House Still Short for Medicare +5%, But Within Striking Distance

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 16:51


A second fire has started on the public option fight, this time in the House.

Greg Sargent is reporting that House Whip James Clyburn has told the Congressional Progressive Caucus that he does not currently have the votes for the "robust" (that is, Medicare +5%, in current lingo) public option.

Clyburn told the assembled members at the meeting that the leadership does not have the votes to pass the robust public option, according to a House progressive familiar with the meeting. That sparked aggressive pushback from liberals, who argued that leadership - and the White House - should be working harder to win over the remaining votes the bill needs.

The document shows that 47 House Dems are committed No votes, and eight are Leaning No, for a total of 56. That means of 256 House Dems, only 200 remain, and a dozen of those are listed as undecided. The bill needs 218 votes for passage.

House progressives argue that the document should light a fire under Dem leaders. One House progressive tells me he's convinced that most of the undecideds, and a number of the No votes, can be won over with the right mix of pressure and incentives - which only the House leadership and the White House can provide.

I have seen the document myself. Sargent is reporting the numbers accurately, although 47 plus 8 is 55.

However, a source I know close to the process (yeah, take anonymous sources as you will) is disputing those numbers. Specifically, the source claims:

  • All of the 12 undecideds, except one (Representative Ann Kirkpatrick), are actually "yes" votes. That brings the total to 200.

  • Further, two of the "no" votes listed on the document, Eric Massa and Artur Davis, are actually "yes" votes. That makes 202.

  • Also, after November 3rd, at least one new supporter of the public option will be sworn into the House (the winner of the CA-10 special election). That makes 203.

  • Yet further, six of the "lean no" votes are actually "lean yes" votes, and four of the members listed as "no" votes are actually "lean yes" votes. Those 10 "lean yes" votes are Representatives Giffords, Klein, Maffei, Nye, Sanchez, Scott, Lipinski, Scott Murphy, Costa, Cardozza. That would make 213.

  • Finally, the source argues to me that if the whip count was conducted differently, then the Progressives could probably get over the top. Specifically, instead of asking members if they will vote for a health care bill with Medicare +5% public option, the whip should be asking if a Medicare +5% public option is a dealbreaker for members.
Given all of this, tomorrow I will be joining with a few other bloggers to engage in a snap crowdsourcing action to try and conduct exactly the sort of whip count described in the last bullet point. Even though Lieberman is causing problems right now, the House is more time-sensitive because the leadership will decide what to do with the public option in the House by mid-Thursday. Really, it is tomorrow or never to pull off a Medicare +5% public option in the House.

Stay tuned. Names, phone numbers, instructions and more coming. Tomorrow is going to be a big action day.
Chris Bowers :: House Still Short for Medicare +5%, But Within Striking Distance

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
House Still Short for Medicare +5%, But Within Striking Distance | 32 comments
good idea (4.00 / 1)
I find it really hard to believe that 47 Dems would vote no on this. And they'll be just the kind of Dems who can't win in 2010 without a motivated base to help them.

Negotiated rates vs. Medicare + 5. Is that really the fight they want to have right now with the base?

How about an ad that says:

Dear Members of Congress,

We'll be recording every vote you take on the health care bill.

Sincerely,

The Base

to be honest (0.00 / 0)
since most of their districts are rural districts, I don't think this is a debate that's really going to matter...their personal bases don't know the difference, and in rural communities, almost certantly will be repehensive about Medicare +5.  
[ Parent ]
So are Shelley Berkley and Dina Titus still firm "Yes" votes? (0.00 / 0)
Please let us know if they're wavering. I won't hesitate to call them again and give them some "encouragement" to stick to their guns on Medicare+5.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.
Eric Massa was only a no (4.00 / 1)
because he supports single payer, he was hinted a no vote for any bill that wasn't...don't think he'd follow though on a no vote for a bill with a public option, in fact, I am almost certain of it.

I was at Nydia Velazquez' district office earlier today and a staff member told me the "entire New York Democratic delegation will vote yes" and she included Bill Owens, should he win. I had figured the only possible no vote was Mike McMahon, maybe you know more about his status, but Velazquez' people say the entire delegation is a yes.


And btw, who's the "Sanchez" listed as "Lean No"? Loretta? (0.00 / 0)
It better not be! She was my Congresscritter when I lived in Orange County, and recently she started promising to not just the public option, but also the HR 676 SINGLE PAYER BILL! If she's wavering, let us know and I'll remind my friends & family in OC to bug her like hell until she agrees to Medicare+5.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.
I would imagine it is Loretta (4.00 / 1)
but she's definitely a yes, she wrote a diary on HuffPost a few weeks ago backing it.  
[ Parent ]
Just A public option or THE Medicare+5 public option? (0.00 / 0)
I'll try to find that HuffPo piece and take a look. I know she'll vote for Medicare+5, but I'm wondering why she's going undecided now. What kind of bacon for Orange County is she asking out of Nancy Pelosi?

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.
[ Parent ]
She's not undecided (0.00 / 0)
she's "lean yes" which implies "yes with a condition"

In politicalspeak, that's almost certainly a yes because Pelosi will give her whatever she wants, something small and minute...if she doesn't, then Pelosi can't play politics well.

And there are few people better at politics than Pelosi.

Sanchez's vote is probably on the condition that it passes.  

[ Parent ]
yes, loretta (n/t) (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
Also (4.00 / 2)
I mentioned a few days ago the possibility the leadership is purposely low balling the numbers so that they can get some pad when the vote is taken.

Another words, say they have 200 when they really have 218 and so when we think they have 218, SURPRISE, 229.

That maybe why we see the discrepency.  

It certainly wouldn't be the first time (0.00 / 0)
that has happened.  
[ Parent ]
If that's what this is, great (0.00 / 0)
that is simply good strategy--keeping someone in the house from pulling this liberman crap would obviously be a good thing.
[ Parent ]
Some of the rural house votes concerned about robust are concerned about the (0.00 / 0)
ability of rural health orgs to stay afloat if the great majority of patients are paying less than they are at present, and are close to being insolvent over time. There must be facilities to ensure viability of these same orgs, without endangering a robust public option.

If I am wrong on the face of this, I would like to know, if not, I'd love to see work that includes their viability untied to the Bill.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

Off-topic, but.... (0.00 / 0)
... if Reid and Pelosi win this fight, shouldn't they demand that Obama fire Rahm?

I'm not saying that mean old Rahm made nice Mr. Obama do all those awful things. Rahm is Obama's tool. But canning Rahm would be a good sign that Obama had learned something.

huh? why? (0.00 / 0)
Rahm is very close to Pelosi, why would she demand he be fired?
[ Parent ]
Because Rahm did everything he could to stop the public option. (0.00 / 0)
And he seems to be a jerk.

If Pelosi is actually very close to Rahm, suddenly I feel less hopeful.

[ Parent ]
We if he did everything he could to kill the public option (0.00 / 0)
someone should tell him he's doing a horrible job at it.  
[ Parent ]
WTF are you taling about? (0.00 / 0)
He may have gotten beat, though I'm not counting my chickens yet. I wouldn't say that meant he did a terrible job. He just overestimated the worthlessness of Congress.
[ Parent ]
Since there's not one ounce of proof Rahm Emanuel (0.00 / 0)
is trying to kill the public option (and proof he hasn't), I'm not sure how to respond to you, except to explain that if Rahm Emanuel is trying to kill the public option, it would've happened two months ago considering how close he is to Pelosi.

[ Parent ]
You're making stuff up (4.00 / 2)
How often is there proof in cases like this? Never.

Someone in the President's office has been making hostile leaks all along, and everyone assumes that it's Emmanuel. Furthermore, he's expressed himself pretty openly to several individuals.

Hamsher has covered this: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.c...

I have no idea what kind of closeness he has to Pelosi, and I doubt that you do either.

[ Parent ]
Hamsher lol (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Have you heard of (4.00 / 1)
"the foot in the door" phenomena?

The bill passed in 2009/2012 doesn't have to be the be all end all. In fact, from a technocratic point of view it is better to do this in stages. What matters is a nucleus upon which we can build.

Ultimately, every two years will be a referendum on the plan as this will touch pretty much everybody's lives.

Plan for a staged implementation.

Medicare +5 already FAILED in the Senate (0.00 / 0)
Why are they trying to pass something that already FAILED in the Senate?  They are wasting there time, instead they should focus on something that could actually pass the Senate.
That's what the reconciliation conference is all about (4.00 / 2)
Both sides bargain for the best they can get.
[ Parent ]
the point was to put them to the left of the Senate (0.00 / 0)
Medicare +5 wasn't going to survive conference, that was obvious, and probably why it can't get the votes in the House.

the back up plan, I think, was to let the Senate pass the most progressive bill they can and then have the House vote for it and avoid conference altogether.  

[ Parent ]
The "wasting time" argument is stupid (4.00 / 1)
In a bargaining situation you don't rush to the deal. You feel the other guy out, bluff, and so on. If you hurry you lose.
[ Parent ]
Chris... one adjustment: (4.00 / 1)
If you are going to town on Wed, you might want to seek out the Rural Fence Sitters and see if:

Medicare + 5% + An Adjustment For Rural Areas

Moves them at all.

Need to keep in the back of your mind the meme that Conrad has been going to the well on about the tie to Medicare being bad for rural areas due to their "underpayment".  If you can seal off that avenue for being a "No", it might shake some off the fence.

I think we saw in another post the the Rural Medicare Rates issue was a key one for some members of the House.  This might speak their language.  While Leadership probably is already working on it, framing it into the PO discussion might pull in some of those needed votes.

John

Will be in the House bill. (0.00 / 0)
Via my congressman's (Boswell) newsletter:

[...] I, along with my colleagues on the Quality Care Coalition, have negotiated a compromise to include final language in a health care bill that will address this inequity once-and-for-all.

Specifically, the compromise includes language that would direct two studies to take place before the bill is fully implemented. The first would study the disparities in provider reimbursements across the nation and seek to fix those for high quality, low reimbursement states like Iowa. The second study would pave the way for paying our providers for the quality of care they give, not the number of services they conduct.  Medicare would switch to a quality-based system unless Congress specifically cast a vote to disallow that change.


Iowa being the rural state that it is, I can only parse that to mean more money to rural areas.

I posted the full text of the letter in this comment last week.

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

[ Parent ]
Agreed... (0.00 / 0)
... this does sound like one of the "Medicare Fixes" that people have been talking about (and no... not the other Medicare Fix that just died).

I'd suggest that Chris and others when whipping/polling make sure to get that framing out infront of the question before people raise it as a reason to be No (like Conrad).

John

[ Parent ]
why are you waiting until tomorrow? (0.00 / 0)

I'm a little skeptical (0.00 / 0)
That Davis (AL-07) is a yes vote for Medicare +5. I asked him about health care reform and the public option Friday night and came away somewhat optimistic that he will support what the conference committee comes up with, but have no indication he's ready to vote yes on something more progressive than the final bill will be.  

He's in a situation of having to run statewide next year in Alabama.  I haven't seen any polling on the public option here but it probably doesn't have more than 50% support at present.  There's no question the GOP would make that vote a campaign issue next year, it's just a matter of how much it would hurt -- and how much a "no" vote will hurt in the Democratic primary.

Join the conversation at Left In Alabama.

weiner says (0.00 / 0)
the hill-weiner claims robust po gained 15 votes. progs pushing hard. we shall see and call
http://thehill.com/homenews/ho...
House Still Short for Medicare +5%, But Within Striking Distance | 32 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