Last stand for the public option in health reform bill

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 11:56


In the latest game of public option hot potato, Senator Dick Durbin says he will whip hard for a reconciliation bill that includes a public option.  However, the caveat is that he will only do so if the House sends a reconciliation bill to the Senate with the public option in it.  If the House sends the Senate a reconciliation bill without a public option, then Durbin will whip aggressively against adding one in the Senate.  From a Durbin spokesperson:

"I want to be crystal clear: Sen. Durbin and the rest of the Senate Leadership will be aggressively whipping FOR the public option if it is included in the reconciliation bill the House sends over. Conversely, the Leaders will whip against any attempt to alter or amend the bill if the public option is not in it (or as your email says - whip against adding the public option as an amendment in the Senate.)

The reason is simple. There can be no amendments - good or bad - to the reconciliation bill once the House passes it and sends it to the Senate. The House will not do step one (passing the Senate healthcare bill in the first place) if they do not have assurances that the fixes they want (i.e., the fixes in their reconciliation bill) will be passed unchanged by the Senate."

This is the same point I argued last week: the public option must be in the reconciliation bill that the House sends to the Senate in order to have any chance.  Because of the leaderships twin desires not to blow up any deals on votes once the bills reach the floor, and their desire to stop the Republican strategy of filibuster by amendment, they are not going to allow any strengthening amendments to the health reform bills to pass.  This includes a public option amendment.

However, it is highly unlikely that there is a public option in the House reconciliation bill.  Two weeks ago, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said it was off the table.  So, the only way to get it in the bill is through the Budget Committee markup of the bill (which will happen next week sometime), after someone proves that there are 216 votes for a reconciliation fix that includes a public option.  That isn't much time, but it also isn't entirely impossible.

Now, given that the House is apparently going to have to find the votes for health reform without the Stupak bloc, there are good reasons to think that the House does not have 216 votes for a health reform reconciliation fix without the public option.  The Democratic leadership is going to have to find votes for passage among a number of Representatives who voted against the House health reform bill back in November.  You can see the list of those members here, and it is not a pretty one when you are looking for about a dozen votes in favor of a health reform bill that includes a public option.

That is the task ahead for the public option--find 216 votes in about five days.  CREDO and the PCCC have already sent out action alerts urging people to start this last ditch effort.  If you haven't already received an email from them, visit their websites, and join in.

Chris Bowers :: Last stand for the public option in health reform bill

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

Last stand for the public option in health reform bill | 71 comments
Theater on the senate side... (4.00 / 2)
They can pretend to be aggressive 'cos they know the house won't pass it.  Pelosi just confirmed it via TPM minutes ago.

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!
Right (4.00 / 2)
It's pathetic.

Pols -- Reid, Obama, Durbin -- help to kill the PO, then blame someone else.


[ Parent ]
she just said it's dead (4.00 / 1)
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpoin...

"We're talking about something that's not going to be part of the legislation," she said.

   I'm quite sad that a public option isn't in there. But it isn't a case of it's not in there because the Senate is whipping against it. It's not in there because they don't have the votes to have it in there.

"We had it," Pelosi said. "We wanted it. They didn't have it. It's not in the reconciliation."

but your other possibility:

So, the only way to get it in the bill is through the Budget Committee markup of the bill (which will happen next week sometime), after someone proves that there are 216 votes for a reconciliation fix that includes a public option.  That isn't much time, but it also isn't entirely impossible.

is actually impossible, unless Pelosi has sent a version of the Public Option to the CBO to score. Even though we all know most versions of the Public Option will reduce the deficit even further, it will still come with some kind of price tag--not big, but not zero. And she would need to have that before bringing the fix to a vote.

PO versus Medicare Buy-in for 55+ (0.00 / 0)
This is true for the House version of the PO, but the Senate had the votes for Medicare Buy-in for older people until Lieberman did his showcasing.  They only need 50 votes this time.

I'm actually not sure the PO that creates a whole new department can fit under reconciliation, but expanding and funding an existing program seems trivial.

I love how each points their fingers at the other for the reason the PO is out.

[ Parent ]
thanks for the info. (0.00 / 0)
It is just insane that the democratic congresscritters can't get together on the same page at this point.

They need to do what they can do and be done with it- public option or not.

The public airing of all the dirty laundry to get this bill accomplished is just getting to be disastrous for them politically.  It just makes them appear to have no idea about how to govern.

oh, they're on the same page (4.00 / 1)
The statements in favor of the public option are just kabuki.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
I agree. (0.00 / 0)
but the idea that the leadership is going to bring this stuff up for a vote, and that the democrats in congress are going to let the president fail seems like "kabuki" also.

Seriously, the democrats in the house have no optionn but to pass these bills.  They can whine all they want, but after Scott Brown won his senate seat two months ago, there has been no other alternative.

[ Parent ]
It comes down to the votes. (0.00 / 0)
If we can find the votes in the House for passing HCR with a PO, I am all for whipping the shit out of the Senate.

No one has shown me that there is a way to get those votes though, and Chris' math seems pretty solid.

If the House does not have the votes to do that we should take this bill, put it in our pocket, and move on to efforts to continue reform.  Grayson's bill is a good starting point.

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

they can vote on an amendment (0.00 / 0)
I think the 'we don't have the votes' is just theater.

I think if they have the votes for HCR, then they have the votes for a PO.

they can vote on a po/buy-in amendment. if I'm wrong and they don't have the votes as they say, the amendment will fail but the bill won't. if I'm wrong what would be the harm? they're just bullshitting us because obama soldout to the hospital lobby

[ Parent ]
It blows up the Reconciliation deal. (0.00 / 0)
They may well have the votes in the Senate.  But if it gets added in the Senate and the House doesn't have the votes, then the Reconciliation bill goes down.  This blows up the whole deal for HCR.

The reason why the effort to encourage a vote on the amendment jeopardizes the whole bill is because it makes the House Dems nervous that the Senate is going to screw up the reconciliation bill.  Unless they get assurance that the Senate will pass the bill that the House sends them, all bets are off.

If it were a simple thing -- that if the amendment fails we can just move forward -- I would agree with you.  But it is easy to come up with a scenario where the amendment passes and dooms the whole reconciliation bill.  The whole solution relies on the House Dems trusting the Senate, so the Senate needs to say they will pass what the House sends them.

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

[ Parent ]
no, it doesn't (0.00 / 0)
reconciliation will start at the house. vote there. if it fails, it won't be in the package that will be send to the senate.

But if it gets added in the Senate and the House doesn't have the votes, then the Reconciliation bill goes down.

amendment vote from the start in the house.

Unless they get assurance that the Senate will pass the bill that the House sends them, all bets are off.

you vote on a po/buy-in amendment in the house first.

But it is easy to come up with a scenario where the amendment passes and dooms the whole reconciliation bill.

show it to me.

[ Parent ]
Scenario. (0.00 / 0)
Ok.  Let's assume for the sake of the argument that we don't lose any of the November coalition besides the Stupakers (no easy thing).  That means we are at minimum, about 4 votes short of passage (I think this is being generous).

Pelosi needs to find 4 votes among the conservadems who voted no in November.  Remember, these are folks who didn't like the bill back in November, many, if not all of them didn't like Public Option and that was why.

So Pelosi corrals the number of votes she needs for passage of the bill, but then a PO amendment vote comes up.  The amendment passes, because the same coalition from November votes for it (maybe even along with some mischief-making Rs).

Now that it passes though, you have a problem, because those 4 conservadem votes you corralled for the bill won't vote for it.  The Rs won't vote for it, and the Stupakers won't vote for it.  Therefore the bill goes down.

Perversely, when combined with the Stupak situation, the PO has now become a poison pill for the entire bill.  It probably has the votes to pass on its own, but not as a part of this vehicle.

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

[ Parent ]
Awesome. (0.00 / 0)
You got all of your comments copy and pasted also.

congrats.

[ Parent ]
re: votes (0.00 / 0)
so, your argument is:

there will be people that vote yes on the PO, but their yes votes on the PO will make them vote no on HCR? that the PO coalition will be scared of its own PO vote?

that doesn't make sense.

if you don't have the votes for HCR, you don't have the votes for HCR.

[ Parent ]
No, that is not my argument. (0.00 / 0)
Please read it again.

Stupakers might vote for PO but not for the whole bill.  Hell, the Rs could vote for PO just to derail the bill.

It's a poison pill.

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

[ Parent ]
re: whole bill (0.00 / 0)
Please read it again.

believe me I did. couldn't understand it!

Stupakers might vote for PO but not for the whole bill.

so stupakers will be ok with the abortion stuff in the po, but not in hcr. yeah right...

Hell, the Rs could vote for PO just to derail the bill.

no chance of that. absolutely none.

It's a poison pill.

no, it isn't. the poison pill is requiring people buy the crap private companies sell without a po.

the poison pill is trusting the health-care of millikons to private for-profit companies

[ Parent ]
You are wrong. (0.00 / 0)
There is no provision for abortion under any public option that has been discussed.  As a government program it would unquestionably be subject to Hyde.  Stupak's group would have no problem voting for it.

Hell, the Rs could vote for PO just to derail the bill.
no chance of that. absolutely none.

Oh there isn't?  If the Senate Rs are willing to vote against restricting abortion (abortion!) in order to derail a compromise, why wouldn't House Rs do something similar?

Anyway, I've given you my scenario.  You may not like it but it is plausible, and its not worth derailing Health Care Reform for a symbolic vote on a weak public option.

no, it isn't. the poison pill is requiring people buy the crap private companies sell without a po.

the poison pill is trusting the health-care of millikons to private for-profit companies


If you are just going to preach at me, we are done here.

We PTDB! Now, let's pass Grayson's Public Option Act!
[ Parent ]
re: scenario (0.00 / 0)
Anyway, I've given you my scenario.  You may not like it but it is plausible,

no, it's not, it's a total fantasy

you have republicans voting for the health-care bill! it may help your theories but it's not anywhere close to real

republicans voting for the health-care bill!

As a government program it would unquestionably be subject to Hyde.  Stupak's group would have no problem voting for it.

"Stupak's group would have no problem voting for it." because "As a government program it would unquestionably be subject to Hyde."?

medicaid expansion is a gov't program. the subsidies to the private insurance companies is a gov't program. guess what? stupak didn't vote for them. but now they will because you say so.

If the Senate Rs are willing to vote against restricting abortion (abortion!)

when did that happen? or is it just words?

if your scenario counts on R's voting against restricting abortion, your scenario isn't anywhere close to real

[ Parent ]
"when did that happen? or is it just words?" (0.00 / 0)
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...

In their letter, the Senate Republicans all said they would oppose any effort to waive the Byrd rule.

One of the provisions that would probably not pass muster under the reconciliation rules deals with abortion.


Emphasis mine.  That letter was sent specifically to throw cold water on the idea that Dems could accomodate Stupak by inserting his language.

medicaid expansion is a gov't program. the subsidies to the private insurance companies is a gov't program. guess what? stupak didn't vote for them. but now they will because you say so.

How about this?? When did this happen?  Show me a roll call vote where Stupak voted no on these programs.  Medicaid does not cover abortion, because it is subject to hyde, same as PO would be.

you have republicans voting for the health-care bill!

No, I never said that.  They'll vote for amendments to sabatoge it, but not for the bill.

We PTDB! Now, let's pass Grayson's Public Option Act!
[ Parent ]
re: R's voting yes (0.00 / 0)
Emphasis mine.  That letter was sent specifically to throw cold water on the idea that Dems could accomodate Stupak by inserting his language.

I asked

when did that happen? or is it just words?

and you show me a letter. a letter is words. a letter doesn't mean that they are required to vote accordingly.

How about this?? When did this happen?  Show me a roll call vote where Stupak voted no on these programs.  Medicaid does not cover abortion, because it is subject to hyde, same as PO would be.

he didn't cast a vote on a bill without his amendment. we're discussing how would stupak & co. vote on a bill without his amendment. we don't have a stupak vote yes on a non-stupak bill. you argue stupak will vote yes on a non-stupak bill, because he voted yes on a stupak-including bill. you're killing logic.

No, I never said that.  They'll vote for amendments to sabatoge it, but not for the bill.

the teabaggers won't distinguish between such votes. republicrats won't vote yes on anything health-care related. be it PO or HCR.

[ Parent ]
I never said they already voted on it. (0.00 / 0)
I said they are willing to do that, and they have expressed that intention in writing, all 41 of them.  Poison pills are used all the time to kill legislation.

You seem to think that the Republicans won't pull out all the stops to kill this bill.  Who is living in the fantasy?


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

[ Parent ]
re: willing (0.00 / 0)
I never said they already voted on it. I said they are willing to do that, and they have expressed that intention in writing,

willing is different than doing. no republicrat has voted for a non-stupak hc bill. but now they will do so because you say so.

all 41 of them.

all 41 republicrats will vote yes (or are willing to, it applies no matter which of the to you use) on not restricting abortion and this isn't a fantasy?  

[ Parent ]
Don't dodge my question. (0.00 / 0)
Is it your assertion that the Rs won't pull out all the stops to kill the HC bill?  You think they'll go easy on the dems?

We PTDB! Now, let's pass Grayson's Public Option Act!
[ Parent ]
re: derail (0.00 / 0)
answer: the republicrats won't vote for anything on the hc bill. nothing.

but now that you said dodge I remembered something. when you said you are tired of the conspiracy theories that obama didn't want the PO, I said if obama really wanted the PO, he would have included it in his initial proposal. You never answered. Is obama's initial proposal a conspiracy theory?

[ Parent ]
Try again. (0.00 / 0)
answer: the republicrats won't vote for anything on the hc bill. nothing.

Not an answer to my question.  Do you think the Republicans will do whatever it takes to kill the bill or not?

Is obama's initial proposal a conspiracy theory?

Explain to me what Obama's "initial proposal" is and I will try to answer your question.  What you meant by this was not clear to me.

We PTDB! Now, let's pass Grayson's Public Option Act!
[ Parent ]
re: initial (0.00 / 0)
Not an answer to my question.  Do you think the Republicans will do whatever it takes to kill the bill or not?

not if that means voting yes a democratic hc proposal. imagine you're a republicrat and you vote yes on the PO. who cares if hcr dies (in that context)? you won't survive the next primary. no republicrat will take such a chance.

Explain to me what Obama's "initial proposal" is and I will try to answer your question.  What you meant by this was not clear to me.

the proposal obama unveiled a few days before the bipartisan meeting. gibbs said this is the wh "initial proposal."

[ Parent ]
The so called "initial proposal." (0.00 / 0)
That proposal was put forward only in the last couple weeks.  After all of the legislation had been hashed out.

Obama wants a Health Care Bill.  Obama made the calculation that including a Public Option in his proposal would reduce the chances of final passage for a comprehensive bill.

You can disagree with that calculation, but it proves nothing about whether or not Obama favors a public option on its own merits.  All it shows is that Obama thinks Public Option is unlikely to pass as part of this bill, and that he prefers the Senate Bill to no bill.

No mendacity need be involved, just a cold calculation of the realities surrounding passage.

Of course, you disagree with Obama's calculation, so that makes him a "pro-AHIP" corporate whore, right?

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

[ Parent ]
no (0.00 / 0)
That proposal was put forward only in the last couple weeks.  After all of the legislation had been hashed out. After all of the legislation had been hashed out.

you don't vote on initial proposals. initial proposals are initial proposals.

if you want something, you don't omit it from your proposal

You can disagree with that calculation, but it proves nothing about whether or not Obama favors a public option on its own merits.

that was no conference report. it was a meeting to find good ideas. obama said it himself: the best ideas. if obama thought the po was a good idea, he would have included it. he didn't. nothing prevented him from including it. there was no fear 'if I include it, I'll sink the legislation.' it was a good ideas exchange.

[ Parent ]
"Whatever it takes" (0.00 / 0)
Republicans can theoretically stop HCR by killing off every Democratic member of Congress.  Does that make such a scenario likely?

Republicans want to stop Democratic legislation but they're not like Terminators who will lose arms, legs and lives to do so.  They still have their own asses to think about first, and their ass will be on the line if they vote for a PO, even if they try to explain it off as some kind of 11-dimensional legislation jujitsu.

[ Parent ]
Never said that. (0.00 / 0)
willing is different than doing. no republicrat has voted for a non-stupak hc bill. but now they will do so because you say so.

That is not what I said.  They will allow an amendment (the PO) to pass that will kill the bill (a poison pill).  None of them will ever vote for final passage (that is how a poison pill works).

We PTDB! Now, let's pass Grayson's Public Option Act!
[ Parent ]
re: allow (0.00 / 0)
They will allow an amendment (the PO) to pass that will kill the bill (a poison pill).  

no. republicrats won't vote yes at any democratic hc proposal. nothing.

[ Parent ]
They could. (0.00 / 0)
no. republicrats won't vote yes at any democratic hc proposal. nothing.

You don't think they will, but they most certainly could vote for an amendment.  Or they could vote present on the amendment and let it pass that way.

In fact, if their overarching goal is to kill 'Obamacare' at all costs then this course of action is very logical for them.  They've already proved that their motives are not policy related, but political.

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

[ Parent ]
First of all, as I wrote below, the Blue Dog opposition to the PO is overstated (4.00 / 1)
Remember that list of Blue Dog priorities that was out awhile back?  Public option, or not having one, was somewhere like #10 on the list.  It wasn't as important as all the fuss made it sound.

Second of all, no Republican is going to vote for the PO, no matter how rascally they are.  You think they really want to go back to their districts and have to explain to angry teabaggers that they were just doing a little mischievous shenanigan?

Third of all, I don't see how a Stupaker voting for the PO and then opposing the overall bill because of abortion is somehow the PO's fault.  If the Stupaker is against the bill because of abortion it doesn't matter whether the PO is there or not cuz the PO has nothing to do with abortion.  So how does that make the PO a "poison pill"?

[ Parent ]
re: R's (0.00 / 0)
Second of all, no Republican is going to vote for the PO, no matter how rascally they are.  You think they really want to go back to their districts and have to explain to angry teabaggers that they were just doing a little mischievous shenanigan?

doesn't matter how unrealistic it is, if it helps the pro-ahip crowd invent some anti-po scenario. republicrats will vote to not restrict abortion rights, to impose taxes, and to undercut their 'obama and the dems are big and wasteful spenders' message. the realism is off the charts.

[ Parent ]
"Pro-AHIP crowd?" (0.00 / 0)
I take deep offense to that slur.  I'll put my anti-AHIP cred up against anyone's.

I wash my hands of you.

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

[ Parent ]
slur? (0.00 / 0)
you want to give billions to ahip while not changing how they operate (most profit possible), and you don't like called pro-ahip?

look at the mirror.

[ Parent ]
Slur. (0.00 / 0)
Would you be offended if I called you pro-death?
*(Note: I don't actually think that, but I could say it if I wanted to slur you)

You are advocating a path that will derail the Senate bill that will save thousands of lives.  Would that be appropriate?

Over the top rhetoric serves no one.

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

[ Parent ]
re: slur (0.00 / 0)
Would you be offended if I called you pro-death?

yes. but I would look to see what my proposals will result.

I said it before and will say it again: the hc bill as constructed will indeed save some lives. ahip will save some lives, but it will be the minimum necessary to keep it's scam going. a po would save more lives, and by the money it saves it will save even more lives.

ahip doesn't give a damn if people live or die. ahip cares for one thing and one thing only: how to make the most money possible.

if you feed a shark, do you make the shark not wanting to eat you? do you think the shark will say 'what a nice guy. I won't kill him'? throwing money at ahip and expecting them to care for people, while not reforming the way they operate, is a pure fantasy.

You are advocating a path that will derail the Senate bill that will save thousands of lives.

I'm advocating a vote on a po/buy-in amendment. if the votes for a PO aren't there, the amendment will fail and the bill will go on if it has the votezs.

[ Parent ]
I'm done speaking with you on this. (0.00 / 0)
1) You think that my strategy won't help people.  I think it will.
2) I think your strategy will kill the bill.  You think it won't.

This disagreement isn't the end of the world.  You've made your points and I've made mine.

We can have disagreement though, without impugning one another's motives.  I think you have good intentions even if you are wrong.  You, on the other hand have claimed that my motive is to help AHIP.  That is deeply offensive.

If that is your position, then there is no point in continuing any interaction with you.  Good day.

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

[ Parent ]
re: disagreement (0.00 / 0)
1) You think that my strategy won't help people.  I think it will.

I said ahip will help some to keep its scam going. ahip will remain a for-profit operation. health-care isn't about making the most money you can even if you let people die to do so.

2) I think your strategy will kill the bill.  You think it won't.

I not only think it won't, I think your theory of republicrats voting yes on any dem hc proposal is totally crazy.

This disagreement isn't the end of the world.  You've made your points and I've made mine.

throwing money at ahip and expecting republicrats to vote yes aren't realistic points.

We can have disagreement though, without impugning one another's motives.  I think you have good intentions even if you are wrong.  You, on the other hand have claimed that my motive is to help AHIP.  That is deeply offensive.

you should be offended at throwing people at the ahip murderers.

[ Parent ]
I'm done. (0.00 / 0)
This is a waste of time.  I said I was done before, and I should have stuck to that.

I would rather save lives than remain ideologically pure.  You can be all self-righteous and ignore those cries for help if you like.  That is on your conscience.

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

[ Parent ]
re: pure (0.00 / 0)
why do you keep telling 'I'm done'? no-one forces you to reply.

I would rather save lives than remain ideologically pure.  

you want to throw people at the ahip sharks. justify it however you want, but what you want won't change.

That is on your conscience.

I'm not the one that wants to send people to ahip.

[ Parent ]
It's not a question of fault. (0.00 / 0)
Third of all, I don't see how a Stupaker voting for the PO and then opposing the overall bill because of abortion is somehow the PO's fault.  If the Stupaker is against the bill because of abortion it doesn't matter whether the PO is there or not cuz the PO has nothing to do with abortion.  So how does that make the PO a "poison pill"?

It's not a question of faulting the PO, it's just the reality.  There are people who are inclined to support the bill only if Stupak language is included (Stupak Block) irrelevant of whether PO is included.

There are also people who might support the bill without Stupak language, but only if there is no PO (bluedog/conservadems).  PO is only a poison pill among this group, but combined with the opposition from Stupak's group (not related to PO) it is enough to sink the bill.

Second of all, no Republican is going to vote for the PO, no matter how rascally they are.  You think they really want to go back to their districts and have to explain to angry teabaggers that they were just doing a little mischievous shenanigan?

It is my firm belief that the Rs will do whatever it takes to sink this bill.  If you disagree, I can't change your mind, but R actions show I am on pretty solid ground.  Besides, they don't even need to vote for PO.  If enough Rs were to vote present, they don't even have a yes vote to explain.

We PTDB! Now, let's pass Grayson's Public Option Act!
[ Parent ]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but "present" does not equal to "yes" (0.00 / 0)
"Present" votes don't count as anything.  An amendment either gets 216 and passes or it doesn't and fails.

Republicans have no incentive to vote for a PO.  They have huge disincentives to vote for a PO.  You're asking them to take a huge political risk for an as-yet nebulous and implausible scenario.

And to my knowledge there is no history of comparable Republican actions for the PO.  No Republicans ever voted for the PO in committee, AFAIK, despite that doing so would've helped the PO along and thus in theory jeopardize passage of the overall bill.  Why didn't any Republicans vote for the Medicare+5 public option in the Finance Committee, which for sure would've sunk the bill?

Since we agree that Stupak is unrelated to PO, let's disregard them for the time being.  The focus is on Representatives who might vote for the HCR bill if there were only no PO.  Who in the House specifically has stated that they would vote for a HCR bill as long as there's no PO, and that the PO specifically is the dealbreaker?

As I've said before, the PO was pretty low on the list of concerns Blue Dogs had with HCR.  I also note that this bill is already having a tough time getting to 216 even though the PO is no longer on the table.  If what you say about the PO being so big and bad is true, then wouldn't you expect that we'd easily have more than 216 by now given that we had 220 for a bill with a PO, and that what we have now has no PO?

Until you clarify how the PO is a poison pill, it's still worth a try, and a vote.  I don't see how a PO can pass but the overall HCR bill with a PO won't.  You'd have to identify these mystical Congressional creatures who would come out in support for a PO but not for an overall bill that has a PO.

[ Parent ]
"game of public option hot potato" (0.00 / 0)
Do you mean no one wants to be seen as killing the PO? Or that no one wants to be seen strongly supporting it?

Which is perception is more likely to burn one's hand?


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

Time for Kucinich to prove his worth? (4.00 / 1)
Does Kucinich give leadership an extra vote if they put the PO in, or is he against this anyway?  Inquiring minds want to know.
he would then be against it. (0.00 / 0)
He has lost his credibility at this point.  After all his years in the house, is he really going to vote against the bill that essentially says that everyone is going to be covered by health insurance and tthat the government is going to help people purchase it?

It boggles the mind.

He is missing the battle- at least republicans will know they have lost the battle with the passage of this bill.  Afterwards, the government will be intrinsically involved in getting people covered by health insurance as a basic right.

And Kucinich still thinks the battle is between the government providing that health insurance and the insurance companies providing that health insurance.

[ Parent ]
re: provider (0.00 / 0)
insurance companies providing that health insurance.

do you believe they will do that? will their mission change from making the most money possible? they will remain for-profit private companies, right?

[ Parent ]
yes, they will make profits. (4.00 / 1)
But, this first round of health care reform has never been about outlawing the "for profit" insurance industry.  That would have been nice, but that was never the legislative goal.

I simply think that the current senate bill that allows uninsured individuals the access to buy any of the plans offered to federal employees is a very good starting point.  These plans have had generally low cost increases.

[ Parent ]
re: profits (0.00 / 0)
you didn't answer my question

my question is 'why do you think the insurance companies will change their behavior'?

I don't care if they make profits if they do provide health-care. the money will be spent on military programs, tax-breaks, farm subsidies or something else I don't like. spend it here. ok with me.

but when their mission will remain 'make the most money possible' why will they change it to 'provide health-care'

what will happen?

[ Parent ]
I can not predict the future. (0.00 / 0)
I can guess that the insurance companies will not change a specific practice unless the practice they are engaging in is made illegal- either through regulatory authority or direct legislation like those contained in the aforementioned pending health care legislation.

States already regulate the insurance industry and the amount of authority the states have in these matters, I assume, varies from state to state.

I have never asserted that the insurance companies would voluntarily change their practices.  Their function is to create profit for their shareholders.

Doctors and nurses provide health care; insurance companies sell various health insurance policies.  They, in turn invest policy premiums in markets and use those funds to pay for health insurance policy claims.

[ Parent ]
regulation? regulation is a fairy-tale in dc (0.00 / 0)
I can guess that the insurance companies will not change a specific practice unless the practice they are engaging in is made illegal- either through regulatory authority or direct legislation like those contained in the aforementioned pending health care legislation.

made illegal through regulation? who will enforce these regulations? regulation enforcement isn't good for big business' profits. we can see how much is regulation enforced nowdays.

States already regulate the insurance industry and the amount of authority the states have in these matters, I assume, varies from state to state.

oh boy... state regulation! the industry is laughing its ass off now.

I have never asserted that the insurance companies would voluntarily change their practices.  

but you have asserted that the results will change somehow.

Their function is to create profit for their shareholders.

bingo. they're not out to provide people health-care.

Doctors and nurses provide health care; insurance companies sell various health insurance policies.  They, in turn invest policy premiums in markets and use those funds to pay for health insurance policy claims.

http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
awesome. (0.00 / 0)
You copy and pasted my whole comment.

Thank you.

[ Parent ]
re: comment (0.00 / 0)
your comment is in blockquotes

my reply isn't

[ Parent ]
For-profit matters (4.00 / 1)
Name a country that has guaranteed universal health care with for-profit insurance companies for basic health care.
[ Parent ]
Of course not (0.00 / 0)
But you can change the playing field so the strategies they imploy to maximize profits aren't so evil.
[ Parent ]
Uh, government vs. private is precisely the point (4.00 / 1)
It's not like private insurance isn't in the game already.  They're already providing insurance.

Afterwards, the government will be intrinsically involved in getting people covered by health insurance as a basic right.

You can see it that way.  Or, you can see it as the government being intrinsically involved in getting insurance companies a captive market as their basic right.  Right?

[ Parent ]
re: kucinich (4.00 / 1)
"I told the President twice in two different meetings that I could support the bill if it did have a robust public option and at least if it had something that was gonna protect consumers from these rapid premium increases..."

[ Parent ]
Yup (4.00 / 1)
I mean, I have a responsibility to take a stand here on behalf of those who want a public option. There's about thirty-four members of the Senate, at least, who have signed on to saying they support a public option. If I were to just concede right now and say, "Well, you know, whatever you want. All this pressure's building. Just forget about it," actually weakens every last-minute bit of negotiations that would try to improve the bill. So I think that it's really critical to take this stand, because without it, there's no real control over premiums. Without it, we have nothing in the bill except the privatization of our healthcare system.

http://seminal.firedoglake.com...

Even if the House were to magically pass the PO, the Senate leadership and Obama would find a way to kill it.  

[ Parent ]
he could always dissect... (0.00 / 0)
...what the meaning of "robust" is.
[ Parent ]
Which means the answer is no (0.00 / 0)
The Robust Public Option died a very long time ago.  What passed the House was not Robust by any definition.
[ Parent ]
he didn't say no (0.00 / 0)
he said robust.

why make your position 'I want a not-so-good po'?

begin at robust.

[ Parent ]
also (0.00 / 0)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

9:45

now, I'll vote for it if we can keep the single-payer [provision to allow states] in because I think it'll be worth the price

[ Parent ]
Except the state single payer option is in the bill (0.00 / 0)
Just not his language, but it is in there.  Bernie Sanders got that in the Senate bill.  Bernie is smarter, though.  His doesn't say "single payer" so he actually got Republican support in committee, because it allows many forms of state options.
[ Parent ]
Except Bernie's language doesn't quite get the job done (4.00 / 1)
(No offense against Bernie intended, of course).

From FireDogLake:

Getting Around ERISA

The other major impediment is the scope of the waiver, which I interpret to mean it can't be used for a waiver of ERISA. From the Senate bill (with Secretary defined as Secretary of HHS and Treasury):

   (c) Scope of Waiver-

   (1)IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall determine the scope of a waiver of a requirement described in subsection (a)(2) granted to a State under subsection (a)(1).

   (2)LIMITATION- The Secretary may not waive under this section any Federal law or requirement that is not within the authority of the Secretary.

ERISA falls under the jurisdiction of the Departments of Labor and Treasury. I don't think this provision could be used waive ERISA without further action by Congress, at least I think it would become a potential legal mess if that were tried.

ERISA prevents states from telling employers or labor unions what kind of insurance they must offer. Not having an ERISA waiver would make adopting a true state-based single payer system incredibly difficult, if not impossible, and make implementing a very cost effective, Hawaii-style, strict employer mandate system impossible in other states.

Kucinich has substantive disagreements with the Sanders language.  He's not just being contrarian for being contrarian's sake.

Btw, Kucinich's amendment also got bipartisan support in committee, if that's important to you.

[ Parent ]
Why Not (0.00 / 0)
Everyone at OpenLeft was pushing for that version, except the Single Payer folks.  There is no "begin" anymore.  This is the final vote.
[ Parent ]
Still a week of negotiations (4.00 / 1)
Nancy Pelosi: "Dennis please vote for this bill"

Dennis Kucinich: "Nancy I won't unless there's a robust public option"

Nancy: "We really can't do a robust one, but a negotiated rates one might pass, is that good enough for you?"

Dennis: "Eh, yeah, fine, I can do that"

Nancy: "Okay lemme check with everyone else" [checks with rest of the House Democrats] "okay I got enough people to say yes.  Hey Budget Committee, stick a negotiated rates public option in there will ya?"

Budget Committee: "Okay got it"

Dennis: "See that wasn't so hard was it?"

[ Parent ]
re: vote (0.00 / 0)
eager to cave? the markup hasn't even started yet
[ Parent ]
Pelosi just ruled it out again (0.00 / 0)
From Greg Sargeant's blog:

Update: 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."

And I won't blame Pelosi either: she is threading a needle here, and if she believes that including the PO will cost votes in the House, then her stance is understandable.  I believe that she sincerely wants the PO and would include it if possible.

thanks very much for this really useful post (4.00 / 1)
also to add to your list, alan grayson is asking people to e-mail their congresspeople to support the medicare-for-all public option bill that you highlighted earlier.

http://salsa.mydccc.org/o/3001...

It had 50 cosponsors as of yesterday.  While I doubt the bill will pass, it seems like mounting an enormous amount of support for this might change Nancy Pelosi's logic?  Or suddenly an opportunity might emerge that is allegedly impossible?

Wasn't the public option at the bottom of the list (4.00 / 1)
of objections Blue Dogs had to the bill?

The opposition to the public option from the Blue Dogs is overstated, I think.  PLus with the Stupak block disintegrating some of those people will get on board provided there's a public option (e.g. Marcy Kaptur).

Last stand for the public option in health reform bill | 71 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