Senate public option whip count update

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Mar 01, 2010 at 12:02


Yesterday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that the public option was not currently on the table:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) predicted Sunday that she would find the votes to pass a health care overhaul and said Democrats had already made major concessions to Republicans, including ditching the public insurance option.

"A year later, we're closer to what Republicans were suggesting at that time, an exchange and not a public option," she said on CNN's "State of the Union."

Pelosi said, "There is no public option on the table now."

Pelosi's statement echoed her earlier implication that the White House was not considering including a public option in the Senate reconciliation process, and Senator Tom Harkin's pessimistic comments on the public option last week.

And yet, despite this, public support for passing a public option in reconciliation continues to grow.  Over at WhipCongress.com, 29 Senators have now signed the Bennet letter in support of a public option via reconciliation (although the website says 30, I count 29).  Additionally, Russ Feingold has told a member of the Open Left community, Peter from WI, that he would support a public option via reconciliation.  That makes 30.

Among the eight "maybe" Senators on the public option, there is significant potential for more support:

  1. Maria Cantwell's office was non-committal, but stated Senator Cantwell supports the public option

  2. Bob Casey's office stated that Senator Casey supported reconciliation to finish health care, and also supported the public option, but did not clearly state he supported passing a public option in reconciliation.

  3. Others have stated that Tom Harkin supports passing a public option through reconciliation.  Further, even though he sounded pessimistic on its chances, he certainly sounded like a supporter when talking with Salon on Thursday.

  4. Herb Kohl's office said Senator Kohl was "not opposed" to including a public option in reconciliation

  5. Senator McCaskill's office said the Senator was open to reconciliation, and has supported the public option in the past.

  6. Harry Reid's office said reconciliation was on the table, and that Senator Reid supports the public option.

  7. Jon Tester's office said Senator Tester supported the public option, but was noncommittal on passing one through reconciliation.

  8. Senator Wyden's office sounded exactly the same notes.
That is eight more potential support for a public option through reconciliation, for a potential total of 38.  So, even with all the pessimism, 50 no longer seems impossible.

The key at this point is making sure that there is a vote to include a public option in the Senate reconciliation bill.  Such votes are far from guarantees, since Republicans and some conservative Democrats are going to try and defeat reconciliation for health reform through an endless series of amendments.  As such, the Senate Democratic leadership is going to try and limit the number of amendments offered by as much as possible.  Back in December, other Republican delay tactics prevented a Senate vote on Medicare for all.  In this case, they might prevent a vote on the public option.

Chris Bowers :: Senate public option whip count update

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

Senate public option whip count update | 87 comments
we need is 1 non-sellout to offer a public option amendment (4.00 / 1)
I think in the senate you can offer amendments. there is a limit under reconciliation but you can offer a few.

if one offers an amendment, the bastards won't be able to pass the hot potato to someone else.

sanders? franken? brown?

re: amendments (0.00 / 0)
Debate on reconciliation bills, as with budget resolutions, are time-limited by statute -- 50 hours for a budget resolution, 20 hours for a reconciliation bill, 10 hours for a conference report on a reconciliation bill. But yes, technically any amendments still pending at the end of the time period could be eligible for a vote -- just with no debate. It's a situation that comes up often at the end of budget resolutions, called a vote-a-rama, believe it or not.
http://www.congressmatters.com...

so, in that limited time you can offer an amendment

[ Parent ]
Which is why I think the strategy should be what you describe (4.00 / 2)
Push them to do an up or down vote. No more trying to read tea leaves of statements, no more letters of support, etc. Just an up or down vote in the Senate in which they each must go on record for the base to see. No more hiding. The thing is that those who want to kill the public option win so long as process is allowed to obscure votes. I hope this letter campaign helps to push a vote, but the most important thing is to get an up or down vote. Force their hand. As long as people avoid this up or down vote, I don't see how things change.  
[ Parent ]
any idea how long would a public option amendment be? (0.00 / 0)
sanders' medicare for all was 767 pages

if the public option amendment has to be read, will it be doable?

if it needs a lot of time, how about a buy-in amendment?

I think Chris would call the buy-in (4.00 / 1)
a "public option." If it's immediate - coming into effect January 2011 at the latest - I think it's the way to go.
[ Parent ]
waldman looks if reconciliation can be used to change legislation that hasn't become law (0.00 / 0)
Chats with senators not yet on the record (4.00 / 4)
Last week I phoned (almost) all the senate offices of those senators not yet on the record re the Bennet letter for the public option, and came away with the implicit realization that it's the White House ITSELF that is behind the effort to keep the PO from reaching a vote on the floor of the Senate.  Bingaman was the author of at least one of the early versions of the PO, and his office stressed (as do his emails) that he's always been a supporter of the PO, yet when pressed, his silence on the Bennet letter seems to have resulted from his talks with leadership (i.e. Reid), indicating that the comment from Chip Kahn of the hospital lobbying group was all too accurate, and that Reid has been quietly passing the word that despite his public pronouncements to the contrary, he and the WH are quietly trying to prevent the letter from getting anywhere close to 50 signatures - hence even Feingold's and Klobuchar's avoidance of it (and we know that they're philosophically more in tune with Sanders than with the so-called 'moderates'). Whew. (Apologies for the run-on sentence.)  We are being played, forced to watch a shell game, by the White House, and therefore we need to come up with something a bit more forceful than even HuffPost's excellent headlining of Adam Green's "Loser Mentality" comment re Gibbs' buck-passing.  Is anyone shining a light on Obama's cozy best-friendship with Eric Whitaker, of the Univ. of Chicago's Medical Center hospital?  Has anyone eavesdropped on any more of Rahm's behind-the-scenes strong-arming that puts a lie to the public comments of the WH?  Suggestions?  I'll volunteer for "whatever means necessary" to get the truth out so we can get an amendment on the floor.
I would love to see (0.00 / 0)
Reid include it and a vote on it (which would take 60 to knock out).  But we need to know there are 50 for the final vote.
somebody explain this to me... (0.00 / 0)
...I am for the PO. But clearly the biggest danger to HCR overall is Pelosi not getting the votes. The PO would undoubtedly scare off some already skittish moderate support. We are talking the possibility that HCR dies altogether because of one or two votes in the house. It's that close. Explain to me why under those conditions it isn't a better idea to pass HCR without a PO, and add it later.  
re: po (4.00 / 1)
I don't see how adding the po to hcr hurts it. the po is more popular than hcr is. if you want to energize the base, you put it in. if you want the base to stay home in november, you leave it out.

I won't do anything at all, absolutely nothing, for the november races if they don't vote on a po/buy-in

[ Parent ]
I disagree... (0.00 / 0)
...the PO potentially hurts by hurting the chances of HCR reconciliation passing the house. its a razor edge thing as it is. if the calculation is that including the PO loses one or two votes--either by legitimately scaring off moderates or giving them cover to vote no after voting yes before--than the PO should not be in. Pelosi knows what she is doing.

If health care passes, with or without the PO, most of the base will vote in November--especially if Obama, Reid and Pelosi seem amenable to a PO after passing basic HCR. I think that is as it should be, since the three will have navigated a huge gauntlet even to get a mediocre bill passed.

At this point, all progressive people should realize that not passing health care would be a disaster--even beyond health care--and if putting in a PO makes that passage even marginally less likely, it should not be in. At this point, the priority isn't pleasing the base. The priority is getting to 216 in the House.

It's your right to do nothing for the november races, of course. But I would suggest that it would be a bit short sighted. Obama wants a PO, but you have to understand that he is dealing with political realities.  

[ Parent ]
Mandates without a P.O. (4.00 / 1)
are a terrible, terrible idea. Another bailout for the big boys at the expense of regular Americans. If you think the voters haven't figured this out, they certainly will by the mid-terms, if not 2012.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
I agree... (0.00 / 0)
...on substance. My point is that the reality may be that for now it's that--or no HCR.

People also have a bit of faith in obama, pelosi and even reid. They know what you say is true, and can circle back and correct it down the road. Look at the early civil rights legislation. It was a work in progress. The priority now is passing HCR. Failure would be a disaster across the board, resulting perhaps in a one-term presidency for Obama. That much skin is in the game.

[ Parent ]
You are making up a fear that works with what the WHite House (4.00 / 2)
wants people to believe without any proof whatsoever for said fear. The House already passed the public option. They are not the sticky point here. The Senate is and so is the White House. Let's do an up or down vote. No more excuses. The truth is that your fear is not a justification for avoiding a vote that we already know happened in the House.
[ Parent ]
Perhaps... (0.00 / 0)
...and to reiterate, i am in favor of the PO. My point is that Pelosi has a reason for not having it, and I trust her. This is what i believe to be the reason. None of us have any "proof" of anything. It's also possible to say that the atmosphere is different now, and that the PO would possibly not pass now. Trust Pelosi and Obama.
[ Parent ]
Pelosi's reason is that she wants to protect the White House (4.00 / 2)
and get a deal to move on to the next issue.

Your trust is not important to me. Anyone trusting politicians is already on the wrong track with me. They are a) not to be trusted and b) done nothing to justify it.  As big tent democrat so often states pols are pols. This is not about trust.

My evidence is based on the behaviors of the last year and some understanding of politics. The excuses change each time some new hurdle is overcome.

That's the proof I need to understand the dynamic. When you say I don't have proof, what you mean is  we don't have a WH with a smoking gun standing over the victim. They use that kind mindset against you. I am not waiting for a smoking gun to go with my gut about what their behavior, which has been consistent, means.  That behavior is always to create a rotating list of excuses. We need 60 votes. We need 50. We can't do it because of the house. Next it will because God didn't say they could. It is in the Bible. As Glenn Greenwald points out- the rotating villians game is predictable.

As is this "let's make them afraid of getting nothing" defense of being cowardly about an up or down vote. It is always something. Fear is the most easy one to throw out there because they know progressives will respond predictable to that by capitulating.

That something always changes. The fear always changes, but the underlying fear doesn't." I got to go with whatever they toss me because they told me that I am not going to get anything." My advice: let's find out.

Fear. That's kind of the point. That's why fool me this many times with the changing list of why not and I eventually realize it is all just excuses to do what they already wanted to do. I don't believe them. I think they are bluffing.  

[ Parent ]
re: trust (4.00 / 2)
Trust Pelosi and Obama.

I trust results I can see with my own eyes.

[ Parent ]
I keep saying they keep trying to pull (4.00 / 2)
our version of the Chenney line about "waking up one day to see a mushroom cloud over an American city." it is all about pushing the fear button to get progressives to capitulate (which they probably will) by telling them some  horror story if they don't.  My response is fine , let's see them actually go through with the dooms day scenario. No more negotiations in secret. Let's have an up or down vote so we can see who is for or against and so that we can vote and donate accordingly.
[ Parent ]
I read and consider these.. (0.00 / 0)
...comments more carefully later--as I said, i am at work. A fast read of your comment, Big Hurt (it would be funny if you are are Frank Thomas) is kind of depressing. Keep in mind two things: the first is that obama and pelosi could have just walked away from healthcare, and they didnt. the second is that they are dealing with a terribly difficult situation--ie. republican obstuctionism, etc. etc.--and a public that doesn't believe in the bill (as a bill). For all your verbiage, you seem to be seeing things in a simplistic fashion, ironically. LBJ did great things (at the beginning, obviously, before the war), and used some pretty rotten ways to get there.  
[ Parent ]
Politicians are politicians (4.00 / 1)
Depressing or not. It is reality. You seem to want to believe in them. I don't.  I want them to accomplish things so that what happened to my mother does not happen to someone else. That's the only reason why I continue to post online doing my limited political activities that I can.  

Direct response

a) No, they could not have just walked away from health care.  This strikes me as not understanding the dynamics. They had already put a stake in it after a year of trying to use backdoor means to get what they wanted. By they, I mean the White House. Pelosi is probably more well meaning, but she is still a politician who is hitched to the White House. Thus, she's going to act as a pol acts regarding the horse she's riding on.

b) The party of LBJ is not party of President Obama.  LBJ had courage. The president does not. LBJ was a populist despite his background. Obama is an elitist despite his. LBJ believed in the New Deal principles. President Obama is a rigid neo-liberal ideologue and so are most Democrats, including those who call themselves progressives.

The simplistic thinking here is to compare the party of 40 years ago to today as if they are the same and nothing has occurred when clearly by any objective measure whether make up of the party leadership, the nature of party politics, the ideological underpinning etc are so different.

Why don't you just say the GOP is the party of Lincoln. It holds about as much meaning.  


[ Parent ]
re: comments (4.00 / 1)
Big Hurt (it would be funny if you are are Frank Thomas)

it would be funny but I'm not!

he is my favorite baseball player though!

is kind of depressing.

is it my fault the dems are proposing bad policies?

I worked hard to help get the majorities they have now. and they want to throw me under the bus? do they think the teabaggers will work for us?

Keep in mind two things: the first is that obama and pelosi could have just walked away from healthcare, and they didnt.

and? if they do something good, they'll get credit from me. but I won't give them credit for doing something that benefits the insurance industry and makes things worse for us

the second is that they are dealing with a terribly difficult situation--ie. republican obstuctionism, etc. etc.--

I was yelling at obama not to leave baucus trying his bipartisan crap in the committee bill

well, baucus took 74 days longer and for what? the MA election came and took 1 seat away

and a public that doesn't believe in the bill (as a bill).

solution: include a po/buy-in, replace the excise tax with a tax on millionaires, include an anti-trust repeal

all things are winners politically and policy-wise

[ Parent ]
They CREATED this terribly (4.00 / 2)
difficult situation. When someone tells you they are making something your Waterloo, it's time to put the fucking guitar away because there ain't going to be no kumbaya.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Passing mandates without a P.O. (4.00 / 1)
is a recipe for a one-term presidency. People aren't stupid.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
The PO passed the house. This is the latest argument (4.00 / 1)
by the White House to avoid having to fight openly against the PO, which a floor vote in the Senate would require (just like the drug importation bill required).

The pretense that this is about the House is a joke.  It is about the White House.  

[ Parent ]
It could be about both/nt (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
It is not both. (4.00 / 2)
Trying to split the baby once again to me tries to protect the WH. I tired of their cowardly behavior and people trying to rationalize it. This is all on the president.  
[ Parent ]
I disagree vehemently (4.00 / 2)
...the PO potentially hurts by hurting the chances of HCR reconciliation passing the house. its a razor edge thing as it is. if the calculation is that including the PO loses one or two votes--either by legitimately scaring off moderates or giving them cover to vote no after voting yes before--than the PO should not be in. Pelosi knows what she is doing.

scaring off moderates? what are you talking about?

have you seen how well the po polls in the districts of the moderate congressguys?

the po would be making things better politically

and policy-wise how do you control costs without a po?
haven't you seen the huge rate increases health insurers do every year?
how will that stop without a po/buy-in that will provide some much needed competition?

you want to mandate to people to write a $1,000 check to private insurance?

If health care passes, with or without the PO, most of the base will vote in November--especially if Obama, Reid and Pelosi seem amenable to a PO after passing basic HCR.

I don't think so

I know a lot of left activists who will be demoralized if a po/buy-in doesn't pass. gotv will suck in november if the left is demoralized.

At this point, all progressive people should realize that not passing health care would be a disaster--even beyond health care--and if putting in a PO makes that passage even marginally less likely, it should not be in. At this point, the priority isn't pleasing the base. The priority is getting to 216 in the House.

no, it doesn't it make it less likely

it makes things better politically and is the right thing to do policy-wise

It's your right to do nothing for the november races, of course. But I would suggest that it would be a bit short sighted.

I disagree for reasons I explained above. I won't lift my finger for dems in november if they don't do vote for a po/buy-in

Obama wants a PO, but you have to understand that he is dealing with political realities.

if obama wanted a po, he would have included it in his initial health-care proposal

[ Parent ]
Well... (0.00 / 0)
...I actually hope you are right. By scaring off moderates I am not talking about how the PO polls in their districts. I am talking about the unpopularity of HCR and their fears in the general election.

The bottom line is that I hope you are right, but my sense is that you aren't. part of the problem is that I havent done a good job of explaining what my fear is. Essentially, I read all weekend about dems who are itching to walk away from their yes votes, and fear that this could be the excuse. That dynamic exists outside of how popular/sensible the PO is.

So I did a poor job of explaining, and I gotta get back to work.  

[ Parent ]
re: popular (0.00 / 0)
By scaring off moderates I am not talking about how the PO polls in their districts. I am talking about the unpopularity of HCR and their fears in the general election.

what kind of thinking is this? because HCR is unpopular, the PO should not be included? the PO is very popular among the left and among the left and independents. the PO will help HCR

Essentially, I read all weekend about dems who are itching to walk away from their yes votes, and fear that this could be the excuse. That dynamic exists outside of how popular/sensible the PO is.

don't you realize how convoluted your argument is?

you say dems fear because hcr is unpopular, and then you want to pass that unpopular thing! voters (dems and independents) like the po. if the PO is included, it will make things better.

and you haven't said a word on the policy implications.

[ Parent ]
first of all... (0.00 / 0)
...i am aknowledging that i could be wrong. I am saying my gut is that the 2 or 3 reps upon which this whole thing will depend are less likely to vote for recon with a PO. that's all i am saying. If I am wrong, great. Really.

I am not dealing with the policy implications or with the popularity among the people of the PO. I am simply saying that wavering reps from conservative districts are possibly pushed in the wrong direction by the PO.

I could be wrong, but there is nothing convoluted or illogical in that statement.  

[ Parent ]
Your gut is being repeated as a talking point on several blogs (4.00 / 2)
Mostly by people wanting to derail the idea of including the PO.
[ Parent ]
the throught... (0.00 / 0)
...of my gut being repeated over several blogs is kind of weird. I want HRC to pass. I want the PO. If including the PO helps, I want it included. If it hurts, I want it left out and put in later. I suggest one possibility that it is not in there now and that Pelosi has taken it off the table is along the lines of what I expressed.  
[ Parent ]
Yet I am seeing it on several blogs and phrased similarly (4.00 / 1)
How do you explain that?
[ Parent ]
Obama Fans of America (0.00 / 0)
must've sent out an email. Since I unsubscribed months ago I wouldn't know that.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
it is weird, I am chatting with another fellow at (0.00 / 0)
daily kos claiming that he came to the same thinking separately as well. If they just stated they saw this some place, I would not make a big deal of it. It is on the whole I am an independent thinker and thus came up with this alone that's annoying. it is not even that big of a deal except for that.
[ Parent ]
i posted on this.. (0.00 / 0)
...at dailykos today. and here, of course. nowhere else.
[ Parent ]
re: po (4.00 / 1)
ok, drop the po and put a medicare buy-in.

what would the argument then be?

people love medicare and since it will be a buy-in, the money will be paid from outside medicare.

[ Parent ]
Sorry Carl W (4.00 / 2)
But the Big Hurt is CORRECT.  We will NOT be supporting the candidates who push through what is basically an effort to shore up a failed business model.  The PO IS a tremendously popular policy with the public as a whole and the only reason it's not in there is because the White House didn't WANT it in there, though they lied and gave lip service to it.  Their position is simple; let's not alienate the insurance industry, we took their money, we'll get the people to hungrily accept the crumbs we're offering while we're forcing them to join the "failed business model" by sweetening it with subsidies and "exchanges" and other components of window dressing, but without the PO, a good case can and will be made that the mandate without a PO is in fact unconstitutional.  You cannot force the citizenry to become consumers of a private concern or industry; you CAN mandate they join in a public effort (remember the preamble?  "promote the general welfare"?  NOT "promote the well-being of a private class of business interests by forcing the citizenry to get their well-being from them".)
[ Parent ]
you don't have to be sorry.. (0.00 / 0)
...because I am not trying to win an argument. I am in favor of the PO.

The basic difference between me and what comes through in your comment is that I am not cynical:

...let's not alienate the insurance industry, we took their money, we'll get the people to hungrily accept the crumbs...

I really don't think that's where we would be if Obama and Pelosi felt that way. Health care would just not be on the table at all.

As for the constitutionality, I'm no lawyer, much less a justice.

[ Parent ]
Actually you are more cynical. (0.00 / 0)


Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
How so?/nt (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
because you are willing to go for less without much reason to be (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Well... (0.00 / 0)
...that's not really cynicism, in any case. HCR even without the PO--especially the PO that would be in this bill in even the best circumstance--would cover millions of people that arent covered today. That's a wonderful thing. For the millionth time, I want the PO. We are disagreeing -- civilly, i am happy to say--on the best approach to successfully reforming health care. Again, for the millionth time, if a strong PO is politically advantageous to getting to 216 in the House, I happily stand corrected. I still have my doubts.  
[ Parent ]
what's the basis for saying that's not cynicism? (0.00 / 0)
saying it, and then moving on to how great you think the capitulation will be in terms of outcomes does not really provide any sense of why you are capitulating in the first place. If you don't like cynancism, let's try pessimism. What explains your decision to take things off the table that however much you think the capitulating will help- will indeed help a lot more.
[ Parent ]
Whether I am right or wrong... (0.00 / 0)
...my desire is to get to 216 in the house. that involves a recognition of a very draconian political reality. One lost vote could sink the entire ship. I may be mistaken, but taking a position that takes what i perceive to be political reality into account is neither cynical, pessimistic or a capitulation. It is a realistic approach to events. Again, perhaps mistakenly. It also is a recognition that the law, once set, can be incremntally improved.
[ Parent ]
Wrong, Carl (4.00 / 2)
At this point, having just watched Sen. Harkin so much as admit he's not going to sign the letter and saying it's because of the House, shows CAPITULATION.  I said earlier it's a "shell game"; it's a game of musical chairs.  Harkin is now trying to blame Pelosi, even as he gives Ed Schultz and Adam Green a back-slap that says "good spirit, but it's not gonna happen". Ed asked him THREE TIMES if he would sign the letter, and he wouldn't say it. The fact you are refusing to own up to is that it's the WHITE HOUSE - i.e. Obama - that is behind the effort to keep the PO out of the bill, and it's put the earnest Dems into a position where they are blaming each other - yet no-one wants to step up and take the heat and tell the truth about this.  And if you think the law can be "incrementally improved", you're simply mouthing hollow platitudes.  There's a bridge to nowhere that needs a buyer up in Alaska, I hear.  If this bill passes and gets signed without a public option, the Dems can kiss their majority good-bye, and every incumbent will face a primary challenge.  Blanche Lincoln is only the first to feel the sting of what happens when you betray the People.
[ Parent ]
Look... (0.00 / 0)
...i agree that mandates without a PO is ludicrous, but even given that this bill without a PO is a big step in the right direction, with 30 million more insured, no recision, etc. That really can't be argued with. And if you are so angry at Obama, just think of where would be if he lost the election. And it is questionable if they are keeping their majorities no matter what happens.
[ Parent ]
WHY do you believe (0.00 / 0)
the insurance companies are going to start behaving honestly and fairly? Yes they will collect premiums from 30 million people, they have no problem with that, but why on earth do you believe they are going to cover them when they get sick or hurt? Do you think they have found Jesus all of a sudden? Do you think giving the bully your lunch money means he won't take it away from you again tomorrow?

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
of course not... (0.00 / 0)
...but more of them will get covered than are covered now. dont put in the position of defending mandates without a PO. I am not doing that. I am saying that passing it is better than not passing it.  
[ Parent ]
Here is a question for all of you, very simple: (0.00 / 0)
If there is no PO, do you want HRC to pass or fail?
[ Parent ]
Fail (4.00 / 1)
Mandate with no PO is not a step in the right direction; it's a step towards further strengthening the health insurance cartel's grip over our country.

The system that's being set up is far from airtight.  You don't think insurance companies will find some way to sneak through the already-weakened "reforms"?  Since their grip over our government will only tighten we can be sure that the industry-friendly provisions (e.g. the individual mandate) will never go away.

Btw, did you support the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill?

[ Parent ]
I am glad (0.00 / 0)
to read why you wrote. I agree. And, like the evolution of civil rights legislation and other similar processes, it has to be built upon. if this bill fails, however, health care reform is dead for decades. i confession that i wasn't paying much attention to health care related issues in 2003.
[ Parent ]
re: build upon (0.00 / 0)
And, like the evolution of civil rights legislation and other similar processes, it has to be built upon.

I'm a supporter of the 'build upon' method.

so, I would be OK with a PO that wouldn't cover a lot of people, say 5 million

but what you propose isn't built slowly, what you propose is 'give away the whole store' at the start

built slowly would be cover 5 million uninsured with a PO at the beginning, than 10, than 20, then 30

what you want is 'give away all 30 to the private industry' right at the beginning

[ Parent ]
Another Versailles talking point. (0.00 / 0)
If this bill fails, there is no excuse for them not to try again, and we should accept no excuse.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
the reality is... (0.00 / 0)
...if this bill fails, it is dead for a generation. "we shoud accept no excuse"? What, precisely, will you do?
[ Parent ]
It's only dead if we allow it to be (0.00 / 0)
Personally, I think this issue has become too great to be able to put off for another 15 years.  The only way that it can be shoved under the rug again is if the economy really takes off (like it did in the late 1990s), and maybe not even then.
[ Parent ]
I agree generally that we should pass half a loaf and work to make it whole in the future (0.00 / 0)
but that's not what we're dealing with here.  This Senate bill isn't half a loaf; it's a poison pill.  It's not like civil rights and social security where we start with something small and keep adding to it; it's like shooting ourselves in both feet and then hoping we can limp/crawl our way to a hospital.

If we pass it we'll all feel happy at first but what we're actually doing is making future efforts to improve things harder.  Here's a couple of reasons why:

1. If the Senate bill passes, everyone will say "we did it!" and ignore the issue for the rest of their days.  Also, anytime anyone brings up health care ever again conservatives will just say "we already did health care".

2. In the system the Senate bill sets up there's nothing to really limit increases in premiums, co-pays and deductibles.  This will bankrupt people and the country over time.

3. The power is all going towards private insurance companies, making us all more dependent (now by law!) on their services and strengthening their negotiating position with the government.  It'll give them more power and clout and allow them to buy their pet Senators, regulators and Presidents even more so than ever before.  This may allow them ways to quietly get around or undo whatever weakened insurance reforms are still in the bill.  Once this system goes into effect and insurance companies become even more entrenched, there is every reason to believe that the good parts of the bill will go away while the bad parts will stay.

4. If people grow to become dissatisfied with the system, as they may very well do, it'll make Medicare for All or other superior, active government-based solutions politically impossible, since the system will be branded as "big government takeover!" and of course the Democrats will be near powerless to stop this branding because they're Democrats and can't message their way out of a cardboard box.

[ Parent ]
right on (0.00 / 0)
we need a vote
[ Parent ]
re: position (4.00 / 1)
taking a position that takes what i perceive to be political reality into account is neither cynical, pessimistic or a capitulation.

the problem is though that you describe a 'political reality' that is a complete fabrication

you somehow want to argue that adding a very popular measure to a bill makes the bill politically worse

[ Parent ]
i don't believe its a complete fabrication... (0.00 / 0)
...and maintain that sometimes because of our system contradictory and irrational things happen. i am maintaining that it is possible--not certain but possible--that in some conservative districts with conservative democratic reps, anything perceived to be coming from left of center will be used as an excuse to cut and run. We live in a country where studies show fox is the most trusted news source.  
[ Parent ]
re: fabrication (4.00 / 1)
in some conservative districts with conservative democratic reps, anything perceived to be coming from left of center will be used as an excuse to cut and run. We live in a country where studies show fox is the most trusted news source.

you say "anything perceived to be coming from left of center"

well, no matter how hcr is perceived, including a PO won't make it more leftist. polling shows the po is very popular with dems and indies and a 50-50 thing among republicrats.

the o in po stands for option. people won't be required to enroll in it.

[ Parent ]
re: cynical (4.00 / 1)
here's how

you tell us house democrats are fearful of voting for hcr. doesn't poll well. from that you somehow want to pivot to: 'don't put a po in the hcr bill'

how in the world do you make this leap? if hcr isn't popular and house deems are afraid then how putting a very popular thing there makes you lose votes?

you are killing logic.

[ Parent ]
i'm not killing logic because (0.00 / 0)
I am acknowledging its not logical. as i said a long time ago, i hope you are right and i am wrong because I am in favor of the PO. I am putting forward the idea that it is politically radioactive to skittish democrats because it appears to come from the left. You keep arguing as if I am actually taking the position--that the PO is bad. I am not. I am saying that people have a long history of doing things that are not in their best interests due to false perceptions, and i suspect that could happen with the PO. A conserva-dem in a conservative district worrying about nothing but his/her reelection is not going to react in a way that may make sense to you. My position is consistent, and i am not killing logic because i am not suggesting that it makes sense.

he also is going to react to local polling data that may not be consistent with national trends and opinions.

Meanwhile some potential good news:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

[ Parent ]
re: left likes it (0.00 / 0)
I am putting forward the idea that it is politically radioactive to skittish democrats because it appears to come from the left.

if something was 90-10 among Ds, 50-50 among Is, and 10-90 among Rs, then I could agree

but it's not like that. the PO is very popular among Ds and Is and 50-50 among Rs

furthermore, the people don't really care that the left likes it, if it helps them. few, very few will, but those votes you are never going to get. no matter what you do those very very few are gone.  

[ Parent ]
Perhaps... (0.00 / 0)
...you have to be on top of the polling in the individual districts of the conservaDems in question, and how his/her opponent is going to use the vote. My point is that this is about the perception OF THE CANDIDATE, not his/her constituents at this point. All they are thinking about, in their selfish and narcissistic way, is whether the opponent is going to take use it against them.

Look, perhaps you are right about all this. And as I said before, if the PO helps, that's great bcause I am for the PO. I still have my doubts, but it's pointless to reiterate. The real answer is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

It really doesn't get much better.

[ Parent ]
re: perception (0.00 / 0)
My point is that this is about the perception OF THE CANDIDATE, not his/her constituents at this point. All they are thinking about, in their selfish and narcissistic way, is whether the opponent is going to take use it against them.

if they're worried that the po will be used against them, they'll be worried about hcr without a po too. a po only makes things better. a po helps alleviate what they're worried about.

[ Parent ]
Obama is not Baby Jesus. (0.00 / 0)
He is the one who has failed us, not the other way around.

I call you cynical because Obama shills for the insurance industry, giving them billions (trillions?) of dollars in public money, with no more accountability than what he asked from Wall Street (i.e., zero) and here you are shilling for him. That's beyond cynical.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Sadie... (0.00 / 0)
...that comment isn't really up to the others you've written. Nobody is saying he is baby Jesus. I am saying he is not operating in a vacuum occupied only by progressives. saying that he is shilling for the insurance industry is silly.
[ Parent ]
Carlw, I HIGHLY recommend the following two reads when you have time (4.00 / 1)
This one by Glenn Greenwald about President Obama's supposed helplessness to get his way on health care.

And this one by Mike Mogulescu about President Obama's intentions regarding the public option.

[ Parent ]
Will do, thanks/nt (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
i read the greenwald piece... (0.00 / 0)
...just now. i didn't read the back link to the original august piece, which i will do. But this piece, as clever a guy as Greenwald is, contained conjecture and theory, no proof. I am not a realist and certainly am open to being convinced. but this article, alone,doesnt do it. I'll look at the august piece.
[ Parent ]
just read the august greenwald piece... (0.00 / 0)
...look, he's a persuasive guy and may be right. But a guy writing for Salon should have at least one flipping quote in the story. I happen to be a journalist (nothing to do with politics). You want to prove a point? Get some quotes. His piece, as persuasive as it is, is conjecture, connecting the dots to prove what he believes is the case. I don't think he cites anyone in the entire piece. So his piece doesn't rise above the status of being a really good blog post.

I guess my bigger question is: Why everyone is so damn eager to throw the administration under the bus? Don't you folks realize that changing healthcare in this country, even a bit, against all the ingrained interest--dem and republican--is an amazing feat?

[ Parent ]
re: obama (0.00 / 0)
you don't need to believe what anyone says, just look at obama's "initial offer"

if he supported the po, the po would be included

PS. giving 30 million customers to the health insurance industry isn't an amazing feat. it is an amazing sellout.

[ Parent ]
Many of those 30 million... (0.00 / 0)
...will be better off if the current bill passes than if it doesn't. That's the bottom line, and the line that I look at.
[ Parent ]
a PO will make things better politically and policy-wise (0.00 / 0)
without it health insurance companies will continue to raising rates every year, and more and more people wouldn't be able to afford it
[ Parent ]
Perhaps, but... (0.00 / 0)
...i am not convinced for all the reasons we've gone round and round on. You also are precluding the possibility of improving things down the road which, of course, you can't do if HCR fails.

I'm going to bed now, but the thought I would leave you all with is the question of why you all are so cynical about Obama. He is not a saint, but he has put his whole presidency on the line for a effort he didn't have to make--he could have a very nice presidency without taking on health care. nobody compelled him to do it. You all are treating him like he is an employee of an insurance company. Regardless of whether I am ultimaely right or wrong about this narrow issue, you should give Obama, as the kids say, props for doing what he is doing. If you don't you are missing the forest for the trees. Good night.

[ Parent ]
re: improving things (0.00 / 0)
You also are precluding the possibility of improving things down the road which, of course, you can't do if HCR fails.

I'll repost what I said on this:

I'm a supporter of the 'build upon' method.

so, I would be OK with a PO that wouldn't cover a lot of people, say 5 million

but what you propose isn't built slowly, what you propose is 'give away the whole store' at the start

built slowly would be cover 5 million uninsured with a PO at the beginning, than 10, than 20, then 30

what you want is 'give away all 30 to the private industry' right at the beginning


he could have a very nice presidency without taking on health care.

I doubt it with this economy and him not having push a financial reform law yet. breaking up a couple banks would be helpful too

nobody compelled him to do it.

nobody compelled him to campaign on doing it too

You all are treating him like he is an employee of an insurance company.

it isn't our fault if his actions create such a perception

Regardless of whether I am ultimaely right or wrong about this narrow issue, you should give Obama, as the kids say, props for doing what he is doing.

give him props for selling out to big health?

the republicrats could've done that easily

Good night.

good night.

[ Parent ]
you are mistaken in that... (0.00 / 0)
...this isn't build upon. It is. If he and the Congress have the political will, they can build upon it.

I just disagree that he is "selling out to big health," and frankly think its a bit sophomoric.

The situation is far more complex than you say. Getting away from the PO part of the discussion for a second, you folks all seem to be treating Obama as a traitor to a cause. The reality is that this is a center left country that is repeatedly told that it is center right. There is a lot of confusion. Obama was never "the most liberal senator" or probably close. He was a fairly middle of the road guy who happened to be a gifted politician.

There seems to be no recognition here of the enormity of what he is doing, nor any real acknowledgment of what he is facing.

The vast, vast majority of people in the country are not progressives. The people who visit this site and agree with most of what they read are a exceedingly small minority. Many people vote against their best interests (as progressives see those interests). Obama is president of all of them.

Obama is dealing with those issues, pathological hatred/racism from the sorry remnants of the republican party, an economic crisis, powerful lobbyists who are scarred sh**less of what he is trying to do and reacting accordingly, and two wars. Being president right now is pretty much impossible.

To go after him in the way some of you are -- not that you disagree with him, not that he is trying but has to make some tough decisions -- but that he is a traitor to a cause (and a cause he never signed onto in the first place) is very disheartening. The idea i get is that many people here think that he and the republicans are two sides of the same coin. It isn't so and shows a lack of intellectual rigor on the people who think that, IMHO.

And, if you respond Big Hurt, pls. don't break everything i say into little boxes. It makes it sort of hard for me to respond back.  

[ Parent ]
you are mistaken in that... (0.00 / 0)
...this isn't build upon. It is. If he and the Congress have the political will, they can build upon it.

I just disagree that he is "selling out to big health," and frankly think its a bit sophomoric.

The situation is far more complex than you say. Getting away from the PO part of the discussion for a second, you folks all seem to be treating Obama as a traitor to a cause. The reality is that this is a center left country that is repeatedly told that it is center right. There is a lot of confusion. Obama was never "the most liberal senator" or probably close. He was a fairly middle of the road guy who happened to be a gifted politician.

There seems to be no recognition here of the enormity of what he is doing, nor any real acknowledgment of what he is facing.

The vast, vast majority of people in the country are not progressives. The people who visit this site and agree with most of what they read are a exceedingly small minority. Many people vote against their best interests (as progressives see those interests). Obama is president of all of them.

Obama is dealing with those issues, pathological hatred/racism from the sorry remnants of the republican party, an economic crisis, powerful lobbyists who are scarred sh**less of what he is trying to do and reacting accordingly, and two wars. Being president right now is pretty much impossible.

To go after him in the way some of you are -- not that you disagree with him, not that he is trying but has to make some tough decisions -- but that he is a traitor to a cause (and a cause he never signed onto in the first place) is very disheartening. The idea i get is that many people here think that he and the republicans are two sides of the same coin. It isn't so and shows a lack of intellectual rigor on the people who think that, IMHO.

And, if you respond Big Hurt, pls. don't break everything i say into little boxes. It makes it sort of hard for me to respond back.  

[ Parent ]
I replied to you at the bottom of the page. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Re: the President's intentions (0.00 / 0)
To be fair, I do think President Obama is sincere in that he wants to reform the worst insurance practices.  And as many have pointed out, to do that you have to also institute an individual mandate and subsidies to make it all work.  I think that, to the best of my discerning abilities, this is as far as Obama wants to go,

In terms of a public option, there are those of us, such as myself, who believe that if you have an individual mandate, you HAVE to have a PO go along with it, the same way you have to have subsidies.  Forget holding down costs and providing competition; to me this is a matter of morality.  It is simply immoral for the government to legally force taxpayers into private insurance.

(Btw, in other discussions it has been pointed out that the government gives our taxpayer dollars to private companies all the time, e.g. when it pays a private company to pave a road.  Government collecting our tax dollars and then giving it to a company to do something is, to me, a totally different animal than government telling us by law to give our money to a private company, without any real supervision or negotiation from the government.  I'd be tentatively okay with a bill that would have government collect our tax money and then directly contract health insurance out to a private company(ies); in fact, this would likely be de facto single-payer.)

Senator Obama actually agreed with myself and others on this point, and that's why he campaigned against an individual mandate during the presidential primaries, creating a big fuss in the process.  But President Obama, without so much as a qualifying peep, has done a total 180 on this and let those of us who are against a mandate with no PO out to dry.  This is just one of several health care betrayals that explain why many of us liberals are so furious with the way he's behaved during this entire debate.

If President Obama wants to win back our support (to say nothing of our trust) he has to show us that he's really on our side, and not on the side of the insurance companies who at this point stand to gain more than lose from health care legislation.  He can make a great start by actually fighting for the public option - you know, as if he supported it, as he says he does.  To me, whether or not he actually succeeds in his efforts is almost irrelevant - what matters is that he actually tried and he proved that he was on our side and wasn't just satisfied with throwing us into the lions' den of the insurance companies.  If he fights for the public option with even half of the effort he fought for the things he obviously really cares about - supplemental war bill, stopping importation of prescription drugs - that'll show me where his loyalties lie much better than the weak tea, half-hearted verbal grumblings of support he's been giving out so far.

[ Parent ]
There have been quotes coming out of the White House (0.00 / 0)
all of them anonymous, about how the President and his team are giving up on the public option.  They're usually promptly followed by a conciliatory but by no means firm assurance from Robert Gibbs that, no don't worry, the President still supports the public option, etc.  I don't know how much confidence this inspires for you.

In any case, we're not gonna get any actual quotes where people are stupid enough to say that the President doesn't actually care about the public option.  That's what makes this kind of politics so frustrating.  Everyone is playing these stupid games, and no one will just come out and say what they actually think.  That's why we have to go through these sort of educated guessing games where we divine people's intentions through their parsed language and their various actions or lack thereof.

Speaking of which, did you read the Mogulescu piece?  If not, it's also very worthwhile.

[ Parent ]
I wonder where (0.00 / 0)
Mark Udall is on this? Strange that he hasn't expressed support, since its Bennet's letter and his cousin Tom is onboard.

Also, where are these seemingly gettable senators?

Akaka
Begich
Dorgan
Kaufman

Wherefore the Silent Senators (4.00 / 1)
I thought I explained where they - the eminently 'gettable' senators - are.  They're toeing the WH line, because if they did what they SAY they want (and most of the unsigned ones have been on the record in the past for supporting the PO), they would be angering the WH, which is hoping to bamboozle us into thinking it's a foregone conclusion there "aren't the votes".  The only way to confirm that is to have a vote, or barring that, sign the damned letter (which is why that letter was a brilliant tactic), even if it's true that many of the senators signing it are confident they'll never have to prove their fealty to their public position by voting on it.

And to make the case further, this should NOT be compared to previous landmark legislation, in which genuine compromise was reached with senators from the other side of the aisle.  We're talking all Democrats here, and once the public option is 'in', it'll be hell taking it out (due to its popularity with the People).  Putting it in "down the line" won't happen, realistically, mainly because HCR without the PO practically guarentees Congress will change hands in the fall.  At least one of its houses will.  Once the People get what they so clearly indicate they want, there will be some tweaking "down the line" of course, but passing HCR without the PO will make a future PO practically impossible.  The sad thing is the Dems are once again showing their pious, hand-wringing timid side, which in turn disgusts those new voters Obama brought out in '08, most never to return.

[ Parent ]
As retiring Senators, Dorgan and Kaufman don't need to toe the WH line (0.00 / 0)
And Akaka is pretty well-entrenched in HI.

Hey wait a minute, I thought all Senators could give President Obama the middle finger and a mooning and get off scot-free.  That's how Lieberman killed the Medicare buy-in and public option, right?

If we're gonna criticize the President for being selectively pushy between different issues, we have to criticize Senators for being so as well.  There's no reason why Lieberman can get his way but Sanders or Dorgan (a retiring Senator!) can't.

[ Parent ]
One would think! (0.00 / 0)
There's no reason why Lieberman can get his way but Sanders or Dorgan (a retiring Senator!) can't.
 

Yes, one would think so, but not everyone has the kind of insulting chutzpah that Traitor Joe has.  Also, good-hearted types like Bernie aren't as likely to stiffen their spine against the president they're pinning so much hope on.  Traitor Joe, on the other hand, actually enjoys tweaking the noses of his former party colleagues. It's the reality; Bernie and Byron are by and large good foot-soldiers, despite Bernie's "socialist" label.

And yes, we NEED to criticize those who talk the talk but won't put their vote where their mouth is when the rubber meets the road. Whether they're in the White House or the People's House.

[ Parent ]
re: build upon (0.00 / 0)
you are mistaken in that this isn't build upon. It is.

because you say it is doesn't make it so. if you want to show me that I'm wrong, you should reply to my argument. I'll repeat my argument to you.

the current bill gives all 31 million uninsured to the private health insurance companies. how can you build upon that when you are giving away the entire store at the beginning? what will be the 2nd step in your step-by-step proposal? take away customers from big health? I'd be ok with a 5 million PO to start. then, in step 2 we could add 5 more million uninsured to the PO. in step 3 we could add 10 million more. now there is nothing left. you give everything away! what will we do in the future? insure martians?

I just disagree that he is "selling out to big health," and frankly think its a bit sophomoric.

you can disagree all you want. show me where he took big health on? the fact is he wants to give 31 million new customers to big health by mandating americans buy their crappy product.

Obama was never "the most liberal senator" or probably close. He was a fairly middle of the road guy who happened to be a gifted politician.

why are you telling me this? did I ever claim obama was on top of the liberal pyramid? I'm just advocating for what I think is good policy.

I disagree with him on mandating people buy health insurance from private companies while no government option is available. I don't see any extreme liberal in my position.

The vast, vast majority of people in the country are not progressives. The people who visit this site and agree with most of what they read are a exceedingly small minority. Many people vote against their best interests (as progressives see those interests). Obama is president of all of them.

the people of this country voted for the things the progressives wanted. they may not identify themselves as proressives, but they want the same things progressives want.

Being president right now is pretty much impossible.

no, it isn't impossible. you just have to say no to the special interests. you also have to have a spine and not be afraid of your shadow.

look at fdr. he said 'I welcome their hatred,' and didn't govern thinking 'I must not go against wall street." and he build a 30-40 year democratic governing coalition.

And, if you respond Big Hurt, pls. don't break everything i say into little boxes. It makes it sort of hard for me to respond back.  

helps me see what I'm responding too. also, I want you to be able to see to what exactly I'm responding to.

Senate public option whip count update | 87 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