Kirsch: Senate does not have 50 votes for public option in reconciliation

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 16:11


This afternoon, Health Care for America Now! director Richard Kirsch stated that there were not enough votes to pass a public option through reconciliation in the Senate.

This statement came on a conference call with supporters this afternoon.  Billed as a "Finish Health Reform Right Strategy Call" with Senator Al Franken, over 3,500 people were listening in by the first fifteen minutes.

The strategy presented on the call for finishing health care reform was two-fold:

  1. House should pass Senate bill with a pledge from the Senate to fix it in reconciliation.  Senator Franken talked of "pledge and pass," which means the House needs to pass the Senate bill with a pledge from the Senate that it will be fixed in reconciliation.  This is somewhat in conflict with Speaker Pelosi's statement that the Senate must actually pass a reconciliation bill before the House acts at all.  A pledge alone isn't good enough for the House.  Franken stated that he also thought the Senate bill needed to be improved, but that "the perfect--and we all have different ideas of what perfect is--shouldn't be the enemy of the very good."

  2. Into the streets to create political will.  The second part of the strategy is to make enough noise through protests, rallies, letters to the editor, and calls to Congress to create enough pressure for Congress to pass health care.
When asked by a caller if it was possible to include a public option during the Senate reconciliation process, HCAN director Richard Kirsch said, "I will be frank with you," and went on to say there are not enough votes.  Kirsch said that perhaps this was the case back in the fall, but it is no longer the case now.

Kirsch did claim that the bill, if passed, would lead to a public option in a future health care fight.  His reasoning, which seemed somewhat cryptic, was because the health care legislation currently before Congress would make the federal government more invested in health insurance than before.  As private costs continued to increase, it would cost the federal government more money.  Eventually, the federal government would tire of paying excessive fees to private companies, and support would build in Congress for the public option.  Or something.

Chris Bowers :: Kirsch: Senate does not have 50 votes for public option in reconciliation

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

Kirsch: Senate does not have 50 votes for public option in reconciliation | 50 comments
Yes, we learned from the bail outs that the federal (4.00 / 3)
government has a a big problem with wasting tax payer money when it comes to helping big business.  
PS- I want a vote on the PO (4.00 / 7)
I want to see who will vote against it.

I know you don't like this argument. But the fact is why are these people being protected? Why aren't they being exposed? Why are they enabled to hide in the shadows?

Yes, and a vote on single-payer too... (4.00 / 1)
Where would the healthcare debate be now if liberal groups like HCAN had not wasted so much effort on the so-called public option?  It's as if we believed people to stupid to even try to educate them about guaranteed healthcare/Medicare for All.  

As a result, the plans got tarred as socialism anyway, the right demanded "hands off my Medicare," and we arrived at the current logjam.

At least the Bush crew had the confidence in their (retrograde) beliefs and made an attempt to push their ideology through and privatize Medicare.    

National Nurses United (AFL-CIO) is America's RN union, representing 150,000+ nurses from all 50 states.

[ Parent ]
haha, *too (0.00 / 0)


National Nurses United (AFL-CIO) is America's RN union, representing 150,000+ nurses from all 50 states.
[ Parent ]
The reason why it is labeled as progressive/liberal/socialist (0.00 / 0)
Is in part again that progressives/liberal put their name on it. If they were smart, they would be labeling the bill as conservative.
[ Parent ]
Agree (4.00 / 1)
Yes, make them vote openly.  Every 6 years California voters re-elect Dianne Feinstein because they have a vague idea of her as a liberal.  On most social issues, she is, but on economic issues she is quite conservative unless she thinks someone is looking.  HCAN should be trying to call out Senators like her, not working with Al Franken to discourage supporters with a "can't be done" shake of the head.  Who is going to be enthusiastic enough about a bill without a public option to "go into the streets" for passage?  MoveOn and HCAN (many of whose members favored single payer) can send out emails but they can't force people to turn up.
[ Parent ]
Duh (4.00 / 1)
Kirsch did claim that the bill, if passed, would lead to a public option in a future health care fight.

The only question is when, not if.  The only virtually guaranteed answer is sooner than if the bill is not passed.

no way (4.00 / 3)
We won't have Democratic majorities this large again for a long time, and we still couldn't get a public option. It won't happen in my lifetime.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
[ Parent ]
In your lifetime? (4.00 / 1)
That may be true.  Doesn't change the fact it will happen sooner this way than any other way.
[ Parent ]
Ummm, no. (0.00 / 0)
There is no guarantee that passing a bad bill means we get to healthcare pony-land first.  
[ Parent ]
Easier than magic unicorns (4.00 / 1)
I realize that many expect magic unicorns if we just ....  do something else.  Ain't going to happen.

Get what you can get, get government more involved, build on it.  Rinse.  Repeat.

[ Parent ]
And they rely on that to make sure you get nothing (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
You said "the only question is when" (4.00 / 2)
That's silly.  It's obviously ridiculous to argue that Congress will pass a law, inevitably, because passing it is the best way to solve a problem.  

If costs keep rising as Kirsch suggests, Congress will likely just relax the definition of minimum benefits allowable under the law, or allow insurers to increase rates.  The idea that they'd just logically create a PO in order to help out their constituents is laughable.

[ Parent ]
IOW (4.00 / 7)
The House should, against all evidence and  recent history, trust the Senate to do the right thing. Good luck with that.

Oh, and, will the ones being sent out to "make noise in the streets" finally know just what is in the bill for which we are supposed to advocate? It's ludicrous to expect people to defend a bill the contents of which are unknown and change week to week.

Health insurance reform is dead (4.00 / 3)
with this approach.

The House is not passing the Senate bill and each day the Senate refuses to do reconciliation makes it less likely anything will happen.

Taxing working people for their insurance is a sure loser and the House won't pass it.

[ Parent ]
HCAN not sticking to own principles (4.00 / 6)
They made a big deal about demanding a public option. Now he's saying let's cave, because we'll win the next one. Not likely.

It's ludicrous to think the Senate would pass reconciliation fixes after the House approves the Senate bill. House Democrats would be idiots to go first.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

Recall also when liberals blasted the only two Representatives who actually honored the pledge, Kucinich and Massa. (4.00 / 4)
This is a major reason why liberals have no respect and virtually non-existent negotiating power - the rest of Congress, the White House, the Beltway media know they will always compromise their principles and break their promises to accept bread crumbs.

So when Pelosi declares the House won't pass the bill until the Senate makes some improvements in reconciliation, there is no reason whatsoever for Franken or anyone else to take that seriously. Not until Pelosi and the Progressive Caucus demonstrate they are serious by actually living up to a pledge for once and killing a bill.

[ Parent ]
I've tried in vain to point of how liberal psychology works against (4.00 / 7)
effective negotiation. It is like talking to a wall. Over at Daily Kos, I made the point that some recent comments by Pelosi were not helpful about the public option because she refused to set the public option as a line in the sand. Thus, whether not she actually would get the PO was not only unlikely but so too were other compromises that favor progressives. It is precisely because liberals act in a predictable manner that guarantees they will be rolled over. You also right that anyone pointing out this flaw in the character of progressives is attacked by progressives. The idea id that the liberal need for hope and to seem reasonable is a weakness that others can manipulate (Whats the Matter With Kansas, the LEft Addition (which also includes identity politics, partisanship, personality along with psychology).  They can manipulate it because it is predictable what a liberal will do in any given circumstance so long as you apply the right pressure or hold out long enough. You don't even need to supply the reason. The liberal psychology will simply rationalize the situation for you.  
[ Parent ]
and then (4.00 / 1)
after we vote for their re-elections, we can get together online and complain about how spineless they are.
[ Parent ]
Though it would do Pelosi no good (0.00 / 0)
to threaten more than she can get the caucus to deliver WRT demanding a PO.  If she says, "This is an absolute line in the sand.  Period.  No exceptions," knowing that there are actually a few dozen members of her caucus who will probably cave if the pressure mounts in the next few months, then she'll end up looking like an idiot and losing all credibility.

Don't threaten to strike over issue X if you're not sure the membership will actually do it.

[ Parent ]
In the real world people bluff all the time (4.00 / 2)
As do conservatives. Apparently amongst progressives, however, this is an alien concept. Your need for certainty, like the rest of liberal psychology, is how they can manipulate you. I am a broke record on this point because I am not all that smart, and I can see, so I am assuming people who are smarter than me would know how to use it.  
[ Parent ]
Reagan (4.00 / 1)
Reagan bluffed like crazy and got a fair amount from Democratic congresses.  Correct again, bruhrabbit.
[ Parent ]
I've been at the negotiating table when dealing with bosses who were bluffing (4.00 / 1)
and it didn't do them any good.  "You may not like it, but this will be in the final offer no matter what."  Yeah, whatever.

The GOP knows exactly who her constituents are -- the Dem caucus.  They're capable of counting votes there, as well, and coming to their own conclusions about whether a "line in the sand" is real or complete bullshit.  Pelosi would minimally need enough Dems to lie about it to the GOP to make the bluff even minimally effective.  Otherwise it just become an opportunity for the GOP to make the Dems look like idiots again.

It's not a "need for certainty" it's "a need for having an actual strategy."  Do you honestly think the GOP wouldn't call that kind of bluff?  And then what?

You need to build actual power, not just wave your hands and yell a lot.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, whatever to your comment (0.00 / 0)
look, i am not going to debate all these so called experts on negotiation who tell me that simple concepts like the ability to bluff are impossible behaviors for dems to play out. It is simply bullshit. You also are making shit up about the head count. The dems don't know the number but the gop does. yeah right.
[ Parent ]
isn't the point ... (0.00 / 0)
... 'the threat you make must have something behind it otherwise it won't be taken seriously' valid?
[ Parent ]
The point of a bluff (4.00 / 1)
The point of a bluff is that the person who's bluffing knows it's all bluster.  If you have a shit poker hand and you go all-in, you know that you have a shit poker hand.  If you put your finger in your jacket pocket and say "Stick 'em up!" you know you don't have a gun.

That's what makes it a bluff.  You know you have nothing, but you fake having something in order to scare your adversary into giving up when they really didn't have to.

The dems don't know the number but the gop does. yeah right.

In this scenario, Pelosi does know the Dem head count, and knows that she doesn't have the support in her caucus for a real "line in the sand" statement to hold up.  (If she doesn't know the head count, she needs to resign as Speaker -- knowing her numbers is a core function of her job.)  That's the scenario I'm talking about, and I'm pretty sure it's what's actually happening on the Hill right now.  Your advice is, "Despite the fact that she knows that the House Dems will end up caving, Pelosi should say, 'We'll never cave!' and hope the GOP or the rightwing Dems in the Senate (and possibly the Obama Admin itself) give up and gives in to Pelosi."

I'm saying that there's virtually no reason to think that kind of bluff will work, and, just like threatening someone with your finger or going all-in, if you bluff and get called on it you weaken your position.

So maybe you could play out the scenario in which Pelosi, knowing the House Dems will cave, says that she's drawing an absolute "line in the sand" and it ends up working.

Oh, and FWIW the "yeah whatever" in my first comment was our reaction to the boss's bluster during those negotiations, not anything directed at you.

[ Parent ]
Lord, read into what i write what you want (0.00 / 0)
The funny thing here is how you decide what I mean as the end goal, and then tell me tht a bluff won't work. Maybe the thing I am advocating is hte willingness to say no. But you  know what, they can't even do that, because of you type of risk adverse thinking. They can't even fathom saying no much less bluffing it. It is beyond them because of liberal psychology that tells them risk is bad.  
[ Parent ]
What I understand is that you can't even explain (0.00 / 0)
how your suggestion would work.  I asked for you to play out the scenario, and you won't do it.

Which says to me that even you don't think it would work.

You're talking about "liberal psychology" because you can't explain how your plan would actually work, and can't answer my critique.

[ Parent ]
I am wholly unwilling to accept the argument (4.00 / 8)
from any Senate Democrat that something cannot be done solely because "we don't have the votes" when no one is willing to go on the record to show where they stand. It either means that Senators who are claiming to stand with us are just pretending, or that those who stand with us in principle are giving cover to our opponents in fact (or some combination.)  

The norms of the Senate seem to be that no one should be forced to show their hand until the game is already finished.  That is a fine way for Senators to protect each other but a terrible way to run a Democracy. We need to find a way to challenge those norms, along with the rules of the filibuster and holds.

Also, if anyone had both the will and ability to mobilize lots of people "Into the streets to create political will," than why did they not do this already?  The right and corporate lobbyists have been fully mobilized for months.  This seems to be either terrible strategy - to wait until you almost lose your half-a-loaf before you play your strongest card - or it suggests that these people weren't really supportive of a public option in the first place.  Like Tom Petty said, "I can't decide which is worse."

Whether something passes or not, it seems to me the next stage has to be fighting this out state by state - either state based public options, or even better, state Medicare for all.  CA can pass single payer if the Governor (hopefully the next one) can just sign it. PA has a strong candidate for Gov who supports Medicare for All (who you can learn about on the link on my sig). No doubt there are other state level developments worth mentioning.  With more change at the state level, there will be a better chance of fixing things at the federal level - and again, this is true regardless of whether anything passes Congress now.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

Right! They don't want to go on the record. (4.00 / 2)
That's why those Senators are so against a vote on the p.o., and why they even convinced some naive consultants that this a total NoNo. And that's exactly why at least one progressive Senator should push to bring up such a vote, to expose the Naysayers. And then the base could focus on those rotten apples. Only way to improve the Damn Senate causcus.  
[ Parent ]
Which is why I feel the progressives are enabling the bad faith actors (4.00 / 3)
At this point, if for no other reason, you know who your friends are and who are friends in name only. That's extremely valuable information. Instead, they seem to protect these bad faith actors at all cost. Why?
[ Parent ]
Lamont if elected could provide HC for All in CT (4.00 / 1)
Ed Schultz, while reporting from the Free Medical Clinic in Hartford, spoke about the legislation passed in Connecticut that would provide universal health care in the state. It was vetoed by the current Republican Governor, and there were not enough votes to override.

Ned Lamont was interviewed about it. He sounded so lackadasical and cheery that I had to question his chances of winning that office. Sure, he would have liked the bill to pass, but his responses to Ed didn't show the determination I would expect to have heard.

[ Parent ]
It would be worth it (0.00 / 0)
to have a list of the state of health care reform by state, including where candidates for governor in states that have elections coming up stand.

(I'm not sure I would be willing to drawn much in the way of conclusions from one interview about a candidate's determination - but as always activists often have to provide candidates their spine - better safe than sorry as far as that goes.)

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
Trust the United States Senate? (4.00 / 2)
Franken must be back in comedian mode.

This is the most laugh-out-loud idea I have ever heard.

Let's hope Nancy Pelosi knows better.

Awesome answer from a coalition partner in our Senate whip count for a public option (4.00 / 8)
Openleft, Democracy for America, and HCAN worked together for months to get over 50 Senators on record saying they'd vote for a public option. And we succeeded.

I think it says a lot to me about how much HCAN's partnership in that campaign really meant to now watch Richard throw our whip count under the bus as if it never mattered.

I guess it's more important for HCAN to stay friends with those who lie to them then it is for HCAN to keep fighting for what its members and the rest of America wants or to work to make Senators stick to the commitments they made during the campaign over the last year.

What a disappointment, but it won't stop me from fighting to get the job done. 120 House Democrats have called on the Senate to pass a public option as part of the reconciliation bill. That's after one strong week of organizing and several polls showing freshmen Democrats the need to get it done or risk their reelection.

Next step is the Senate. And DFA has no plans to quit just because some Washington Insiders have accepted the conventional wisdom of defeat. Conventional wisdom in DC is often wrong -- we've showed them before -- we're going to show them again. Sadly, I guess HCAN will have to follow along, instead of helping to lead the fight.  

Get Active. Learn Skills. Win Elections www.DemocracyforAmerica.com

Well said Charles. (0.00 / 0)
I'm glad DFA will still fight for what is right.
[ Parent ]
Charles, do you think the Senate bill is fixable? (4.00 / 1)
because honestly, I don't see it. There are so many problems with it--even if some kind of reconciliation bill goes forward, it probably wouldn't address half of the significant problems.

I appreciate DFA's efforts, but I feel let down by HCAN.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
is the Senate bill fixable? (0.00 / 0)
Yes.

I mean, the bill is filled with crap that sucks, but it is also filled with all sorts of great stuff for most Americans too.

But at the risk of sounding like a broken record, they key to fixing it is the public option.

Most of the best reforms in the Senate bill are worthless without the public option to provide the competition in both pricing AND in providing a minimum standard of service. Stuff like banning not covering pre-existing conditions for example is unenforceable without the competition of a public option, becuase ins co's consistently act in bad faith.

So get the public option included in the reconciliation bill and we'll have fixed the Senate bill enough to make it a historic win for Democrats. Don't... and... well...  

Get Active. Learn Skills. Win Elections www.DemocracyforAmerica.com

[ Parent ]
Wow, Charles. (0.00 / 0)
I hope you're saying the same thing to Kirsch in private. Maybe he can walk this thing back. Because nothing is going to get people on the street at this point except a PO, so he's in fantasy land if he thinks Congress is going to get anybody's help to do a few measly fixes to the Senate bill.
[ Parent ]
Of course we are! (4.00 / 2)
And sadly you're completely right. Our polling shows that the only fix we can pass that can turn Healthcare Reform into a  winner at the polls for Democrats is a public option. And that's becuase people will get out and vote for those who deliver real change.

Let's hope they all get the message.

Get Active. Learn Skills. Win Elections www.DemocracyforAmerica.com

[ Parent ]
Groans (4.00 / 1)
Not enough votes in the Senate?  Then not enough votes IN THE HOUSE!

We should start whipping for a new Progressive Block to make sure that any reconciliation fix MUST have a public option.

but there aren't enough votes in the House anyway (0.00 / 0)
as we saw last fall. You don't have to rely on anyone's whipcount in the Senate.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
Was that a response to me? (4.00 / 2)
If so, that's not true - there weren't enough votes for a Medicare+5 PO, but there were enough for a negotiated rates/Level Playing Field PO.
[ Parent ]
4 (4.00 / 1)
I stand corrected.  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
Good on you for conceding. (0.00 / 0)
So I hope you don't mind if I add that a lot of the cold feet on the public option in the House came from the well-founded fears that the Senate wouldn't pass anything like it.  
[ Parent ]
bass ackwards (4.00 / 1)
  1. House should pass Senate bill with a pledge from the Senate to fix it in reconciliation.  Senator Franken talked of "pledge and pass," which means the House needs to pass the Senate bill with a pledge from the Senate that it will be fixed in reconciliation.  This is somewhat in conflict with Speaker Pelosi's statement that the Senate must actually pass a reconciliation bill before the House acts at all.  A pledge alone isn't good enough for the House.  Franken stated that he also thought the Senate bill needed to be improved, but that "the perfect--and we all have different ideas of what perfect is--shouldn't be the enemy of the very good."

  2. Into the streets to create political will.  The second part of the strategy is to make enough noise through protests, rallies, letters to the editor, and calls to Congress to create enough pressure for Congress to pass health care.

why would you decide your policy choice first before measuring your political clout?  

unless you don't think you can mount any, in which case, why are you pushing the policy debate in the first place instead of on something on which large numbers of people WILL get mobilised?

maybe the answer is staring us in the face? :P

Health Care for America Now
1825 K Street NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006

:P

Then I guess they lied before. (0.00 / 0)
Not a shocker.
not the first time hcan reps have lied (4.00 / 2)
it's been a dishonest campaign  from the start: have you seen the polling data on which the entire campaign and policy talking points was based? have you read the analysis from george lakoff and crew about the stupidity of the politics? have you read the analyses of actual policy experts? have you seen how people with alternative views were excluded from the decision making process or even from any genuine debate?

if not, i can see why people wanted to believe and i can even see why people who didn't know much about the policy issues might believe.  but i think it was an elaborate con to run on progressives by the dem party elite.

it sucks, but better to live and learn.

and that means not falling for some idiotic version of the neoliberal public/private competition model for healthcare insurance policy again.

for everyone who gave it their best shot, my thanks. there is no shame in trusting someone, even if they don't deserve your trust.

......

i'm sorry no links tonight (too tired)  but will return tomorrow with some.

the amount of money that HCAN spent (4.00 / 2)
is tragic.  I think it was George Soros that pledged about 40 million. He could have funded any number of desperately needed pieces of progressive infrastructure, either starting them up or funding orgs or think tanks in existence (outside DC) and instead millions were flushed away on an ad hoc soon-to-be-dismantled coalition that seems to have delivered not a single vote. These single-issue campaigns have got to stop. They're a waste of resources.

But the death of the PO is not solely HCANs failure. We have lying, corrupt Senators that Harry Reid has been hell-bent on protecting all year and blue dogs that Rahm has been hell bent on protecting all year.

[ Parent ]
probably you are right (0.00 / 0)
I feel stupid for ever thinking there was a chance for a decent health care bill out of this Congress.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
[ Parent ]
Kirsch: Senate does not have 50 votes for public option in reconciliation | 50 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