According to David Dayen’s latest whip count, the 17 most important votes who are not leaning in one direction or the other are as follows:
5 undecided potential “No to Yes” votes John Barrow, Travis Childers, Lincoln Davis, Jim Matheson, Harry Teague
3 undecided potential “Yes to No” votes that are “Stupak-curious” Jerry Costello, Henry Cuellar, Brad Ellsworth
9 other undecided potential “Yes to No” votes Chris Carney, Mike Doyle, Bill Foster, Ann Kirkpatrick, Harry Mitchell, Solomon Ortiz, Earl Pomeroy, Nick Rahall; Zack Space
With leaners, the vote count currently stands at 205 in favor, and 209 opposed. That would mean the House leadership needs 11 of these to pass the bill.
Actually, make that only ten more:
Doyle told The Hill on March 16 that he will likely vote yes
If the yes and “lean yes” votes hold, that moves the House leadership within only ten votes of passage.
I have to wonder why The Hill doesn’t just declare health reform dead. Their current whip count totals show 215 votes against, 158 in favor, with 58 undecided. If this whip count is accurate, it means that in order to pass health reform, the Democratic leadership needs to score all 58 of the undecided votes, and not lose a single current “yes” vote.
Given this, The Hill needs to ask itself a two-part question:
If they believe their own whip count totals, then why haven’t they run a big news story on how health reform is near death? Scoring 58 unanswered undecided votes is virtually impossible. Why aren’t they talking about the imminent death of health reform? their current headline implies Dems are close to passage:
If they don’t believe their whip count totals, and as such don’t think the bill is all but dead, then why are they still publishing their whip count totals?
Either The Hill doesn’t believe their own whip count, or they think health reform is just about dead. They can’t have it both ways.
David Dayen’s latest House health reform vote count, with leaners included, puts the totals at 202 in favor, 207 opposed. Given the voting in the Budget Committee this afternoon, that count could move to 205 in favor, and 206 opposed (once again with leaners. This is because Marcy Kaptur, Tim Bishop, and Marion Berry all voted “yes” today.
Even though there are more votes opposed than in favor, this is still actually pretty good news for those who want to pass the bill. There are two main reasons for this:
Anyone who isn’t publicly leaning no, who isn’t associated with the Stupak bloc, and who voted “yes’ last time is probably actually a “yes” vote. If a member of Congress doesn’t meet any of those three criteria, given the time they have had to make areal stand, then they are just posturing for media coverage and face time with the President.
Without even including today’s Budget Committee vote, there are 207 members who are either no or leaning no. Additionally, of the 22 members who were in the undecided camp before the Budget Committee vote, only 12 are either “Stupak curious” (4) or voted “no” last time (8). That makes for a maximum of 219 “no” votes.
If the Budget Committee’s votes are to be believed, then there are actually only 217 “no’ votes maximum, as both Merrion Berry and Marcy Kaptur make their break with the Stupak bloc official.
With 216 needed for passage, that means the leadership only have to pick off four the twelve remaining undecided members who are “Stupak” curious or who voted “no” last time. With the Bugdet Committee votes, they would only have to pick off two opposed Democrats.
With support for the bill on the rise, with a major, new, pro-reform ad campaign starting up, SEIU, the Working Families Party, and MoveOn.org all threatening to withdraw support and / or support challengers, with support for the bill on the rise, with President Obama and his staff holding personal meetings, regular conversations, and rallies with undecided members, picking up the rest of the true undecided votes, along with four (or maybe only two) of the potential “no” votes, is eminently doable. The procedural move to avoid a direct vote on the Senate bill, which the House is now leaning toward, will also aid in bringing wavering members on board.
While there is still much work to be done, the momentum is on the side of passage right now. Those who seek to stop it can only lose three (or even one) more votes. The way things are going, that is a real longshot.
Now that it has been confirmed the House leadership is going around the Stupak bloc, it appears the Stupak bloc is crumbling. Check out this CQ article where four potential Stupak bloc members disavow their membership:
Charlie Wilson , D-Ohio, who in November supported a Stupak-sponsored abortion amendment to the House-passed health care package ( HR 3962 ) and passage of the amended bill, is among those who has reconsidered his position. He said Thursday he is willing to vote for the Senate bill. Wilson said that while he would welcome any additional guarantee that no federal funds would be used to pay for abortions, he will not withhold his support if the bill is not changed.
“I’m opposed to abortion, and I think the language in there is pretty clear that it is not something that pays for abortion,” he said […]
Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, said she wanted the abortion language changed, but stopped short of saying it is a deal-breaker for her. “I would not easily give over my vote for the bill” if changes are not made, she said.
An aide to James L. Oberstar , also previously thought to be in Stupak’s group, said the Minnesota Democrat is undecided. “He hasn’t ruled out anything, including voting for the Senate bill if that’s an interim step to a better compromise,” said spokesman John Schadl.
A spokesman for Steve Driehaus , an Ohio Democrat, said his boss has not changed his position opposing federal funding for abortion but had not decided how to vote. “He’ll decide how he’ll vote once he knows exactly what the House will be considering,” press secretary Tim Mulvey said in an e-mail.
Unless a member of Congress says they will vote against the bill without the Stupak amendment, then that member of Congress is not in the Stupak bloc. These four members–Dreihaus, Kaptur, Oberstar and Wilson–all equivocate here. There is simply no “Stupak or else” language coming from their offices. They are not Stupak bloc.
Seemingly Stupak bloc (6) Marion Berry (AR-01)
Joseph Cao (LA-02)
Kath Dahlkemper (PA-03)
Joe Donnelly (IN-02)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Bart Stupak (MI-01)
Possible Stupak bloc (8) Chris Carney (PA-10)
Jerry Costello (IL-12)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Brad Ellsworth (IN-08)
Baron Hill (IN-09)
Alan Mollohan (WV-01)
Solomon Ortiz (TX-27)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Not Stupak bloc (8) Steve Driehaus (OH-01)
Paul Kanjorski (PA-12)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Dale Kildee (MI-05)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Jim Oberstar (MN-08)
Charlie Wilson (OH-06)
The most significant shift comes from Steve Driehaus, who had told The Hill he was in the Stupak bloc. Apparently that wasn’t true. This reminds me of something Matthew Yglesias tweeted earlier today:
Dem public option doubletalk highlights weakness of netroots “whip count” strategies — Senators are very willing to lie.
Apparently, they can lie about holding to their right-wing demands, too. Or call it “wiggle” room, if you will. Whatever you call it, one thing I have learned over the past few years is that many members of Congress, especially the moderate ones, are not leaders. They avoid taking public positions, leave themselves tons of wiggle room, and outright flip their positions all the time. It definitely is a weakness of the whip counts, but it is still useful to try that shine a light on Congress through those counts.
Here is where the Open Left public option whip count stood in the Senate as of late November, 2009:
Oppose bill with any public option (3): Mary Landrieu; Joe Lieberman; Blanche Lincoln
Open to an opt-in public option (1): Ben Nelson.
–Note: Not a worthwhile public option to support
Wouldn’t filibuster an overall bill with a public option (2):Evan Bayh; Kent Conrad (never threatened to filibuster).
–Note: Neither would vote for a public option either as an amendment or stand alone bill.
Liked the opt-out (1): Mark Pryor.
–Note: Unclear if Pryor would support non-opt-out
Wouldn’t vote against an overall bill with negotiated rates public option (3): Mark Begich (“not a dealbreaker,” via constituent letter); Max Baucus (claims to want public option, supposedly voted against it only because it doesn’t have 60); and Mark Warner.
–Note: Never promised support as an amendment or as a stand-alone, but wouldn’t vote against a bill with one
Support negotiated rate public option (50): The rest.
–Note: See Washington Independent scorecard. Add Tom Carper, subtract Mark Warner
Even now that Paul Kirk is no longer in the Senate, this count shows 49 supporters for a negotiated rates public option, plus one more if it is an opt-out (Pryor). With Biden, that is enough for passage.
Further, if the public option was included in the bill sent to the floor, rather than added as an amendment, three more votes–Begich, Baucus and Warner–could be counted on. That leaves room for defections, such as the one Jay Rockefeller recently made (although I still think Rockefeller is a potential “yes” vote).
Given this count, in theory, there should be plenty of votes to pass a public option through reconciliation. This is especially the case if an opt-out, negotiated rates public option was included in the bill sent to the Senate floor–something which Harry Reid did back in 2009. So, why doesn’t it appear that Senate Democrats will pass a reconciliation bill with a negotiated rates public option?
Glenn Greenwald argues this is an example of bad faith. Senators Dick Durbin’s office claims they are not going to allow any amendments to the bill the House sends them, but would whip for a bill that included a negotiated rates public option. The basic idea is that they don’t want to blow up any deals on votes once the bill reaches the floor, and they don’t want to give Republicans an opening to filibuster the bill through endless series of amendments.
While I am well aware that the White House is not pushing for the public option at all, I am still not willing to call it bad faith just yet. This is because no one has proven that there are 216 votes in the House for a reconciliation “fix” to the Senate health reform bill that includes a negotiated rates public option. There were 220 proven votes in the House back in November, but since that time three “yes” votes are no longer around, and an undetermined group of Stupak voters has also been lost.
Until someone proves that the House has 216 for a reconciliation fix with a public option, then the argument coming out of Durbin’s office cannot be disproven. Adding a public option to the reconciliation bill in the Senate might well blow up a deal with the House, and cause the package to go down. This is especially given that in order to pass the bill, House leaders are going to have to cull about a dozen votes from the 37 remaining Democrats who voted “no” in November.
So yeah, it is possible that the Democratic leadership is acting in bad faith on the public option, but it hasn’t been proven yet. The post shows that the votes should be there in the Senate. No one has made the same case for the House, but that will be the focus in the last-ditch effort for the public option over the next few days.
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.
Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) became the 41st senator to say that he would back the public insurance option as part of a health care bill moved through reconciliation.
Nelson, asked by HuffPost if he would vote for a public option on the Senate floor, was unequivocal. “Yes,” he said firmly. “I’ve already voted for it in the committee, in the Finance Committee.”
Only Blanche Lincoln is opposed. Kay Hagan, Mark Warner and Jim Webb have not taken a stance.
2. On the public option That makes 41 Senators in favor of passing a public option through reconciliation. Additionally, Tom Harkin, Claire McCaskill and Herb Kohl all support the public option, and support reconciliation, but just haven’t stated they would support a public option in reconciliation. So really, the number of public option supporters is 44.
Back in 2009, the other supporters of some sort of non-trigger public option were Robert Byrd, Tom Carper, Kay Hagan, Paul Kirk, Jay Rockefeller, Mark Warner, and Jim Webb. Additionally, there were three other possibilities who we never nailed down one way or the other: Max Baucus, Mark Begich, and Mark Pryor.
We would need six of those ten to pull it off. Kirk is no longer in the Senate, and Rockefeller now claims to be opposed. However, I still think we can get Rockefeller to vote in favor if it comes up for a vote. Would such a strong support kill the public option if the House sent the Senate a reconciliation bill with one?
Representative Joe Donnelly confirms that he is a member of the Stupak bloc. From an interview with a local paper yesterday:
President Barack Obama wants Congress to vote yes or no on a comprehensive reform measure from the Senate. Donnelly likes a lot about the bill, but its language on abortion is a “fatal flaw.” For him, it is a deal breaker. “I would not vote for it,” he said. He figures there will be a vote within a month or so. The abortion language is unpopular with “a significant” number of congressmen. It has the potential to kill the bill, he said.
We jumped the gun on a couple of stories yesterday, but this is different. This is a direct quote from Donnelly, and it came only yesterday.
That makes seven confirmed, and eleven potential, members of the Stupak bloc:
Definite Stupak bloc (7) Marion Berry (AR-01)
Joseph Cao (LA-02)
Kath Dahlkemper (PA-03)
Joe Donnelly (IN-02)
Steve Driehaus (OH-01)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Bart Stupak (MI-01)
Not Stupak bloc (3) Dale Kildee (MI-05)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Jim Oberstar (MN-08)
Rumored, but unconfirmed, Stupak bloc (11) Chris Carney (PA-10)
Jerry Costello (IL-12)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Brad Ellsworth (IN-08)
Baron Hill (IN-09)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Paul Kanjorski (PA-12)
Alan Mollohan (WV-01)
Solomon Ortiz (TX-27)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Charlie Wilson (OH-06)
Additionally, via Greg Sargent, via Greg Sargent, Representative Jim Marshall confirms he is a “no” (he was a “no” in November), while Jim Matheson says he is undecided (he was a “no” last time). All together, I believe this makes the current vote count 195 in favor, 195 opposed, according to David Dayen. I am counting Altmire, Baird and Gordon as “yes” votes, at least for the time being.
According to Whipcongress.com, Senators Daniel Akaka, Byron Dorgan, and Jon Tester, have stated their support for a public option through reconciliation.
This brings the number of signatories up to 40. With Tom Harkin, Herb Kohl, and Claire McCaskill as definite “maybes,” 50 votes in the Senate is starting to seem plausible. Of course, given ongoing vote troubles for Democrats in the House, that chamber needs to be monitored and whipped at least as closely in any public option campaign.
Michael Frias from Kirkpatrick staff says she’s def not a Stupak.
Good-that reduces the possible list of Stupak bloc members to 6 definite and 12 maybes. Here is the ongoing count:
Definite Stupak bloc (6) Marion Berry (AR-01)
Joseph Cao (LA-02)
Kath Dahlkemper (PA-03)
Steve Driehaus (OH-01)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Bart Stupak (MI-01)
Not Stupak bloc (3) Dale Kildee (MI-05)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Jim Oberstar (MN-08)
Rumored, but unconfirmed, Stupak bloc (12) Chris Carney (PA-10)
Jerry Costello (IL-12)
Joe Donnelly (IN-02)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Brad Ellsworth (IN-08)
Baron Hill (IN-09)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Paul Kanjorski (PA-12)
Alan Mollohan (WV-01)
Solomon Ortiz (TX-27)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Charlie Wilson (OH-06)
Now, all that stands in the way of health reform passage are substantive disagreements over the content of health reform legislation. Either 216 House Democrats and 50 Senate Democrats (plus Biden) will be able to agree on the contents of a health reform package (in which case it will pass), or they won’t (in which case it won’t pass).
2. House vote count tally: 197-192 David Dayen has an excellent House health reform vote count up at FDL Newsdesk. Based on public statements and past votes, dday has the count at 193-191 in favor, with the rest undecided.
This is an excellent count, but I think it is possible to tweak it a bit more by allocating the “lean no” and “lean yes” votes. Mike Arcuri sounds like a “no,” putting the count at 193-192. James Oberstar is a “lean yes”, putting the count at 194-192. Also, while they both tell The Hill that they are undecided, Brian Baird, and Bart Gordon sure sound a like “yes” votes, putting the count at 196-192. , Jason Altmire also sounds like a “yes” vote, putting the count at 197-192.
Dayen lists the 42 undecided members (plus the “lean” votes I allocated here), and places them into useful categories. The Hill has more information.
3. Stupak bloc update The Stupak bloc of November “yes” votes who are threatening “no” votes unless the reproductive rights language is made more restrictive remain the largest undecided bloc. Here is the current progress on figuring out who is, and who is not, in the bloc:
Definite Stupak bloc (6) Marion Berry (AR-01)
Joseph Cao (LA-02)
Kath Dahlkemper (PA-03)
Steve Driehaus (OH-01)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Bart Stupak (MI-01)
Not Stupak bloc (2) Dale Kildee (MI-05)
Jim Oberstar (MN-08)
Oberstar is an important reversal. Last month, he stated that he was in the Stupak bloc. Yesterday, however, he told The Hill he was leaning yes on the Senate bill. If Oberstar can be flipped, others can be flipped, too.
Rumored, but unconfirmed, Stupak bloc (13) Chris Carney (PA-10)
Jerry Costello (IL-12)
Joe Donnelly (IN-02)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Brad Ellsworth (IN-08)
Baron Hill (IN-09)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Paul Kanjorski (PA-12)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Alan Mollohan (WV-01)
Solomon Ortiz (TX-27)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Charlie Wilson (OH-06)
It shouldn’t be this hard to find out who is in the Stupak bloc. You would think that members of Congress who are taking a stand based on deeply-held beliefs would have no problem confirming their principled stand to the public. You would be wrong.
Senator Mark Begich is open to using reconciliation for health reform. From a letter to a constituent:
Thank you for contacting me regarding health care reform.
The reconciliation process is a budgetary tool used to address spending and deficit issues with a simple majority vote. The budget reconciliation process has been used 22 times by both parties since 1980. Action to clean up the health reform bill will further reduce the deficit.
Comprehensive health care reform has already passed the Senate with 60 votes. If the House passes the Senate bill, the President could sign that version of comprehensive reform into law. I believe reconciliation would only be used as a tool to take out special backroom deals and to eliminate concerns raised by many Alaskans I’ve talked with. The President has proposed narrow changes which I support, including completely closing the coverage gap for seniors’ prescription drugs, eliminating the special Nebraska funding provision, providing additional federal financing to all states to help pay for the expansion of Medicaid, and strengthening the Medicare waste, fraud, and abuse provisions.
Again, thank you for contacting me. As the 111th Congress moves forward, please continue to be in touch with your thoughts and concerns.
The current step in the health reform sausage factory involves finding enough votes for the House to pass the Senate health reform bill and then, a few days later, a budget reconciliation “fix” to that health reform bill (see my post from earlier today for a more detailed overview of the process, and where the public option fits into that process).
Rounding up the votes in the House is proving difficult, with few public successes. Here are the recent developments (more in the extended entry):
Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) will resign Monday at 5pm, a source close to the embattled incumbent tells Hotline OnCall.
Massa has been pressured by House Dems to step aside amid an ethics controversy that caused him to announce earlier this week he would not run for a second term.
If true, then it would set up a summer special election in the NY-29, which has a Cook Partisan Voting Index of Republican +5.5. It would be a difficult seat to keep.
Just as importantly, in the short term it would mean only 216 votes are required to pass health reform in the House. Since Massa was a no vote, this actually helps the chances of reform. Now, only 216 will be needed for passage, instead of 217 if Massa was still in the House.
Update: Greg Sargent confirms that Massa will resign.
Here is what I hope to be a comprehensive rundown of the state of the public option in the health reform legislative process:
1. Quick process overview Here is the current process that the Democratic leadership is attempting:
Senate convinces House they have the votes to pass a reconciliation “fix” to the Senate health reform bill
The House will pass the Senate health reform bill by March 18th
President Obama signs Senate health reform bill into law
House then passes reconciliation bill to “fix” that bill
Senate passes that reconciliation bill
President Obama signs reconciliation bill into law before April 4th
The Senate appears to have convinced the House, thus completing step one. The two main indications of this are that 51 Senators, including Robert Byrd, are publicly open to using reconciliation to finish health reform. The second is that the House has nearly finished drafting a reconciliation bill, indicating that they have been convinced by the Senate. Pelosi, yesterday:
Earlier today, outside of a caucus meeting, Pelosi said Democrats had already drafted much of a reconciliation bill, meant to amend the Senate package, and sent “a bunch” of its legislative language to CBO.
Given all of the various meetings that are taking place between President Obama and members of the House, every indication is that we are onto steps two and four, rounding up the votes for the Senate health bill in the House, and working on passing a reconciliation bill through the House.
2. Senate will not add a public option to House reconciliation bill Tom Harkin has stated that if the House passes a reconciliation bill that lacks a public option, the Senate will not add one:
“If we have a bill sent to us from the House that does not have the public option here, if we were to add it here, it would sink the whole bill,” Harkin said.
As such, in order for a new public option program to pass as part of health reform, it must be in the reconciliation bill that the House passes.
3. Pelosi isn’t putting a public option in the House bill On Sunday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that the public option was not currently on the table (emphasis mine):
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.”
This can only be taken to mean that the reconciliation “fix” to the Senate bill that the House is currently drafting does not contain a public option. As such, the only way that one ends up in the bill is if someone other than the leadership proves that there are 217 votes for it in the House, and 50 votes for it in the Senate. The leadership is not going to push for it on their own.
4. Outside groups haven’t proven the votes are there–yet An optimistic view right now would be that the House has the votes for a public option in the reconciliation fix bill, but the Senate does not. President Obama reinforced this view yesterday, telling House Progressives that the Senate, rather than the House, does not have the votes.
In terms of rounding up the votes in the Senate, Whipcongress.com currently lists 35 supporters of passing a public option through reconciliation. The Open Left whip count shows 37 supporters, with 4 possible supporters, for a maximum for 41.
So, even in the most optimistic view, outside groups are still 9 votes short of proving the Senate has enough votes to pass a new public option program through reconciliation. As such, if there is going to be a new public option program in the health insurance exchanges, outside groups have at most two weeks to prove that the votes exist in the Senate.
That is some time, but not a lot. It you want to help round up those votes, click here.
5. The public options already in the Senate bill Even as we continue to work to expand the health options in health reform legislation, it is very, very important to remember that the Senate bill does contain expansions of public health insurance and of public health care. It is simply false to say that there is no expansion of public health insurance or public health care in the Senate bill:
As many as 48% of the newly insured people in the Senate bill will be covered by a public option. This is because the Senate bill increases the number of people who will be covered under Medicaid by 15 million compared to current law (CBO report, PDF, page 20). With 31 million newly insured in the Senate bill, that means as many as 48% of the newly insured in the Senate health reform bill will be insured by a public option.
25 million people will receive public health care in the Senate bill. Beyond insurance, Bernie Sanders managed to include expanded public health care in the Senate bill for 25 million Americans:
A $10 billion investment in community health centers, expected to go to $14 billion when Congress completes work on health care reform legislation, was included in a final series of changes to the Senate bill unveiled today.
The provision, which would provide primary care for 25 million more Americans, was requested by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
That is more than the number of people who will become new purchasers of private health insurance in the Senate bill.
Is this as many people who can, and should be covered by public health insurance and public health care? Of course not. However, it also shows that it is patently false to claim that there are no public options in the Senate health bill, and that progressives received nothing for their advocacy and efforts.
Now, with all that said, let’s keep working to expand the public options in the bill even more. Head over to whipcongress.com today, and contact an uncommitted Senator.
STATE BLOGS
