that, the Kucinich amendment -- de-criminalizing single-payer attempts by states -- is a necessity.  

Watch Ben Nelson change his tune now... (4.00 / 1)
...that his BFF Olympia isn't happy...

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!
here you go (4.00 / 2)
"I keep hearing there is a lot of leaning toward some sort of national public option, unfortunately, from my standpoint," said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), a key swing vote on health reform. "I still believe a state-based approach is the way in which to go. So I'm not being shy about making that point.
...
As for Nelson, he said he prefers allowing states to decide individually whether to create a public option or some other sort of competitor to private insurance.

"A state public option I can support," said Nelson, although he added that he hasn't made any threats to oppose the bill based on the public option.

http://www.politico.com/news/s...
[ Parent ]
Snowe's stance isn't new (0.00 / 0)
I don't think anyone seriously thought she would support anything less than a trigger.

She was used to push the Finance Bill out of committee with a Republican vote. That's it.  

[ Parent ]
Time to force the Olympia Snowe moment (4.00 / 3)
At some point the Dem caucus must be forced to make a decision on Olympia Snowe. There must be some line they will not cross to please her. Until that moment is forced she's going to have an effective veto on every policy in the bill.

The time to force that moment is now -- on the opt out public option. If we allow Reid to cave to Snowe on opt out we're going to get triggers or coops or no PO at all.

As long as Snowe remains a player, she enables the Conservadems. That axis must be split before the conference so that Snowe doesn't hold effective veto over the final conference report.

Bottom line -- Snowe has made clear she will not support any meaningful PO. If we are to get a real PO there must be a decisive moment where the Dems split from Snowe. Until we force that moment the PO is in jeopardy. Opt out is a fair compromise for the Conservadems. The opt out is the line that must force the Olympia Snowe moment.

"Don't take much, does it, elected Democrats, to get your balls tucked up." Cf.

WH "leaning towards" PO now... (4.00 / 3)
Politico reporting:

http://www.politico.com/news/s...

It's hard to believe, but I think I'm starting to smell something...  starts with a "V" and ends with an "ictory".  But I'm still holding my breath to see how Democrats figure out a way to snatch something starting with a "D" and ending with "efeat" from that smell.

Don't get too excited, yet... (4.00 / 2)
....they love Olympia Snowe and she's throwing a tantrum!

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 ]
Cake vs. eating it (4.00 / 1)
At some point they're going to have to decide whether they want a PO or they want Snowe. They can't have both...

"Don't take much, does it, elected Democrats, to get your balls tucked up." Cf.
[ Parent ]
I wouldn't say victory confirmed quite yet ... (4.00 / 2)
... but positive signs are emerging.

Z

Victory Confirmed: House Has the Votes for Medicare +5% Public Option | 29 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox