Public option likely to have to come as stand alone bill

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 16:00


In case you hadn't already heard, today Dick Durbin said that the Senate would only push for a public option if the House included on in the reconciliation bill.  However, Nancy Pelosi said the public option wasn't going to be in the reconciliation bill.  Greg Sargent:

At a presser just now, Pelosi effectively put the kibosh on including the public option:

"We had it; we wanted it," Pelosi said. "It's not in reconciliation." She added: "We're talking about something that's not going to be part of the legislation."

It might be an extreme outside possibility that, if Democracy for America, the PCCC and CREDO can demonstrate 216 votes for health reform by early next week, they can convince the Democratic leadership to put a public option in the legislation.  However, doing so would require a new score on the reconciliation bill from the CBO, which would delay the process by at least another week.  At this point, with both the White House and the House pushing a March 20th deadline for the final House vote, the leadership is not likely to accept any changes to the reconciliation bill even if 216 votes for health reform with a public option are demonstrated.

There is an argument to be made that this is demonstrative of bad faith, which Glenn Greenwald does pretty well here.  Perhaps the Democratic leadership, including the White House, never pushed for the public option despite offering statements of support.  Also, perhaps some members of the House and Senate were simply not being truthful when they made public statements of support for the public option.

At the same time, there is an argument to be made that, lacking the Stupak bloc and three other Democrats who voted for the House bill in November (Abercrombie, Murtha, and Wexler), the House no longer has the votes for the public option.  As such, if the Senate were to add a public option to the reconciliation bill, it would either kill the bill or be stripped out in conference committee anyway.

Decide for yourself which one you think it true.  I don't think the proof will be available until after the House votes on March 20th, at which point we will be able to see if anyone who voted for the health reform bill made public statements opposing the public option in the past.  Then we will know if someone was wasn't being truthful about their supposed support for the public option or not.

Either way, at this point it looks like the only way to pass a public option is through a stand-alone bill at some point in the future.  On that front, I suggest starting to push a bill that allows all Americans to buy in to Medicare, if they so choose.  That is the ideal public option tied to Medicare rates and available to everyone--Medicare itself.  Representative Alan Grayson is already piling up cosponsors in favor of it, and a smaller Medicare buy-in for Americans aged 55-64 seemingly has 57 votes in the Senate (everyone except Lieberman and Ben Nelson).   Whether the current version of health reform passes or not, a national Medicare buy-in is the next stage in the fight.

Chris Bowers :: Public option likely to have to come as stand alone bill

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Public option likely to have to come as stand alone bill | 49 comments
Thank You Chris (4.00 / 2)
I just wanted to say that you've been one of the clearest, most level-headed lefty commentators on this issue.  We might not be able to get the medicare opt-in this year, but if we can get enough momentum going into the election and protect the key liberal voting members, we have a chance to pass something early next year.  Pass The Damn Bill and redouble our efforts on Grayson's bill!
Describe the process for this occurring in a year, or two, or three (4.00 / 4)
or whever other time. What is the path way toward that happening?
[ Parent ]
Reconciliation... (0.00 / 0)
We can do it in the 2011 budget that will be due in april.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Sooner Than Next Year (4.00 / 1)
The House could try to include it in this years budget bill, which would be eligible for reconciliation as well.

These morons could also try to make pigs fly, but there are other ways of getting the Public Option much sooner than some nebulous future date that will never occur.

[ Parent ]
This begs the question (4.00 / 5)
Of course they "could" include it in this year's budget.  They also "could" bring it up in a number of ways.  That isn't what bruhrabbit is asking.

Dem leaders "could" pass it right now.  They don't want to.

The question is what mechanism is going to change the political dynamic such that Dem leaders will want to pass it or will be forced to pass it?  Or are you just hoping that next year when you go to kick the football, Pelosi and Reid (or their substitutes) don't yank it away again?

[ Parent ]
Thank you. I simply get tired of stating the obvious (4.00 / 4)
The truth is they are saying they won't pass it, but Chris seems to be arguing hope for the future rather than any real path forward. I have zero reason to believe them under the circumstances. Yet he argues we should anyway. WHy? No reasons why. Just because they have said it. Except that's the same problem as now. I mean- I understand he wants to pass this bill. As does Lord Mike. But let's stop being insulting to each other by promising future fantasy scenarios that have no chance of happening.  
[ Parent ]
For example... (4.00 / 1)
Here's a real scenario to pass something better if Democrats were acting in good faith and 50+ Democrats in the Senate wanted a public option or Medicare buy-in.

Democrats could allow the current bill to go down in flames, but take a hard-line on the public option or Medicare buy-in.  They could go into the November elections pledging that they would change the Senate filibuster rules.  Grassroots Dems would finally have the motivation to keep the Congress in Dem hands.  Then, next year, with the rules changed, Congress passes real HCR.*

That. Won't. Happen.

Why? Because Dems are acting in bad faith.  Because they do not want the public option.  Because they would rather risk electoral defeat than cross their corporate overlords.

*Alternatively, if Dems wanted to play hardball, they could take the threat of a much more massive PO next year (or even single-payer) to the insurance lobby right now and get the industry to tell one of the Maine Senators to switch and pass a limited version right now.

[ Parent ]
Nope (4.00 / 1)
That's just bad politics. I really think if it goes down in flames, the Democrats will follow in line. It really is the end. Republicans will say "We were right." and point to the Dems that voted against their own bill. Voters, as polls have clearly indicated, do. not. care. and have no intention of caring about Senate protocol.
[ Parent ]
You still don't explain how we pass what Chris in several diaries (3.20 / 5)
is now touting. You just changed the subject to what you afraid of regarding the present bill rather than responding to my critique of the false hope of future action. Look everyone here knows that the truth is these are just more empty promises. I just want you and others to admit that fact rather than enabling those false hopes as legitimate arguments.  People need to understand what you are really advocating here rather than the sugar coating being placed on the present bill of "hope for the future."
[ Parent ]
How we pass PO as stand alone. (0.00 / 0)
1) Congress puts reconciliation instructions for Health Care in this year's budget.

2) House passes Grayson's bill (or compromise medicare buy-in/PO).

3) House passes standalone PO in reconciliation bill (easy to understand/explain/defend)  Senate passes same reconciliation bill with 51 votes.

4) President signs, and PO/Medicare buy-in is included in exchanges.

This scenario does not work without the framework of comprehensive reform.  There is no exchange, no subsidies, no bans of preexisting conditions, no ban of recision, no experiments in cost containment.

I'm not saying this will be easy, but it is a path forward.  Given the amount of energy behind the PO, this has a fighting chance of happening, something that is not true about the inclusion of a weak PO in the current bill.

We PTDB! Now, let's pass Grayson's Public Option Act!

[ Parent ]
They aren't going to do that. They are busy rationalizing (4.00 / 4)
their choice of accepting the present bill by lying to the base about a future near term bill. Why? because they know this is how to manipulate progressive psychology. Glenn Greendwald describes it perfectly.
[ Parent ]
Why This Won't Work (4.00 / 1)
Simply put, many of the cost-curve-bending aspects of health care reform, delivery systems reform and so on and so forth, cannot be passed via reconciliation.  Without these reforms, having a best-case public option (Medicare buy-in) would result in a worse outcome than passing the Senate bill without the reconciliation fix.  It would drain Medicare of funds in no time.

The optimal scenario is for the House to pass the Senate bill and both chambers to pass a fix through reconciliation that includes a public option.  I don't think that's going to happen, but it's possible we can round up the votes in the House.  Our next best-case scenario is a fix without the public option, and pass the public option as a stand-alone bill via reconciliation.  This sounds weird to say, but I think the public option by itself will have the votes that the public option in the total fix will not.  A public option by itself, however, is next-to-worthless without the rest of the reforms.

And bruh, this is how I see a way forward.  Nothing gets done without the overhaul bill passing.  Healthcare gets stuck for another 20 years, and we end up with an even more conservative bill next time around.  So, PTDB, pass the reconciliation fix, pass the Medicare buy-in.  We also have to protect incumbents who support the buy-in, and throw our full support behind challengers who do as well.  Even if the Dems take a beating in November, if the key players survive and we win a few critical upsets, we can get a buy-in passed via reconciliation (or filibuster reform) next year.  I don't think it's a given, but I think it's well within our ability to do.

So what's everyone else's plan for getting a public option?  I'm open to better (quicker and/or easier) paths.

[ Parent ]
You're wrong about the Medicare buy-in. (4.00 / 3)
It would not drain Medicare of funds. It is by design self-supporting. And Medicare costs are growing at 4%--versus 6-8% for private insurers. If everyone had the Medicare growth rate, our cost problems would be manageable. Finally, you have too much faith in the curve-bending parts of this reform. The biggest curve-bender would be a competition from a public option, Medicare buy-in, or state single payer. Pilot projects and other tweaks are not going to do the job. Anyway most of these ideas are popular with conservatives and could be added to any spending bill.
[ Parent ]
I think that's crazy (4.00 / 1)
Let's say the polls are worse than reality, so we only lose 5 senate seats, and 20 House seats. Democrats are going to take that as a mandate to pass a more liberal bill? It just doesn't match the behavior of Democrats.  

Please note I am not challenging bruh's assessment that nothing will happen on a public option, I am just saying your scenario seems even less likely to me.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
Initiatives like this one could build public support (0.00 / 0)
And create political pressure to pass a bill like this.  If unions, the AARP, and other groups realize that this is a feasible way forward, they will begin to work towards its passage.

You know, "politics".

[ Parent ]
The PO has 55 to 70 percent support and drug re-importation (4.00 / 5)
higher than that. The unions and other groups were behind the PO.  If the public support does not matter now, it won't matter in a year. The same forces will be at play, and they have even less incentive to give in to you regarding their influence in DC.  What I want you and others to admit to is something you refuse to do: that you are just engaged in wishful thinking as a response to the very real evidence that you aren't going to get anything else than this bill.  
[ Parent ]
"you aren't going to get anything else than this bill." (0.00 / 0)
If you believe that, then you should work with us to pass the Senate Bill.  The future is uncertain and you are right that there is no guarantee that we will get a PO.

What is guaranteed though is that if we do not pass the Senate bill, we not only won't get a PO, we won't get any sort of comprehensive reform, and our system will continue to spiral out of control.

Grayson has offered a path forward after passage of the comprehensive reform bill.  That alone is worth a great deal of hope for the PO.

We PTDB! Now, let's pass Grayson's Public Option Act!

[ Parent ]
Wrong (0.00 / 0)
1) The same forces will not be in play, as there will be "elections."  

2) Just because something very popular isn't passing now doesn't mean that something else that is popular won't pass in the future.

3) This is not the last health care-related bill that will ever be passed by the United States government.  

very real evidence that you aren't going to get anything else than this bill

Evidence?  You mean baseless speculation about an unknown future.  Your fatalism is tiresome.

[ Parent ]
also you got to love the contradiction of stating we can do it be (4.00 / 2)
reconcilation when just last week they were arguing we can't. Throwing anything against the wall to see what sticks.
[ Parent ]
Not with this President.. (4.00 / 3)
The details behind Pelosi's overnight about-face haven't been revealed, but everyone smells a rat.  With time to spare the House and Senate yesterday were just 9 or so votes short of reconciliation and a PO.
I do not doubt Durbin and Pelosi could have got the job done - especially had Obama come out to champion the PO.

When those in the know suddenly start stammering and the Speaker's eyes are on fire in anger, we know someone from the WH got to them.  And it obviously wasn't to offer help.

If the PO fails now, I consider Obama (a), personally and totally responsible for it's failure and (b), a hypocrite for dare saying a bad word against the Robert's Court who only handed our elections over to the corporations, versus his decision to hand them our health.

 

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

[ Parent ]
Wish you'd write a short blog on the subject of Robert's Court (4.00 / 2)
That would give us a chance to deal with all the namby pamby dipship apologists who come out of the woodworks when you try to look at the reality of what this president really is.

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...
[ Parent ]
Maybe So (4.00 / 1)
But I seriously doubt he would veto a public option.  So passing a stand-alone bill circumvents that.
[ Parent ]
Unless Obama or Rahm interfere with the 'passing'. (4.00 / 2)
They've interfered for over a year to keep the PO out- in spite it's many singular benefits.

They won't stop now - especially since we circumvented him. HA! That must really ticking them off.

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

[ Parent ]
I Disagree (0.00 / 0)
I think your analysis is off; Obama's main flaw for the past year was that he gave the legislature too much latitude with crafting the bill, and I don't think he's the primary culprit.  As I see it, the Senate bill doesn't have it because they didn't have 60 votes for it (because conservadems are dickweeds); they do have (apparently) 50 votes in the Senate for it in a reconciliation bill.  The House had the votes for it in the overall bill (barely) but they (apparently) don't have it for the reconciliation fix bill (because Congresscritters are stupid).  I'm glad that PCCC and CREDO are whipping House members on it anyway; we won't know unless we ask.  If we don't get it in the fix bill, we push on for it anyway.  Obama hasn't pushed for the PO (in my view, your mileage may vary, etc) because he believes (rightly or wrongly) that including it threatens the whole package.  I don't know if he's right or wrong, we should find out.
[ Parent ]
Sorry it's inconceivable (4.00 / 3)
that the House passed a PO before (despite Obama leaking his opposition) and couldn't pass a PO now if Obama fought for it. All trails lead back to the White House.
[ Parent ]
Then Let's Find The Votes! (0.00 / 0)
Like I said before, if we can get a good public option in the House fix bill, we should do it.  If we can't, we should redouble our efforts to pass it as a stand-alone.  I'm only arguing that we shouldn't give up, regardless of the outcome of the PO fight in the fix bill.
[ Parent ]
If they can't pass it now with the goodies that the industry wants (4.00 / 6)
and with the overall other elements that the majority wants to pass, there is not a snow ball's change in hell of it happening later. This is more progressive hope for the future,"What's the matter with kansas, the left edition,"  manipulation.

As for evidence, I don't think that's the problem. The problem is the same as the flat earth argument. Either you admit there is evidence based on the circumstantial evidence available or you deny it, but the denial does not negtate its existence or the reasoning involved in politics of a stand alone bill that we all know will never happen.

Why are Durbin and Reid whipping AGAINST the public option (4.00 / 1)
if it doesn't have the votes to pass, anyway?

So much for Durbin potentially being a better Majority leader than "Give em' Head Harry".

Perhaps to help out Pelosi (4.00 / 3)
Consider this bit of speculation:

Regardless of what everyone is saying in public, there may really be 50 votes in the Senate for the PO, but it may also be the case that the support in the House is no longer there (especially when one takes into account the Stupak factor).

In the interest of comity, Durbin and Reid may actually want to avoid making it clear who is killing the PO, even if the House is responsible; for this would only produce more hard feelings in the House, and make Pelosi look a little worse.

Just an idea.

[ Parent ]
How is this helpful? (0.00 / 0)
Durbin and Reid may actually want to avoid making it clear who is killing the PO

I mean, other than for political game-playing during elections.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
I like how people keep making up excuses with no evidence to support (4.00 / 3)
an argument at all, but the available evidence as to the reason why (namely the White House does not want it) is ignored.  
[ Parent ]
Risk (0.00 / 0)
The White House has consistantly talked and taken action consistent with someone who would like the PO, but doesn't consider it very important and not worth risking everything else over.

I know people like to paint things as black or white, but I've yet to see anything that goes against this assesment.    Now, I'm obviously biased since it is also where I stand, so it is easy for me to imagine, but it doesn't take extreme posistions to get us where we are.

I believe if passage were guaranteed in both the House and Senate, the PO would be in there.  But there is no guarantee, thus it would add additional risk, so it won't be.

All that said, there are many personalities involved.  I have no doubt that Rahm is actually against the PO, for example, because in his warped view it would make it easier for Republicans to attack it.  But I'm not under the impression Obama himself has that view.

In the future, though, there will be no such risk assesment.  There won't be an entire, president defining piece of legislsation deemed more important than the PO.  In that sense, there will be less resistance against it.  On the other hand, there will also be less pressure available to include it.  How those two elements play against each other has yet to be seen.  The more pressure the progressive community can apply, the better.

[ Parent ]
When the history of the battle is written (4.00 / 4)
we will learn that Obama made deals with stakeholders to oppose the PO. His proxies were there in the committees helping to water it down. He leaked against it when the house was on the verge of passing it. He was there in the finance committee to keep it out of the Baucus bill. He was there when Reid almost made a deal on the Medicare buy-in. His fingerprints are all over attempts to quash it now.
[ Parent ]
Agreements (0.00 / 0)
Funny, I wrote this post to disagree with you, but reading it again I realize how much I actually do agree.  I agree that the White House has a lot to do with this.
[ Parent ]
There's the subtle distinction (4.00 / 1)
The White House has consistantly talked and taken action consistent with someone who would like the PO, but doesn't consider it very important and not worth risking everything else over.

Emphasis mine because if that word is changed to "anything", then the phase encapsulates my thoughts about President Obama. All of his "risk-taking" was pointed towards the right and the conservatives.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I see your position. Just trying to clarify another perspective.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
All of that theory can be overcome by Obama's 11D Chess. (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Up or down vote (4.00 / 2)
All I want now is an up or down vote on a pure public option so I can see which "Democrats" need new jobs.

If Democrats have a pre-911 mentality, Republicans have a pre-July 4th mentality.
And that's exactly why you'll never see a vote on it! (4.00 / 1)
[ Parent ]
Medicare buy-in all the way (4.00 / 2)
The trick, of course, will be to get this on track to go through reconciliation in the Senate.  As a Medicare tweak, it is completely legal to do so; we "only" need to get the Dems to do it.  A public option, by contrast, would be just about impossible to shove through reconiliation.

Of course, there's also a lot more support for Medicare buy-ins than there ever was for a public option, and apparently that is true both among the public and on Capitol Hill.  It's better policy, too.

We should throw all our energy behind this, whether or not the current reform bill passes.  

So there it is (4.00 / 5)
The Democratic leadership can now get around the filibuster and get us the Public Option.  Except they won't.

Durbin blames Pelosi, Pelosi blames Durbin.  And they are both supposedly "progressives."  I have always thought that despite their faults the Democrats where worth supporting.

I am reconsidering that position.

What are you gonna do? [!] (0.00 / 0)
Vote for some non-viable 3rd party [!]

youdbetterbedrunk is more like it.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
whatever they do, you should be more worried that there will be more MA races (4.00 / 2)
That come out of no where in the fall.  
[ Parent ]
There are many things to worry about (0.00 / 0)
ranking them seems a subjective endeavor.

FYI: [!] is punctuation for sarcasm.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
I didn't know about the punctuation thing. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
A third party won't ever become viable until someone starts voting for it (4.00 / 2)
On the other hand,  if you keep voting for Dems.   They keep on acting just like they do now.  It takes more than one cycle clean out the crooks and a lot more than one cycle to get a new party off the ground.  If you want more of the same, just keep voting for them.  They're counting on you!

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...
[ Parent ]
I didn't know you had an Openleft account, Mr. Durbin nt (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
[!] is the punctuation mark for sarcasm (0.00 / 0)
But, thank you, you may forward campaign donations and baksheesh to my account.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Since Reid takes orders from Obama, Durbin is helpless. (0.00 / 0)
He's also a little too passive himself to whip Reid into action or to try to buck Obama.

Pelosi, from day one has fought to help keep Obams's promises by pushing hard on his agenda - and was successful. I'm sorry any of her Democrats must suffer for the Senate and Obama's  failures.

I will remain a highly selective Progressive Democrat involved to the max in changing the Congressional dynamics.  

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

[ Parent ]
Durbin is Reid's proxy right now (0.00 / 0)
Reid can't afford to take the political heat -- he's in danger of losing his election (and will probably lose his seat even if he has Durbin do his dirty work from now until November).
[ Parent ]
Public option likely to have to come as stand alone bill | 49 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